Uniparty Strikes Again: New PA Voter ID Amendment Isn’t What We Thought

Valid photo ID.  You need it to rent a car, to purchase alcohol, and adopt a pet.  You even need it to buy cough syrup at the grocery store.  So, when it comes to voting, it doesn’t seem to be asking too much to provide an ID before receiving a ballot to vote in our elections.  After all, 80% of Americans support requiring ID in order to vote, according to a Monmouth University poll.

That is what we are getting when the House finally reconvenes this year to pass SB1 which will put the issue of voter ID on the ballot for a decision from the voters, right?  Not exactly.

When the constitutional amendment on voter ID was first introduced last session, it came by way of SB106 from Representative Wheeland in the House.  Senate Bill No. 106 was initially limited to only the amendment on relinquishing our ability to elect our Lieutenant Governor when it was reported by the Senate in early 2021.  Once the bill made its way to the House, it was changed by way of several amendments; those changes included voter ID and election audits.  It was not perfect.  Representative Wheeland reduced the residency requirements significantly to a mere 30 days prior to an election.  But his amendment provided simple language that required all voters to present valid identification before voting, and it would have finally allowed a means for our Auditor General to regularly audit the conduct of our elections.

After nearly a year lapse from its creation, SB106 passed finally in the House and was sent back over to the Senate to travel through the Rules committee before the Senate would vote on its concurrence.  This is where it gets a little hairy.

SB106, with its several popular amendments, was once again altered in the Rules committee.  The amendment introduced by Senator Kim Ward, a supposed Republican, removed the election audit amendment previously introduced by Representative Keefer.  Senator Ward further amended the language in the voter ID bill that created wholly distinct requirements based upon voter method.  For those voting in person, ID must first be presented BEFORE being given a ballot.  If you choose to vote not in person (absentee, mail-in, email, etc.), ID does not need to be presented until AFTER receiving a ballot.

For those with a specialized knack for the word salad game politicians like to play, when a voter must present ID is not the only concern with this bill.  First, there is nothing contained in the language that specifies a requirement for photo identification.  The term “valid identification” can be whatever the courts, or the legislature, decide it to be after the public has already voted to pass the constitutional amendment.

Additionally, while voter ID is reserved to that of an unexpired government-issued ID, it is easily negated by the clause that immediately follows…”unless otherwise provided for by law.”  This leaves the door wide open for the state’s activist judges to interpret in their favor, as they have taken it upon themselves to do over the last few years.

Other subtle nuances in the language and punctuation exist for the keen reader that leave loopholes should it pass into law, but the bottom line is that the language was altered by Senator Ward in such a way as to make the constitutional amendment for voter ID significantly weaker than it was originally.

If that alone wasn’t enough to tip your hat, Senator Ward attached the constitutional amendment on abortion to the bill.  Had this been purposefully executed to hold Republicans hostage to vote to pass the altered language on voter ID as well as the removal of the election audit amendment?

Ironically, the very same day that Senator Ward introduced her amendment to SB106, she also introduced the amendment to SB982 (now ACT88 of 2022), affectionately known as the “ZuckBucks” bill, which drastically altered the intention of the bill to ensure that officials had a loophole to continue soliciting private monies, reduced the penalty if caught, and made the requirements for the county grant program unenforceable.  Both amendments were rushed through at the end of the last session.

Fast forward to this year and the voter ID amendment is introduced in the Senate for the second round as Senate Bill 1.  It was the only issue originally contained in SB1.  Yet, for some reason, the bill skipped the typical process after passing on second and was sent to the Rules committee where Senator Pittman amended it to include the Rozzi statute of limitations proposal, whereby Democrats will most assuredly support its passage.  The only person with the authority to redirect a bill in the Senate is the President Pro Tempore, Senator Kim Ward.  Why does it seem like Senator Ward is pulling out all the stops to get the flawed voter ID amendment through?

This is not just your everyday, run-of-the-mill statutory bill that can be repealed at a later date.  A constitutional amendment amends our Constitution.  It is a highly involved process which takes two sessions to be voted on and passed by a majority of both chambers and further passed by the electors of the state via a referendum on the ballot.  Any bad language that is amended into our Constitution must also undergo the same process to be removed.  Changes to our Constitution should not be taken lightly.

So now you, Pennsylvanians, must decide – Is the reward of having a generalized concept of voter ID greater than the risk of also having the dangerous language cemented in our Constitution?

Have a story? Become a Contributor at The Liberty Lens!