Aside from your standard election preparation — reading up on candidates’ platforms, finding out who’s endorsed them, considering their qualifications, all that good stuff — one other question is key:
When you get to your polling place on May 15 to cast your vote in the primary, will you be required to show ID?
The short answer is no.
You do not need to show photo ID to vote in Pennsylvania.
It’s worth noting that if you’re voting in a new-to-you district, you will be required to provide some kind of identification by poll workers, either photo-bearing or non. (Here’s a list of documents you can use for that, from driver’s license to utility bill.)
And if you’re an absentee voter, you also must validate your identification. (Know the last four digits of your social security number? You’re covered.)
But if you’re returning to the same polling location as before, not only can you skip photo ID, but poll workers aren’t even allowed to ask you for it.
Despite that, you might glimpse old signage that seems to suggest photo ID is required, or an acquaintance might tell you they’re sure they once needed identification to vote.
That’s because in 2012, the state implemented a voter ID requirement. It tried, anyway, until the law got shot down in court.
Here’s a brief history of Pennsylvania’s recent controversy over voter ID.
Then-Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, signed into law a bill that would require voters to present valid photo ID at the polls.
The bill passed with unusual speed almost entirely on party lines: the entire Democratic caucus voted against it, and all but three Republicans voted in favor. The bill’s supporters argued the law would improve the security of elections despite Pennsylvania never having recorded any reports of voter fraud.
The law was one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the country — certainly the strictest in any state expected to be competitive in that year’s presidential race. It disallowed using welfare cards, school district employee cards and college IDs without an expiration date.
Experts estimated it would disenfranchise at least 9 percent of Pennsylvanians, and other reports argued it would disproportionately affect people of color.
Pennsylvania gave the law a “trial run” in the primary. During that election, voters were asked for identification but were not turned away if they couldn’t provide it.
House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, a Republican representing Allegheny County, was caught on video saying the law could help swing the state red for candidate Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.
The bill was signed into law on the premise that it would lower voter fraud, not provide political gain for one party over the other.
Several organizations, including the NAACP, the League of Women Voters and the Homeless Advocacy Project challenged the law in court, arguing that it would disenfranchise voters who might not have or might be unable to obtain the proper photo ID.
The case landed in front of Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson, a Republican, who upheld the voter ID requirement. His ruling said the burden of getting the proper identification did not outweigh anti-fraud benefits, and challengers had not clearly proved the law would deny voters’ rights, violating the constitution.
The case was appealed to the Pa. Supreme Court, which said that whether or not the law would be found constitutional, there was the calendar to consider.
With Nov. 2016 just months away, the Supreme Court asked, would Pennsylvania really be able to get proper IDs to all voters in time? It remanded the case back to Simpson, asking him to hold hearings on the matter and return with an answer by Oct. 2.
Simpson came to the conclusion that the time crunch might be too difficult to surmount and ordered state elections officials not to enforce the law in the upcoming election.
This effectively extended the “trial run” instituted in the primary, although Simpson’s ruling did allow some parts of the new law to stand.
The state could continue efforts to educate citizens that a photo ID would be a voting requirement and allowed election officials to ask for a photo ID, even though it wasn’t required.
The law was not significantly addressed in court again until one-and-a-half years later, with the next statewide primary looming.
This time around, the case fell to a different judge, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley. Unlike Simpson’s inconclusive “well, there’s not enough time to enact this” decision, McGinley’s ruling was much more definitive. The law, he said, was unnecessarily restrictive and violated the state constitution because it “unreasonably burdens the right to vote.”
“Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election,” McGinley’s decision stated. “The Voter ID Law does not further this goal.”
That ruling from four years ago still governs Pennsylvania’s current election procedure. As the state’s official guidance on voter ID says:
In 2014, the Commonwealth Court held that the in-person proof of identification requirements enacted under Act 18 of 2012 were unconstitutional. Those provisions are no longer in force even though you may see them in Pennsylvania’s Election Code.