DOS ID 2.0: Voter ID Hearing 9-25-12
Commonwealth promises that this time
they really, really mean it
when they say every voter will be able to get ID
Today’s
hearing was déjà vu all over again, as the saying goes. Once again the
Commonwealth produced a last-minute new ID procedure right before trial – this time
literally the night before. And once again the Commonwealth asked the court to
rely solely on its assurances that the new IDs would ensure that all eligible
voters will get to vote in November.
The biggest
news of the trial (also announced in a press release from the Dept. of State)
was the revelation that the Dept. of State has revised the requirements needed
to get a Dept. of State (DOS) ID “for voting only.” They have eliminated the
requirement that voters must first attempt to obtain a regular secure PennDOT
ID before attempting to get the DOS ID; the two proofs of residency; and the
gender designation. Individuals who do not show up in the SURE database as a registered
voter will still get their ID cards made and will be asked to fill out a voter
registration form. The ID card and the voter registration form will then be
sent to the Dept. of State, which will send the voter ID card to the individual
once his or her registration has been completed.
The first witness of the day was Kurt Myers, Deputy Secretary of PennDOT, who testified to the changes in the DOS ID procedures and said that that changes were made in response to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling that the legislature intended that there be “liberal access” to state-issued ID cards.
The first witness of the day was Kurt Myers, Deputy Secretary of PennDOT, who testified to the changes in the DOS ID procedures and said that that changes were made in response to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling that the legislature intended that there be “liberal access” to state-issued ID cards.
Myers noted that “either last night or first thing this morning” all 71
PennDOT Driver’s License Centers were notified of the new rules. He testified
that this was such a “minor change” that PennDOT customer service representatives
did not need training – merely to be informed of the change.
Upon questioning, he also acknowledged the PennDOT previously had a
mobile unit from the mid-1990s until 2008. He said few people utilized the
service and there were security issues. When petitioner’s attorney David Gersch
pointed out that other states with ID laws have managed to provide secure
mobile units, Myers responded that certain states “have chosen to take that
risk” but Pennsylvania has not.
According to Myers, only 21 individuals have asked for refunds for being
erroneously charged for their ID. He stated that it was a “shared responsibility”
and that voters should “come to the centers well-prepared” in order to make
sure they were not mistakenly charged
for PennDOT IDs that should be free (as required by the voter ID law).
Following the lunch break Shannon Royer, Deputy Secretary of State, took
the stand. He described the state’s $5 million “Show It” education campaign about
the voter ID law, including 6 million postcards, TV and radio ads, and ads in
college and ethnic newspapers. Royer stated firmly that “every voter will know
about this law by Election Day.”
ACLU Legal Director Vic Walczak then read into the record the
declaration of Nadine Marsh, an 84-year-old Beaver County resident and one of
the original plaintiffs in the lawsuit. A Pennsylvania native, Ms. Marsh has
never had a birth certificate and had a letter of rejection from PA’s Dept. of
Vital Records indicating they could not find a birth record for her.
Ms. Marsh’s granddaughter emailed the Dept. of State helpline three
times to ask what documentation her grandmother would need to obtain the DOS ID
for voting, since Ms. Marsh lives with her daughter and has no bills in her
name. After finally receiving a reply, Ms. Marsh and her granddaughter traveled
the 20 miles to the nearest PennDOT License Center. Unfortunately the center was
not producing IDs the day they went. The next day they again took the 20 mile
trip, only to be told after spending over an hour at PennDOT that PennDOT
needed to “process” her request and that she would have to come back a third
time after receiving a letter from “Harrisburg.”
As of yesterday, Ms. Marsh had not received a letter, although the state
stated that one was sent out recently.
As the long day of testimony came to a close, Judge Simpson perked up
the crowd by announcing that he had “a responsibility to consider tailoring an
injunction” and asked that both sides consider what a tailored injunction might
look like and be ready to provide argument on the issue on Thursday.
The hearing will resume on Thursday, September 27, after a day off for
Yom Kippur. The petitioners will be presenting testimony from a dozen or so
individuals who experienced problems at PennDOT with the initial version of the
DOS ID.
Labels: Applewhite v. Commonwealth, voter ID
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home