Katherine Johnson
Columnist
A judge’s ruling earlier this week delays a law that would require voters to show a valid state-issued photo ID at polls in Pennsylvania, which could have a large impact on the 2012 elections.
The judge, Robert Simpson, ruled that the new law requiring voters to show valid photo ID won’t go into effect for this election, according to the Associated Press.
Virginia, another swing state, passed a different kind of voter ID law this past spring. Virgina’s new law isn’t as strict as Pennsylvania’s, as voters can show photo ID, utility bills, pay checks, bank statements or even a college ID. The state also issued every voter a new registration card, which could be presented at the polls as an acceptable form of ID.
The Pennsylvania judge’s ruling is admirable because many affected by the law, including the elderly, young adults, minorities and the handicapped, would have had trouble casting their ballots.
Recent attempts to change voter ID laws so close to an election are questionable and the actions of Republicans are downright shady. Republican Mike Turzai, a Pennsylvania lawmaker, said that the new law would “allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania,” according to the same AP article.
Those that would have been most affected by the law tend to vote for the Democratic party, meaning that President Barack Obama would lose votes in Pennsylvania. Those who supported Obama in 2008—students, minorities, and the working class —are the most likely of groups to have had difficulty complying with the new law.
Swing states play a crucial role in elections, and the race is especially tight here in Virginia. The state has typically gone red, except for 2008’s election, which was the first time the state voted for the Democratic party since Lyndon B. Johnson ran. Pennsylvania will also play a role in determining this year’s election, which is why implementing a strict law that would keep people from voting is unfair.
Those votes may make the difference in Pennsylvania, and ultimately the country. What happens in swing states doesn’t just affect the state’s citizens, but every American, especially when the candidates are separated by only a few points in the polls.
Voters must question these new laws and the representatives that helped set them in place. If “fraudulent” elections have been occurring for so long, shouldn’t the law have been changed years ago? When so much is at stake in a major election, such as this year’s presidential race, voters shouldn’t have laws suddenly change on them.
Those who would potentially be affected by this law may have decided not to vote rather than to comply with the new guidelines because it’d be more work for them, and time they don’t have to spare. Or, those that were attempting to obtain proper ID still may not have it in time for Election Day. Both of these scenarios are unfair to voters that may not have the means to comply with the law.
While some may question the difficulty of getting an ID, we can look at Richmond as a prime example.
If you have used public transportation here, you see a variety of people on the bus. Many times though, they’re minorities, elderly and possibly handicapped.
These are the same people who would have to find their way to licensing centers so that they could vote. With work during the week, no car, or time to stand in long lines, these are the people that would have to go without voting.
They’re also the same ones whose future will be most determined by the election.
This election could be a turning point for healthcare, welfare and taxes, all of which are issues that would impact those who would have otherwise been disenfranchised by the laws put forth by Republican lawmakers.
Republicans have stooped to an unacceptable level for any public official in order to suppress the vote of those who don’t have the same political leanings as them. Their role is to help their constituents, but in an attempt to win the White House back, they have no problem stealing it away. This is evident by their adamant passage of new voting laws and Turzai’s comment on Romney’s ability to take Pennsylvania after the law’s passage.
While the ruling in Pennsylvania will most likely be appealed, it should come as a warning to all lawmakers, regardless of their party, that suppressing the peoples’ vote won’t be tolerated. If laws are changed, voters should have ample time to prepare instead of changing course in the months leading up to an election.
The only way to ensure a fair election is to allow everyone that wants to vote the opportunity to vote, and stricter voting laws won’t accomplish this. Voter ID laws may not be a bad idea in the future, but timing is very important.
It’s wrong to have voting laws passed months before a presidential election, especially one that is turning out to be as close as this year’s.