



































35

THE RISE AND FALL OF 
PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER 

IDENTIFICATION LAW

max GuirGuis

Shepherd University

Enacted in the wake of election 2000, the Help America Vote Act of 
2002 (HAVA) mandated nationwide standards in the conduct of federal 
elections. Several states went beyond the statutory requirements of HAVA 
and passed legislation requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. 
Pennsylvania passed such a law in 2012, triggering a protracted legal battle 
in state courts that continued well after that year’s presidential election. 
Although the Commonwealth lost this fight because of noncompliance with 
the statutory guarantee of liberal access to voter ID cards, the law may yet 
be upheld should the appeal process be taken further.

The Nationwide Push for Strict Voter Identification

The debacle of the 2000 presidential election prompted a national 
debate over electoral reform. One of the notable policy consequences 
of that debate was the enactment of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 
(HAVA), which required the states to revamp their voter registration systems 
by implementing a “single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive 
computerized statewide voter registration list defined, maintained, and 
administered at the state level” (Help America Vote Act 2002, 42 USC 
§15483 (a)(1)(A)). Presumably to curb the potential for voter fraud and 
maintain a fair electoral system, another key provision of the Act required 
the states to verify the identity of individuals who registered by mail and had 
not previously voted in a federal election (Help America Vote Act 2002, 42 
USC §15483 (b)(2)(A)(i)(I)-(II)). To enhance electoral integrity beyond the 
minimum requirements of HAVA, some states began considering legislation 
to require all voters to show proof of their identity at the polls (Hale and 
Ramona 2010).



36

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

Indiana was a pioneer state in the introduction of strict photo 
identification laws. Approved in April 2005, Public Law 109-2005 required 
Indiana residents who cast their ballots in person to provide a current and 
valid photo identification (Senate Enrolled Act No. 483 2005, IC §3-11-
8-25.1). Exempt from the photo ID requirement were people confined to 
nursing homes (Senate Enrolled Act No. 483 2005, IC §3-11-8-25.1(e)) and 
registered voters who qualified for absentee voting under state law (Senate 
Enrolled Act No. 483 2005, IC §3-11-10-1.2). Voters who did not have an 
officially sanctioned form of ID, or who for religious reasons did not wish to 
have their picture taken, were allowed to cast provisional ballots and report 
to their county election office within ten days of the election to execute 
an affidavit affirming the applicable exemption in order for their ballots to 
count (Senate Enrolled Act No. 483 2005, IC §3-11.7-5-2.5). Additionally, 
any voter who could not afford to pay for an official state-issued photo ID 
would be issued one at no charge (Senate Enrolled Act No. 483 2005, IC 
§9-24-16-10). These facilitative provisions and exceptions, however, did not 
insulate the law from the legal challenges that soon followed.

A coalition of civil rights organizations, along with the Indiana 
Democratic Party, challenged the voter ID law. They contended that because 
of the paucity of voter fraud cases, the law unjustifiably and arbitrarily 
burdened the voting rights of many properly registered voters, especially 
indigent, elderly, and minority voters, in violation of the Equal Protection 
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the 
Southern District of Indiana upheld the Act, noting that the plaintiffs, who 
had the burden of proof, failed to introduce “evidence of a single, individual 
Indiana resident who will be unable to vote” or who is “unduly burdened” 
by the requirements of the Act (Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita 2006: 
783). A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 
affirmed, with a strong dissent by Judge Evans contending that the Indiana 
law was “a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout 
by certain folks believed to skew Democratic” (Indiana Democratic Party 
v. Rokita 2006: 954). This interpretation of the law’s intent was especially 
valid, he added, given that “no one—in the history of Indiana—had ever 
been charged with violating” the state’s election law (Indiana Democratic 
Party v. Rokita 2006: 955).

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ rulings 
in the test case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), which 
garnered the attention of many state legislatures. Upholding the law, a 
plurality of the Court acknowledged the legitimacy of the state’s interest 
not only in “deterring and detecting voter fraud” but also in “safeguarding 
voter confidence” and “participating in a nationwide effort to improve and 
modernize election procedures that have been criticized as antiquated and 



37

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

inefficient” (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 2008: 191). As to the 
argument that the law was intended to advantage Republicans at the expense 
of Democrats, the Court found that the law was “nondiscriminatory” and 
“supported by valid neutral justifications,” which “should not be disregarded 
simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the 
votes of individual legislators” (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 
2008: 204).

At the time it was passed, Indiana’s law was considered to be the 
strictest voter ID measure in the country. In upholding it, the Supreme Court 
rejected the contention that voter ID laws are subtle discriminatory devices 
akin to literacy tests, whose real purpose was to disfranchise rather than 
maintain an informed electorate. The Crawford ruling also established that 
voter photo ID laws are constitutionally sound so long as they are neutral 
on their face and in their application, even if they are deemed inconvenient 
by some voters or have the incidental effect of reducing voter turnout. 
Moreover, a state need not prove that voter fraud has already occurred to 
justify the burden that the photo ID requirement may place on potential 
voters (Schaffer and Wang 2009). The preservation of electoral integrity per 
se is a sufficient governmental interest to sustain the statute.

Though divided in its reasoning, the Court was united on the principle 
that voter ID laws are a valid exercise of a state’s police power to prevent 
fraud and govern elections. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Souter 
acknowledged “the legitimacy of interests on both sides” of the case, but he 
chided the plurality for not applying a balancing test to determine whether 
the state’s interest in structuring elections outweighed the burden the law 
imposed on voters’ rights (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 2008: 
210). Similarly, Justice Breyer “share[d] the general view of the lead opinion 
insofar as it holds that the Constitution does not automatically prohibit 
Indiana from enacting a photo ID requirement,” but he was disappointed 
by the plurality’s failure to apply a balancing test to the interests at issue 
(Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 2008: 238). The reasoning and 
language of these dissents show that the Court was split not so much over a 
state’s authority to require a photo ID to vote, as over the grounds on which 
it would uphold that requirement.

Encouraged by Crawford, other states began crafting their own photo 
identification programs. This trend gained significant momentum in the 
wake of the Republican tidal wave in the election of 2010 that gave the GOP 
control of more state legislatures. The new laws were generally patterned 
on Indiana’s. At the beginning of 2011, Indiana and Georgia were the only 
states requiring a government-issued photo ID card to vote; but within a year 
or so, the number had increased to sixteen (Hirschkorn 2012). Following the 
example of more than a dozen states, Pennsylvania passed its own voter 



38

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

identification law in March 2012, using Indiana’s framework as its model 
(Ariosto 2012). This move precipitated a protracted legal battle that began 
in the run-up to that year’s presidential election.

The Enactment of Pennsylvania’s Voter Identification Law

The Pennsylvania Voter Identification Protection Act1 had its origin 
in House Bill 934, which was introduced on March 5, 2011, by State 
Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), chairman of the House State 
Government Committee. Democrats vehemently opposed the bill, but it 
had enough Republican votes to pass. Tom Corbett, the state’s Republican 
governor, also supported the bill. Passing the House on June 23, 2011, the 
bill advanced to the Senate, where it cleared the Appropriations Committee 
on March 5, 2012, and the full chamber two days later by a vote of 26–23. The 
bill then returned to the House for a final vote on the Senate’s amendments. 
On March 14, 2012, after three straight days of often impassioned debate, 
the measure passed the House in a nearly party-line vote of 104–88, with 
only three Republican lawmakers joining the entire Democratic caucus in 
opposition (Finarelli 2012).

Within hours of the bill’s passage, Governor Corbett signed it into 
law, making Pennsylvania the sixteenth state in the nation to enact a photo 
identification requirement for voting (Miller and Mayes 2012). Pennsylvania 
toughened its voting rules considerably with this legislation, which did 
away with non-photo IDs and extended the proof of identity requirement 
to all voters in every election. Prior state law required identification only 
from people voting for the first time in a precinct and it allowed non-photo 
identification, such as utility bills and state or local government-issued 
checks (Associated Press 2012). Governor Corbett defended the tougher 
rules as necessary to ensure fair and accurate elections. As he signed the 
bill, the governor touted it as a means of protecting the “sacred principle . . . 
one person, one vote” (Miller and Mayes 2012). He further assured the 
citizenry that the bill “does not interfere with anyone’s legal right to vote,” 
and he pledged that the state would provide a free photo ID for voting to 
anyone who lacked a valid ID (Gorsegner 2012). 

The Pennsylvania voter ID law was similar to the Indiana law upheld 
in Crawford. Acceptable forms of identification included any photo ID 
issued by the federal government, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
a municipality of the Commonwealth, an accredited Pennsylvania public 
or private institution of higher learning, or a Pennsylvania care facility 
(Pennsylvania Election Code 2012, 25 P.S. §2602(z.5)(2)). All IDs must 
have an expiration date that is current. As noted above, a free non-driver 
photo ID would be provided to voters who did not possess any of the 



39

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

required IDs. Individuals with a religious objection to being photographed 
would be allowed to use a state-issued non-photo ID (Pennsylvania Election 
Code 2012, 25 P.S. §2602(z.5)(1)). A few minor differences set the two laws 
apart. For instance, Pennsylvania’s law allowed voters who did not present 
an ID card at the polls to verify their identity in person within six rather than 
ten days of voting (Pennsylvania Election Code 2012, 25 P.S. §3050(a.4)
(5)(ii)(D)-(E)). Also at variance with the Indiana law, absentee ballot 
voters in Pennsylvania were not exempted from identification. They must 
provide either their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their 
Social Security number if they did not have a driver’s license (Pennsylvania 
Election Code 2012, 25 P.S. §2602(z.5)(3)(ii)).2

It was somewhat surprising that the law did not divide the electorate 
as deeply as it had divided the state legislature, considering that it had 
been enacted in a presidential election year when partisan fervor tends to 
be especially intense. According to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted 
shortly after the law’s passage, Pennsylvania voters backed the idea of 
requiring an ID to vote by a 2:1 margin (Quinnipiac University Poll 2012). 
Conducted in June 2012, the poll found that Pennsylvania voters approved 
of the photo ID requirement, 66% to 32%. Republicans approved by 91% 
to 7% and independents approved by 64% to 35%, but Democrats were 
opposed by 53% to 46%. All age and income groups strongly supported 
the law. It is unclear, however, whether public support was strong because 
an estimated 99% of the state’s eligible voters already had acceptable photo 
IDs (Barcousky 2012), or because they shared their governor’s view that 
the law “sets a simple and clear standard to protect the integrity of our 
elections” (Hirschkorn 2012).

Some of the Democrats against the law likened it to “old-fashioned Jim 
Crow tactics,” and accused Republicans of trying to “steal the White House” 
by manufacturing barriers that limit access to the ballot box, especially 
in poor and minority precincts (Levy 2012). High-profile political action 
groups, such as the AARP, the NAACP, the Homeless Advocacy Project, 
and the League of Women Voters were highly critical of the law. The 
backlash was hardly surprising given that a coalition of 45 organizations 
called Protect Our Vote had vociferously opposed House Bill 934 when it 
came to a vote (Thompson 2012a). The American Civil Liberties Union 
announced it was preparing a challenge to the law, which was to take effect 
in the November general election rather than in the April state primary (Jerry 
2012).3 Some citizen groups organized protests, while others conducted 
voter education workshops, but all advised voters to take advantage of the 
free photo identification cards offered by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Transportation (PennDOT), pending the legal challenge.



40

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

Objections to Pennsylvania’s Voter Identification Law

Opponents presented six arguments against the law, one specific to 
Pennsylvania and the others applicable to all voter identification laws. To 
start with the state-specific argument, opponents said the legislation was 
too costly to implement. Cost estimates for implementing the voter ID 
law ranged from $4 million to $11 million (Jerry 2012). The Harrisburg-
based nonpartisan Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center (PBPC) issued 
a statement in May 2011 estimating “the first-year costs for a voter 
identification program of approximately $11 million” (Ward 2011). It was 
feared that considerable expenditures would have to be devoted to the public 
awareness campaign, the poll workers’ training, and the free identification 
cards at a time when the Commonwealth was facing a projected budget 
deficit of $300 million that necessitated painful cuts in essential services 
(Boehm 2012).4 The limited availability of funds, critics argued, should 
have barred the introduction of yet another government program that would 
further strain the state budget by increasing election spending.

Although the vast majority of Pennsylvanians already had photo IDs, 
so the second argument went, the law could still prevent large numbers of 
eligible voters from participating in the democratic process. Senior citizens, 
first-time and students voters, and low-income and minority groups were 
among the populations deemed most vulnerable to disfranchisement under 
the law.  For example, the AARP reported that as many as 570,000 of its 
2.7 million Pennsylvania members did not have proper voter identification 
(Brown 2012). Moreover, a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New 
York University School of Law found that one in four blacks and one in six 
Hispanics lacked a recognized photo ID, compared with one in ten of the 
general population (Pilkington 2012). Young people and student voters also 
drew concern because while most university-issued IDs have photos, they 
typically lack an expiration date, not to mention that out-of-state student 
IDs are unacceptable for voting. Of 114 colleges and universities surveyed 
by the NAACP, 95 issued student IDs without expiration dates (Brown 
2012). The requirement that the names on the proof of residency and the 
ID match also had the potential of disfranchising the many women who did 
not change the name or update the address on their ID documents after they 
got married. In addition, thousands of senior citizens were at risk of losing 
their right to vote because they had no current driver’s license, passport, or 
military ID.

The third objection lodged by opponents was that while the non-
driver photo ID itself may be free, the documents needed to apply for it 
are not (Thompson, 2012b).5 These documents include birth certificate, 
marriage license, passport, or citizenship/naturalization certificate, none of 
which is free of charge. Nor did the law arrange for the commute to and 



41

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

from PennDOT centers or the other state offices that issue the underlying 
documents. These trips could be onerous on physically handicapped and 
wheelchair-bound voters and costly to those living on a fixed income. In 
addition, the state would not pay to replace people’s ID cards that might 
be stolen or lost through no fault of their own. This is not a farfetched 
or trivial concern in a country where 1,000 wallets and purses are stolen 
every two minutes (Ohio Department of Aging 2011). In fact, as will be 
discussed below, the lead plaintiff in the court challenge to the law, Viviette 
Applewhite, had lost her Social Security card when she was robbed of her 
purse. Another plaintiff, Wilola Shinholster Lee, had lost her birth certificate 
in a house fire, and Georgia (her birth state) was unable to locate her birth 
record to issue a new birth certificate (Bronner 2012).

Doubts were also raised about the law’s rationale and potential efficacy. 
Opponents contended that because voter fraud was hardly a problem in 
Pennsylvania and adequate safeguards were already in place, then the law 
would only serve to disfranchise citizens without furthering its stated purpose 
(Wojcik 2012). Under prior election law, anyone voting for the first time in 
a district had to appear in person at the polls on Election Day and provide 
proof of residency and identity. Also, every voter was required to sign the 
poll list before receiving a ballot, and the sign-in (or mail-in) signature had 
to be checked against the one in voter registration records. Opponents of 
the new law maintained that these requirements were effective in preventing 
and deterring voter fraud for many years as evidenced by the dearth of such 
prosecutions, which explains why proponents of voter ID laws typically 
point to the system’s vulnerability to fraud and abuse without proving their 
existence (Ansolabehere and Persily 2008). Hence, critics insisted that the 
law presented a “solution in search of a problem” (Gregg 2012). 

The fifth argument is essentially an extension of the fourth. Because 
opponents saw no practical purpose in requiring a voter ID card, they 
attacked the law as merely a Republican political scheme designed to reduce 
Democratic turnout and thereby give the GOP an electoral advantage. 
Furthermore, they charged that Republican legislators had acted in bad 
faith, knowing that most of the potentially disfranchised voters belonged 
to the Democratic Party (Douglas 2011). Partisan wrangling aside, some 
studies conducted by neutral third parties, such as the Brennan Center for 
Justice, found that voter ID laws disproportionately disadvantage racial 
minorities, among other groups that tend to vote Democratic. While other 
studies yielded mixed results about the effect of such laws on voter turnout 
(see de Alth 2009), the fact remained that hundreds of thousands of voters 
across Pennsylvania lacked acceptable forms of identification and most of 
them were traditionally Democratic supporters.

Finally, voter ID laws in general have been criticized as a step backward 
in voting rights because they may hamper the democratic process and 



42

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

impair the exercise of a fundamental right. As stated earlier, for lack of 
proper identification the new rules could result in denying eligible voters 
the opportunity to vote, or allowing them to cast only provisional ballots 
until their eligibility is established (Baker 2012). According to data released 
in July 2012 by the Pennsylvania Department of State, as many as 758,939 
voters, or 9.2% of the state’s registered voters, could be disqualified from 
voting for not having a Pennsylvania driver’s license, the most common form 
of photo ID in the state (Madison 2012). It is true that IDs are an essential 
part of everyday life and are required for many activities, such as flying, 
driving, drinking, and obtaining gun permits. What makes voting different, 
an opponent of voter ID laws would argue, is that voting is a sacrosanct 
right of citizenship in a class by itself, as well as an important civic duty 
that should be encouraged rather than stifled (Sullivan 2012). It is already 
difficult enough for many people to vote. The voter ID law could further 
compound the difficulties facing many voters and prevent or dissuade them 
from exercising their voting rights.

Pennsylvania’s Voter Identification Law Litigated

Opponents of the voter ID law tried to achieve in state courts what 
they could not in state legislative chambers. On May 1, 2012, the ACLU, 
along with several other civil rights groups,6 filed suit to enjoin the Corbett 
administration from enforcing the law. The plaintiffs pointed to three alleged 
flaws that put the law at odds with the state Constitution. They argued first 
that the law “unduly burdens the fundamental right to vote in violation 
of Article I, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution”; second that it 
“imposes burdens on the right to vote that do not bear upon all voters equally 
under similar circumstances in violation of the equal protection guarantees 
of Article I, Sections 1 and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution”; and third 
that it “imposes an additional qualification on the right to vote in violation 
of Article VII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution” (Applewhite v. 
Commonwealth 2012a: 4–5).

The Commonwealth Court Upholds the Voter Identification Law

The action was brought on behalf of ten Pennsylvanians struggling 
to obtain IDs, among them a 93-year-old Philadelphia resident, Viviette 
Applewhite, who had voted regularly since 1960 and was now in danger 
of being disfranchised by the law. With her eventful past and complicated 
circumstances, Applewhite appeared to be an ideal lead plaintiff for the case. 
She was a twice-married elderly black woman who had been adopted as a 
child and who had gone through several name changes (Bronner 2012). In 



43

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

addition, she had lost her Social Security card when her purse was stolen in 
a supermarket four years before, and she could not procure a certified copy 
of her birth certificate because of the “bureaucratic confusion surrounding 
her identity,” as one commentator tersely put it (Ungar 2012). Shortly after 
the lawsuit was filed, PennDOT made an exception for Viviette Applewhite 
and issued her an ID, even though she lacked the documentation required by 
law and never had a driver’s license in her life. Still, this flexibility on the 
part of the state did not render the case moot because of the other individual 
and organizational plaintiffs named in the suit.7

On August 15, 2012, Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson issued 
his opinion upholding the law as a “reasonable, nondiscriminatory, non-
severe burden” that is justified and outweighed by “a relevant and legitimate 
state interest” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012a: 88). After setting out 
the background of the case, summarizing the key provisions of the statute 
(Act 18) under consideration, and delineating the standard that should 
apply for granting or denying the preliminary injunction motion, Judge 
Simpson went on to reject the facial challenge because the plaintiffs failed 
to meet the heavy burden of showing that every application of the statute 
would be unconstitutional, or “no set of circumstances exist under which 
the statute would be valid” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012a: 22). Nor 
did the judge find merit in the contention that the statute would inevitably 
disadvantage certain voters, noting that it “applies equally to all qualified 
electors . . . [and] does not expressly disenfranchise or burden any qualified 
elector or group of electors” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012a:  30). 
He attached no constitutional significance to House Majority Leader 
Mike Turzai’s brazen boast in a videotaped Republican State Committee 
meeting that the enactment of the voter ID law would “allow Governor 
Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania” (Cernetich 2012). Dismissing the 
“partisan motivation” argument, Judge Simpson asserted that while Turzai’s 
“tendentious statements” were “disturbing,” they “did not invalidate the 
interests supporting Act 18, for factual and legal reasons” (Applewhite v. 
Commonwealth 2012a: 86).

With the failure of the facial challenge, it remained for the plaintiffs 
to furnish the circumstances under which the statute was applied in an 
unconstitutional manner, but this would not be possible until after the 
enforcement date of November 6. Stated differently, because the statute was 
found facially valid, it could only be subject to an as-applied challenge, 
which Judge Simpson concluded was unripe because the statute was not 
in operation at the time. After making this determination, he proceeded to 
explain at length why the statute was a constitutionally permissible means 
of regulating elections. The bulk of the 70-page opinion analyzed and drew 
analogies from several recent precedents, especially the 2008 Crawford 



44

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

decision in which the “Supreme Court upheld a nearly identical Indiana 
voter ID law despite the absence of any evidence of in-person voter fraud 
occurring in that state” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012a: 86).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Remands the Case

In denying the motion for a preliminary injunction, the trial court kept 
the voter ID law in effect and cleared the way for the case to proceed further. 
The possibility of obtaining an injunction from a higher court was not out of 
reach, given that Election Day was still about 11 weeks away. On August 23, 
2012, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the request for expedited 
review and scheduled the oral arguments for September 13. As the trial date 
was nearing, some voting rights advocates suggested it did not bode well 
for the Pennsylvania law when a federal court blocked a Texas voter ID 
law. Proponents of the law, however, discounted such speculation because 
Pennsylvania legislators had avoided the constitutional pitfall that doomed 
the Texas law by providing for free photo IDs.8 They were even optimistic 
since the decision of the lower court could stand if the state supreme court 
split along predictable ideological lines.9

Neither side was correct in its conjectures. On September 18, after 
a week of testimony and oral arguments, the highest state court issued a 
surprise 4–2 ruling, ordering the case sent back to the Commonwealth 
Court for reconsideration. Rather than determine the Act’s constitutionality, 
the supreme court opted to “return the matter to the Commonwealth Court 
to make a present assessment of the actual availability of the alternate 
identification cards on a developed record in light of the experience since 
the time the cards became available” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012b: 
5). By not granting a permanent injunction, the court tacitly recognized 
that the Act could conceivably be constitutionally applied if the state 
implemented adequate measures to ensure that voting rights would not be 
curtailed. Still, the decision gave petitioners some hope by allowing their 
facial constitutional challenge to proceed. Correcting the lower court, the 
supreme court upheld the validity of making a facial challenge because of 
the short-term implications of the Act. The court reasoned that “if a statute 
violates constitutional norms in the short term, a facial challenge may be 
sustainable even though the statute might validly be enforced at some time 
in the future” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012b: 5).

Although the state supreme court did not render a conclusive judgment, 
its ruling was perceived as a victory for the law’s opponents insofar as it 
restricted the lower court’s range of review, thereby pressuring it to stay 
the law from taking effect. In remanding the case, the supreme court 
specifically instructed the lower court to “consider whether the procedures 
being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of 



45

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of 
PennDOT identification cards” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012b: 5). 
Moreover, unless the Commonwealth Court is “convinced in its predictive 
judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement . . . for purposes 
of the upcoming election,” it is “obliged to enter a preliminary injunction” 
(Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012b: 5). Some legal analysts averred that 
these instructions would induce the lower court to reverse its prior decision.10

The two dissenters, however, were frustrated by the court’s reserved 
decision. They believed that the court should have granted outright 
an injunction to protect thousands of qualified voters from potential 
disenfranchisement. Justice McCaffery explained that while he had “no 
argument with the requirement that all Pennsylvania voters, at some 
reasonable point in the future, will have to present photo identification 
before they may cast their ballots,” he saw no reason other than politics for 
“implementing Act 18 prior to the November 2012 election” (Applewhite 
v. Commonwealth 2012b: 9). Accordingly, he opined that the court should 
have remanded the case “with the specific directive to the Commonwealth 
Court to immediately grant the requested preliminary injunction” 
(Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012b: 9). The other dissenter, Justice Todd, 
castigated the court for “abdicat[ing] its duty to emphatically decide a legal 
controversy vitally important to the citizens of this Commonwealth” in the 
face of the “impending near-certain loss of voting rights” (Applewhite v. 
Commonwealth 2012b: 6).

The state supreme court required the lower court to file its opinion on or 
before October 2, 2012, that is, within two weeks. As already noted above, 
the outcome this time around was not necessarily a foregone conclusion. 
Although Judge Simpson had once held that the law was “neutral and 
nondiscriminatory” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012a: 11), he now had 
to examine the law afresh under a different and higher standard of review. 
In the first trial, he saddled the plaintiffs with the burden of proving the 
risk of disenfranchisement, but on appeal, the supreme court directed him 
to probe the state’s assertion that no voters would be disenfranchised, thus 
reversing the onus of proof (see Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012b: 5). 
To comply with this directive, Judge Simpson would have to shift the focus 
of analysis from the legitimacy of the law’s purpose to the potential impact 
of its implementation on the imminent election. So while the dissent took 
the court to task for not going far enough in its findings, the remand order 
made it exceedingly difficult for the lower court to let the law go into effect.

Voter Identification Requirements Suspended for the Presidential Election

On October 2, the Commonwealth Court handed down its much-
anticipated decision, precluding the enforcement of the key components of 



46

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

the Act on the grounds that the state was not yet ready to implement it in full. 
More precisely, it entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement 
of only “those parts of Act 18 which directly result in disenfranchisement,” 
principally the photo ID provision (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012c: 9). 
Following the strict guidelines set forth by the state supreme court, Judge 
Simpson said he was “not still convinced . . . 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” 
(Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012c: 6). Despite the state’s assurances, he 
could not but “question whether sufficient time now remains to attain the 
goal of liberal access” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012c: 4), given the 
relatively small number of IDs that had so far been issued.11 With barely five 
weeks remaining until Election Day, he had to agree with the petitioners that 
“the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be 
closed” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012c: 6).

It did not come as a surprise that the Corbett administration decided not 
to appeal the ruling, given its modest practical impact in the broader scheme 
of things. The law had already been upheld in August, in the first court 
challenge, and the October ruling did not change that. The Commonwealth 
was to continue with its efforts to put more photo IDs in the hands of more 
citizens to meet the liberal access standard. The preliminary injunction was 
limited in duration and scope. Though voters would not have to show a photo 
ID to vote, the terms of the injunction allowed the “soft-run” to go forward 
to familiarize voters with the new procedures and iron out unforeseen snags 
in preparation for full future implementation (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 
2012c: 14).12

In rejecting “Petitioners’ request to enjoin all outreach and education 
efforts” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2012c: 8) and declining to “restrain 
election officials from asking for photo ID at the polls” (Applewhite v. 
Commonwealth 2012c: 9), Judge Simpson made it clear that the sole issue 
the injunction was narrowly drawn to address was the readiness of the state 
rather than the constitutionality of the Act. As such, the seemingly adverse 
ruling confirmed that it was only a matter of time before the Act would go 
into full effect. This is why Governor Corbett’s reaction was quite upbeat. 
In a press conference, the governor said he saw the ruling as a win for the 
law in the long term because the court had ultimately approved the voter ID 
requirement, despite the deferred implementation (Gibson 2012). Echoing 
the governor’s message, Ron Ruman, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania 
Department of State, said the agency “is pleased the judgment in effect has 
upheld the voter ID law for future elections” (Bumsted and Smeltz 2012).

Contrary to initial apprehensions, Election Day in Pennsylvania was 
largely uneventful. Complications were limited to reports of confused voters 
and uninformed poll workers in several districts.13 As in the April primary, 



47

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

voters who did not have or want to produce a photo ID were allowed to vote, 
but this time they were also given information leaflets to educate them about 
the procedures that ought to be followed in the future. The long lines and 
heavy turnout reflected the intensity of the campaign. The two candidates 
battled over Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes, but the outcome favored 
President Obama by a margin of 52–47. Despite their electoral victory, the 
Democrats resumed the legal challenge to the voter ID law that was still on 
the docket in the hope of defeating it once and for all.14

After consulting with the lawyers on both sides, Judge Simpson 
announced in late January that the trial would be held on July 15, 2013. 
Since the issue remained unresolved, Commonwealth and ACLU lawyers 
agreed to postpone the enforcement of the law again until the lawsuit had 
been heard in court. Approving the agreement, Judge Simpson issued an 
order on February 19, 2013, extending the partial preliminary injunction 
through the municipal and judicial primaries scheduled for May 21. As in 
the two prior elections, poll workers would be allowed to ask for a photo ID 
but voters would not be required to show it in order to cast a ballot. 

In a surprise development in June, while final arrangements for the July 
hearing were underway, Judge Simpson quietly bowed out of the spotlight 
and turned the case over to Commonwealth Judge Bernard McGinley without 
formally stating a reason. Neither side made much of his withdrawal, partly 
because the trial date remained the same, and partly because an appeal to 
the state supreme court by the losing party seemed almost inevitable. It was 
now up to the new judge to block the law for November’s general elections 
while the case was still under review.

The Voter Identification Law Back in Commonwealth Court

The Commonwealth Court called the case for trial in mid-July as 
scheduled, when it heard oral arguments and testimony from expert 
witnesses, state officials, and longtime voters adversely affected by the voter 
ID law. The testimony was as intense as the public interest in the trial. One 
reporter aptly described it as a “statistical duel” (Jackson 2013). Relying 
on a report by an expert statistician, Bernard Siskin, petitioners contended 
that the law was both unjustified and unduly restrictive, and unless enjoined 
it would bar many people from the polls, especially poor, elderly, and 
minority voters.15 They further argued that the law was a “political ploy” 
contrived in an election year to help the Romney candidacy, as candidly 
admitted by Rep. Turzai in his address to the Republican State Committee 
(Esack 2013b). Moreover, petitioners attacked the law as not only ill-
considered but also ill-executed because the state had failed to provide the 
statutorily mandated liberal access to the free PennDOT and DOS voter 
ID cards, leaving hundreds of thousands of registered voters without the 



48

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

needed identification.16 The petitioners finally asserted that a permanent 
injunction was warranted because there was no reason to assume the state 
could do any better and close this gap (Pearson and Musselman 2013). As 
one reporter succinctly summed up, the challengers argued that the law was 
“unconstitutional as written and too hard for too many to comply with” 
(Baer 2013).

Noting that the law had already passed muster in 2012, the state 
countered that it was a necessary anti-fraud measure to ensure a fair voting 
process and that the free voter ID cards were readily available. The state 
hired its own expert statistician, William Wecker, who questioned the 
methodology in Siskin’s report and cast doubt on its findings. In particular, 
Wecker attacked the theory that the relatively small number of voting-only 
IDs issued by PennDOT meant that numerous voters did not have valid IDs. 
There was, of course, no way to ascertain how many voters already had 
or were able to obtain other acceptable forms of identification, nor was it 
possible to determine how many voters had died, moved out of state, or 
lost their right to vote due to a criminal conviction (Jackson 2013). As a 
gesture of goodwill, the state offered to delay the enforcement of the law 
until 2015 and dedicate more time and resources to its public outreach and 
voter education campaign (Baer 2013). In so proceeding, it appears that the 
state’s legal team sought to steer the court away from even inquiring into the 
constitutionality of the statute and direct its attention to compliance with the 
statutory requirements instead.17

The trial lasted more than two weeks. A ruling on the constitutionality 
of the law was not expected until late fall or early 2014. Meanwhile, the 
petitioners requested that the enforcement ban be extended to the statewide 
municipal and judicial elections to be held on November 5.18 The state was 
receptive to this request, provided that the injunction was renewed only one 
election at a time until a final decree was made in the case. A separate request 
that the state did not support was to block officials from questioning voters 
for identification (without requiring it) and distributing printed information 
about the law as part of the voter education and outreach program. A ruling 
on this interim matter was expected before the end of August.

To be sure, on August 16, the new presiding judge suspended the law 
for the forthcoming election. He also modified the soft rollout but stopped 
short of suspending it altogether, allowing poll workers to ask for the 
unrequired identification yet barring them from advising voters that proper 
identification would be required in future elections. Using particularly 
strong language in his memorandum opinion, Judge McGinley described 
this voter notification practice as “erroneous at best, deceptive at worst” 
(Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2013: 7–8), thus raising doubts about the 
law’s fate. It was the third time a judge had halted the implementation of the 
law ahead of an election, the other two times being the 2012 general election 



49

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

and the 2013 primaries. The petitioners hailed the court order as a victory 
for Pennsylvania voters and pledged to fight the law until it is permanently 
enjoined.

The Defeat of the Voter Identification Law

On January 17, 2014, after more than a year and a half of litigation, the 
Commonwealth Court struck down Section 3 of Act 18, the core provision 
that applies to in-person voting requirements. In granting a permanent 
injunction, Judge McGinley found that “not much has changed” since the 
state supreme court had issued its remand order in September 2012 so 
as to warrant a different disposition (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2014: 
12). Despite some measures taken by the state, including the introduction 
of the DOS ID in the summer of 2012 as an alternative equivalent to the 
PennDOT Voting ID, the state still fell short of “comport[ing] with the 
liberal access compelled by the statute” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 
2014: 6). The court quite reasonably attached significant weight to the 
testimony of state officials. Citing the testimony of Jonathan Marks, 
Commissioner of the Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation, 
Judge McGinley noted that the number of voters who lacked any of the 
specified forms of photo ID was still “ranging from hundreds of thousands 
to over a half million” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2014: 12). Further 
damaging testimony against the state’s readiness came from Rebecca 
Oyler, director of policy at Pennsylvania’s Department of State, who also 
estimated that the “enactment of the Voter ID Law, without an adequate 
safety net, would preclude 1% of qualified electors from exercising the 
franchise” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2014: 12). The solid evidence 
presented at trial was sufficient to support the finding that the law imposed 
an unreasonable burden on the right to vote.

Though unequivocal in his conclusion that the law should be 
permanently enjoined, Judge McGinley had no qualms about the voter ID 
requirement itself. He was troubled, however, by the absence of a “statutory 
mechanism for ensuring liberal access” to the free photo IDs (Applewhite 
v. Commonwealth 2014: 18). Moreover, he dismissed the equal protection 
claim, finding that the “Voter ID law is facially neutral” (Applewhite v. 
Commonwealth 2014: 47), and faulting the petitioners for “not submit[ting] 
any evidence that all of the individuals lacking compliant ID belong to 
specially protected classes” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2014: 48). Like 
Judge Simpson, he also considered Rep. Turzai’s “unfortunate comments” 
of no importance in determining whether the Equal Protection Clause 
was violated, noting that “no case in [the Supreme] Court has held that a 
legislative act may violate equal protection solely because of the motivations 
of the men who voted for it” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2014: n.33).19



50

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

Under this reasoning, it is evident that Judge McGinley invalidated 
Sectin 3 not because the statute was defective in its premise, but because 
it was flawed in its implementation. Since the obstacle is execution rather 
than principle, the decision left the door open for salvaging the statute, 
if sufficient effort and resources are invested to save it. Admittedly, the 
opinion stated that the statute “as written suggests a legislative disconnect 
from reality” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2014:  41), but this comment 
was distinctly confined to the expiration date requirement, which seemed 
irrational because it implicitly excluded military-retiree IDs and student 
IDs for not having an expiration date while explicitly recognizing state-
employee IDs despite lacking an expiration date. This point, while well 
taken, would become moot if the state ameliorated its implementation 
strategies to comply with the liberal access requirement.

The Corbett administration reacted guardedly. Attorney General 
Kathleen Kane said in a statement that she “respect[ed] Judge McGinley’s 
very thoughtful decision,” without indicating whether an appeal would be 
pursued (Frantz 2014). Post-trial motions had to be filed within ten days, but 
given the immense task that remained to be done to achieve voter readiness, 
the state’s motions were unlikely to affect the substantive outcome of the 
case. On January 27, the state filed a motion seeking en banc review by the 
full Commonwealth Court, which was denied on March 11. The motion 
to reconsider was also denied, on April 28, letting the ruling stand. The 
unsuccessful post-trial motions were the last option available before an 
appeal could be filed in the state supreme court.

On May 8, 2014, the Governor’s Office released a statement announcing 
that “[t]he Commonwealth will not pursue an appeal to the Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court to overturn the Commonwealth Court’s decision to enjoin 
Act 18’s photo identification mandate” (Office of the Governor 2014). 
Conceding that “changes must be made to address accessibility to photo 
identifications,” Governor Corbett said he would be working with the 
legislature in the current legislative term to identify and meet the challenges 
associated with what he called “a sensible and reasonable measure for the 
Commonwealth” (Office of the Governor 2014). He also highlighted the 
necessity of “passing a balanced budget and addressing ongoing legislative 
priorities” (Office of the Governor 2014), thus signaling his reluctance to 
rush into what is likely to be another losing battle absent a major shift in 
the status quo.

Conclusion

As the Commonwealth contemplates a new approach, speculation 
abounds over the future of the voter ID law. For now, at least, opponents 
have won a significant victory, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in 



51

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

Crawford. The Commonwealth Court deemed the Crawford precedent of 
little if any direct relevance to the case at bar, or “inapposite to the facts and 
legal challenge here,” because there “the statute did not jeopardize the right 
to vote” (Applewhite v. Commonwealth 2014: n.25). The state’s contention 
that it was well prepared for the full implementation of the law was not 
credible in the face of the evidentiary record, which clearly demonstrated 
that the goal of liberal access had not been sufficiently met. Though the state 
has made some progress toward this goal, it has unsurprisingly fallen short 
of its own targets. 

To illustrate, Pennsylvania has 9,300 polling places, some of which are 
conveniently located inside senior citizen apartment buildings.20 By contrast, 
only 71 PennDOT licensing locations are spread unevenly across the state, 
and they do not operate enough hours to help the state meet its statutorily 
prescribed obligations. Two years after the law’s enactment hundreds of 
thousands of people still lack compliant IDs when PennDOT offices in 22 
out of the state’s 67 counties are open only one or two days a week and nine 
counties still have no ID-issuing centers (Lindstrom 2013). Voters could 
scarcely be blamed for this state of affairs. If the state has changed the law 
to require voters to present picture ID at the polls, the onus is on the state to 
help voters overcome the barriers to obtaining one.

State resources need to be used more effectively and new strategies 
need to be developed to accommodate voters, especially those with income 
and mobility limitations who do not have the wherewithal to travel to other 
counties or the stamina to wait in line or sit in a wheelchair for hours to 
get a voter ID card (Gregg 2013). The state can, for instance, set up mobile 
units in lower income districts and underserved areas, as proposed by the 
plaintiffs. Alternatively, the state can arrange for transporting voters to 
government offices or at least to the nearest PennDot location. It can add 
new DMV offices or extend the hours of operation of existing ones, as other 
states have done. As a supplemental measure, perhaps the limited range 
of state-approved forms of identification can be expanded. Converting 
traditional voter registration cards into photo voter ID cards is one option 
to consider. Whatever the strategy, the state must find ways to reach out to 
voters needing photo IDs, particularly in fringe populations and vulnerable 
communities, if the law is to be sustained upon appeal.

Notwithstanding the many challenges before the state, it should be noted 
again that the problem at hand is one of preparedness rather than substance. 
The two Commonwealth judges who blocked the law’s enforcement have 
agreed in principle that requiring a voter ID per se is not an unconstitutional 
deprivation of the right to vote so long as all eligible voters will be able 
to vote. The constitutional concern, as stated earlier, is not the voter ID 
requirement itself, but the lack of supportive mechanisms that facilitate full 
electoral participation. This has been and continues to be the fundamental 



52

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

impediment to the law’s full implementation. The state must ensure that 
voters have access to the ballot rather than expect them to contend with 
various institutional and bureaucratic obstacles in order to gain such access. 
As the political scientist E. E. Schattschneider famously put it, “Democracy 
was made for the people, not the people for democracy” (Schattschneider 
1960: 135). Unless the required liberal access is demonstrably provided, 
there is no reason to believe that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will 
disturb the findings of the Commonwealth Court, should the state eventually 
decide to appeal.

Notes

 1 Codified at P.L. 195, No. 18 (Pa. 2012).
 2 This provision arguably creates a loophole considering that the proven cases of 

voter fraud in other states, such as Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Texas, and North Carolina, mainly 
involved absentee ballots rather than polling place impersonation (see Biesecker and Yost 
2013; Liptak 2012; Slater 2013).

 3 Poll workers were to perform only a test run or soft rollout in the primary election, 
whereby they would merely ask voters for state-approved identification without requiring it or 
barring them from voting should they lack such identification.

 4 The Independent Fiscal Office projected a deficit of $300 million by the end of fiscal 
year 2012. The actual deficit for 2012 turned out to be $162.8 million due to freezes in state 
spending (Reuters 2012).

 5 Rep. Eddie Day Pashinski (D-121, Luzerne) expressed the same concern in a 
newsletter to his constituents. Available at: http://www.pahouse.com/pr/121_Voter_ID_
NL_ 0712.pdf.

 6 The other four organizational petitioners were the NAACP, the Pennsylvania State 
Conference, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, and the Homeless Advocacy 
Project.

 7 Although the court did not expressly address the issue of standing, the organizational 
plaintiffs were deemed to have associational standing because their members, as registered 
voters, had standing to challenge the law in their own right. This has been the recognized basis 
on which courts have granted standing to membership organizations in scores of voting rights 
cases across the country, including Crawford (see Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 
2008: note 7).

 8 In the Texas challenge, a three-judge district court panel denied the state’s request 
for a declaratory judgment, finding that the law “imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the 
poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty” (see Texas 
v. Holder 2012: 144). The unanimous court noted that to meet the law’s strict requirements, 
voters would have to spend a minimum of $22 to obtain the required documentation.

 9 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania normally has seven members, but Justice Joan 
Orie Melvin was suspended pending a trial on campaign corruption charges, leaving the court 
evenly divided between its conservative and liberal wings (see Langley 2012).

10 For instance, John Burkoff, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law 
School, observed that “this decision means that the voter ID law is dead meat, at least for this 
election.” Similarly, Bruce Ledewitz, a Duquesne University law professor, considered the 
supreme court’s language to be “as strong a hint as an appellate court can give” (see Bumsted 
and Wereschagin 2012).



53

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

11 According to evidence presented at the hearings, “between 9300 and 9500 PennDOT 
IDs for voting have been issued. Also, between 1300 and 1350 DOS IDs” (Applewhite v. 
Commonwealth 2012c: 5). Launched in August 2012, Department of State (DOS) photo 
IDs were also free of charge but available only to voters who had exhausted the options for 
obtaining other state-issued IDs (see Worden and Parks 2012).

12 Under the limited enforcement scheme, a voter without proper identification would 
still be allowed to cast a regular ballot, instead of being either rejected or obliged to cast a 
provisional ballot that would not count unless the voter provided a valid photo ID within six 
days.

13 Lehigh Valley’s Morning Call, for instance, reported some delays and complaints by 
voters who were “subjected to repeated requests for ID” (see Morning Call Staff 2012). Mother 
Jones magazine also received multiple complaints from voters who were told they needed an 
ID to vote in this election (see Eichelberger and Harkinson 2012).

14 The possibility of averting a trial and resolving the matter by settlement was unlikely, 
for the legal director of the ACLU, a lead challenger in the case, had vowed, “Until it’s declared 
unconstitutional we’re not going to give in” (McNulty 2012).

15 According to the “Petitioner’s Disclosure of Expert Reports,” dated July 1, 2013, 
Bernard Siskin estimated that as many as 511,415 registered voters had neither a PennDOT 
nor a DOS ID. Available at: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/ documents/
PetExpSistine.pdf.

16 In a pre-trial brief dated June 17, 2013, petitioners argued that the Pennsylvania 
Department of State itself estimated that “about 4%–5% of Pennsylvanians (roughly 328,000 
to 410,000)” had no PennDOT identification, and yet only “16,754 free IDs for voting” had 
been issued as of June 7, 2013. Petitioner’s Pre-Trial Statement is available at: http://moritzlaw.
osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/PETiApplewhite PreTrialBrief.pdf.

17 Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, the Press Secretary for the Governor’s Office of General 
Counsel, commented early in the trial, “Voter ID is constitutional . . . the trial is about the 
implementation” (see Shawn 2013). By contrast, ACLU attorney Michael Rubin thought “[t]
his case is about a law that on its face, and as it is applied, can lead to one result, thousands of 
voters losing their right to vote” (see Esack 2013a).

18 In a post-hearing brief dated August 5, 2013, petitioners contended that “nothing 
has changed since last fall, or is likely to change in the future, that would justify lifting the 
preliminary injunction before the end of this case.” Petitioners’ Post-Hearing Brief is available 
at: http://www.aclupa.org/download_file/view_inline/1156/624.

19 Quoting Palmer v. Thompson, 403 US. 217, 221 (1971) (brackets in original).
20 The plaintiffs presented as evidence a video of Mina Kanter-Pripstein, a 92-year-old 

resident of Philadelphia, in which she said she could vote inside her apartment building but was 
unable to get to a licensing center to obtain an ID (see Lindstrom 2013).

References

Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Nathaniel Persily. 2008. “Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: 
The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements.” 
Harvard Law Review 121: 1738–44.

Applewhite v. Commonwealth. 2012a. Unpub. LEXIS 757 (Pa. Cmwlth. Aug. 15).
Applewhite v. Commonwealth. 2012b. LEXIS 2151 (Pa. S.Ct. Sept. 18).
Applewhite v. Commonwealth. 2012c. Unpub. LEXIS 749 (Pa. Cmwlth. Oct. 2). 
Applewhite v. Commonwealth. 2013. (Pa. Cmwlth. Aug. 16) (Opinion not reported). http://

www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-647/file-2920.pdf.
Applewhite v. Commonwealth. 2014. (Pa. Cmwlth. Jan. 17). http://www.pacourts.us/ assets/

files/setting-647/file-3490.pdf.



54

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

Ariosto, David. 2012. “Pennsylvania High Court Hears High-Profile Voter ID Case.” 
September 13. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/us/pennsylvania-voter-id-law (Accessed 
July 7, 2014).

Associated Press. 2012. “Corbett Signs Voter-id Bill.” The Inquirer. March 15. http:// articles.
philly.com/2012-03-15/news/31197406_1_combat-voter-fraud-ids-poll-workers 
(Accessed July 7, 2014).

Baer, John. 2013. “Voter ID: Another Turn of the Spinning Wheel.” The Inquirer. July 17. 
http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-17/news/40614877_1_id-requirement-voter-id-photo-
id (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Baker, Mike. 2012. “Many Voters may be Deterred by Tough ID Laws.” Tribune Democrat. July 
9. http://tribune-democrat.com/politics/x546503723/Many- voters-may- be-deterred-by-
tough-ID-laws (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Barcousky, Len. 2012. “Lawsuit Planned over Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law.” Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette. June 16. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/lawsuit-planned-over-
pennsylvanias-voter-id-law-640637 (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Biesecker, Michael, and Pete Yost. 2013. “North Carolina Vows to Fight Justice over 
Voting Restrictions.” September 30. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-
Wires/2013/0930/Voting-rights-North-Carolina-vows-to-fight-Justice-over-voting-
restrictions (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Boehm, Eric. 2012. “Budget Battle Begins with PA Facing $300M Deficit.” May 4. http://
paindependent.com/2012/05/budget-battle-begins-with-pa-facing-300m-def icit 
(Accessed July 7, 2014).

Bronner, Ethan. 2012. “Legal Battles Erupt over Tough Voter ID Laws.” New York Times. July 
19. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/us/politics/tougher-voter-id-laws-set-off-court-
battles.html (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Brown, Joby. 2012. “Pa. NAACP Leads Rally against Voter ID Law.” New Pittsburgh Courier. 
July 27. http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/index.php/featured-news/metro/7709-
pa-naacp-leads-rally-against-voter-id-law (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Bumsted, Brad, and Adam Smeltz. 2012. “Judge Blocks Parts of Pennsylvania Voter ID Law; 
Corbett Not Sure about Appeal.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. October 3. http://triblive.
com/news/2701942-74/voter-law-state-voters-pennsylvania-ruling-simpson-election-
republican-vote (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Bumsted, Brad, and Michael Wereschagin. 2012. “State Supreme Court Sends Voter 
ID Case Back to Commonwealth Court for Review.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 
September 18. http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/2625666-74/court-law-state-voter-
commonwealth-mccaffery-photo-supreme-election-todd (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Cernetich, Kelly. 2012. “Turzai: Voter ID Law Means Romney Can Win PA.” June 25. http://
www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153 (Accessed 
July 7, 2014).

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. 2007. 472 F.3d 949 (7th Circ.).
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. 2008. 553 U.S. 181.
de Alth, Shelley. 2009. “ID at the Polls: Assessing the Impact of Recent State Voter ID Laws on 

Voter Turnout.” Harvard Law & Policy Review 3: 185–202.
Douglas, William. 2011. “Congressional Dems Seek to Curb Tough State Voter-Screening 

Laws.” November 3. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/03/ 129225/congressional-
dems-seek-to-curb.html (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Eichelberger, Erika, and Josh Harkinson. 2012. “Voter ID Chaos in Pennsylvania.” Mother 
Jones.  November 6. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/ pennsylvania-
voter-id-chose (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Esack, Steve. 2013a. “Lawyer: Gov. Tom Corbett was Warned Elderly Could Be Hurt by 
Voter ID Law.” Morning Call. July 15. http://articles.mcall.com/2013-07-15/news/mc-



55

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

pa-voter-id-trial-0715-20130715_1_voter-id-law-women-voters-rubin (Accessed July 7, 
2014).

Esack, Steve. 2013b. “Politics as Usual,” Morning Call. July 20.  2013-07-20/news/mc-pa-
politics-as-usual-0721-20130720_1_kathleen-kane-state-gop-pennsylvania-lottery 
(Accessed July 7, 2014).

Finarelli, Linda. 2012. “Governor Signs Voter ID Bill into Law.” Montgomery News. March 
16. http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2012/03/16/ north_penn_life/news/
doc4f635af0c40a5197444605.txt (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Frantz, Jeff. 2014. “Corbett Administration Mulling Appeal Options after Voter ID Law 
Overturned.” The Patriot-News. January 17. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ index.
ssf/2014/01/voter_id_pennsylvania_tom_corb_1.html (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Gibson, Keegan. 2012. “Voter ID Takes over Corbett Romney Presser.” October 2. http://
www.politicspa.com/voter-id-takes-over-corbett-romney-presser/42014 (Accessed July 
7, 2014).

Gorsegner, Michael. 2012. “Voter ID Bill Approved and Signed into Law.” Los Angeles Times. 
March 15. http://www.latimes.com/news/wpmt-governor- corbett-signs-pa-photo-voter-
id-bill-into-law-20120314,0,2273809.story (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Gregg, Cherri. 2012. “Voter ID Law a ‘Solution in Search of a Problem’? Watchdogs Find 
Little Evidence of Fraud.” July 16. http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/ 07/16/voter-
id-law-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem-watchdogs-find-little-evidence-of-fraud 
(Accessed July 7, 2014).

Gregg, Cherri. 2013. “Trial to Open on Lawfulness of Pennsylvania Voter ID Law.” July 
15. http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/07/15/trial-to-open-on-lawfulness-of-
pennsylvania-voter-id-law (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Hale, Kathleen, and Ramona McNeal. 2010. “Election Administration Reform and State 
Choice: Voter Identification Requirements and HAVA.” The Policy Studies Journal 38: 
281–302.

Help America Vote Act. 2002. Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute. 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/15483 (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Hirschkorn, Phil. 2012. “Strict voter ID law passes in battleground Pennsylvania.” March 15. 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/strict-voter-id-law-passes-in-battleground-pennsylvania 
(Accessed July 7, 2014).

Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita. 2006. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (S.D. Ind.).
Jackson, Peter. 2013. “Statistical Duel Marks Pa. Voter ID Trial.” July 25. http://www.observer-

reporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ 20130725/NEWS05/130729568/-1/NEWS10 
(Accessed July 7, 2014).

Jerry, Tara. 2012. “Corbett Signs Voter ID.” March 14. http://www.politicspa.com/ corbett-
signs-voter-id-bill/32748 (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Langley, Karen. 2012. “Voter ID Case Goes to Pa. Supreme Court on Thursday.” Pittsburgh 
Post-Gazette. September 10. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ local/state/voter-id-
case-goes-to-pa-supreme-court-on-thursday-652639 (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Levy, Marc. 2012. “Judge Halts Pennsylvania’s Tough New Voter ID Law.” October 2. http://
www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/10/02/judge-halts-pennsylvania-tough-new-
voter-law/2xvTfre2YyPAMdDNAxcM1M/story.html (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Lindstrom, Natasha. 2013. “Battle over Voter ID Law Heats up in Court.” Intelligencer 
Journal. July 16. http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelligencer_news/ battle-
over-voter-id-law-heats-up-in-court/article_a1f2916b-d601-5272-9729-7f075c9a44c0.
html (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Liptak, Adam. 2012. “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises.” New York Times. 
October 6. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-
faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html (Accessed July 7, 2014).



56

THE RISE AND FALL OF PENNSYLVANIA’S VOTER IDENTIFICATION LAW

Madison, Lucy. 2012 “Stringent Voter ID Law in Pa. Could Prevent 750,000 from Voting.” 
July 5. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57467195-503544/ stringent-voter-
id-law-in-pa-could-prevent-750000-from-voting (Accessed July 7, 2014).

McNulty, Timothy. 2012. “Pa. Voter ID Law Far from a Done Deal.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 
November 14. http://www.post-gazette.com/state/2012/11/14/Pa-voter-ID-law-far-from-
a-done-deal/stories/201211140169 (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Miller, Larry and Eric Mayes. 2012. “Local Advocates Angered by New Voter ID Law.” 
Philadelphia Tribune. March 15. http://www.phillytrib.com/newsarticles/item/ 3229-
local-advocates-denounce-id-bill.html (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Morning Call Staff. 2012. “Election: Requests for IDs Bring Voter Complaints.” Morning 
Call. November 6. http://articles.mcall.com/2012-11-06/news/mc-pa-election-
roundup-20121106_1_pennsylvania-s-voter-id-id-law-poll-workers (Accessed July 7, 
2014).

Office of the Governor. 2014. Governor Corbett Issues Statement on Recent Commonwealth 
Court Ruling on Voter ID. May 8. http://www.pa.gov/Pages/ NewsDetails.
aspx?agency=Governors%20Office&item=15598 (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Ohio Department of Aging (ODA). 2011. “Are You Carrying Your Life in Your Wallet?” 
Boomerang. October. http://aging.ohio.gov/news/boomerang/2011october/ mylife.asp 
(Accessed July 7, 2014).

Pearson, Sophia, and Ron Musselman. 2013. “Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Being Argued Anew 
to State Court Judge.” Businessweek. July 15. http://www.businessweek. com/news/2013-
07-15/pennsylvania-voter-id-law-being-argued-anew-to-state-court-judge (Accessed 
July 7, 2014).

Pennsylvania Election Code–Omnibus Amendments. 2012. “Act of Mar. 14, 2012. P.L. 195, 
No. 18.” http://www.legis.state.pa.us/wu01/li/li/us/htm/2012/0/0018.htm (Accessed July 
7, 2014).

Pilkington, Ed. 2012. “Voter ID Laws a Burden on Poor, Black Americans, Research Shows.” 
The Guardian. July 18. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/ voter-id-poor-
black-americans (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Quinnipiac University Poll. 2012. “Voter ID.” http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/
quinnipiac-university-poll/pennsylvania/release-detail?ReleaseID=1761 (Accessed July 
7, 2014).

Reuters. 2012. “Pennsylvania Deficit was $162.8 mln in Fiscal 2012.” July 3. http://www.
reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/pennsylvania-def icit-idUSL2E8I3F4W20120703 
(Accessed July 7, 2014).

Schaffer, Frederic Charles, and Tova Andrea Wang. 2009. “Is Everyone Else Doing It? Indiana’s 
Voter Identification Law in International Perspective.” Harvard Law & Policy Review 3: 
397 –412.

Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and 
Winston.

Senate Enrolled Act No. 483. 2005. http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2005/SE/ SE0483.1.html 
(Accessed July 7, 2014).

Shawn, Eric. 2013. “Pennsylvania Court Hears Arguments over Controversial Voter ID 
Law.” July 16. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/15/pennsylvania-court-hears-
arguments-over-controversial-voter-id-law (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Slater, Wayne. 2013. “Few Texas Voter-Fraud Cases would have been Prevented by Photo 
ID Law, Review Shows.” Dallas Morning News. September 8. http:// www.dallasnews.
com/news/politics/headlines/20130908-few-texas-voter-fraud-cases-would-have-been-
prevented-by-photo-id-law-review-shows.ece (Accessed July 7, 2014).



57

MAX GUIRGUIS

MAX GUIRGUIS

Sullivan, John. 2012. “Voting is a Right Rather than a Privilege.” Morning Sun. October 
6. http://www.morningsun.net/news/x422905158/Voting-is-not-a-privilege-it-is-a-
Constitutional-right (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Texas v. Holder. 2012. 888 F. Supp. 2d 113.
Thompson, Charles. 2012a. “Senate Committee Passes Pennsylvania Voter ID Bill to Floor.” 

The Patriot-News. March 5. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/ 2012/03/
senate_committee_passes_pennsy.html (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Thompson, Krissah. 2012b. “Study Finds Costs Associated with Voter IDs.” Washington Post. 
July 18. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/study-finds-costs-associated-with-
voter-ids/2012/07/17/gJQAlrcXsW_story.html (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Ungar, Rick. 2012. “Pennsylvania Voter Suppression Goes on Trial–Are the GOP Intentions 
Pure?” Forbes. July 24. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/ 07/24/pennsylvania-
voter-suppression-goes-on-trial-are-the-gop-intentions-pure (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Ward, Sharon. 2011. “Voter Mandates Costly to Taxpayer.” May 10. http://pennbpc.org/ voter-
mandates-costly-taxpayer (Accessed July 7, 2014).

Wojcik, Michael H. 2012. “Why Voter ID Isn’t Needed: For One Thing, Casting a Fraudulent 
Vote Isn’t Worth the Risk of Years in Prison.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. September 26. 
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/ why-voter-id-isnt-needed-
for-one-thing-casting-a-fraudulent-vote-isnt-worth-the-risk-of-years-in-prison-654916 
(Accessed July 7, 2014).

Worden, Amy and Jessica Parks. 2012. “New ‘Voter-Only’ Photo ID Card is Unveiled.” The 
Inquirer. August 28. http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-28/news/33425908_ 1_id-card-
new-voter-id-law-social-security-cards (Accessed July 7, 2014).




