Jim Crow Struck Down in PA

I’m not a lawyer but reading the decision (pdf) I believe that we have succeeded in blocking any meaningful implementation of the Pennsylvania Jim Crow Law. To understand the law it’s important to know that it was designed to be phased in. Starting on January 1st, 2012, poll workers were required to ask for a state-approved photo ID. If a voter didn’t have a state-approved photo ID, they would still be allowed to vote in the same manner as they had in the past, but they would be provided with information about the law, including the fact that they would need a photo ID for any election occurring after September 16th, 2012. Starting on September 17th, anyone lacking a state approved photo ID would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot, but they would have to show up at their county Board of Elections within six days with the photo identification or their provisional ballot would not be counted.

I was worried that the judge would only strike the very last part of the law. In other words, I was concerned that he would allow poll workers to force people without state-approved photo ID to cast provisional ballots but not require people to show up to their county Board of Elections.

But he didn’t do that. What he did instead is to extend the phase-in part of the law past September 16th and past the November 6th election. So, people will not be forced to cast provisional ballots.

This is important for three reasons. First, it will avoid a lot of angst and confusion for the effected voters. Second, it will not treat urban minorities, students, and the elderly as second class citizens. Third, it will avoid the problem of not counting up to 15% of the election day votes until at least a week after the election takes place. Almost all of those votes would have come out of Obama’s column, leaving the impression that Romney had won Pennsylvania and causing confusion for the whole country.

But the most important thing is that Jim Crow will not be in effect in Pennsylvania on November 6th, despite the desperate efforts of the neo-confederates in the the modern state GOP.

16 Comments

XeckyGilchrist on October 2, 2012 at 11:40 am

Result! Great news.

MassCommons on October 2, 2012 at 1:37 pm

Great news, indeed. Congratulations to everyone in PA who worked to make this happen.

I’ve been reading Dan Okrent’s “Last Call”, a history of Prohibition. The Anti-Saloon League was perhaps the most powerful single-issue group in US history, able to swing elections for either party in most states based solely on the candidate’s position on prohibition. The ASL pushed to get the 18th amendment passed before 1920, because they knew the country’s demographics were changing against them.

Then, after the 1920 census, they block congressional reapportionment for nine years, and then only with the provision that the reapportionment take effect in 1932.

Compared to what their great-grandparents did, today’s reactionaries look to be a day late and a dollar short.

GreenCaboose on October 2, 2012 at 11:50 am

I’ve known the voter ID thing was going to be a problem but I didn’t see how bad until recently when my son got his learner’s permit. Colorado as a GOP Secretary of State and we had a RealID law passed when the GOP still had control of the state.

The way he’s implemented it is this. If you already have a photo ID and want to get one it really is pretty easy. Short waits in most offices – even if moving from another state.

BUT, if you want to get a first-time ID and you are in a metro area you get sent to one of a tiny number of understaffed, dirty DMV offices in poor neighborhoods and forced to wait up to a full day.

The logic is obvious – they figure that “normal” people (read: white, GOP) will deal with this one time because they need the driver’s license, but “undesirable” people (read: black, hispanic, liberal) who don’t need a driver’s license won’t give up a day just to get a photo ID to vote.

In a just world our Secretary of State would be spending 10 years behind bars.

BooMan on October 2, 2012 at 11:52 am

Indeed.

japa21 on October 2, 2012 at 12:06 pm

It is good news for this election, but the law stays intact and will go into full effect next year. What this means to me is that the basic argument in favor of Voter ID laws has won out, and that I find depressing. So I will celebrate for now, but we will have to work even harder to make sure all voters have ID.

RandyH on October 2, 2012 at 12:10 pm

Laws can be changed. Bad laws, like these voter suppression laws, can be used as a club to beat the shit out of anyone who voted for them.
on October 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm

In the long run, it may not be onerous. It is onerous and unfair when it is inflexible. In SD, we have the law, but anyone can also sign an affidavit at the poll stating under penalty of perjury that they are who they claim to be. I am not overly concerned, but this law has been in place for a number of years, and thus no one is being disenfranchised now.
- Phil Perspective on October 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm
  
  But it’s still a shitty law. I thought the GOP was for smaller government. Why make a law fixing a nonexistent problem?
- japa21 on October 2, 2012 at 12:47 pm
  
  So really there is no voter ID requirement in SD.
  - RandyH on October 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    
    Right. When you sign your name in the register, that is (and always has been) your certification that you are who you say you are.

on October 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm

This was the last hurdle for a clear Obama win. Very good news.

We actually have a picture ID law in SD, and it’s not a big deal. The big deal is 1) the very onerous time limits 2) the inflexible nature and 3) the inability of certain types of voters who are citizens to comply.

Now there are 2 years to solve these problems. If people will VOTE THE SHIT OUT OF HARRISBURG, things can be fixed.

I sure hope that the Dems turn up the heat.

on October 2, 2012 at 2:12 pm

The judge has NOT forbidden that voters be REQUESTED to furnish ID.

They cannot be blocked from voting if they do not have it.

And that means that well-informed, STRONG poll monitors are needed at every poll, as well as lawyers. This can easily become a situation in which certain poll staff might block voters either because they did not agree with the judge or due to ignorance.

POLL WATCHERS ARE NEEDED!!

DerFarm on October 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm

ummmmm…..Guys? I really hate to bust your bubble, but if I’m reading this correctly

IT WOULD BE BETTER IF HE HAD UPHELD THE WHOLE LAW.

This thing is really dense starting about page 8, but, if I’m right, this is NOT a victory. Not even partially.

DerFarm on October 2, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Ok, I was wrong.

The reading gets really dense around page 7-15. My initial reading was the you didn’t have to have a photo id to vote, but that you would’ve been required to vote using a provisional ballot. This would’ve been devastating for any number of reasons.
1. People don’t want to vote provisional. They think (more or less correctly) that it is somekind of 2nd class vote.
2. Provisional ballots require the poll workers to do lots of extra stuff. It really slows things down. In heavy voting precincts, anything that slows down voting is desperately to be avoided.
3. Provisional ballots have to be counted one by one and are generally challenged. This prevents elections from being certified and leads to all kinds of charges of voting fraud and so on.
Anyway, that ain’t happening:

FINAL RESULT
The election officials will ask for a photo ID prior to allowing the voter to vote. It is up to the voter to demand a ballot if he/she has no approved ID

Here: http://wp.me/p22hTz-5g
- on October 2, 2012 at 4:09 pm
  
  Like I said above, the ruling is good, but poll watchers will be needed to ensure that the photo ID req is NOT enforced.
  - Phil Perspective on October 2, 2012 at 10:43 pm
    
    It’s good only re: this election. After that, we’ll see.

XeckyGilchrist on October 2, 2012 at 11:40 am

Result! Great news.
- MassCommons on October 2, 2012 at 1:37 pm
  
  Great news, indeed. Congratulations to everyone in PA who worked to make this happen.
  
  I’ve been reading Dan Okrent’s “Last Call”, a history of Prohibition. The Anti-Saloon League was perhaps the most powerful single-issue group in US history, able to swing elections for either party in most states based solely on the candidate’s position on prohibition. The ASL pushed to get the 18th amendment passed before 1920, because they knew the country’s demographics were changing against them.
  
  Then, after the 1920 census, they block congressional reapportionment for nine years, and then only with the provision that the reapportionment take effect in 1932.
  
  Compared to what their great-grandparents did, today’s reactionaries look to be a day late and a dollar short.
GreenCaboose on October 2, 2012 at 11:50 am

I’ve known the voter ID thing was going to be a problem but I didn’t see how bad until recently when my son got his learner’s permit. Colorado as a GOP Secretary of State and we had a RealID law passed when the GOP still had control of the state.

The way he’s implemented it is this. If you already have a photo ID and want to get one it really is pretty easy. Short waits in most offices – even if moving from another state.

BUT, if you want to get a first-time ID and you are in a metro area you get sent to one of a tiny number of understaffed, dirty DMV offices in poor neighborhoods and forced to wait up to a full day.

The logic is obvious – they figure that “normal” people (read: white, GOP) will deal with this one time because they need the driver’s license, but “undesirable” people (read: black, hispanic, liberal) who don’t need a driver’s license won’t give up a day just to get a photo ID to vote.

In a just world our Secretary of State would be spending 10 years behind bars.
- BooMan on October 2, 2012 at 11:52 am
  
  Indeed.
japa21 on October 2, 2012 at 12:06 pm

It is good news for this election, but the law stays intact and will go into full effect next year. What this means to me is that the basic argument in favor of Voter ID laws has won out, and that I find depressing. So I will celebrate for now, but we will have to work even harder to make sure all voters have ID.
- RandyH on October 2, 2012 at 12:10 pm
  
  Laws can be changed. Bad laws, like these voter suppression laws, can be used as a club to beat the shit out of anyone who voted for them.
- on October 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm
  
  In the long run, it may not be onerous. It is onerous and unfair when it is inflexible. In SD, we have the law, but anyone can also sign an affidavit at the poll stating under penalty of perjury that they are who they claim to be. I am not overly concerned, but this law has been in place for a number of years, and thus no one is being disenfranchised now.
  - Phil Perspective on October 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm
    
    But it’s still a shitty law. I thought the GOP was for smaller government. Why make a law fixing a nonexistent problem?
  - japa21 on October 2, 2012 at 12:47 pm
    
    So really there is no voter ID requirement in SD.
    - RandyH on October 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm
      
      Right. When you sign your name in the register, that is (and always has been) your certification that you are who you say you are.
on October 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm

This was the last hurdle for a clear Obama win. Very good news.

We actually have a picture ID law in SD, and it’s not a big deal. The big deal is 1) the very onerous time limits 2) the inflexible nature and 3) the inability of certain types of voters who are citizens to comply.

Now there are 2 years to solve these problems. If people will VOTE THE SHIT OUT OF HARRISBURG, things can be fixed.

I sure hope that the Dems turn up the heat.
on October 2, 2012 at 2:12 pm

The judge has NOT forbidden that voters be REQUESTED to furnish ID.

They cannot be blocked from voting if they do not have it.

And that means that well-informed, STRONG poll monitors are needed at every poll, as well as lawyers. This can easily become a situation in which certain poll staff might block voters either because they did not agree with the judge or due to ignorance.

POLL WATCHERS ARE NEEDED!!
DerFarm on October 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm

ummmmm…..Guys? I really hate to bust your bubble, but if I’m reading this correctly

IT WOULD BE BETTER IF HE HAD UPHELD THE WHOLE LAW.

This thing is really dense starting about page 8, but, if I’m right, this is NOT a victory. Not even partially.
- DerFarm on October 2, 2012 at 3:37 pm
  Ok, I was wrong.
  
  The reading gets really dense around page 7-15. My initial reading was the you didn’t have to have a photo id to vote, but that you would’ve been required to vote using a provisional ballot. This would’ve been devastating for any number of reasons.
  
  People don’t want to vote provisional. They think (more or less correctly) that it is somekind of 2nd class vote.
  Provisional ballots require the poll workers to do lots of extra stuff. It really slows things down. In heavy voting precincts, anything that slows down voting is desperately to be avoided.
  Provisional ballots have to be counted one by one and are generally challenged. This prevents elections from being certified and leads to all kinds of charges of voting fraud and so on.
  
  Anyway, that ain’t happening:
  
  FINAL RESULT
  The election officials will ask for a photo ID prior to allowing the voter to vote. It is up to the voter to demand a ballot if he/she has no approved ID
  
  Here: http://wp.me/p22hTz-5g
  - on October 2, 2012 at 4:09 pm
    
    Like I said above, the ruling is good, but poll watchers will be needed to ensure that the photo ID req is NOT enforced.
    - Phil Perspective on October 2, 2012 at 10:43 pm
      
      It’s good only re: this election. After that, we’ll see.

Jim Crow Struck Down in PA

About The Author

BooMan

16 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments