Pennsylvania voter ID law should remain unconstitutional

On Jan. 18, 2014, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley struck down Pennsylvania’s voter ID law, which mandates that constituents present a state-issued or state-recognized photo ID in order to vote.

In today’s world, such a requirement seems completely reasonable. After all, photo identification is a means to verify legitimacy in countless situations, such as entering a Pitt dormitory, driving a car or viewing an R-rated movie.

Isn’t it time that voting precincts enforce similar measures to prove validity? Actually, it’s not.

Article VII of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is titled “Elections” and consists of 14 sections. These provisions guarantee citizens the fundamental right of any true representative democracy: the right to vote.

Unjustifiably restricting that right is not only unconstitutional, but an abridgement of freedom altogether. There is a role for government, without a doubt. Government has the ability to successfully promote liberty and justice. However, action must be taken with caution. Such liberty and justice can only come about when governmental actions are justified and aimed toward a particular and existent problem.

The Pennsylvania voter ID law does not justify its intent because the problem that it supposedly helps to fix does not exist.

According to a 2012 court filing by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania,” nor did it have any “personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

Therefore, the commonwealth indirectly exposed that ulterior motives, rather than pure legislative efficacy toward a nonexistent problem, was behind the law’s conception. In 2012, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai ignited controversy when he remarked that the new voter ID law would “allow Gov. [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”

Why would simply having to obtain a state-issued ID tilt the state toward the right?

The answer to this question relates directly to the restriction of constitutional voting rights mentioned above.

It is estimated that the law would have kept 750,000 Pennsylvanians from voting — most of whom were expected to vote Democrat. This act of disenfranchisement, justified on the basis of an imaginary problem, clearly contrasts the commonwealth’s constitutional duty to promote voting accessibility. McGinley concurred, writing “disenfranchising voters through no fault of the voter himself is plainly unconstitutional.”

The role of government, whether local, state or national, should not be to restrict rights, but to protect them. The Pennsylvania voter ID law contributes to the former rather than to the latter.

Most of the 750,000 would-be disenfranchised voters are urban poor, elderly and disabled individuals without adequate access to state-issued or state-recognized IDs.

Additionally, requiring an abundance of state-issued IDs for a baseless initiative proves contradictory to the call for limited government. Sweeping legislation that mandates large government involvement in an unnecessary matter does little except expand bureaucracy, which has already grown enormously — a problem to which both sides of the aisle have contributed.

Thankfully, it appears that McGinley also found the burdensome nature of the law problematic, stating that “the provisions of the voter ID law … unnecessarily burden the hundreds of thousands of electors who lack compliant photo ID.” The fight over the law will surely continue and be appealed to a higher court.

McGinley’s ruling should be hailed as prudent and reasonable by all those seeking to protect freedom, limit bureaucracy and limit government involvement to real matters, not made-up ones.

As enjoyable and worthwhile as driving a vehicle and watching “Wolf of Wall Street” are, these activities are not constitutionally protected by the commonwealth in which we live. But, the right to vote is.

This nation should be one of the people, by the people and for the people — regardless of one’s race, creed, political affiliation, socioeconomic status or whether one does or does not have a state-issued or state-recognized photo ID — and the protection of the vote should not be subject to discrimination through any unjustifiable action.

As residents of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as citizens of the United States of America and as advocates of freedom, democracy and equality, it is our duty and responsibility to protect the voices that may only be heard through the casting of their ballots. True freedom exists only when extended to every citizen, and in order to promote liberty and justice, we must never forget to preserve the unalienable rights ensured not to some, but to all.

Write Matt at mrb111@pitt.edu.