Voter ID Trial Take Two: Afternoon of 9-27-12

 Judge Simpson asks both sides what a “tailored injunction” would look like

This afternoon the Commonwealth brought back two of its witnesses from Tuesday to rebut the testimony of the petitioners’ morning witnesses.

Jonathan Marks, Commissioner for the Department of State's Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation, testified that data from voter registration forms is handled at the county level, and county workers do not always follow protocol for data entry. The result are problems such as Lakeisha Pannell experienced, where she did not show up as a registered voter because her name had been entered with a space between the “La” and “keisha.”

Under cross-examination, Marks admitted that voter registrations, particularly those collected in third party registration drives, can take four or five weeks to appear in the state’s system, known as the SURE database. That leaves very little time for a voter who registered close to the Oct. 9 registration deadline to show up in the database and thus be able to obtain a Dept. of State (DOS) “for voting only” ID.  The Dept. of State will not mail the voter their DOS ID until they show up in the database. (See the blog post from 9-25-12 for more about the new DOS ID process for people who have a problem with their registration status.)

The next witness to be recalled was Kurt Myers, Deputy Secretary of PennDOT.  He stated that under the voter ID law, PennDOT could not issue a free ID to anyone who had a PennDOT ID that was expired less than a year - even if it would be expired over a year by Election Day. “The law doesn’t allow for flexibility,” he said.

He also testified that anyone who loses their PennDOT ID or has it stolen can either have it replaced for $13.50 or get the DOS ID free of charge.

Under cross-examination, Mr. Myers reviewed the figures for PennDOT’s response time. Several PennDOT locations have seen a dramatic increase in the number of customers who had to wait over 30 minutes (the metric PennDOT uses) when comparing August 2010, 2011, and 2012. Myers noted there could be other reasons than just the voter ID law that would account for those changes.

Mr. Myers was also asked about the confusion for voters in making the distinction between a PennDOT Driver License Center and a PennDOT Photo Center Voting IDs. Both the secure PennDOT ID and the new DOS ID are only available at a Driver License Center. (Several witnesses mentioned going to the wrong PennDOT office to get their voter ID.) When asked if this might cause problems for voters, Mr. Myers said that it was a “shared responsibility” on the part of the customer as well as PennDOT to know the rules.

Following testimony from the two state’s witnesses, Mr. Walczak made a motion that all evidence and testimony about the new guidelines for the DOS ID be stricken and excluded from the record, as the petitioners had served a request for production of documents on the evening of Sept. 18 that asked for “all procedures used to deploy the DOS cards” and specifically asked for amendments to the procedures. Despite the request, the new DOS guidelines were not turned over to petitioners until 5 p.m. the evening before trial. The documents were only turned over at all because the petitioners noted one sentence in the Commonwealth’s brief that stated the “exhaustion requirement” for the DOS ID was no longer in place and asked about the change.

In light of the fact that the individuals on the petitioners’ supplemental witness list were not allowed to testify as they came in past the Monday noon deadline, Mr. Walczak argued, it was unfair to hold the Commonwealth to a different standard.

Judge Simpson declined the motion, stating that petitioners had effectively waived the objection because the evidence was produced in response to their question, but noted, “I know that both of you have some hard feelings about this. I get it.”  He went on to say that he wasn’t sure how valuable the testimony about the new ID guidelines would be in any case, as it would require him to use predictive judgment about the effectiveness of the new IDs – something the Pennsylvania Supreme Court already criticized in its previous ruling.

Mr.Walczak then began his closing, noting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said the lower court (Judge Simpson) was “obliged to enter a preliminary injunction” unless the cards “comport with the requirement of liberal access” AND  the court is convinced that there will be “no voter disenfranchisement for purposes of the upcoming election.” He said that education would not be the cure, as none of the ads in the state’s $5 million voter ID education campaign provide information about the DOS ID, and that money has all been spent. And the state’s new guidelines for the DOS IDs were also not a fix for the problem. “For this Court to approve and allow this law to continue based on the changes that the Commonwealth announced on Tuesday would be to repeat what happened the last time,” he said.

Judge Simpson interrupted Mr. Walczak’s closing to ask what a “tailored injunction” might look like. He asked, “Is there something that’s not all or nothing?” and “Are there any parts that can be preserved?” He speculated about procedures in other states, such as issuing provisional ballots that can be used for voters without ID but eliminating the requirement that they provide ID in the 6 days following the election for those ballots to count, or continuing to ask people for ID when they vote but not turning them away if they didn’t have acceptable ID.  

Judge Simpson did acknowledge the potential pitfalls of having so many people vote provisionally and that the system might not be able to handle it. He also expressed concern and surprise that the number of people who have obtained voter ID was so low (roughly 10,000 voter IDs have been issued since the law was passed) and said that even assuming only 1% of registered voters do not have ID, only a fraction of those have since gotten ID.

Ms. Alicia Hickok gave the closing for the Commonwealth. She stated that what the court heard today was “was not so much about people who couldn't get IDs, it was about people who were resentful of the process that it took them to get IDs.” She later added, “They were frustrated. But frustration is a part of everyday life.” She said she was similarly frustrated when she was put on hold by a customer service representative.

Ms. Hickok stated that state officials have “sacrificed themselves,” working overtime and weekends to ensure that getting IDs is a “seamless process.” “That commitment has been there,” she said.

Judge Simpson left both sides with instructions to include ideas for a tailored injunction in their post-hearing materials, which must be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday. The judge must issue a ruling by Oct. 2, as ordered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 

Voter ID Trial Take Two: Morning of 9-27-12

Voters testify about the holes in the “safety net,” aka the Dept. of State ID card (version 1.0)

Tensions ran high on the final day of the second voter ID trial as the cumulative stress and exhaustion from multiple trials in quick succession took its toll. The morning began with a dispute over a supplemental witness list the petitioners’ had submitted after the judge’s deadline of this past Monday at noon. The Commonwealth objected to the inclusion of these witnesses, and Judge Robert Simpson sustained the objection. As a result, two witnesses who had come from out of town – including Philadelphia City Commissioner Stephanie Singer--were in court but not allowed to testify.

ACLU Legal Director Vic Walczak pointed out what he described as a double-standard, as the Commonwealth did not provide petitioners with information about the existence of new guidelines for the Dept. of State ID until 4:58 p.m. the day before the trial – despite the fact that the state’s witnesses testified that they had begun work on the new guidelines soon after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its opinion on Sept. 18. Judge Simpson conceded that that conduct had “invited a certain amount of tension.”

Judge Simpson also gave what he described as a “pep talk” to the attorneys, stating he was concerned by conduct of counsel on both sides and asked them to “stand calm and stand tall” for the remainder of the trial. He noted he had “other tools in his toolbox that you [the lawyers] haven’t seen yet” and he would handle matters in another way if he had to.

The morning’s testimony was led off by Doris Clark, a 68-year-old African-American woman from Philadelphia. She made three trips over the summer to PennDOT to get ID in addition to a visit to the Department of Vital Records to get her birth certificate and another excursion to get a copy of her husband’s death certificate (needed to connect the name on her birth certificate with her married name). On her third trip to PennDOT on August 28, she was told her June 2012 letter from the Social Security Administration (which she was told could be used as a substitute for a Social Security card) was too old to use and she would have to get a new one. Fed up, she said, “I hollered ‘I’m handicapped, I’ve done all I can do, and I’m not going to vote. I’m going out there and tell people how you are treating people.’” She was then offered and received the Dept. of State (DOS) ID.

Following Ms. Clark was Lakeisha Pannell, a 35-year-old African-American woman. She took her 2-year-old with her on trips to obtain copies of two utility bills to use as proofs of residency. Lacking a raised-seal birth certificate, she applied for the DOS “for voting only” ID but was initially rejected because her voter registration could not be confirmed. After two four-hour trips to PennDOT with her young son in tow, she finally received her voter ID card after it turned out that her  name in the voter file was spelled “La Keisha” instead of “Lakeisha.”

Another voter who shared her problems obtaining ID from PennDOT was Jessica Hockenbury, a 19-year-old white woman from Pittsburgh. Although she had a raised-seal birth certificate and Social Security card, she only possessed one proof of residency (her pay stub) as she lives with her boyfriend and has no bills in her name. She was denied an ID. An organizer from One Pittsburgh, Alice Thompson, was outside PennDOT and offered to help Ms. Hockenbury get her ID. The pair returned to the center a few days later and asked for a residency verification form, which can be signed by the person an individual lives with as a proof of address. The PennDOT employee was unaware of the form and after speaking with another employee, gave the women the wrong form. When they asked to apply for the free “for voting only ID,” they were told by a PennDOT employee that “we’re not doing those anymore.”

Later that day, having printed out the correct form from PennDOT’s website and gotten it signed by Ms.Hockenbury’s boyfriend, the pair returned to the PennDOT office. The employee who took the application said he had not seen the affidavit form before. On her third trip, Ms. Hockenbury was finally issued a DOS ID.  

Another Philadelphia woman, Slava Lipowicz, took the stand to testify about the difficulties in getting her 87-year-old mother, who relies on a wheelchair, to PennDOT. Her mother is a naturalized American citizen born in the Ukraine who spent time under Nazi rule in Germany. Because of her background, her mother treasures her right to vote, said Ms. Lipowicz, and every Thanksgiving she gives thanks that she lives in the “best country in the world” and sings God Bless America. (Ed. note - I swear I am not making this up.)

Preston Cobb, a 52-year-old African-American man with cerebral palsy who also relies on a wheelchair, testified about his 3-hour excursion to the Media PennDOT. His non-driver PennDOT ID expired October 21, 2011 – which means it would not be valid for voting as it would be expired over a year on Nov. 6. Under the law, a PennDOT ID needed for voting is free. However, PennDOT’s policy is to charge people with IDs that are not yet expired a year – even if they will be expired over a year on Election Day. Mr. Cobb, who lives in low-income housing, was not allowed to apply for a DOS ID and instead was told to pay the $13.50 or come back in November to get the free ID.  

Several Service Employees International Union (SEIU) staff members also testified about their repeated trips to various PennDOT locations across the state and the problems they had witnessed, ranging from clerks who were unfamiliar with the DOS ID procedures to a lack of voter ID-related forms and signs in some centers.

The court then took a break for lunch.

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.

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.”

The last person to take the stand today was Jonathan Marks, Commissioner for the Department of State's Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation. He described the two-tiered process the DOS has for checking on the registration of people who apply for the DOS ID. For those who can't easily be verified, "tier 2" workers have the "luxury of time" and are able to track down reasons why voters are not showing up as registered, such typos or non-matching names.  He said that to date 113 individuals had been initially rejected for the DOS ID. In 43 of those the DOS had resolved the initial exception.  He also testified that of the roughly 760,000 letters sent out by the DOS this summer to notify voters they were on the "no-match" list of voters without valid PennDOT ID, around 145,000 were returned by the post office as undeliverable.

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. 

Voter ID Day 6: Voter confusion about new law rampant

Today marked the sixth and final day of testimony in the voter ID trial. Only the most diehard observers and journalists were in attendance, although there will likely be a full house again tomorrow for closing arguments.

Kicking off today’s testimony was Olivia Thorne, president of the League of Women Voters (LWV) of Pennsylvania and a 35-year member of the organization. The LWV is an organizational plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Thorne testified that the LWV’s education activities around voter ID have diverted scarce resources and time the organization planned to use on other campaigns and advocacy work. The state’s frequent changes to the process for getting ID have also made it complicated to educate voters, as well as expensive for the League as they have had to reprint their materials (and will have to again) in order to keep up with the repeated changes and clarifications issued by the Dept. of State. More importantly, she said, these frequent changes have confused voters.

Thorne also talked about the LWV’s outreach to nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Although these facilities have been empowered by the state to produce their own IDs using an ink jet printer on 8.5 x 11 paper, almost none so far have committed to doing so, and several have refused, according to Thorne.

The most shocking part of Thorne’s testimony was her experience at PennDOT as she tried to research how the agency is handling its directive to issue free IDs to those who need them for voting. She visited the Media (Delaware County) PennDOT office on three separate occasions over the past few months. In addition to a complete lack of signage, the PennDOT worker was less-than-helpful when Thorne explained she was seeking information for a friend without a birth certificate. The PennDOT worker’s response? “Tough luck, she won’t be able to vote.”

Next up was Deputy Commissioner Jorge Santana from Philadelphia. He works for the City Commission, which oversees elections in Philadelphia. He testified to the problems his office is facing in preparing for the election because of the voter ID law.

There are 8000 poll workers in Philadelphia. While poll workers do receive training prior to the election, attendance is not mandatory, and Santana estimates about 20% of workers usually attend the training. Even if a higher number of workers attend training this year in light of the new law, there will undoubtedly be thousands of poll workers in Philadelphia alone who have had no training on the new and complex law.

Santana also testified as to the many attempts his boss, Commissioner Stephanie Singer, made to obtain the list of registered voters without PennDOT ID. First requested in April, the list was not made available until almost July. The DOS has also not provided the office with any information about the new IDs the state has said it will be offering at the end of August.

Like Thorne before him, Santana testified to the confusion voters have about the new law. His office has been inundated with calls and visits from voters asking for information and sometimes for help obtaining necessary documents such as birth certificates for getting a PennDOT ID. Despite having no budget for this effort, his office has mounted an outreach campaign with community organizations to educate voters. After being asked, he testified that the DOS has not been educating voters in Philadelphia about the law. He said he has “no confidence” that every voter who needs an ID will have one for the election.

As for what he anticipates happening on Election Day if the law is not overturned, Santana said his office is “planning for a mess, to be frank.”

The final witness of the day was Professor Lorraine Minnite, associate professor of public policy at Rutgers-Camden. She is the author of several articles on voter fraud as well as a book, The Myth of Voter Fraud (Cornell University Press).

Opposing counsel objected to Prof. Minnite’s testimony, as the state has already stipulated to the fact there is no known voter fraud in Pennsylvania. He was overruled.

Minnite testified to her extensive research on voter fraud over the past 12 years that has led her to conclude that “voter fraud in American elections is exceedingly rare.” Most of the few instances she was able to corroborate were confused voters (such as the man who owned property in one state and lived in another and thought he was entitled to vote in both places) rather than intentional voter fraud. She also testified to the fact that while it might be possible to be registered in two states at once, a voter ID law would not safeguard against that.  Much of what she testified to can be found in her expert testimony.

The commonwealth’s lawyer, Patrick Cawley, tried to use the common argument that voter ID supporters like to use – “you need an ID to buy a beer.”  His phrasing of the question to Minnite, however, was telling: “...if beer requires a certain barrier to entry then voting should have at least that barrier as well?" Barrier, you say? An interesting choice of words coming from the commonwealth. 

When asked about voter ID laws as a way to “protect the integrity of an election,” Minnite responded, “You can’t have integrity of an election unless everyone who wants to vote gets their vote counted.”

Closing arguments start tomorrow, Aug. 2, at 10 am. ACLU-PA Legal Director Vic Walczak will be making the closing for the petitioners.

Voter ID Trial Day 4: Real People, Real Stories

Before the voter ID trial resumed this morning, Jennifer Clarke, executive director of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadephia and one of the attorneys in the case, said to me that she is struck by how much cases like this come with real stories of real people.

It reminded me of something another lawyer in another Pennsylvania ACLU case told me years ago.

Eric Rothschild, lead plaintiffs' attorney in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case was hit with a similar observation while watching the testimony of parents standing up for their children's religious freedom.

What he and Clarke understand is that these are not just arguments to be debated and dissected by legal minds and (manipulated for political gain), but cases with very real consequences for people in small towns and cities across the state, from the young and the old, the financially comfortable and the poor.

Today's testimony from four plaintiffs, Tia Sutter, Danny Rosa, Joyce Block and Bea Bookler, provided poignant stories from many of those cross sections. 

Sutter, a former attorney who worked as a Philadelphia assistant district attorney for more than 10 years, is a registered voter who had tried for years to get photo ID.  

Sutter, 61, doesn't drive and her only photo ID is from when she was a college student in 1978. Her Social Security card is under the name Tia Sutter. Her New York-state birth certificate is under the name Christine Sutter. She has been told that she cannot get a state issued ID because her names don't match. "I thought I knew my legal name," she said. "I'm not sure anymore." To change her name on her SS card, she was told she would need a court order, which would cost $400 and would take months.

"My roots and my future are all in Pennsylvania," Sutter said, choking up with emotion. "It's hurtful to me that this is now a question of 'papers please.' If your papers aren't in order, you can't vote." 

Danny Rosa, 63, of West Chester is the son of a Puerto Rican woman and was born in New York. He doesn't know why his birth certificate identifies him as Danny Guerra, his grandmother's maiden name. But since he was a boy, he has always gone by the surname Rosa, the name of his stepfather who raised him. Rosa was the name on his night school diploma and it was the name on his Air Force honorable discharge certificate, which hangs on a wall in his living room.

"You're proud of that?" plaintiffs' attorney Marian Schneider asked him. "I am proud," he said. "It's about the only thing I ever completed."

A regular voter, he wanted to comply with the new law. So he spent the better part of a day gathering his paperwork and making two trips to the local PennDOT driver's license center where he waited about an hour each time. (He doesn't drive and had to get a ride.) "I showed him (the technician) my birth certificate and he told me my name's no good," Rosa said.

"I served in the service for four years," Rosa said. "I don't do it (vote) just for kicks. It means something special to me. I think it should be important for everybody."

Because the next two plaintiffs were not physically able to make the trip from their homes to Harrisburg, their video depositions were played in court in lieu of testimony.

Joyce Block, 89, was born in Brooklyn, the daughter of vaudevillians.  She married in the 1940s. She is Jewish and her marriage certificate is in Hebrew. Her Social Security card and her birth certificate are in her maiden name, "Joyce Altman." She never got a driver's license "because I felt everyone was safer without me on the road."

Since registering to vote when she was 21 - she voted for FDR - she has not missed an election. In 2010, ill and in the hospital, she was determined she was not going to miss the election and refused to vote by absentee ballot. "I wanted to make sure I voted," she said. "And I carried and carried on until they let me take a wheelchair and I voted."

When she heard about the new law, she had her granddaughter take her to the PennDOT center. She was told that because her Social Security card and birth certificate were in her maiden name, she could not get photo ID. She showed the technician her marriage certificate. He said he couldn't read Hebrew.

Block has a large family and a great support system. She is politically active and complained to her state senator, who called PennDOT. When she returned the next time to the center, there were no problems. But she agreed to be a plaintiff because she wants to make sure that others without such a support system are not disenfranchised. 

Bea Bookler, 94, was born one year before the ratification of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing American women the right to vote. 

Today, she seldom leaves her room at the Devon Senior Living Center. She spends her days reading and watching television.The only times she goes out anymore are on rare and special occasions, when her daughter will take her out for lunch. Also, she goes out twice a year to the election polls, which are next door to her home.  Bookler is unsteady and shakes during her testimony and says it's just too hard to get around anymore.

Over the years, she has lost her Social Security card and her birth and marriage certificates. While she could sign a form attesting that she has no identification and be granted a special ID used solely for voting, it would still take a trip to PennDOT, something she is physically unable to do.

"It's too hard," she said. "You can see I'm not exactly mobile. I get dizzy and shaky."

During her testimony, Bookler was asked why, if it's so hard, she bothers to go to the polls. The question seemed to confuse her. "I would never not vote," she said.

"How proud I am to live in a country is a real democracy. And anything that prevents people from voting is taking away our democracy.

"Democracy is only real if we all participate."

The trial before Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson will resume tomorrow at 9 a.m. Commonwealth Secretary Carol Aichele is scheduled to testify.

--Lauri Lebo, ACLU of Pennsylvania board member

Voter ID Trial Day 4: State really has no idea how many are without valid voter ID

The voter ID trial began its second week with a review of just how many voters would be barred from the ballot booth in November.

Jonathan Marks, commissioner for the Department of State's Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation, was the first to testify today. 

But Marks, who had previously served as Division Chief for the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE), admitted that he doesn't really know the number of people who could be kept from voting this fall.

Initially, the Department of State said only 89,000 voters would need a new ID for voting. But after comparing Department of Transportation numbers with the SURE database, officials said in June that the number was actually 759,000.

Now they're saying they don't really know how many people are being impacted.

Plaintiffs' attorney David Gersch of the Arnold & Porter law firm asked Marks whether the 759,000 number includes at least another 600,000 people identified in the comparison study with expired IDs, or who may have filed inaccurate information. Marks said it didn't. So, according to the state's own study, more than a million people could be impacted. 

To be more precise, 1.5 million.

Even though he couldn't provide a number, Marks said he doesn't think the number is that high. The reason he doesn't think so is because after his department sent letters to the 759,000 voters, many people called and wrote letters that they did indeed have the proper ID.

On redirect, Gersch asked him to identify how many people called and wrote letters. 

"It’s not going to fill up Beaver Stadium, probably a couple of hundred," Marks said.

As for the other more than 600,000 people, they have not yet been notified that there is a discrepancy between their voter registration and their state-issued identification. Marks said the department plans to send them letters at the same time they send letters to the rest of the public - sometime later this summer.

Earlier in the testimony, in a convoluted back-and-forth which I couldn't really follow, Marks described how the state would confirm the voter eligibility of a woman trying to get a state-issued photo ID whose voter registration was under her married name, let's say Sally Smith, but her social security card was under her maiden name, say Sally Johnson. Basically, the PennDOT technician would hand Sally Smith Johnson a 1-800-number for the Bureau of Elections, where someone would be in charge of finding out if Sally Smith is indeed who she says she is. 

But it was very unclear how that would happen exactly.

In concluding his direct, Gersch asked Marks if part of his mission is to make sure that every eligible voter is able to vote. Marks agreed that it was.

"So even if one eligible voter can't vote on Nov. 6, that would be a bad day?" Gersch asked.

"Yes," Marks said.

"And if a registered voter cannot vote because PennDOT doesn't get the word out, that would be a bad day?" Gersch asked.

"Yes," Marks said.

"And if the Department of State gets the word out but the word is sufficiently confusing, that would be a bad day?" Gersch asked.

"Yes," Marks said.

"And if a registered voter can't get a PennDOT ID in order to vote, that would be a bad day?" Gersch asked.

"Yes," Marks said.

So let's review.

The state cannot identify even a single instance in which a person voted improperly in Pennsylvania because they were able to impersonate someone else at the polling place. 

The state's own research shows that 1.5 million Pennsylvanians could be at risk of being unable to have their vote counted in the General Election because they lack the proper ID.

Nov. 6 could be a very bad day.

--Lauri Lebo, ACLU of Pennsylvania board member

Voter ID Trial Day 3: The Courage to Stand Up Against Voter ID

Voter ID plaintiff Asher Schor (center)

Day 3 of the voter ID trial today featured eight witnesses from diverse backgrounds and experiences, including a county official, two state officials, and a public interest attorney. While these witnesses provide important context and density to the case against voter ID, the most compelling stories continue to come from those witnesses in challenging circumstances. Today’s hearing included a woman whose birth state has no record of her birth, a teenager with autism, and a young transgender man who worries about the impact of voter ID on his community.

Taylor Floria and Asher Schor knew exactly what they were doing when they agreed to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs. In testimony, both young men made clear that they care about this issue because of the impact it will have on their respective communities.

Taylor is 19 and lives in Chester County. He just registered to vote and is excited to vote for the first time. Taylor also has autism. Before the voter ID law, he would be able to vote in November’s election. If the voter ID law is not overturned, he will lose the chance to cast his first ballot.

Unlike previous witnesses, Taylor has all of the documents he needs to get a non-driving ID- a birth certificate, a Social Security card, and proof of residency. But Taylor has difficulty with excessive stimulation. Riding in a vehicle also wears him out and gives him motion sickness due to a physical condition. The nearest PennDOT drivers license center is nearly an hour from his home. If the car ride doesn’t wear him down, Taylor then must deal with the disorder of the license center. His autism makes it difficult or just plain impossible to handle the noise, the lack of decorum, the lighting, and other stimulation at the center.

Taylor’s mother, Sandra Carroll, testified that Taylor would probably be mute by the time he got to the clerk. In fact, he tried once to get an ID but had to leave the center before he could get it.

So how did he get to Harrisburg and how was he able to testify in a courtroom? Marian Schneider of Advancement Project asked him this question in direct questioning. Taylor testified that he and his mother traveled to Harrisburg yesterday so that he could have a day and a night to recuperate from the drive. He also said that the order of the courtroom- the decorum in how people dress, the quiet, the order that stems from the judge’s presence- enabled him to testify. That kind of order and decorum does not exist in a PennDOT license center.

Taylor, who earns straight As at the cyber school and technical school he attends, told the court that he chose to testify because he wanted “to explain how it’s difficult for me and for people like me.” He added, “I hope to advocate for them.”

Asher Schor, meanwhile, has a driver’s license from PennDOT. The problem? Asher is transgender. His license photo shows his appearance before he started his gender transition, and the gender marker is female. Asher started testosterone treatments last November, which he testified has given him facial hair, altered his facial structure, and redistributed his body fat.

If the voter ID law is implemented, Asher worries that he and other transgender Pennsylvanians will lose the vote at the hands of a poll worker who won’t accept his ID. As a legal assistant for a prisoner advocacy group, Asher recently endured an experience with a U.S. marshall at the federal courthouse. The marshall became “shorter” with Asher when he presented his ID, refused to allow him to take in his laptop, and questioned him about his name.

Gloria Cuttino, one of our clients, testified between Taylor and Asher. Gloria does not have a PennDOT ID and has tried for more than a year to get one. South Carolina, Gloria’s birth state, has no record of her birth. According to testimony offered later by Michele Levy, an attorney with the Homeless Advocacy Project, South Carolina is one state that does not allow a third party, such as a relative or an attorney, to sign on behalf of a person without ID.

Gloria registered to vote in 2008, has voted in elections since then, and is eager to vote this year.

Today’s recap will be broken into two parts. Transcripts from each day’s proceedings are available at this link, as they become available.