Old (Wrong) Voter ID Posters Displayed in Police Station in the Lower Hill in Pittsburgh

In addition to posters wrongly telling PA citizens that they must show photo ID before they can vote on Tuesday being displayed in a place where the unemployed gather, apparently, they are also being displayed in a police station in a predominately African-American neighborhood in Pittsburgh.

From a good source:

"...I saw two of these posters on a bulletin board in the lobby of the District 2 police station on Centre Avenue in the Lower Hill."

Hey! Anyone see these outdated, misleading posters still being displayed on government property in, oh I don't know, Mt. Lebanon, or say, Fox Chapel, or Cranberry Township? (Please stop laughing.)

PA CareerLink Office in Robinson Displaying Poster Saying You Must Show Photo ID to Vote

A reader sent me this photograph taken today by cell phone, November 1, 2012:

(Click photo to enlarge)

This was photographed at the Allegheny West CareerLink office at Robinson Plaza Two, Suite 410, Pittsburgh, PA 15205. For those who are fortunate enough not to know it, in order to collect unemployment in PA, many are required to attend mandatory session/s at a CareerLink center.

The information on the poster is wrong as there is a temporary injunction against needing to show photo ID at the polls for the election on November 6, 2012 and it may therefore suppress the vote.

This needs to be taken down IMMEDIATELY! (Why was it still up?)

I will be calling them.

UPDATE: I left a message for the center's directory, Tiffany (didn't catch the last name). She's either at the Downtown office /out to lunch. I also spoke to someone at the ACLU about this.

UPDATE 2: Everyone, please call them to complain: (412) 809-3500!

UPDATE 3: Tiffiany did leave a message for me today (Nov. 2) and we are now playing phone tag.

To My Friends At KDKA

From Thinkprogress:

Nearly a month after a Pennsylvania court suspended the law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls this November, reports of misinformation on the voter ID law are still rolling in.

The latest misleading claim comes from CBS Pittburgh radio station KDKA, which is running an ad claiming that voters will need photo identification to go to the polls on November 6th, despite the fact that while voters may be asked to show ID, it is not required to vote. The ad aired on October 26, around 7:30 am immediately after a weather report for the Pittsburgh area.

And the text:

NARRATOR: When you need to vote–

WOMAN: The voter ID law was just recently signed by the governor.

NARRATOR: You need to know –

WOMAN: You’re not going to be allowed to vote unless you present an acceptable photo identification. Get to a PennDOT licensing center and get a photo ID at the drivers’ license center.

NARRATOR: It’s your right, it’s your duty, it’s your choice –

WOMAN: And you will need an acceptable ID in order for you to vote.

NARRATOR: Decision 2012. KDKA. [Emphasis added.]

Please please PLEASE tell me this isn't true.  Please tell me this is was a simple mistake.  Please tell me that you've already announced and apologized on the air for misleading your audience.

The AFL-CIO Answers The Question

Do I need an ID to Vote In PA?

(click the link to see their answer)

They also provide the answer to the following questions:

• Do I need a photo ID to vote in the election this November?
• Will I have to vote via provisional ballot if I don’t have photo ID? 
• Will I have to stand in a different line to vote if I don’t have a photo ID?

By the way, the answer to all these three questions is NO.

UNDONE (temporarily)

Though some got today's PA Voter ID law ruling wrong initially (Post-Gazette and Think Progress) causing real confusion (at least by me and some others on Twitter), most (including Pittsburgh City Paper) got it right the first time. The bottom line is that House Majority Leader Mike Turzai and Governor Tom Corbett and their Republican buddies have been temporarily undone.

The bottom line is this:

The election in November will function just as the primary election did. You do not need to have an ID to vote in Pennsylvania on November 6th. Poll workers can ask you for an ID, but you will not be prevented from voting normally (on a machine without a provisional ballot) if you do not show them an ID.

VOTER ID RULING

From a few minutes ago at the P-G:

A judge has blocked the state from discounting ballots cast next month by voters who lack the photo identification required under the new voter ID law.

Judge Robert Simpson of the Commonwealth Court wrote in an order released this morning that the injunction would have the effect of extending the transition period of the law -- when voters were asked for identification but could vote without it -- through the November election. His order allows election workers to ask voters next month to show identification.

I have to admit I am not really sure exactly what this means.  (SEE UPDATE BELOW)

Here's the AP to help me out:

A judge postponed Pennsylvania's controversial voter identification requirement on Tuesday, ordering the state not to enforce it in this year's presidential election but allowing it to go into full effect next year.

Let me go see if I can find the ruling.

UPDATE:  Here it is.

Another UPDATE:  From the ruling:

Permanent Injunction

Petitioners’ preserve their facial challenge to Act 18 because the statute contains no right to a non-burdensome means of obtaining the required identification. Pet’rs’ Post-Hearing Br. at 5, n.5. Thus, I will begin planning for trial on a permanent injunction.

In this regard, my understanding of the Supreme Court’s per curiam order is that I was to address certain discrete aspects of the case on remand, not that the burden of proof shifted to the Commonwealth. The parties have strongly divergent views on this point. If my understanding is incorrect, the Court’s guidance will be needed.

Relatedly, the Supreme Court’s reference to “no voter disenfranchisement … for purposes of the upcoming election,” Applewhite, ___ Pa. at ___, ___ A.3d at ___, slip op. at 7, has sparked debate between the parties. I understand the phrase to be focused on the preliminary injunction for purposes of the upcoming election. I do not understand the phrase to define the test for a facial validity challenge in the context of a permanent injunction.

My guess (and this is just a guess as I am not nor have I ever been nor have I ever even entertained the possibility of becoming an attorney) that this is something of a punt-back.  It's not a permanent injunction to the law as Judge Simpson states he was only asked to address aspects of the case "for the purposes of the upcoming election."

And he's beginning to plan for a trial on a permanent injunction.

But for now, it's...injoined?  Injuncted?  Is there an attorney reading this right now?  Can you help a blogger out?  What's the proper verb for this?

YET ANOTHER UPDATE:  The P-G article above has changed.