Pa. Supreme Court weighs voter ID arguments

(CBS News) Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on the state's controversial new law requiring voters to present one of several specific forms of photo identification.

The court must now decide whether to stop the new voter ID requirements from taking effect with the November 6 election looming.

In an ornate courtroom on the fourth floor of Philadelphia's City Hall, opponents of the law argued that the law will disenfranchise a substantial number of Pennsylvania voters in the upcoming election.

David P. Gersch of the Washington law firm Arnold & Porter L.L.P., argued the case on behalf of the law's opponents.

"The vice is in requiring photo identification that people don't have and have a hard time getting," Gersch told the court.

Gersch argued that the law creates "a very large problem" that could impact anywhere from 100,000-500,000 voters in Pennsylvania.

"Voting is a fundamental right. The challenged law imposes significant burdens on the exercise of that right," said Gersch.

South Carolina voter ID law goes to court
Study: Voter ID law would exclude up to 700,000 young minorities

But the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania argues that the law is a tool to detect and deter voter fraud.

"It is simply a means to establish that you are who you say you are and that you are indeed a registered voter," argued John Knorr who represented the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office.

The law requires the state government to educate voters on the new ID requirements and to also issue free ID cards to those without proper ID.

Pennsylvania officials have said they will spend $5 million on voter education and outreach to help voters get the identification they need.

Members of the gallery booed loudly when Knorr told the court, "Most people can get photo IDs quite easily."

Supreme Court Justices in Pennsylvania are elected and the six justices - three Democrats and three Republicans - peppered lawyers at the hearing with questions that frequently hinted at which way they might lean on the case.

"There will never be a point where everybody can get something the legislature requires," argued Republican Justice Michael Eakin.

Under the new law, any voter rejected for lack of ID can still cast a provisional ballot and then produce an approved ID within six days to have their vote counted.

Justice Debra McCloskey Todd, a Democrat, said the provisional ballot measure "sounds a little bit like a nightmare."

Justice Seamus McCaffery, a Democrat, elicited cheers from the gallery when he pointed out that his Supreme Court ID, which bears the signature of the Chief Justice, would not be sufficient under the new law.

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson declined to issue an injunction last month in a ruling that gave rise to this appeal. In his opinion Simpson said the law "is a reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life."

In his decision Simpson relied heavily on a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a nearly identical Indiana law, which requires voters to present a photo at the polls.

The laws in both Indiana and Pennsylvania provide for provisional ballots and offer free photo IDs to qualified voter. These two accommodations have been significant in helping voter ID laws survive judicial scrutiny in several states, including Georgia and New Mexico.

Justice Todd reminded the court that the parties on both sides of this suit have previously agreed that there are currently no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

Bea Bookler, 94, lives in an assisted-living facility outside Philadelphia and is one of the plaintiffs named in the suit because she does not have a driver's license or any other accepted form of photo ID.

"I have voted in every presidential election and I hope to vote in every one until I die, but I am afraid I won't be able to vote in this one because I don't have a photo ID," she said.

Judge Simpson wrote that opponents of the voter ID law "did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by this new requirement," but he does not "have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses."

The outcome of Thursday's hearing could have significant consequences to the November elections as opponents of the law argue that it disproportionately affects racial minorities and other groups that favor president Obama.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett promises, "We will continue our outreach efforts to make sure all legal Pennsylvania voters know about the law, and know how to get a free ID to vote if needed."

There is no official deadline for the court to rule after Thursday's hearing, but a court official tells CBS News that the Court plans to rule quickly.

[BigMykul]

Not like permanent mark, but one that wears off in 3-4 days.

[BigMykul]

To discourage someone from voting multiple times, why not do what some clubs do. When you vote have an indelible ink (maybe one that will only show up under blacklight). Stamp voters hand and make every voter pass hand under blacklight. Would this work? Why not implement it then? Someone give me the cons to this.

[J2289]

To Vote in Mexico, you must show a Voter ID with your picture on it. Most Americans have a picture ID...anybody over 18 can get an ID even if they don't drive a car.

Dems don't want mandatory national Voter ID because they want illegals and dead people to vote for their liberal socialist programs.

Here's what we need to do:
A. Nov 6th: you and your friends kick out job killer not my fault not quite shovel ready FORWARD FAILURE nobama and all tax and spend politicians. GET INVOLVED; TAKE AN ACTIVE PART IN KICKING OUT OBAMA.
B. Repeal nobamacare and replace it with a better system not run by the Government.
C. Pass mandatory national E-Verify to stop illegals from stealing our jobs.
D. Pass mandatory national Voter ID to stop illegals from stealing our vote.
E. Don't listen to or believe the biased mainstream media [CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, AP, Reuters, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, NY Times, Miami Herald...they are not journalists...they are liars for FORWARD FAILURE liberals.
F. Watch the movie "2016" to see the real obama.
G. Read the book "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House" by Edward Klein.

[science-rules]

There were 8 counts of voter fraud in the last election.

This law will deprive 100,000 people of their legal right to vote.

14FREEK you can not possibly miss the obvious goal of this law.

It is to supress the vote NOT confirm it.

[science-rules]

This law is NOT ABOUT voter fraud because of the voters.

It is about voter fraud at the Party level. Republicans think that if they can knock down the poor and downtrodden even a little then Mitt Romney will win PA. Hey it worked in Florida in 2000.

"It matters not who votes but rather who counts the vote"
-- Stalin

Words for Repiublicans to live by.

[retmw1]

14FREEK

You have to prove you are a citizen when you register to vote, if you aren't registered you can't vote at the polls. It's that simple and you don't even understand that.

[14FREEK]

If you want to vote then it is incumbent on you to prove you are a US citizen.

(15th amendment Ratified Feb 3, 1870 Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.)

Why should I provide you with an ID? Should I be required to give you a ride to the polling place too? NO! If you want to vote you must be a US citizen, prove it first and you can vote.

[science-rules]

This is the same thing as voting fees or tests in the past. It has NOTHING to do with voter fraud and everything to do with TRYING TO STEAL AN ELECTION.

Katherine Harris would be proud.

[nomorelibs]

Honestly, I hope this law passes. Then if it does, I would like to see how many people voted in the last election compared to this one. If it is anywhere near the 100,000-500,000 they claim. Then lets look at repealing it. Until then, quit your whining and get an ID. And quit using excuses like "the 94 yr old in a nursing home can't get one." Tens of millions of people in this country don't vote, a few more won't make a bit of difference.

[14FREEK]

If you want to vote then it is incumbent on you to prove you are a US citizen. (15th amendment) Why should I provide you with an ID? Should I be required to give you a ride to the polling place too? NO! If you want to vote you must be a US citizen, prove it first and you can vote.

Ratified Feb 3, 1870.

[14FREEK]

Fifteenth Amendment - Right of Citizens to Vote
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

[john92021]

when we get our chip we won't have to worry anymore. Vote early, vote often.

[ZionjstCensorship]

We already vote early and vote often. We don't need voter ID's to impede this.

[unclebernies]

We should be following what Australia does with their voting. It's mandatory. If you don't vote you get fined. Guess wht. They have over a 90 percent voter turnout.

[EuroPride20x]

Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, White countries for everybody??????

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.