The elections of 2010 continue to have consequences. One of the biggest of those is the passage of voter ID laws across the nation. In general, I have no issue with the concept of having to prove you are who you say you are. In fact, it’s my belief that if you make rules limiting the age, the residence or the number of times an individual can vote, it should be a requirement to validate proof of identification.
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law
Pennsylvania is just one of those states that have enacted such laws. In fact, the law is set to go into effect in time for this election cycle in November, just 5 weeks away. The law, and especially the timing, has drawn the ire of liberals all over the country.
The law requires:
That people show either a state driver’s license, government employee ID or a state non-driver ID card in order to vote on November 6.
Again, by itself, the law is perfectly reasonable in my mind and, in fact, should have been enacted long long ago.
Judge Rules To Halt Law
However, while the requirement to display valid ID is a good one, the judge has ruled that the law imposed significant hurdles in obtaining the proper ID before election time and was unreasonable in its timeline.
In short, the law stands but won’t take effect for the upcoming election.
I agree with the judge on this one. The idea of the law is that we protect the sanctity of the voting process. Given that we have been faced with lax laws regarding this for decades, one more election isn’t going to result in a result incongruous with past elections. However, if the law was passed in order to affect the outcome of THIS election, then I have an issue with an unstated voter restriction for the very specific purpose of electing a specific candidate.
And that’s wrong.
The law is good. The timing is bad.