No matter your personal politics, both sides of the political spectrum agree that when a court efficiently reaches a common-sense and fair result, in accord with prevailing legal principles, the judicial system has succeeded. On March 14, Pennsylvania joined the ranks of Georgia, Indiana, Kansas and Tennessee, among others, in passing a voter-identification law that, if implemented, could require citizens voting in person on Election Day to present one of several specified forms of state-issued photo identification before casting a ballot. For Viviette Applewhite, a 93-year-old eligible voter unable to obtain the proper photo identification, the law would have precluded her from voting in an election for the first time in more than 50 years.
Whatever the motives behind enactment of the Pennsylvania voter ID law, for Applewhite and hundreds of thousands, possibly more, of similarly situated Pennsylvania voters, the outcome was the same their fundamental right to vote would be impermissibly burdened just weeks before the upcoming election, effectively disenfranchising them. Applewhite, after overcoming the above obstacles, eventually obtained her voter ID after quite some time. However, for many similarly situated voters, this would have been impossible prior to the election due to the lack of either time or means to travel to receive the identification. In ultimately enjoining implementation of the statute until after the general election, as described below, the Pennsylvania state courts displayed utmost common sense combined with a practical touch, holding that the commonwealth could not require voters to present identification on Election Day when a compressed implementation schedule almost guaranteed voter disenfranchisement.
