You’ve Come a Long Way [Baby], But . . . .

by Carol Petraitis, Duvall Reproductive Rights Project Director

Women achieved the right to vote in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The women’s suffrage (right-to-vote) movement was first articulated at the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848. Some states never barred women from voting; others began removing the barrier. Before the 19^th Amendment a map of the country shows a distinctive geographic pattern -- the entire western portion of the U.S. plus Michigan and New York gave full suffrage to women, whereas the eastern seaboard from Pennsylvania to Florida allowed none. The middle portion of the country was somewhere in between.

Fast forward to 2012. State legislatures across the country are trying desperately to limit access to the right to vote by passing laws with onerous ID requirements. Pennsylvania is at the epicenter of that effort. The ACLU-PA, along with several ally organizations, is currently challenging the law’s constitutionality in state court. The vast majority of our clients are women, which is not a coincidence.

For a variety of reasons, women – in addition to people of color, low-income individuals, and young people – are particularly affected by voter ID laws. Women often change their names because of marriage or divorce, resulting in names that don’t match voter registration records. Women who have changed their names also need additional documentation, such as a marriage license, to obtain PennDOT ID.

Around the country there are possibly hundreds of thousands of women whose participation in the electoral process is threatened. We’ve come a long way -- but as we celebrate Women’s History Month, let us be aware that the rights of women to participate fully remain fragile.

This post is part of a series for Women’s History Month.

Not all poll workers got the message that voter ID law wasn't in effect for this election

“No ID? No vote!” These were the words that Fern Leard heard when she tried to vote last Tuesday in Lackawanna County. The voter ID law had been suspended for this election, but it seems someone had neglected to inform her precinct’s poll workers.

Or perhaps they were just confused. Under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, any first-time voter at a precinct needs to present ID. Fern was indeed a first-time voter at that precinct, but the list of allowed ID’s under HAVA is much more expansive than the ID’s deemed acceptable by the state’s voter ID law, and includes a variety of photo and non-photo IDs. 

So Fern had brought her voter registration card, but after presenting it was told she could not vote because it was not photo ID. Her protests fell on deaf ears, as did her request for a provisional ballot, which, under both the PA voter ID law and HAVA, is to be provided to any voter without ID. Instead, she was shown the door.

She wasn’t the only one. On November 6, the Election Protection 866-OUR-VOTE hotline phones were ringing off the hook. In the hotline command centers around the state, staffed by the ACLU and several other ally organizations, reports came in from hundreds of individual citizens and poll monitors all over the state that voters were being turned away at the polls or forced to use provisional ballots because they did not have ID. No sooner would the claim be filed and a lawyer dispatched to address it, the phone put down, then it would ring again with a new complaint.

Marcia Hatchett of Delaware County called the hotline when poll workers at her precinct told her ID would be required and her college ID was not sufficient. The first poll worker Marcia encountered made this claim. Then, as if the woman’s left-brain didn’t know what her right-brain was doing, she handed Marcia a flyer that contained a list of acceptable ID’s, and there on the list was “college ID”.

The voter ID law would have in fact accepted a student ID from any state-accredited institute of higher learning as long as it had an expiration date. Marcia’s did. The HAVA for first-time voters at a precinct also include student ID.

But this was irrelevant, as the state voter ID law was not in effect, and Marcia was not a first-time voter at the precinct. She pointed this out to two other poll workers, demanding they allow her access to a voting machine as well as an apology for trying to deny her right to vote. Instead, she was shown the door. “You need to leave,” she was told by a poll worker pointing an accusatory finger at her.

Marcia called the Election Protection hotline, which encouraged her to return and try again. The second time around a poll worker told her she was in the poll book as a first-time voter and would have to show photo ID – a misstatement of the federal law. Marcia reminded them she had voted at this precinct in every recent election, but they refused to allow her in without photo ID. “Do you want to vote?” they repeatedly asked of her, as if her failure to passively comply with their unlawful requirements was what stood between her and the voting booth. Determined to cast a ballot no matter what, she showed her driver’s license, only to be refused admittance because the address did not match the one on her registration – another miscarriage of the law, which only requires a current address on the non-photo ID’s of first-time voters.

Eventually Marcia’s protests wore them down and she was allowed to vote. The same was true of Melissa Hobday Motley, who was only permitted access to a Montgomery County voting machine after she started to video the poll workers who were denying her entrance.

Melissa had been voting at that precinct for 10 years but had recently changed the name on her voter registration to match her official ID in order to comply with the PA voter ID law. The law, if it goes back into effect, will require all voters to have a state photo ID with a name that is closely matches the name on their voter registration. This is a particular issue for women who have changed their names due to marriage or divorce.

Although Melissa had added her husband’s name after her maiden name on her voter registration, the update was not listed in the poll book. Instead, there was a star next to her name and she was being required to show ID, which she had not brought because she knew the voter ID law was suspended. She said she saw stars next to many names.

Anecdotal reports from voter and poll monitors indicate that many people were incorrectly categorized as first-time voters at their polls this year.

“What is the role of the government and elections officials on election day? Isn’t it to facilitate voting – not obstruct it?” asked Fern. After being curtly told “No ID? No vote!” despite showing her voter registration card , it was a fair question. She was with her 17-month old twins, both of whom have health problems; her son was crying loudly. You’d understand if she had other things on her mind. But Fern’s anger about her difficulty voting three days ago was still palpable.

“I went back in there, and when the poll worker asked for ID again I took her picture. She asked `what was that for?’ and I told her `Because I think people should know what voter suppression looks like.’ Another poll worker, or maybe it was the judge of elections, came over at that point and corrected the woman and told her that a voter registration card was valid ID for first-time voters.” Fern was allowed to vote.

“They messed with the wrong person. I’m educated. I know my rights. But I have friends who told me similar stories. Think of all the people who didn’t know their rights and weren’t allowed to vote.”

--Emily Cleath, voter ID organizer, ACLU of Pennsylvania

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.

VOTER ID: PA Supreme Court Vacates decision, sends case back to lower court

The PA Supreme Court issued their ruling a couple of hours ago, and the question of the day has definitely been "what does this mean?" Rather than upholding or striking down the voter ID law, the Supreme Court has vacated the lower court's ruling against an injunction, and sent the case back down to Judge Simpson.

So what does this mean? It isn't a win, but we think it's a positive development.
Firstly, the Supreme Court's instructions shift the burden of proof from our plaintiffs to the state. This is significant. Secondly, it establishes a very high standard that the state must meet in order to uphold the voter ID law - a standard that, in our opinion, the state cannot meet. In reevaluating the case, the Supreme Court has instructed Judge Simpson to focus on two questions. If the answer to either of those questions is "no," the Supreme Court says Judge Simpson is obliged to issue an injunction against the voter ID law. Those two questions, with brief explanations:

1) Does the state of Pennsylvania's implementation of the voter ID law conform to the requirements the law set forth, particularly in the state's distribution of voter ID to eligible voters?

According to Act 18, the voter ID law, PennDOT is required to issue an ID at no cost to any registered voter who signs an oath that says he or she does not have the ID they require for voting purposes. No further requirements - such as showing a birth certificate or social security card - are required. The Supreme Court calls this "a liberal access standard." In court, the state's attorneys pointed out that PenDOT cannot, according to Homeland Security requirements, comply by this requirement. Instead, the state created the Department of State ID card, a new form of voter ID specifically intended for voting purposes. 

At the time Judge Simpson heard argument, the Department of State ID was merely theoretical. State officials detailed their plans to roll out the ID, but it was not yet in existence. Now, Judge Simpson will have the opportunity to look at the reality of that ID card and its distribution, along with the state's efforts to educate and inform the public, and decide whether the liberal access standard in Act 18 is being met. We do not believe it is.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated in their ruling that they are not satisfied with "a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials." In other words, it's no longer good enough for the state to testify about what they plan to do. They must demonstrate that what they are presently doing is enough to satisfy the requirements of Act 18.

2) Can Judge Simpson say, in his judgement, that no voters will be disenfranchised on Election Day?

In their ruling, the Supreme Court establishes as fact several points that have at various times been disputed: One, that voting is a fundamental right. This was something the state disputed in its argument. Two, that some number of eligible voters are at risk of being disenfranchised by this law. Three, that any number of disenfranchised voters represent harm to the electoral process. Their instruction to Judge Simpson is very clear, and sets a very high standard: If, in his judgement, there is doubt that voters may be disenfranchised, he is obliged to enjoin the law.

In his ruling, Judge Simpson did not hold voting to the standard of a fundamental right, and went so far as to point out that, if the standard were different, he may have ruled differently. The Supreme Court has clearly instructed him to apply a very high standard. If there is doubt, Judge Simpson must enjoin.

And is there doubt? Well, even by the State of Pennsylvania's lowest possible estimate, there are 100,000 registered voters without PennDOT ID. Our scientific figures put that at more than one million, but let's use the state's lowest estimate for the sake of argument. Since the state started giving out various forms of ID for voting purposes in March, they have distributed only 9,000 IDs. Since our trial, they have distributed roughly 6,000 - less than 1,000 per week. In order to reach the remaining 91,000 voters (again, that is a minimum estimate) PennDOT would need to increase that number to 13,000 IDs distributed per week.

The bottom line is that the burden is now on the state of Pennsylvania to show that they are meeting the ID requirements of the voter ID law, and to convince Judge Simpson that there will be no one disenfranchised by this law on Election Day. That is a very high standard, and not one we believe the government can meet.

Judge Simpson is instructed to issue a ruling on or before October 2. The Supreme Court also made clear that they are prepared to hear any further appeal to that decision, and that those rulings will also be expedited.

Voter ID: Reviewing the ruling, and our next steps.

UPDATE: Listen to Vic Walczak, ACLU-PA's Legal Director, talk about the voter ID case with Radio Times host Marty Moss-Coane.

It's been a little more than 24 hours since we learned that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled against us in our voter ID challenge. We're still smarting, but we're focused on the next step. There will definitely be an appeal to the PA Supreme Court. We are still analyzing Judge Simpson's 70+ page decision and developing our appeal strategy, but we have a good idea about at least some of our argument. Because of the short time-frame before the election, we will ask the Supreme Court to expedite their process. In the past, the PA Supreme Court has heard cases and issued rulings in as little as a month. We cannot, however, predict their response. We also won't speculate as to how they will rule.

In the day since Judge Simpson's decision there have been a lot of theories as to why he ruled the way he did, especially considering the mountain of a case we put before him. I won't get into all the theories and nuances, but here are a few key elements that will help you understand. It's a lot of legalese, but I'm not a lawyer either, so bear with me as I try to explain it:

1. Strict Scrutiny

When challenging an action of the government, there are three levels of "scrutiny" a court may apply: "strict scrutiny," "intermediate scrutiny," and "rational basis." This refers to the burden on the government to prove the need for a law, against an infringement on the rights of the people. Strict scrutiny puts the greatest burden on the government, and is usually applied in cases involving "fundamental rights," as the court defines them. In these cases the government must demonstrate that there is an urgent need for a law, to the point it's worth infringing on fundamental rights. The rational basis test, at the opposite end of the spectrum, is applied when government action does not infringing on key rights, and puts the burden on the challenger (rather than the government) to prove why a law is harmful. Intermediate scrutiny is somewhere in between, and is applied when (as the law defines them) "important" rights are on the line.

We argued that the right to vote represents a fundamental right, and that with somewhere between 100,000 and 1.5 million Pennsylvanians disenfranchised as of today, the court should apply strict scrutiny. In other cases where voting rights cases have been filed in state courts (including in Missouri, where the state constitution's protection for voting is very similar to Pennsylvania's), courts have applied strict scrutiny. Judge Simpson disagreed with our position, and said that he did not believe strict scrutiny was necessary. He went so far as to say in his decision that, if different scrutiny were applied, he might have come to a different conclusion. 

This is something we have the opportunity to challenge before the PA Supreme Court. If that court agrees with us that strict scrutiny should have been applied, it may be our best opportunity at a win. We are not aware of any court in the United States that has ever held the right to vote to as low a standard as this ruling.

2. Facial vs. As-Applied Challenges

Since no voter has yet been turned away from the polls, it's not possible for us to challenge the voter ID law "as applied." Instead, we were filing a "facial" challenge, arguing that the PA voter ID law violates the PA Constitution by its nature (in other words, that there is no way the law as written could be enforced in a way that is constitutional). Judge Simpson disagreed. In his ruling, he suggests that an as-applied challenge would be better--meaning that individuals should try to vote on Election Day, and if they are turned away inappropriately, they can sue.

You can draw your own conclusions as to whether that's a viable way to defend one's right to vote. We certainly don't think so.

3. State vs Federal Court

In his decision, Judge Simpson referred to Crawford v Marion County Election Board, a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the state of Indiana's voter ID law. We find this a bit strange, and don't think Crawford has any bearing on our case. We filed our challenge in Pennsylvania state court, arguing that the voter ID law violates the Pennsylvania constitution's protection of voting rights, which is stronger than that provided by the U.S. Constitution. The PA Supreme Court is the highest authority on the state constitution, and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling really shouldn't have any bearing. In our opinion, there are cases in other states--including Wisconsin and Missouri, both of which saw their voter ID laws suspended or struck down--that are much more appropriate comparisons. Not that those rulings apply in Pennsylvania, but the circumstances--including the wording of the state constitutions and the voter ID laws in question--were very similar.

4. Preliminary vs Permanent Injunctions

What we requested of Judge Simpson, which he declined, was a preliminary injunction suspending PA's voter ID law. A preliminary injunction is essentially a temporary hold on a law, to prevent any likely negative consequences while a more in-depth legal challenge is argued. Even though we lost, we can still go back after the election for a permanent injunction. At that point we would be able to show the actual, real-world impact of the voter ID law - but of course a lot of the damage will already have been done.

5. The State Supreme Court

As I said above, there will definitely be an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. As to how they will rule, we cannot speculate - but there are two important things you should understand about this appeal.

a) The Supreme Court will rule on the law, not on the facts. It's up to the trial court (in this case, Judge Simpson) to decide what the facts of the case are. The "facts" include what impact the law is likely to have, how many people are affected, what the state is planning between now and the election, what they have done so far, etc. 

Appeals courts rarely dispute the lower court's findings of fact. If Judge Simpson's findings of fact were dramatically contrary to the evidence presented, that would be the one possible exception. Instead, the appeals court will decide whether Judge Simpson correctly applied the law - for example, did he apply the correct level of scrutiny, was he correct in recommending an as-applied challenge rather than a facial challenge, and so on. 

We are a bit frustrated by Judge Simpson's findings of fact, particularly with the way he dismissed the testimony of our experts, with no expert testimony to counter them. We will not, however, be introducing any new evidence or testimony to the Supreme Court. Instead, we will focus on application of the law.

b) The Supreme Court currently has six judges. Normally the court has seven judges, so a tie is impossible. But one of the judges was removed by her colleagues because she is facing criminal charges, and so the court currently has only six members hearing cases. In a 3-3 tie, Judge Simpson's decision will stand. 

Historically, it is rare for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to overturn Commonwealth Court decisions. We do, however, believe that we have a strong argument, particularly on scrutiny. Keep your fingers crossed.

BREAKING: Judge upholds PA voter ID law

This morning we got word that Judge Simpson, of the PA Commonwealth Court, denied our petition for injunctive relief against Pennsylvania's voter suppression ID law. In plain English, that means voter ID stands. We are still reviewing the decision at present, but we'll try to provide a layman's explanation of the judge's ruling as soon as we can.

In the meantime, you can read the full decision here.

This fight is not over. All along we've expected an appeal to the state Supreme Court - we just didn't know if we'd be defending or appealing. Thanks to our partner organizations, to all of our members and donors who have provided the funding that makes this fight possible, and of course to all of you for standing by us in the fight against voter suppression.

More later.

Voter ID Day 7: Summing it up

Field report from Reggie Shuford, ACLU-PA Executive Director.

 Today was closing arguments.  No new testimony from witnesses about the inability to get ID, fraud or the huge number of people who stand to be disenfranchised if the law is allowed to stand.  Just one lawyer from each side, summarizing the evidence that already has been presented and trying to persuade the judge why his respective side should win.  ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Vic Walzcak started the morning off for petitioners.  He began by graciously thanking Judge Simpson for allowing the parties to make their case, without unnecessary restrictions. Vic then thanked opposing counsel for their professionalism and for being worthy adversaries. He thanked co-counsel from Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, the Advancement Project and the Washington, DC, law firm Arnold & Porter LLP for the incredible work they did on the case.

After that, however, the gloves came off. Vic quickly got into the heart of things by explaining why the evidence presented over the course of the past week demonstrated the folly of the voter ID law, how it treats similarly situated people differently and threatens to disenfranchise roughly one million voters, and why the judge should issue an injunction to stop the law. Vic made five main points:

• First, the voter ID law is a solution in search of a problem. The whole basis for passing the law was ostensibly to prevent in-person fraud.  But there is no problem with fraud in the commonwealth, and the commonwealth itself stipulated to that. So, without fraud as a basis for the law, the question becomes, Why was the law enacted in the first place? There is certainly evidence of partisan gamesmanship (e.g., Mike Turzai), and the commonwealth has never been able to give a good reason, let alone a compelling or very important reason, which the law requires for interfering with a fundamental right like voting. Forced to admit that fraud is not a problem in Pennsylvania, the commonwealth changed horses mid-stream, ultimately arguing that the law is necessary to protect the integrity of the democratic process by modernizing elections and enhancing public confidence in them. 
• Second, a major part of the commonwealth’s argument was essentially, “What’s the big deal? Everybody has an ID.” It’s true that most people do have ID, but not everybody does and certainly not the limited forms of ID now required to vote in Pennsylvania.  Even using the commonwealth’s own numbers, at least 9% of Pennsylvanians don’t have valid ID, all told roughly one million people. And the burden falls disproportionately on the shoulders of the elderly, the young, minorities, women, and those without a lot of education or wealth.  Moreover, while ID is required in many aspects of modern life, as Patrick Cawley, counsel for the state argued, boarding a plane or buying beer is not a constitutional right, no matter how forcefully someone might argue to the contrary. In Pennsylvania, all that is required to vote is to be: (1) a citizen of the United States, (2) at least 18 years of age, and (3) a resident of Pennsylvania for at least 30 days. Requiring photo ID impermissibly adds another qualification to the Pennsylvania constitution.
• Vic next argued that, while the commonwealth has taken no meaningful steps to figure out just how many people will be disenfranchised if the law is allowed to stand, one can safely say that “a lot” of people will be. The commonwealth itself, more or less corroborated by expert testimony put on by petitioners, puts that number at close to a million people. It’s hard to see how the integrity of elections is enhanced when so many people threaten to be turned away at the polls in November.
• Vic’s next point was that not a single witness for the commonwealth could guarantee that those currently without proper ID, including many of the petitioners, will be able to vote on election day. Even the new, more streamlined ID from the Department of State would only reach a few thousand people. Well, what about the other 990,000 or so others without ID? Moreover, the new ID is skimpy on details and the date of its availability keeps changing, pushing it closer and closer to election day.  And it’s not automatically available. To get it, you have to jump through a number of hoops to show that you can’t get the original voter ID.
• Finally, Vic argued that the new law is going to result in absolute chaos on election day.  Testimony from trial indicated there will be longer lines and wait times, and arguments between election officials and those who won’t know until they get to the polling site that they don’t have the right ID, which is roughly 12% of eligible voters (or about one million people) in Pennsylvania.

On behalf of the commonwealth, Cawley’s argument can be summed up like so:  What’s the big deal? Most people have IDs. Sure, the law is burdensome on certain people, like the elderly and the disabled, but that’s essentially the price we pay for living in a democracy. While conventional wisdom is that voting is a fundamental right, it really isn’t.  And even though the commonwealth was forced to abandon its fraud argument, given the lack of any evidence of it whatsoever, it still could happen. Finally, nothing the commonwealth does or has tried to do to make getting voter ID easier will satisfy petitioners.

Actually, there is something: get rid of the stupid voter ID law.

Judge Simpson has promised a decision the week of August 13. Let’s hope he grants the injunction.

Independent study corroborates voter ID's disproportionate impact in Philadelphia

Tamara Manik-Perlman at Azavea compiled a great study of the disproportionate impact of voter ID in the Philadelphia region, using data provided by City Commissioner Stephanie Singer, the PA Department of State, and the 2010 Census. It's very much worth reading, and shows some interesting [read: disturbing] trends.


In particular, the geographic distribution of voters lacking ID is startling. The large purple splotch on the map above is the area around University City, known for high populations of college students and African Americans - two groups targeted for suppression by voter ID laws. The dark purple shows that, according to the Department of State's figures, sixty to eighty percent of voters in those districts may not have valid ID for voting.

Writes Manik-Perlman: 

The map makes clear that the spatial distribution of those who lack ID is non-random. Voters without ID are heavily concentrated around the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University in West Philadelphia, as well as parts of North, West and Southwest Philadelphia. The rates of voters without ID are relatively low in the Northeast, Northwest, Southeast and Center City.

Note that ACLU-PA had nothing to do with this study (in fact we only learned about it today, when Ms. Manik-Perlman tweeted it at us) and that, unlike most of the material we've been sharing in the last ten days, this study was not entered into evidence in our legal challenge against the voter ID law. 

VIDEOS: Voter ID Day 5 - The impact of voter ID

I had the opportunity on Tuesday to sit down with two of the witnesses who gave testimony. On the stand, both spoke to the impact voter ID has had on them, their organizations, or their communities, and expressed concern about the consequences if the law is allowed to stand.

First, I sat down with Steve Jarrell, an SEIU employee and decorated Air Force veteran, who took it upon himself to visit his local PennDOT office in July. Steve found PennDOT sorely unprepared, and in fact disseminating incorrect information about the new requirements. Here he is:

Later in the day I spoke with John Jordan of the NAACP of Pennsylvania. John's work with the NAACP puts him in touch with thousands of people who are impacted, and in his testimony he expressed (a) grave concern about the lack of awareness about the law, and (b) sincere doubt as to whether it's even possible to educate voters before the November election. Here, he describes how efforts to educate people about voter ID have taken resources away from voter registration and recruiting efforts.

Voter ID Day 5: "Clerical stumbling blocks"

Madeline Rawley, here with husband Bob, took it upon
herself to learn the details of voter ID - only to be rebuffed
at every step by the state government.

After Secretary Carol Aichele expressed her confidence in Pennsylvania's new voter ID requirements, a series of witnesses took the stand to share the difficulties they have experienced as a result of the law. First up was Lisa Gray of Chadds Ford, a voter since 1976 who was born in Germany to a father in military service. Ms. Gray suffers a psychological disability and as a result can neither work nor drive. She collects public benefits, and shared a residence with her mother - also her primary source of transportation - until her mother's recent death. Ms. Gray has neither a valid birth certificate, nor a social security card. Because she was born overseas, she must obtain a consular birth certificate through the US State Department, a process that will take months and cost her at least $50. Even if she had the proper documentation, with the recent death of her mother she doesn't know how she would get to PennDOT to obtain ID. She has access to Paratransit, but only for medical emergencies.

Asked why she thinks voting is important, Ms. Gray said it's "her chance to influence things that effect her as a citizen, and to make her voice heard." Asked by attorney Marian Schneider of the Advancement Project about voter ID, Ms. Gray called it an attempt to suppress the vote. "I am qualified and entitled, and other people have problems like me. We're being prevented from voting by clerical stumbling blocks."

If anyone can testify to clerical stumbling blocks, it's Madeline Rawley of Doylestown. A seven-year member of the League of Women Voters, Rawley took it upon herself to help her fellow seniors obtain the ID they need, and embarked on a months-long quest to find clear information about the state's new requirements. Rawley says voting is especially important to her, and that her mother - born in the era before American women could vote - worked as a Girl Scout on the women's suffrage movement, encouraging women to fight for their right. Rawley testified at length about the series of calls and visits she paid to the Department of State and to PennDOT, attempting to learn everything she could about the new state requirements. What she found was scattered, incomplete, and inconsistent. At one point, after a PA Department of State employee told her final information would not be available until late summer, she stated her concern about the short amount of time available for people to obtain their documentation. "That's not my fault," the official told her.

Rawley said that the League of Women Voters is eager to educate voters about what they need to cast their ballots - but they still can't get the proper information from the state. "Things just keep changing," she said.

Steve Jarrell of Chambersburg gave similar testimony. A four-year veteran of the US Air Force, Jarrell visited his local PennDOT office in July on a "dry run," to check their preparedness for questions about voter ID. Jarrell found no posters or literature available, aside from two photocopied sheets of paper tucked into a brochure rack. After waiting in line for 45 minutes after opening hours (despite arriving well before the office opened) he spoke with a PennDOT employee who told him, incorrectly, that free IDs were only available for people who had moved to Pennsylvania from out-of-state.

At least Jarrell got to speak with a PennDOT employee. Janice Horn, a librarian from Clarion County, visited her local PennDOT office only to learn that they had outsourced their ID process. Though the office was open five days a week, a PennDOT employee was on site only on Wednesdays. Asked for voter ID information, the contractor on site told her it was "not her responsibility" to provide that information, and advised her to come back on Wednesday. She did provide some information on paper, but only with a cautionary disclaimer that it wasn't really accurate.

John Jordan, Director of Civic Engagement for the Pennsylvania NAACP, spoke to the impact of voter ID on his organization. While the NAACP is a leader in voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns, Jordan testified that he is way behind on those efforts. Instead, his organization has been spending "30 to 50 hours a week" responding to the deluge of requests for voter ID information. "Theres a lot of confusion," Jordan testified, "owing to constant changes to the rules by the state." He said the NAACP has been forced to revise their voter ID literature five or six times, and that he still finds outdated information in circulation. For this reason, he believes, the introduction of a new ID form - yet another rule change by state authorities - will only create more confusion. Despite their investment in outreach and education, he testified that he is "not confident at all" that they can reach every registered voter before the November election.

What came through in the testimony of every witness was that, while this new law may be terrible at preventing fraud or protecting the rights of eligible voters, it is terrific at the thing it is designed for: suppressing votes. Jarrell, who has been a case worker for the Department of Public Welfare, remarked about the potential of using EBT ("food stamp") cards as valid ID. "It absolutely could be done," he said, and remarked on 2011 efforts by legislators to add photos to EBT cards to prevent fraud. When SEIU suggested photos on EBT cards so they could serve as voter ID, he says, those same legislators were opposed, citing "cost factors."

Jarrell says he's opposed to Pennsylvania's ID law, and he doesn't mince words. "It takes away your God-given right to vote as a citizen in this country." Jordan, meanwhile, bemoans the effect it's having on callers to his office. "Our education efforts are supposed to focus on issues and candidates, not on ID requirements," he said on the stand.  "But there's a lot of anger, a lot of anguish. People are registering because they're angry. They feel like they're being personally attacked."


Related: Voter ID Day 5: "There is no document."

Voter ID Day 5: "There is no document."

Day five of argument in ACLU-PA's voter ID lawsuit began with testimony from Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele, who expressed confidence in the new law, and concluded with a series of witnesses who called that confidence into question. Most testimony related to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's efforts (past, present, and future) to educate and accommodate the state's roughly 8 million eligible voters.

Aichele's demeanor was defiant under questioning from Arnold and Porter attorney David Gersh, rarely giving a direct answer to a question. Instead she questioned his wording - taking particular issue with the use of "a lot" as a quantifier - or used the time to explain some related area of the law, or the staff structure at the Pennsylvania Department of State. Above all, Aichele displayed resolute confidence in the Department of State's ability to work with PennDOT to educate and inform voters before the November election.

Aichele also remains confident in the Department of State's estimate that 99 percent of Pennsylvania's registered voters already possess valid PennDOT ID. This figure, circulated widely during the legislative debate process, has since been discredited by an independent survey (which estimated that same figure at roughly 84 percent) and by the Department of State's own research (which put the figure at approximately 91 percent). On July 16, Rebecca Oyler testified that she herself computed that figure, in less than 24 hours and with unanswered questions from PennDOT, and stated that she considers that figure incorrect. On the stand, Aichele said she "would disagree" with Oyler, and said the Department of State plans to serve roughly 100 thousand voters. In fact, with an estimated 1.3 million eligible voters disenfranchised (according to both the ACLU-PA's survey and to the Department of State's own recent calculations) Aichele said Pennsylvania has budgeted $1 million to provide free Voter IDs - enough for roughly 75,000 ID's.

With less than 100 days remaining before the election, Aichele's response to many questions was to plead ignorance. In fact, when Gersh pointed out that PennDOT offices in many Pennsylvania counties are open only once a week - leaving a mere 13 business days for voters in those counties to obtain ID - Aichele expressed ignorance to the amount of time remaining. Asked about the lack of a documented plan for the Department of State to educate voters, Aichele stated that the court did not have such a document because "there is no document." Asked about reports that PennDOT is requiring people to pay for IDs that are supposed to be free, Aichele said she has heard such reports, but has not verified them. She testified that while other staffers at the Department of State are coordinating with PennDOT, she herself is not working directly with the agency. She was unaware of PennDOT's predicted August 26 roll-out of the new Department of State ID - and when Gersh pointed out that a voter holding an expired driver's license is ineligible for a free ID, even if he or she is indigent, Aichele said it was the "first time she'd thought about that," and thanked Gersh for bringing it to her attention.

Secretary Aichele's definition of "a lot" was interesting. Early in Gersh's questioning, Aichele said that "a small percentage" of Pennsylvania's universities were in compliance with voter ID requirements - "fewer than we expected," in her words - but she pointedly refused to characterize this as "a lot" of colleges. Later in her testimony, she said that of the 750,000 voters who received letters to alert them that the state believed they lacked necessary ID, roughly 200 had written back to say they did have ID - a figure she characterized as "lots and lots."

Asked about federal funding for voter ID outreach, Aichele pointed out that the Help America Vote Act results in $5 million for Pennsylvania, which can be spent "to make sure every registered voter receives at least one piece of mail" alerting them to the new ID requirements. Asked how this funding would be spent if there were no voter ID law, she answered that it would fund voter registration and turnout efforts.

Despite all indications otherwise, Secretary Aichele testified that, based on her experience as Secretary of the Commonwealth, and her prior experience in county government, she does not believe the new voter ID requirements will lead to confusion or delays at the polls. To the contrary, she said, she believes it will help speed the process and avoid confusion. To illustrate this she cited her own experience, frequently needing to spell out her name for poll workers. By putting an ID in front of a poll worker, she said, there would be no confusion about the way a voter's name is spelled.


Related: Voter ID Day 5: Clerical Stumbling Blocks

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

Your Government: "Trust us to get it right on voter ID."

Along with the personal stories about people without ID, government officials took the stand today to discuss numerous angles to the voter ID law and its implementation.

The first witness of the day was Shannon Royer, Deputy Secretary of the Commonwealth. Mr. Royer’s responsibilities include overseeing the state’s bureau of elections. The department has a public education campaign planned that will include radio and television ads, robocalls and mailings to voters, mobile billboards, and ads on public transportation in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and the Lehigh Valley.

The deputy secretary admitted on the stand that the most intensive effort will occur after Labor Day, two months before the election.

Is that enough time for people without ID to get it? Not according to Michele Levy, managing attorney at the Homeless Advocacy Project. According to Ms. Levy, in her experience with helping homeless people get birth certificates, which is necessary to get a PennDOT ID, the timeline to get the birth certificate is 10-12 weeks to a year “to never.”

Royer also cited a Susquehanna Polling and Research poll from “May or June” that showed that 18 percent of people- or 1.4 million Pennsylvanians- did not know about the voter ID law. (He couched it as 82 percent of Pennsylvanians knew about the law.) Meanwhile, Dr. Barreto’s testimony from yesterday showed that a significant percentage of people who think they have an acceptable ID for voting actually do not.

Attorney Jennifer Clarke of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia showed a letter that was recently sent to voters who are not in the PennDOT database. The letter encouraged voters to get an ID and said, “If you have never had a Pennsylvania driver’s license or PennDOT photo ID, you may also need further documentation, such as a birth certificate, a Social Security card, and two proofs of residency.” (emphasis added)

Attorney Clarke pointed out that the documentation is not optional, as the letter suggests. It’s required.

Secretary Royer also testified that the original target date to begin issuing the department’s new voting ID was originally July 24. That date was pushed back to August 26.

Mark Wolosik, the elections division manager in Allegheny County, testified that the Department of State informed his office that 100,000 registered voters in the county do not appear in PennDOT’s database. Wolosik also noted that, in his 42 years in the division, the office has never referred a voter impersonation fraud case to the district attorney.

The final witness of the day was Kurt Myers, Deputy Secretary of PennDOT. Myers testified to his desire for the state driver’s license and the non-driving ID to be “secure” documents. Myers realized in the spring and informed administration officials that there would be voters who could not get a PennDOT ID due to the documentation requirements. That’s where the idea of a Department of State voting ID, issued by PennDOT, began.

Attorney David Gersch of Arnold & Porter used a map of Pennsylvania to illustrate that 32 counties have no license center or a center that is only open one or two days per week.

In a memo to the department’s legislative affairs staff in April, 2011, Myers stated that one negative of the voter ID bill was the potential impact on PennDOT staff that he characterized as “already taxed.” The department aims to have 99 percent of customers out the door within 30 minutes but that percentage is typically only in the high 80s.

Myers also said that 3,000 free non-driving IDs have been distributed since the law’s passage in March but did acknowledge, under questioning from Gersch, that there were problems in the early weeks in which PennDOT staff did not give IDs for free

Finally, although state and transportation plan to roll out the new voting ID on August 26, the vendor contracted for the job does not have a deadline of August 26, and the contract has no penalty for failing to complete the job by that date.

Everyone gets a break for the weekend. The court is adjourned until Monday at 10am.