A judge has refused to prevent a state voter ID law from going into effect.
Opponents of the voter ID law filed a lawsuit claiming that the law – which was enacted to combat voter fraud – violates the Constitution. In an extensive and thorough legal opinion, the judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction against the law, thus allowing the law to go into effect.
As summarized by the court, the Pennsylvania state law simply provides that in order “to vote in person, everyone must present a photo ID that can be obtained for free.”
The court found that the fundamental right to vote must be balanced “with the state’s interest in preserving the integrity of its elections and guarding against abuses of the elective franchise.” The Court determined that requiring someone to present a valid photo ID in order to cast their ballot did not add any unconstitutional voting requirements.
As Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel, told Fox News, “this is going to protect the integrity and reliability of the voting process.”
Voter ID laws are not unreasonable, especially when, as here, the state provides them free of charge. As we have previously detailed, there are many, seemingly everyday, events that require photo IDs, such as “cashing checks, getting a loan from a pawn shop, obtaining a library card, and, depending on how old you are or how young you look, buying cigarettes and alcohol.”
In fact, as Jay Sekulow noted, a photo ID is needed to even enter the Department of Justice building – a department that has repeatedly challenged voter ID laws around the country.
Even left-leaning constitutional attorneys have admitted that this court’s opinion is “well-reasoned and will be … difficult to reverse in the appeal to the state supreme court.”
Requiring a photo ID to vote – which the trial court noted was a relatively “minor change” to the state’s voting requirements – is a reasonable and constitutional method to prevent voter fraud.
We’ve seen this movie before. With the Obama administration, a familiar pattern is emerging. Trusting his own wisdom, President Obama resists oversight, goes to legal war against leakers and whistleblowers (at least those who make it look bad), and launches or proposes military offensives against...
Like so many others , I find it impossible to believe Brian Williams simply “made a mistake.” At the risk of indulging in armchair pop psychology, I’d say it’s far more likely that a titanic ego collided with reality, and reality lost. In my own experience, there are few things more humbling than...
You know its bad for President Obama when the late night comedy shows start cutting through his Administration’s mainstream media-memorizing spin and exposing his lawlessness. Conservatives aren’t the only ones shouting from the rooftops about President Obama’s reckless disregard for the...
I would say that I pity Chuck Hagel. After all, here was his mandate: Maintain America’s strategic position while shrinking American military power and amplifying the Obama administration’s desires for global disengagement. It turns out that the SECDEF could accomplish only two of those missions.