well the ruling was 4-2 so even with the 7th judge, who didn't sit because he is under incitement for corruption, the result would have been the same. so there is that.

Mike, I usually find you to be a point of levity. However, this law is a large change relative to current practices. It is true that there were 7 months to prepare - and perhaps more. I recall when I voted in the primary that there were guides related to the new law - so notice was provided.

The issue with "disenfranchisement" has more to do with how long it took the state to roll out alternative methods other than a driver's license. While the state has always offered personal ID cards, there was a fee associated. To avoid the appearance of a poll tax, the state had to find a way to issue free IDs - and that was only rolled out 5 weeks ago.

So it is true, people had notification 7 months ago. However, a mechanism was not in place until 5 weeks ago that did not equate to a poll tax.

In the end, this ruling is the prudent thing to do. Now it is time for our legislature to get the law right and roll it out properly. The voter IDs cleared one hurdle. We should have effective legislation for our next round of elections.

a) not for free, which is required by the 24th Amendment - they have only been available since the last few days of August
b) you seem to be confused - it was a finding of 'no in-person voter fraud' earlier this year. Today Judge Simpson said: "I am not still convinced in my predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth's implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election."

@morgan - most people, including proponents of the law, don't (didn't) realize that the voter ID law didn't even require an ID to validate a provisional vote. All you had to do is sign an affadavit that you don't have anacceptable ID to validate your provisional ballot. Read the original law and the affadavit and you will find that this is true. I wonder if the judges understood this, since many people claim you had to be indigent for this to apply, but that is not true.

The law states:
"IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY THE ELECTOR SHALL BE PERMITTED TO CAST A PROVISIONAL BALLOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION (A.4):
(1) THE ELECTOR IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION:
(I) ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ELECTOR IS INDIGENT AND UNABLE TO OBTAIN PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF A FEE; OR
(II) ON ANY OTHER GROUNDS."

The operative word is "OR" and "ANY OTHER GROUNDS" means anything, including you couldn't or didn't take the time to get the ID.

Morgan: I did misread Simpson's cop out statement,

Regardless, the law cannot disenfranchise anyone. Voters were the ones who would self-disenfranchise by refusing to apply for the myriad IDs offered from the Dept of State all the way down to Josh Shapiro's MontCo Printing Office!

The fact that only 12,000 IDs were issued since March, reflects a general disregard and refusal to comply with the law's requirements, not any difficulty in getting an ID. If Mrs. Applewhite was able to get an ID, anyone who showed a fraction of her persistence could as well.

Joe G. then why is this law needed? Think about why the law is needed. it adds an additional layer of proving your identification.

Cashing a check is a privilege, Voting is a constitutional right, with both PA and US. BIG difference in a democracy. And remember, we're talking about folks who are already legally registered to vote, already on the voter rolls, and their name and signature will be on the signature form that they have to sign to attest that they are the voter. That's what's the big deal, and what this law intended to do was make already legally registered voters jump through extra hoops to exercise the right that they had already been certified they had the right to exercise. And the implementation, bluntly, was so messed up that it continued to be changed, and clearly wasn't working. That's the issue. Ironically, I remember well members of congress celebrating elections in Iraq with thumbs dipped in ink, why that form of guaranteeing one vote wasn't good enough here as it was in the elections run by the provisional authority we ran in Iraq. Except maybe there was an interest in making our votes as difficult as possible, in order to effect the election, while the objective in Iraq was to make it as easy. Don't know why I would have that impression, except maybe for candid comments by legislators who passed the law.

There wasn't a need to pass it in 2011, because there wasn't an issue then with voter fraud. Oh wait, there isn't one now? So why did Tom Corbett need to rush this through after 2 months in office? For the sole purpose of making it more difficult for some people to vote. The elderly, minorities & the infirm. You know, people who tend to vote Democrat.

No, the case on the long term constitutionality of the law will be heard in court starting in December. So you can't say the law will be in place in the future. This injunction placed it on hold but made no long term determination.

I predict that if the politicians don't drop the issue of voter ID, the same people will be whining about its "unreasonable requirements" and disenfranchised grannies next year, in 2016, in 2044 ...

Nobody wants to disenfranchise anyone. Except possibly dead people. Proponents of the law have asked for examples of people it would supposedly disenfranchise and have personally offered to help them get the necessary ID. Requiring a photo ID is no more unreasonable a requirement than requiring someone to register to vote in the first place.

You also used to be able to buy a gun on demand; drive a car when you were big enough to reach the pedals; own slaves; deny women the vote; etc., etc., etc.

Situations change and laws are made to adapt. Over thirty states have voter ID requirements. Some dating back to the 1990s. This isn't something new.

Agreed... So let's find a responsible, well-planned way to fix the system, rather than try for a rushed, eleventh-hour job every election year.

We still have voter registration cards, this was adding another layer of need without the provisions to make sure it could be implemented in a timely basis and not disenfranchise voters. More on point, someone holding a valid voter registration card might no longer have a vote. And it does nothing for absentee voting, where the ability to game the system is much more possible. The commonwealth stipulated there was no evidence of the things you say this law was meant to prevent - if you have evidence of "confirmed reports" based on court cases (ie evidence of the law being broken, not "reports" - something the commonwealth stipulated did not exist - please present it. There's also no constitutional right to Sudafed. Nor is there any "personal responsibility test" in either the US or PA constitutions when it comes to voting. Once you are of legal age, with few restrictions, it's a right. Period.

Interesting report - but it is factually based, so I suspect that makes it suspect. Thanks for the link.

Really Mildred? You should have no probelm providing links to any video of those interviews if they actually occured.