A judge recently decided to not affirm Pennsylvania's new voter
ID law -- a move some legal experts call reckless.
Pennsylvania's law, passed earlier this year by state
legislators and signed into law by Gov. Tom Corbett (R), would have
required in-person voters to present one of eight different
acceptable forms of identification to vote in all upcoming
National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) contends
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson's
recent decision is further proof of liberal judicial
"The ruling demonstrated even on its face that it
wasn't about the law; it was about convenience and public
pressure," states Horace Cooper, adjunct fellow with the NCPPR and
co-chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board.
"As former President Bush might say, Judge Simpson was for voter
ID before he was against it."
Cooper further claims that the proper way to change law is
through state legislatures who have the power to alter policies --
not by trumping up charges left for judges to interpret.
"This group of critics made charges that this law was somehow
racist and … anti-elderly -- a whole host of claims, none of which
they've ever been able to get substantiated," the NCPPR chairman
notes. "Now they shift when they went to the state Supreme
Court to this Oh, well, we just don't have enough time to roll
Under pressure from the state's Supreme Court, Simpson suspended
the law until 2013, lacking confidence that the state would be able
to provide IDs to those who needed them before the November