patching...
Breaking: Parents Sue Pittsburgh Zoo over Mauling Death of Their Son »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Allegheny County Officials Challenge State Voter ID Law

Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald will hold a press conference at 2 p.m. today on efforts to block the law.

 

Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald and county controller Chelsa Wagner are among the officials planning a challenge to the Voter ID law, which was signed by Gov. Tom Corbett in March.

Sponsored by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, the law requires voters to show photo identification before they vote at the polls. After a dry run in the April primary, it is scheduled to take effect for the Nov. 6 general election.

Allegheny County Board of Elections Chair John DeFazio scheduled a special meeting of the Board of Elections for 3 p.m. Tuesday to consider a call by Fitzgerald for the board to authorize a legal challenge to Act 18, the Voter ID Law.

The meeting at the Allegheny County Courthouse will include a vote to authorize a lawsuit against the commonwealth based on the unconstitutionality of the Voter ID Act.

“I’ve made no secret of the fact that I am absolutely opposed to the Voter ID law, but this meeting is about something different entirely,” said DeFazio.  “Beyond the unfunded mandates being put on the county for implementation of this law, there are other requirements that are being put on the county that are inappropriate and unlawful.”

The new Voter ID Act requires each elector who appears to vote to first present proof of identification and requires that local election officials verify the proof of identification.

The proof of identification must show the name of the person that “substantially conforms” to the name on the elections register and include a photograph (exception for religious reasons) and an expiration date, and it must not be expired.

If the voter does not have ID, or if the ID is challenged, the voter may cast a provisional ballot, but must provide the same proof of identification within six days of the election, as well as provide an affidavit that they were the same person who tried to vote by machine.

“I am ashamed that Pennsylvania is one of 15 states that has taken steps to disenfranchise our voters, and I have no doubt that the reasons for it are entirely political, because it is not based on evidence of any fraud that is occurring,” Fitzgerald said in a press release issued Friday.

“That being said, the county has the responsibility to implement the provisions of the Voter ID Law, and when we began to review those requirements, it became clear that there is misinformation and changing information, and the county is, essentially, being asked to violate other laws.”

Wagner argues the law violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and federal laws guaranteeing free and equal access to the polls while placing an unfunded mandate on county taxpayers.

“No elected official in our democracy should prevent citizens from voting,” Wagner said in a statement on the Allegheny County website. “We will not stand for this in Allegheny County, and we will not stand for this in Pennsylvania—our nation’s birthplace.

Every elected official must do everything in their power to increase voter participation, not limit it, regardless of party or demographics.”

Wagner joined Fitzgerald at a 2 p.m. press conference Friday to detail efforts to block the law.  

The county controller, a Democrat, has endorsed efforts in the courts to keep the law from taking effect before the election and said her office will file an amicus brief in the challenge to the law now pending in Commonwealth Court.

“The cost of implementing Voter ID statewide has been estimated at $11 million, with no aid from the state, so the governor is creating another unfunded mandate for all 67 counties,” Wagner said. “As Pennsylvania’s second-largest county, with large populations of urban, elderly and student voters who would be most harmed, Allegheny County would shoulder a huge financial burden implementing Voter ID.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Advancement Project, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia and the Washington, D.C., law firm of Arnold & Porter last month asked appeals court judges to overturn the law, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

Metcalfe has said the law, which was championed by the Republican party, would prevent impersonation at the polls, fictitious registrations, double-voting and voting by illegal aliens. 

What do you think? Do you support the Voter ID Law? Is it unconstitutional? Leave you opinion in the comment section below.

Related Topics: Chelsa Wagner, Rich Fitzgerald, Voter ID Challenge, Voter ID law, and daryl metcalfe

Jaison Metnick

12:22 pm on Friday, June 15, 2012

How is this law suppressive? You need a photo I.D. to do so many thiings, but all of a sudden are suppressing voters if they need to produce one when voting? Ridiculous. I don't care what anyone says voter fraud is very prevalent, mostly for democrats. Look at what Florida found recently. Here are things you need a photo I.D. for:
adopt a pet
purchase a home
purchase an automobile
purchase a gun

obtain a bank account
obtain a credit card
obtain a passport
write a check
make a credit card purchase
apply for a loan to purchase anything
to prove your age
to get married
to receive a marriage license
to drive
to buy a house
to close on a house
to get medical care
to get on a plane
to get insurance on anything
to get a job
to get a post office box
to get a hunting license
to get a fishing license
to get a business license
to cash a paycheck
rent an apartment
rent a hotel room
rent a car
rent furniture
rent tools and equipment
receive welfare
receive social security
receive food stamps
buy cigarettes
buy alcohol
buy a bus ticket
buy a cell phone
buy any antihistimine
go in to a casino
go in to a bar
go to college
have your water turned on
have your electricity turned on
have your cable turned on
have your gas turned on
obtain trash pick up service
pick up a package from the post office
pick up a package from fed ex
pick up a package from ups
pick up a prescription

Reply
Comment_arrow

freeandequalpa

8:45 am on Saturday, June 16, 2012

For examples of voters who will be disenfranchised by the law because they do not have and cannot obtain one of the approved forms of ID, read this article, which contains a summary of the lawsuit that was filed in May challenging the law: http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/summary-of-applewhite-petition/

Comment_arrow

Art Wegweiser

2:06 pm on Saturday, June 16, 2012

It is widely known that this law is really intended to disenfranchise people who are not likely to vote GOP and this is a fraud and embarrassment to our democracy. A large number of the items on your "list' are bogus and do NOT required identification. They also do not infringe upon most basic constitutional right where they do. It is also well established that voter fraud is quite uncommon unless on counts the phony Diebold machines. As for Florida, was it mostly democrats that cause a very large number of Jewish people to vote for Robertson? The Florida fiasco was a consequence of the woman in charge of elections exerting her personal bias and some fine people on the Supreme Court determined to undermine our system for their puppet masters - clear evidence of that again with the atrocious "Citizens United" decision.

Edward Poston

6:14 pm on Friday, June 15, 2012

What about the cost to 'over-turn' this law? Who pays for that??
All of us... that pay taxes.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Art Wegweiser

2:11 pm on Saturday, June 16, 2012

We also pay for Corbett's salary and expenses, he signed the damn thing and the sweethearts in our fine legislature who passed it. Keep that in mind at the next elections, if the GOP allows you to vote.

freeandequalpa

8:49 am on Saturday, June 16, 2012

The cost to challenge the law is a one-time charge. The law itself will cost $4.8 million to implement in the first year, and then up to $2.2 million a year each year thereafter . . . forever.

Source: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/SFN/2011/0/HB0934P3166.pdf

Reply

Leave a comment