Young Lawyer Editorial Board

Voter ID Law Infringes on Fundamental Rights of Citizens

, The Legal Intelligencer

   | 4 Comments

The recently enacted Pennsylvania voter ID law has been an important issue this election season. The law requires that all eligible voters show photo identification issued by a government agency or a specifically enumerated list of other institutions, such as colleges and nursing homes.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Jeff Spangler

    I'll attend training on Saturday for Judges of Election in York County, not because I will serve as a Judge (or Chief) but because I'm so interested in how the Commonwealth will flow down the essence of Judge Simpson's ruling to County Boards of Election. I'm not nearly as hopeful for clear and accurate guidance here as I was in Arlington County, Virginia, where the election process is highly disciplined and a model for other states and nations.

  • TFCFM

    (Just realized that my second point didn't make much sense as written. Here's a corrected, hopefully-more-comprehendible version)

    >YL Editorial Board>Opponents of the voter ID law argue that voting is a fundamental right in our democracy and that any attempt to limit the right to vote by enacting unnecessary requirements is an unacceptable infringement.

    Most, if not all, supporters of the voter ID law agree that voting is a fundamental right, but believe that any attempt to preserve the ability of an individual to vote multiple times (by pretending to be one or more other individuals) is an equally unacceptable infringement of that right.

  • Ron Katzman

    With the law being suspended, the right to vote of those in the grave is continued - it seems no one is concerned about that.

  • TFCFM

    I find it troubling that the primary objection stated in the piece (once it is admitted that the issue of timing of the law's implementation has been substantially mooted by the recent court decision delaying its implementation past the current election cycle) is that the authors object to what they believe the legislators who drafted the law *were thinking* as they drafted it.



    >Opponents of the voter ID law argue that voting is a fundamental right in our democracy and that any attempt to limit the right to vote by enacting unnecessary requirements is an unacceptable infringement.<



    Most, if not all, opponents agree that voting is a fundamental right, and believe that any attempt to preserve the ability of an individual to vote multiple times (by pretending to be one or more other individuals) is an equally unacceptable infringement of that right.





Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202576240873

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.