In a victory for Pennsylvania voters, a state judge today halted the enforcement of the state’s voter ID law, which threatened to disenfranchise thousands of elderly residents, students, the homeless and communities of color this November.
Judge Robert Simpson Jr. that he was “not convinced” that the requirement to show photo ID at polling stations would not lead to voter disenfranchisement, as the state had argued.
One of several organizations challenging the law, the ACLU of Pennsylvania represented numerous Pennsylvania voters who had difficulty obtaining photo ID. Among them was Viviette Applewhite, a 93-year-old African-American woman who once marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. and has voted in nearly every election for the last 60 years. She had tried unsuccessfully for years to obtain a state-issued photo ID after her purse was stolen.
Judge Simpson did not strike down the law, but instead delayed its implementation until after the November 6 election. Voters can still be asked for photo ID, but those without it will be allowed to vote without restriction. These voters will also receive information about the law and how to get approved ID.
Previously, under the law voters who lacked ID would have been given a provisional ballot and would then have six days in which to produce an acceptable ID in order for their vote to be counted. Simpson maintained the risk of disenfranchisement came when a voter could not produce an acceptable ID in time.
“[Lawmakers] explained that during the first elections after its passage, an otherwise qualified elector who does not provide proof of identification may cast a ballot that shall be counted without the necessity of casting a provisional ballot,” Simpson wrote in his 18-page decision.
Vic Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania legal director and one of the lawyers who handled the two trials, hailed the decision.
"Pennsylvanians voted without problems and without any hint of impersonation voter fraud before the ID law, so it’s a great day for democracy that all eligible electors, including people who may not have the right kind of ID, will again be able to exercise this most precious of rights. "
In the news:
Learn more about voter suppression: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”