Hiding In Plan Sight, Voter ID Edition
A Pennsylvania judge has allowed the state’s Voter ID bill—the one the state has admitted will not actually stop any of the voting fraud that doesn’t actually exist—to go forward, potentially disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters, most of them (coincidentally!) Democrats.
But what about that guy who claimed the law would elect Mitt Romney, thereby showing the hand of PA’s Voter ID law as not intended to crack down on voter fraud but merely to inconvenience Obama voters? Dave Weigel pulled out the relevant quote:
So, you can now proclaim the partisan motives for a bill to disenfranchise your opponent’s supports, do so loudly, on record, on a microphone, and on video, so long as the room kinda looks empty. (It probably helps if your state isn’t covered under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, so Texas, don’t try this anytime soon.)
Obviously a judge can’t strike down a law on the basis of what Some Dude said in a speech. But in the absence of of any compelling reason to pass the law aside from keeping Democrats from voting, the “partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators” line seems overly credulous. Can the judge name, perhaps, another motivation? At all?