Court Upholds State Voter ID Law | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

Court Upholds State Voter ID Law

By Matthew Clark1345156278000

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.

Latest in

Why Obama's Plans Are Unconstitutional

By Jay Sekulow1447358134239

President Obama has a penchant for presidential power plays. He has been following his own playbook since January 2014 when he declared: “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone” – his promise to do all that he could to bypass Congress – relying on Executive Orders and actions instead of legislation.

read more

Not for President or Congress, Why Vote?

By Matthew Clark1446588501654

Another election day is upon us, but for many the question lingers: Why vote? Many of you reading this may even be asking, there’s an election today? No, the President isn’t on the ballot, neither are the members of the U.S. House or Senate. Unless you live in Kentucky, Louisiana, or Mississippi,

read more

A Felony in the Clinton Email Scandal

By Matthew Clark1445266450583

The FBI is reportedly focusing its investigation into Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email scandal on a particular federal law governing “gross negligence” in handling national defense secrets. As I explained this summer, this felony, 18 U.S.C § 793, could be the most legally...

read more

Winning Victories for Faith & Freedom

By ACLJ.org1438285554928

For years, the ACLJ has fought—and continues to fight—to defend your Constitutionally protected freedoms. Your support allows us to fight for the lives of the unborn, defend the Constitution, and protect the religious liberties of all U.S. citizens. Here are a few of the victories that you’ve...

read more