How will Republican Party officials feel in later years, looking back on this time?  A time when they tried to win elections by keeping voters away from the polls.  A time when they coldly dismissed the complaints of their fellow citizens, fellow voters, who they forced to jump through unexpected and untenable hoops, before permitting them to exercise the most critical right held in a democracy. 

How will it be for these officials, when a grandson or granddaughter says,
"Today in class we compared and contrasted the Jim Crow years with the Voting Wars of 2012?  What did you do during that time?  Did you help the people?"




They will have to explain to their progeny that far from helping the people, they helped create and impose such laws. 

That they purposely - in the name of a phantom crisis - placed an unforgivable burden on registered, eligible voters.  That they used dirty tricks, excluding people whose names no longer matched those on their birth certificates, due to adoption or marriage.  Barricading voters by virtue of requiring long hours away from work that they cannot manage.  Usurping the constitutional rights of rural voters who are unable to leave their own precincts and travel on a weekday 200 miles to a county with a DMV office.  Sending hundreds of thousands of people into a panic just before Election Day as they - determined to vote  - scramble to find the right documents.  Hoping to pass the subjective inspection of a clerk in a driver’s license center.

How will Republicans feel when they see themselves in hindsight, demanding of old women that they produce papers they don’t have, papers they’d never needed before, before allowing them to help select their President?  How will they reflect on having told enthusiastic college boys that their state university ID won't cut it?  On having tossed thousands of names off voter rolls just weeks before Election Day, sending out letters saying, “Dear voter, it appears you are dead.  If you are not dead, please call us and prove it by November 6th.”  On curtailing poll hours during the busiest times of day and week, times during which the lines have grown longer each year?

How will they describe their own legacy as a public servant?  How will they defend the way they let their own fear of a particular outcome lead them to prey on others’ fears - of the specter of thugs lurking at polls, plotting to cast fraudulent votes? Do they ever worry that history may cast them as the thugs?

• Students will learn how in Florida, just before a federal election, officials made reckless purges of voter rolls, even though voter-list maintenance is the responsibility of practiced election officials year round, normally done month-by-month, to prevent sudden unnecessary removals. 

• Textbooks will include sections on how in Ohio, officials slashed early-voting hours during times that overlapped with those used mostly by black voters.  Students can draw their own conclusions about that for extra credit. 

• Teachers will lecture on how in New Hampshire, for the first time in 2012, officials tried to ban college students from using their dormitory addresses to register.
  

• High school students will learn how in Pennsylvania, Texas, and South Carolina, officials wrote Voter ID laws that bore an eerie similarity to Jim Crow laws.  Class reports will be written on how in both eras, practices were designed to wear down and discourage voters.  How in both eras, systems allowed for capricious judgments by government clerks and poll-workers to determine who got to vote.  How in both eras, self-appointed citizen “poll-watchers” were allowed to stand inside polling places, appraising voters in line and challenging the eligibility of anyone they decided looked unscrupulous. 

How’s that gonna be; justifying these inexcusable laws to a young person standing before them one day? 

How will the leaders of today’s Republican Party explain,
in the coming years, that once upon a time
they sought powerful positions in a democracy
by obstructing the right to vote?

“Nothing is so necessary to liberty as the freedom to vote without bans or barriers.”  President Lyndon B. Johnson

On a practical level, this helps a lot, and thank goodness for it. 
The State is in court today trying to prove to a judge that they can make it easier to get the ID.  Properly registered voters were having real trouble obtaining all the necessary documents, so this change will help.  

Crowding and long waits at PennDOT centers are a problem.  That will only get worse as voters learn about the new law and pour in to get the ID they need in time for Election Day.  Voter advocates in the state are still pressing for weekend and evening hours to be established, a dedicated line at for those needing Voter ID, and temporary centers to be set up in the nine counties that don't have one.  But this change will ensure voters only have to make one trip to a PennDOT center, and no trips to other government offices to obtain vital records.

On another level, this change further questions the purpose of the law. 
Why can't this process take place at the polls?  Why can't PA voters show a utility bill, medical card, or pay stub at the polling place, like voters do in some states?  Why can't PA voters sign in for a ballot, as voters do in some states, allowing poll-workers to compare that signature to the one on the voter registration card?  How does a card obtained by providing verbal information to a PennDOT clerk better ensure that the voter is the voter they claim to be? 

When the requirement at the polls is for readily available information, something anyone can bring from home, it impacts every voter in the same way. 
When the requirement at the polls is for a very specific, government-issued photo ID, it adds a step to the process that disproportionately impacts some voters. 
It challenges voters without cars, or time off work. 
It burdens voters with disabilities, or small kids in tow. 
It imposes a big hurdle to voting for those who live down the road from the polling place in their precinct, but must travel long-distances to a PennDOT center.  

What would happen in Pennsylvania if the new law applied equally to all voters? 
If, in order to vote in this Presidential election, voters who happen to have a driver's license or military ID also had to go in person to PennDOT center to get a Voter ID? 

If all voters were told that regardless of their age or voting history, or time of residence in a precinct, there is a card that they do not possess now that they must present in order to be handed a ballot?

If they were told that it wouldn't matter if they have voted in the same school basement every year.

If they were told that it won't help if the poll workers in their precinct know them by first name.

If they were told that the following scenario just isn't the State's problem: an older lady gets her driver's license renewed every year for ID, but hasn't driven in years.  She lives in a rural area.  She always has her adult son in the city come out on Election Day and drive her to the polls.  But she doesn't have a way to get to a neighboring county before then to get her ID.  With the new law, if the lady's driver's license instead expired over a year ago - a much more common scenario - she cannot vote without a Voter ID.

What if they were told that the following scenario just isn't the State's problem: a young man with autism doesn't drive, but has a current PennDOT non-driver's photo ID.  He has a volunteer scheduled to come to his apartment on Election Day to get him to the polling place.  But he just learned about the new law, and isn't sure how to get this new ID.  With the new law, if he did not have a current PennDOT non-driver's photo ID - a much more common scenario, he could not vote.

It is even hard to imagine what would be happening in Pennsylvania right now if this were the scenario: a duly-registered voter with a current driver's license, flex-time at work, a car, and easy proximity to a PennDOT center is told that in order to vote in this Presidential election, they must go in person to a PennDOT center on one of the 29 weekdays between now and Election Day, provide the clerk with their name, address, Social Security number and date of birth, and pose for a new DOS photo Voter ID.


The law serves no purpose, and creates barriers to the ballot for certain voters and not others. 
It's a farce to pretend that this Voter ID card is needed to protect the ballot from the threat of the phantom voter impersonator. 
It is a definitive case of unequal access to the ballot. 
There is no justification for this law, and it reeks more with every passing week.

(Okay, okay, we can start with me.  I'll calm down after November 7th, promise.)

Here's the thing.  In broad strokes, it's working pretty well. Neither side on this issue is about to take over. We don't live in anything like a socialist country, and we don't have a laissez-faire economy.    

Can we acknowledge that, and move on to talking about levels of government intervention and investment?  Can we respectfully examine whether a specific program or regulation is effective or wasteful?  Maybe we could do a less emotional cost/benefit analysis of a proposal for revenue, or one for cutting expenses.  We could have a rational conversation about whether a major facet of democracy, say providing an education to the populace, is better administrated on a large scale - as we do with Defense - because of its scope;
or on the local level - like libraries, or zoning, in order to be more responsive to community concerns.   

Most of us have both visceral and thoughtful philosophies about these issues.  Probably because wealth is power, and absolute lack of it is impotence.  And most of us spend our lives floating somewhere between the two extremes, hoping for more of the one, and fearing the other.

But right now in this country it's the visceral aspect of our individual philosophies that is holding sway in our dialogue.  We are all responsible, myself included.  The benefit is that the visceral can get people saying what they mean - like in a family fight.  But to get anywhere constructive, everyone has to settle in after the shouting and figure out, with a commitment to working it through together, how we get everybody's needs met.

Democrats and Republicans need relationship counseling.  The first thing we would probably be told is to develop some ground rules.  And if I had to start us off with just one, it would be this:

Agree that there is no correlation between character flaws and income level.  This is just my own theory, and yes, I have the seen studies to the contrary, in both directions.  I think the very exercise of trying to quantify it is flawed. 

If you presented me with research that found more people at one income level guilty of bad behavior than at another, I would immediately ask, "what intrinsic problems for people at that income level might be leading to your results, and how on earth do you control for that?!"

• For example, if a low-income person is observed demonstrating focus on short-term goals, and displaying a lack of confidence in upward-mobility, wouldn't that be based on learned realities?  Are they realistic? What might change them?

(Obviously, I'm making these examples up for argument's sake!  I'm using the stereotypes for shorthand.)

• If a wealthy person appears oblivious or indifferent to the toll taken by the long-term daily grind on poor people, isn't it the cumulative effect of endless obstacles that is impossible to grasp without direct experience?

• If a middle-income person shows a tendency to provincialism, couldn't that be due to the competitive aspects of achievement, and the tenuousness of social status and material comfort at that income level?

On top of all this, observable attitudes and behaviors that appear to reflect someone's income experience could be more a function of personality, or family history. 

And more flamboyant attitudes and behaviors are incorrectly seen as representative. 

And context gets ignored. 

So the woman on welfare who gets up at 5 am to go to work stocking shelves is invisible, as is the heiress that puts on sweats to go cook meals at the Rescue Mission.

What if we could stipulate that class does not dictate moral superiority - at any level. 

And when we find ourselves thinking it does, we take ownership of our prejudices and bend over backwards to overcome them. 

Then we can decide how to distribute the pie without slinging apple-filling at each other.

Try this one:
Poor people just want a hand up,
not a hand out.

Conservative pundits are very stressed right now, fretting about how to position themselves on Mitt Romney's comments at a May fundraiser in Florida.  In a just released video, recorded by a hidden camera, the Republican presidential candidate is seen wringing his hands, convinced that almost half the country is belligerently dependent on the government. 


His supporters don't know how to spin it.  Not because they disagree with what Romney said, but because they're afraid he won't get elected and put his ideas into action. 

Some think he got the numbers wrong.
Okay...so if it's not 47%, what's the right number?  It doesn't matter.  It wouldn't matter if he said 37%, or 27%.  He mis-characterized the group of people he's talking about. Who cares if he got the head count wrong?

Some think he sounded mean and stupid. 
That he could have found a more graceful way to phrase it.  But it's the idea, that liberals want people to stay dependent, that is mean and stupid.  It's the idea that people receiving public assistance are happy with their lives, and want to reelect this President so he can keep their checks coming in while they do nothing, that is mean and stupid.  It's better that he said it in such an ugly way.  It's ugly.

Some think he didn't really mean it. 
Mitt Romney doesn't really mean this?  "... there are 47 percent who are with (Obama), who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it."

If Mitt Romney doesn't mean that, it's only because he doesn't "mean" anything.  It's because he doesn't think deeply about anything, and doesn't care much about who we are in this country. That's the only way that excuse works; if he didn't mean what he said in that videotape, it's not because he means something more hopeful, caring, and respectful of his fellow citizens.

The best Republican response is from the irrepressible Grover Norquist. 
Not surprisingly, he's in the I-like-what-Romney-said-just-not-how-he-said-it camp. He merely wants the campaign to get their wording right. He was relieved to talk to an operative who assured him they had sorted out their responding rhetoric. "I went up to the campaign and I said, What’s your take on this? And I got back the perfect answer: 'We’re working to provide opportunity, while the other team is trying to teach dependence.' And (Norquist chortles,) we win that fight in America.  If this was Bulgaria in 1957, I’m not sure we’d win the debate. In the United States, we win that debate."

Thing is, though, the other team is not "trying to teach dependence."  What we are trying to do is give people a hand up, not a.. well, you know the saying.  We try to explain this over and over.  And yet, here we are again.  Now it's Communist Bulgaria.

To review: 

• Believing that government must play a role in guaranteeing that people have food and shelter, when they otherwise wouldn't, is not teaching dependency. 
• Believing the government should play a role in providing for its citizens' education, health care, and infrastructure, is not teaching dependency. 
• Believing government can play a role in teaching illiterate adults to read, so they can get jobs and pay taxes and support their families - is not teaching dependency.
• Believing government can play a role in helping ex-convicts re-enter society - so they can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting - is not teaching dependency.
• Believing government can provide job-training to low income youth - so they can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting - is not teaching dependency.
• Believing government can contribute funds to agencies that teach budgeting, treat addiction, and counsel the homeless - so that more people can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting is not teaching dependency.

These things have nothing to do with teaching dependency.  Quite the opposite.  To use Grover's words, we're working to provide opportunity.

Mitt Romney has made plain what we've always presumed his dark fantasy to be: he believes nearly half of this country comprises a maladjusted, useless, huddled mass. 

Mitt, you have so much to learn about the country you love and want to lead.  Let me see if I can help you down your path of discovery.

• Actually, each and every person on this earth is "... entitled to health care, food, and housing." Applying that to everyone on earth, that's my opinion. But at least for those who live in the US, it's settled law. It's the "life" part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

• Even if this imaginary group - this mass of whining, irresponsible parasites - existed, rest assured, you and your fellows at that fundraiser would be the last folks on earth we would turn to for help.  You aren't at any risk of misleading "dependent" people into thinking you would throw us a crumb.
• It doesn't exist, this scary group you describe.  Mitt, you patriot, you celebrator of the American people, you don't know your own country.  And you're missing out.

Your vision of the poor people in this country embarrasses you.  Shouldn't you know, at your age, and with your breadth of life experience, that there are whiny, irresponsible parasites at every income level.  Yes, sir, there are individuals who walk around feeling entitled to be handed something they haven't earned.  One can find them living as inner-city thugs, middle-management loafers, and, well, high-level corporate predators. 

But the underclass you envision as dependent is made up of the hardest working people you'll ever find.  You are actually talking about the backbone of the country, Mitt. 

I would have thought a finance guy would take a look at the numbers before making such proclaimations: If you had stopped to compare the number of people on some kind of assistance with the number of people hunting for work, holding down part time jobs, holding down several jobs, working jobs and going to school, working jobs and raising kids, you'd have realized the only way it adds up is when working people still aren't making enough to eat.  They don't stop working when they get food stamps, Mitt. 

You're talking about the people that wait for the bus and catch rides and go to their service industry jobs and hospital jobs and day care jobs and maintenance jobs and food service jobs.  

Think about what you're saying, Mitt - that half the country is sucking off the other half.  You don't know what you're talking about.  But you're talking about us, and we're offended.

The Case

Applewhite v The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the case now under review by the state Supreme Court, is named for one its plaintiffs, Viviette Applewhite.  A group of lawyers headed by the ACLU represented her and several other plaintiffs in July before PA Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson.  They asked for the law, which establishes strict new identification requirements for voters, to be struck down.  The plaintiff’s group asserts that the law’s requirements for voter ID are unnecessarily strict; that they are so specific and demanding that some registered voters will be barred from voting the polls. 

Applewhite is 93 and does not have a driver's license or Social Security card.  The plaintiff was adopted at a young age, and the name on her birth certificate is Viviette Brooks.  Applewhite is unable to locate adoption records from the 1920's showing her name change.  Under the new law, Applewhite, who has been voting for decades, would not be allow to cast a vote for President on November 6th.  In a decision announced on August 15th, Judge Simpson declined to strike down the law.  The current case is an appeal to that one.

(A couple of days after losing her case, Applewhite was awarded a photo-ID card at a PennDOT Driver’s License Center.  The Department of State boasted that this was an example of the kind of "case-by-case" decision they have always insisted might be helpful to some.  For voters now trying to get ID, there is no comfort knowing that the subjective decision of a PennDOT clerk could determine whether or not they vote this year.)

The Question

The plaintiffs are asking the Court to halt the implementation of the law before November 6th.  They say the law is not necessary to prevent voter fraud, and that it is simply not possible for all registered voters to be informed about the new requirements and provided with the necessary ID in time for the election.

Supporters of the law feel that it will prevent voter impersonation.  They acknowledge that there is no evidence that voter impersonation is occurring, but cite concerns about public confidence in the security and integrity of the ballot.  They feel that requiring every voter to present a current, government-issued photo ID at the polls is a reasonable expectation, and that most voters should not have any difficulty obtaining the right ID. 

The Court

This state Supreme Court has only six members currently – a seventh is sitting out due to a fraud investigation unrelated to this case.  Of the six, three are Republican and three are Democratic.  In the case of a split decision, the law will stand.

The Chief Justice is a Republican, Ronald Castille.  The other Republicans are Justice Michael Eakin, and Justice Thomas Saylor.  The Democrats are Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd, and Seamus McCaffery.

The Attorneys

ACLU attorney David Gersch represented the plaintiffs on Thursday.  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was represented by John Kerr, and attorney Alfred Putnam appeared as Council for Governor Tom Corbett.

The Arguments

David Gersch, arguing for plaintiffs, asserted that the Voter ID law will "disenfranchise (completely prevent from voting) many voters, and burden others."  Gersch stated that the harm to the Commonwealth of upholding the law is negligible, while the harm to the electorate is immediate and irreparable.  He stated that the severity of the burden in the original case was not correctly analyzed, and that by rushing the law into effect, there will be eligible, registered voters who cannot vote in this election.

Several Justices telegraphed a reluctance to overturn the law simply because the law was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor, and because the legislator has a right to regulate electoral processes, and because Judge Simpson has already upheld the law once.  Chief Justice Ronald Castille commented that the fact that the State may be "rushing" to implement the law is not a legal reason by which the Court can overturn the first ruling.  (It appears possible the decision may turn mostly on these questions, although the Justices went on to entertain some discussion of the merits.)

Gersch claimed that the “vice” of the law is in its failure to guarantee that its expectations could be met by all voters.   He stressed that for the law to be constitutional, all electors (voters) must be given or be able to obtain the necessary ID to vote.  Gersch argued emphatically that is simply not possible to do so in time for this election.  He asked for relief by status quo (keeping things the way they have been.)  He gave examples of the how just the stress placed on the PennDOT system to try to provide all those new ID’s makes the law unfeasible.

Justice McCaffery’s questions placed emphasis on the cost/benefit question: if there no fraud present, why should the State hurriedly put the law in place when some voters will be left out?  He brushed aside the question of how many would be affected, stating that whether it is 90,000, 9000, or 900, no registered voter should be blocked from voting for lack of a government-issued photo-ID.  He provided the sobering observation that his own PA Supreme Court identification card, "signed by Chief Justice Castille," would not suffice as ID at the polls under this law, because it has no expiration date. 

Justice Todd’s questions brought out her concerns about the law crossing legal boundaries.  By going beyond simply asking the voter to establish identity, to requiring such specific forms of ID, the law adds an “additional qualification to vote,” a violation of federal election law.  When challenged on that point by another Justice, Todd held firm, explaining that an elections board can impose qualifications to register, but not to vote.  Justice Todd acknowledged that the SSC should show deference to the state legislature.  But she questioned at what point that deference should be outweighed by concerns about the real feasibility of implementation.  Todd asked several versions of one sticking question: “what’s the rush?”  She asked hypothetically, "what if they'd said, put it in place in one week?”  The Justice raised the possibility of stretching out implementation time to perhaps two years, or even two federal election cycles (four years).  She grilled Knorr on the stipulations the State had been willing to make in July on the lack of any identifiable fraud in Pennsylvania. 

Knorr insisted that stipulating that no cases had been identified did not mean there were none, and in a less-than-constructive contribution, Chief Justice Castille observed that "there has been fraud since George Washington."  (That observation may stir protective feelings about the ballot, but it is so vague a reference it could apply to anything from ballot stuffing to buying votes.  Individual voter impersonation would have had no more chance of actually impacting an election back then than does now.) 

Justice Baer came across as especially concerned about the question of what this Court’s standard of review of the lower court decision should be.  He may be leaning towards doing nothing, which would mean letting the law stand.  He expressed confidence in the implementation of the law, noting that he had been “reading in the paper every day about (the Department of State’s) efforts to put ID's in people's hands."  Baer questioned the SSC's right to "tell the Commonwealth how to do their job."  He stressed their right to substantially regulate functions of government so that they operate in "fair, effective, and orderly" fashion.

Justice Saylor gave support several times to a concept stressed by attorneys Knorr and Putnam: no law can ever be implemented 100%, so we just have to do our best and hope most people can vote.  He used some of the popular language of voter ID movements across the country, citing concerns about "public confidence in the system".  He mused that “if we were to tinker" with the implementation process we could make it better, but no system is perfect.   

Justice Eakin asked very few questions. 


Issues to Consider

It’s hard to tell if a majority of the Court will deem the stakes here high enough here to justify their intervention.  The questions and comments of Castille, Baer and Saylor don’t indicate that they put much stock in the growing number of stories that bring into focus the plight of some voters.  Even once engaged in the process of seeking the approved forms of ID, some have faced difficulties, and at the time of this trial on Thursday, there was plenty of anecdotal evidence available about snags in the process leaving voters in limbo.  Additionally many are just now learning about, or trying to understand and meet, the new expectations.  There will undoubtedly be numerous voters who find out about the new law the day the walk in to the polls, too late to cast their ballot. 

But because each of the nine plaintiffs in the original case has since been awarded with photo ID’s, Knorr audaciously stated that the plaintiff’s council had “not been able to produce one single person who has not been able to obtain photo ID.”  It is hard to say whether the Justices listening can or will examine the veracity of that remark. 

But the fact is, many thousands of voters in Pennsylvania are counting on these six people to recognize that the burden of this law on the electorate is enough to justify the proactive step of blocking its implementation.  It would be easier to trust them to get this right if they appeared less skeptical about emerging evidence of the risk that legitimate voters will be barred from voting, and more skeptical about the threat of the phantom voter impersonator. 

It was disturbing to note that Knorr and Putnam at least appeared to have an impact on some of the Justices with their “common sense” rhetoric about the idea that “most” voters will get to vote in November.  Indeed, several of the Justices seemed – based on their own phrasing - very comfortable with the idea that if by and large, the main number of folks can get the ID they need in time to vote, well that’s the best we can hope for, and that’s good enough.  Sure, Knorr answered to one of Justice Todd’s questions, if we had another year to implement the law we could do better.  “If we had ten years, “ he added, “we could do even better.” 

Saylor asked if there was any legal directive that could ever be completely complied with. 

Perhaps Justices Todd and McCaffery can remind the rest of the Court that it is not “most people” that usually must turn to the court for redress, and that it’s their very job to decide how close a particular law must come to full implementation in order to remain law. 

What’s Next

The court is expected to make a decision by the end of September.  It’s possible that there are four or more Justices who will agree to impose a longer timeline on implementation of the law.  They’ll have to prevail over those who want to defer to a duly-elected legislature and Governor who have said, "Do it now."

If the Court does uphold the law, its opponents can still look for relief from the federal Department of Justice, who has requested information from the PA DOS in order to evaluate whether the law is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. 

Barring that, volunteers with the Pennsylvania Voter ID Coalition and other groups will continue their daily efforts across the state.  They are racing against the clock to inform and assist registered voters to get the ID they need in time for Election Day. 

See my series on Voter ID laws.

VOTER ID RULES EASED FOR PA-BORN VOTERS
PA Department of State to eliminate two-trips-to-PennDOT requirement

A Philadelphia nonpartisan fair-elections organization,
The Committee of Seventy, has another notch in its belt in the fight to help Pennsylvania voters without photo ID's. 

For the first time on Election Day November 6th, voters in Pennsylvania who want to exercise their right to vote must produce one of a small handful of approved types of government-issued photo ID's.  This is according to a new law, just passed in March and effective immediately during this presidential election. 

Now those who are without the photo-ID's required to vote have a slightly shorter path to getting the ID they need in time to cast a vote for President.

Of a rash of similar laws recently passed in states across the country, Pennsylvania's is one of the strictest.  It presents a real barrier to the ballot for some, because the process of obtaining documents necessary for official ID is forbidding - especially to those who are just finding out about the new requirements now, only weeks before the election.

Voting rights advocates have pushed the Pennsylvania Department of State (DOS), and the Department of Transportation (PennDOT), who has been tasked with issuing the ID's, to streamline the process so that every eligible voter in the state has time and opportunity to get the ID they need before November 6th. 

Until late August, the only ID card available to those who had not previously possessed one of the specified forms was the PennDOT non-driver's photo ID.  In response to pressure by members of the statewide Pennyslvania Voter ID Coalition, convened by the Committee of Seventy, DOS released a new Voter ID card just for use at the polls. 

But initially, the process of getting the new DOS Voter ID card was no easier than getting the PennDOT ID: all the steps in the application process for the PennDOT ID had to be exhausted before the Voter ID could be obtained.

Oh yes, it's confusing.  And intimidating.  But on top of that it was, in very practical terms, impossible to do for some voters.  In part because for many, the process involved two trips to PennDOT Driver's License Centers, and up to ten days waiting for a letter in between. 

Thanks to continued pressure from the Coalition, starting next week it will be possible to obtain the DOS Voter ID card in only one trip to a PennDOT center. 

What this means might be hard for some to grasp.  What some middle-class voters - those with ordinary access to services - may not realize is that even one trip to PennDOT can be a tall order for some.  For those folks who already have a driver's license, a car, a flexible work schedule, and an able body; for those with use of a computer, to find out locations and hours, and download forms to save time at the PennDOT Center, the challenge is hard to fathom.

But for those with less access, this new concession from the DOS is a victory. 

And for those working the ground game on this issue, who do know the unfair burden this law can create, it's a victory as well.  These advocates should go to bed tonight knowing that there will be a few more hands clutching ballots on November 6th, due to their efforts.

Here is a copy of the press release just issued.

VOTER ID RULES EASED FOR PA-BORN VOTERS

PA Department of State to eliminate two-trips-to-PennDOT requirement

PHILADELPHIA – September 14, 2012 – A revised procedure to go into effect by the end of next week will now permit all Pennsylvanians who need a photo ID to vote on November 6 to get one by making one trip to a PennDOT Driver’s License Center.

Currently, Pennsylvania-born voters who brought a Social Security card to PennDOT, but not a birth certificate, were required to make two trips to PennDOT before getting a photo ID.

“The Department of State deserves a lot of credit for coming up with a quicker and easier way to get a photo ID,” said Zack Stalberg, President and CEO of the non-partisan Committee of Seventy, which prompted DOS to make the change. Reports from the 175-member PA Voter ID Coalition confirmed that requiring two trips to PennDOT was standing in the way of many Pennsylvania-born voters who do not already have a photo ID that will be accepted at the polls to get one to vote.

The PA Voter ID Coalition was convened by the Committee of Seventy after the voter ID law was enacted last March to conduct a non-partisan campaign to make all Pennsylvania voters aware of the voter ID law and to motivate voters without an acceptable form of photo ID to obtain one in time to vote on November 6.  

Currently, Pennsylvania-born voters who bring a Social Security card, but not an official copy of their birth certificate, to a PennDOT Driver’s License Center, must have their birth records certified by the Department of Health. The birth record certification letter, which usually arrives in ten days, must be brought back to PennDOT, along with the voter’s Social Security card and two proofs of residency, in order to get a PennDOT photo ID.

The new expedited process will allow the same voters (who have a Social Security card) to have their birth records electronically certified while they are waiting at PennDOT. The same-day photo ID process has already been available since August 27 for voters who need a special Department of State ID because they don’t have the required documents to get a photo ID, including:  

•  Pennsylvania-born voters who come to PennDOT without a Social Security card – even     if they do not have a birth certificate.

•  Voters born outside Pennsylvania if they don’t have or can’t get a birth certificate or         Social Security card – or can’t get them without paying a fee.

The DOS ID can only be used to vote, while the PennDOT photo ID can also be used for non-voting purposes, such as entering a building or cashing a check.

“With less than eight weeks to go before November 6, there is a shrinking window of opportunity to get a photo ID,” observed Stalberg, who added that the two-trip requirement effectively closed that window in mid-October. “A same-day photo ID process allows voters to get a photo ID as late as November 6,” he said, although he underscored that the PA Voter ID Coalition is strongly urging voters not to wait until the final days before the election to get a photo ID.

According to Stalberg, the new photo ID procedure does not interfere with the lawsuit to block implementation of the voter ID law, which is now in the hands of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. “All the arguments have been made. Educating voters can’t afford to wait for the final outcome,” he concluded. “This is a win for voters and a win for everyone, including the Department of State, working very hard to make sure that every voter is prepared to vote on November 6.”

Zack Stalberg, President and CEO
(215) 557-3000, ext. 106, (267) 241-1628 (cell)

Ellen Mattleman Kaplan, VP and Policy Director                                                
(215) 557-3600, ext. 102, (215) 470-8316 (cell)

Comprehensive information about the PA Voter ID Coalition, the voter ID law, and resources available to help voters get a photo ID for voting can be found at www.seventy.org/voterID. 

                                               

The Youth Vote?  Pennsylvania GOP Isn't Interested. 

Republican Legislators, State Department officials, and Governor Tom Corbett worked together energetically this year to make it much harder for college students in Pennsylvania to vote in November.  Perhaps they are aware of the high turnout of Obama voters among young people that took place in 2008.  But the obstacles they have strewn in the way of young voters in their state this year may turn out to be ill-advised. 

As is often the case when young adults are told to step aside from their rightful place in society, this may tick off enough students that they will turn out in numbers beyond even what was seen in 2008.  If so, the Pennsylvania GOP will be soon be second-guessing their own tactics. 

But regardless of the outcome this November, it's hard to figure how the Republican Party ever expects to woo young voters, who they must realize are going to be crucial to the long-term vitality of their party.  Using more restrictive Voter ID laws in ways that impact students is an immediate risk, and a long-range blunder.

Political analysts observed great changes in partisanship among young people in the US after disenchantment with the Democratic Party during the Johnson years.  College campuses saw the growth of Young Republicans and later, thriving Neo-Con societies.  Students as a group today would probably best be described today as post-partisan.  Their vote went overwhelmingly in favor of Obama in 2008, but they don't tend to describe themselves as stalwart Democrats.  Young people interested in politics today are more independent than any group of voters in the country's history.

But hey, with enough effort, a whole Party certainly could alienate young voters.  By taking a position hostile to free exercise of the ballot for students, Republicans could lose the trust of young voters for another generation.

How the New Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Makes it Harder for Students to Vote

The Pennsylvania Legislature passed a Voter ID law in March, significantly tightening requirements.  The new guidelines only allow for a handful of acceptable, government-issued photo ID types.   The list does include student ID's, but with restrictions that have a negative impact on the vast majority of college students registered to vote in PA. 

The new law requires that in order for a student ID to be accepted at the polls in November, the card must display the name and photograph of the student, and an expiration date.  It's the last part that makes most of the student ID's in Pennsylvania non-compliant with the new law.  It isn't clear what - if any - research was done by legislators writing the bill, but advocacy organizations quickly discovered that of the 110 accredited colleges, universities, and technical schools in Pennsylvania, 91 do not have ID cards that bear an expiration date, making them unacceptable at the polls.

Are Solutions in the Works?
Many colleges and Universities whose student ID cards do not comply with the new requirements are scrambling to help their students get what they need in time to vote. 

Some schools are producing and issuing stickers with expiration dates that can be affixed to existing cards.  Some schools are producing and issuing all-new cards that include an expiration date. 

Some schools, however, don't currently have plans in place to ensure that their students will have the ID they need in time to vote in this election.  Voting advocates are still urging those schools to provide students without compliant ID to take action in time for election day, or at the very least work to apprise their students of the situation. 

Unfortunately, schools were not consulted in the implementation of law, or even officially informed of the changes.  Any actions these learning institutions are taking now to help their students adapt to the changes in time to vote are voluntary.

What Other Options Do Students Have?
Students that have a current PennDOT driver's license or non-driver's ID can use that to vote.  For students from out of state, the situation is grim.  In order to obtain a PennDOT ID, the student must surrender their out-of-state ID.  They then have the same rigid requirements for original documents that native Pennsylvanians without ID are finding it hard to meet.    

For more information, and help getting ID in Pennsylvania, visit www.seventy.org.

The average middle-class voter can be forgiven for not getting why election-year changes in voting laws are such a big deal.  The average middle-class voter can take time off work for appointments.  She uses a driver's license frequently to cash checks, drink, fly,
or rent a car.  This voter probably has a passport, or keeps a folder of vital records in a home filing cabinet.  He can quickly locate a current mortgage, lease, or bank statement.  This voter can read, speak English, and plug-in to current events through TV and internet.  She is able to find support when coping with her own or a loved-one's disability.  This voter can get around town.  He uses a phone daily, and has the ordinary skills needed to navigate the maze of mainstream American life. 

Those who live squarely within societal infrastructure may puzzle at the outcry over every decision made by officials in various states regarding when and how its citizens vote.  If these changes in law don't affect you, or the people around you, it's hard to fathom the critical impact they can have on those with more tenuous connections.  Don't these changes simply ask for a reasonable adjustment on the part of the voter?  Will cutting back on early-voting hours really take such a toll?  Does a change in the rules for identification procedures really make voting suddenly forbidding for some?  For the greater number of voters, these concerns might seem like a stretch.

But while the casual observer can be excused for not immediately anticipating the severity of hardship placed on some voters by voting law changes, government officials cannot be extended the same allowances.  It is a fair expectation of elected officials that they take responsibility for ensuring equal access to the ballot for all of their constituents.  It is up to those who serve the public to guarantee that its members not encounter unnecessary barriers to a right as fundamental as voting.  Public officials have extraordinary access to the fundamental systems of democracy, and thus an extraordinary obligation to justify any actions taken that may have an impact on voter participation.

The first duty of those who officiate elections is to ensure that no voter encounters an unfair obstacle to casting a vote.  Procedural changes, especially those that potentially increase barriers, should never be made without clear and compelling evidence that they are necessary.  If an accelerated pace is proposed, the evidence should indicate some  urgency.  Otherwise, even when new procedures are indicated, they should be phased in with community input, assessment of impact on turnout, and consultations with other states to gather best practices for success. 

If officials want to decrease voting hours, they need to to explain what was wrong with the hours they had.  If officials want to tighten ID requirements, they need to say why the previous procedures for identification weren't working.  If officials want to make fast-paced, wholesale decisions about the integrity of their voter rolls, they'd better explain why their list of eligible voters wasn't better maintained between elections.

Without accusing officials of partisan motivations, we can still place the onus on them for justifying policy decisions that threaten access to the ballot for eligible voters.  In the absence of any credible rationale, and without an abundance of level-headed preparation, no changes in election law should ever be made in an election year.

A PennDOT driver's license or non-driver's ID  will be required to vote in presidential election this November 6th.  Along with a handful of other types of government-issued photo ID, (see below), a PennDOT ID must be presented at the polling place in order to receive a ballot, according to a new law effective this Election Day. 

As an alternative, registered voters having difficulty obtaining a PennDOT ID have been offered a newly-created Voter ID, developed by the Department of State and issued through PennDOT Driver's License Centers.  But the new Voter ID is proving no easier to obtain.

The PennDOT non-driver's ID is not easy to get if you are not in immediate possession of the four types of documentation, including original birth records, required for an application. It places particular hardship on elderly voters who can't locate a raised-seal birth certificate; students registered to vote in PA who carry an out-of-state driver's license; and voters with physical disabilities, those who work long or inflexible work hours, or who have young children in tow: in most cases these voters are finding that getting a PennDOT ID is requiring more than one trip to the PennDOT DL Center.

In response to complaints, and pressure from voter's advocacy groups, last week the Department of State finally released their anticipated "safety net" Voter ID, reassuring the public that this new Voter ID will ensure that no registered, eligible voter is turned away from the polls.  But even leaving aside the voters that will not have heard about the strict new requirements until they walk into their precinct's polling place, where they have voted under the same procedures as long as they have been voting, those who are getting the word in time are discovering that by design, the so-called streamlined ID is no easier to get than the PennDOT ID.  That's because the State wants you to take the long way around, applying for the PennDOT ID first.

Officials at PennDOT, working with the Department of State, have declared the PennDOT ID, although harder to obtain, "a better product" than the Voter ID, because "it can be used for multiple purposes," whereas the Voter ID can only be used for, well, voting.

So voters, anxious to meet the new ID requirements in time to be heard in this national election; voters who by definition don't drive and have apparently not been in urgent need of current, official, government-issued photo identification; voters who don't drive, fly, purchase alcohol, or rent cars; voters who just want to vote, are being told that while the PennDOT ID is not easy to obtain, if, for example, they don't have "the birth certificate with a raised seal (and) will need to visit a driver license center twice," the extra steps will pay off, because "they will receive a product that can be used for many day to day identification needs." 

PennDOT, the only agency providing the Voter ID, is therefore requiring every applicant to apply first for a PennDOT ID.  "PennDOT wants to make every effort to issue this product first," as "the Voter ID will be valid for voting purposes only."  If unable to meet the documentation requirements for the PennDOT ID after two trips and signing a written oath that the documents cannot be located, a voter can provide whatever documentation they do have and will be at last issued a Voter ID.

Right now, for voters discovering barriers between themselves and their ballot, the one thing they're looking for is identification "for voting purposes only."

Before March of this year, voters in PA showed identification only when registering, or when voting for the first time in a new precinct.  This identification could include any of the following: a PennDOT driver's license or non-driver ID, a student ID, a work ID, a bank statement, a library card, or a pay stub or utility bill.

Starting November 6th, all voters must present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote.  These include: a PennDOT driver's license or non-driver ID, passport, military ID, government employee ID, student ID (if it displays an expiration date), or a photo ID from a Pennsylvania care facility.

If a registered voter does not have a current form of one of the ID's listed above, their first recourse is to go to a PennDOT DL Center to apply for a PennDOT non-driver's ID.  They'll need a raised-seal copy of their birth certificate, an original copy of their Social Security card, and two proofs of residence, such as a lease and a current utility bill.

If a voter does not possess a raised-seal copy of their birth certificate, they'll need to go to a PennDOT DL Center and do the following: 

• sign an oath saying they do not have an official birth certificate
• fill out an application for a "Certification of a Birth Record for Voter ID Purposes Only"
• show their Social Security card and 2 proofs of residence
• fill out an application for a PennDOT non-driver's photo ID

The voter must then wait up to ten days for letter from the Health Department and return to the PennDOT DL Center with the letter.  If the letter verifies the birth records, the voter can get a PennDOT ID on this second trip.

Setbacks Encountered
Some voters - especially among the elderly - have received letters from the health department stating their birth records can not be located.  Other voters, born in another state or country, can't locate birth records or have to pay a fee.  Students voters have learned that their student ID cards must bear an expiration date to be considered suitable.  If their school's card does not, and their driver's license is from out-of-state, they can apply for a PennDOT ID, but they must first relinquish their out-of-state ID, sign a written oath that they don't have other acceptable ID, and through the same documentation procedures AS it gets closer to election day, there will be voters who don't find out about the new requirement in time to allow for two trips to a PennDOT center and a ten day wait on documents. 

In comes the the newly-minted DOS Voter ID card.  While the setbacks above were quickly discovered, the PA Department of State has been slow to respond.  As early as April, voters trying to obtain ID hit barriers.  Finally in late August, the DOS released the Voter ID card.  Described as a "safety net" option for those encountering obstacles to getting documentation, State officials have said that "the process has been streamlined and the requirements are less stringent to obtain (it)."  Now racing to inform all registered PA voters of the new requirements and how to meet them, voter advocates look to the Voter ID as extra insurance that every voter will be able to walk into their polling place holding an acceptable form of ID.  As of now though, since the Voter ID will not be provided unless and until all the avenues to getting a PennDOT ID have been exhausted, advocates fear it is the voters who will become exhausted. 

Voter groups plan to continue to push for procedures that will ensure every registered voter can vote November 6th.