Pa. high court takes hard look at voter ID law

With the election just 54 days away, the justices did not say when they will decide, although lawyers in the case expected them to rule before the end of September.

The high court appeal follows a lower court's refusal last month to halt the law from taking effect. The 6-month-old law — championed by Republicans over the objections of Democrats — is now part of the heated election-year political rhetoric in a state whose 20 electoral votes make it a major player in electing a president.

The rules — now among the nation's toughest — were already a lightning rod for supporters of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, when a top state Republican lawmaker said in June that the ID requirement "is going to allow" the GOP's presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, to win the state of Pennsylvania. The law has inspired protests, warnings of Election Day chaos and voter education drives.

The six justices — three Republicans and three Democrats — saved their most aggressive questions for lawyers representing the state and Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who signed the law in March. A couple exchanges became testy during 80 minutes of arguments.

Justice Thomas Saylor, a Republican, questioned the state's lawyers about whether the law actually requires the state to ensure that every registered voter be able to vote, even those who cannot get a valid ID. Justice Debra Todd, a Democrat, flatly suggested the law is unconstitutional.

Justice Seamus McCaffrey, also a Democrat, pushed the state's lawyers to explain the Republican rationale used to pass the law and whether the Legislature deserves deference for its decision to pass a politically divisive law that "is now going to trample the rights of our citizens."

Republicans have long suspected ballot-box stuffing in the Democratic bastion of Philadelphia, and they contend the photo ID requirement will solidify public confidence in elections. But Democrats say it is a ruse to suppress the votes of minorities, the poor, the young and others considered more likely to vote for Obama.

In the opening statement by a lawyer for the plaintiffs, justices asked whether it would be acceptable for the photo identification requirement to be phased in over a longer period of time — say, a period covering two federal elections.