Pennsylvania District Judge Robert Simpson yesterday denied a motion for a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the left which seeks to block Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law from taking effect. The ruling is good news for those who support voting rights, for those who applaud sanity in government, and for those who are grateful when honest judges issue rulings consistent with the US Constitution, and not legislating from the bench.
Quite simply, the ruling is good for all honest Americans who believe in en-franchising the vote. In what can only be described as a victory for election integrity, district court judge Simpson issued a well-considered, well written ruling which denied a preliminary injunction to stop Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law from going into effect.
Elements of Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law
In March 2012 Pennsylvania passed the law which requires citizens voting in person on Election Day to present valid photo identification to vote. Identification which is valid and acceptable include photo IDs issued by the federal or state government, accredited public or private schools, and care facilities. Citizens who do not present an approved form of ID on Election Day will still be allowed to cast a provisional ballot provided they deliver proof of identification within six days after the election.
The law similarly imposes the ID requirement for those who cast absentee ballots.
Plaintiff’s Claims of Disenfranchisement
The Plaintiffs claimed in their disingenuous lawsuit that too many citizens will be disenfranchised if they are required to have a valid photo ID. Frankly, I do not believe there are that many citizens without some form of identification. If the plaintiffs in this case are to be believed, there are a vast number of Americans who:
cannot work, because identification is required to get a job;
cannot drive a car, truck or motorcycle, because identification is required to drive;
cannot fly, because identification is required in airports;
cannot board a ship, because identification is required at the dock;
cannot pay for goods and services with checks, because identification is required with those;
cannot pay for goods and services with credit cards, because identification is required with those;
cannot cash a check; because banks require valid identification;
cannot go to school, because schools require (and issue) identification; and,
cannot do any number of other things in society.
People who cannot do any of these things and yet, for some inexplicable reason remain deeply committed to voting, but can’t, solely because they don’t have the $20 it would take to procure said ID are in luck. The Pennsylvania’s Department of Transportation will issue free identification cards. Even those who cannot afford the cost of the supporting documentation which is required to get an approved ID, like a birth certificate, are still in luck because their votes will count if they swear that they cannot afford the cost.
ACLU Experts Not Credible and Demonstrated Bias
The plaintiffs who include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Association For The Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Homeless Advocacy Project who brought this dishonest lawsuit claimed that the law would disenfranchise 9 percent of the voting populace and they found an expert equally dishonest who testified about the 9%. Judge Simpson, to his credit, rejected the 9 percent representation as “not credible” and added that the so called expert demonstrated bias.
Judge Simpson rejected the ACLU’s’ attempt to “inflate the numbers” of disenfranchised voters—which he estimated were “somewhat more than 1% and significantly less than 9%,” as claimed by the petitioners. This outcome is similar to those in the unsuccessful lawsuits against the voter ID laws of Georgia and Indiana. In all three states, the courts threw out the opinions of the alleged experts hired by the ACLU as “not credible.” Imagine that, the ACLU not credible.
In a motion for a preliminary injunction, those bringing suit must demonstrate their likely success on the merits. The ACLU failed to convince the judge that Pennsylvania’s law is “facially unconstitutional (rather than as applied, which means that the law is unconstitutional only in its application to a particular person under particular circumstances). The challengers provided speculation about hypothetical or imaginary cases, which Judge Simpson correctly observed has no place in a facial challenge.”
Attorney General Holder Jumps Into The Fray
The absurdity of the lawsuit brought by the ACLU was not enough to keep US Attorney General Eric Holder, that champion of the constitution, from jumping into the fray and ordering a Department of Justice investigation into the Pennsylvania voter ID law. Perhaps Attorney General Holder should worry about producing the documents Congress has ordered him to produce, rather than spending his precious time perpetuating voter fraud.
Congratulations to Pennsylvania for trying to maintain some modicum of honesty at the ballot box and kudos to Judge Robert Simpson for quite rightly upholding the law.