PHILADELPHIA — Pennsylvania's state Supreme Court justices on Thursday aggressively questioned whether a politically charged law requiring photo identification from all voters should take effect for the Nov. 6 presidential election and whether it guarantees the right to vote.

With the election just 54 days away, the justices did not say when they will decide, although lawyers in the case expected them to rule before the end of September.

The high court appeal follows a lower court's refusal last month to halt the law from taking effect. The 6-month-old law – championed by Republicans over the objections of Democrats – is now part of the heated election-year political rhetoric in a state whose 20 electoral votes make it a major player in electing a president.

The rules – now among the nation's toughest – were already a lightning rod for supporters of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, when a top state Republican lawmaker said in June that the ID requirement "is going to allow" the GOP's presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, to win the state of Pennsylvania. The law has inspired protests, warnings of Election Day chaos and voter education drives.

The six justices – three Republicans and three Democrats – saved their most aggressive questions for lawyers representing the state and Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who signed the law in March. A couple exchanges became testy during 80 minutes of arguments.

Justice Thomas Saylor, a Republican, questioned the state's lawyers about whether the law actually requires the state to ensure that every registered voter be able to vote, even those who cannot get a valid ID. Justice Debra Todd, a Democrat, flatly suggested the law is unconstitutional.

Justice Seamus McCaffrey, also a Democrat, pushed the state's lawyers to explain the Republican rationale used to pass the law and whether the Legislature deserves deference for its decision to pass a politically divisive law that "is now going to trample the rights of our citizens."

Republicans have long suspected ballot-box stuffing in the Democratic bastion of Philadelphia, and they contend the photo ID requirement will solidify public confidence in elections. But Democrats say it is a ruse to suppress the votes of minorities, the poor, the young and others considered more likely to vote for Obama.

In the opening statement by a lawyer for the plaintiffs, justices asked whether it would be acceptable for the photo identification requirement to be phased in over a longer period of time – say, a period covering two federal elections.

The lawyer, David Gersch, replied that it would, as long as the law guarantees the right to vote to each registered voter, even someone who cannot get a photo ID that is among several types that are valid under the law. Other states, such as Georgia and Michigan, have made such guarantees in their laws, Gersch said.

But under Pennsylvania's law, "there's too little time, there's too many people affected and there's no place in the statute that guarantees that qualified electors can get the ID they need to vote," Gersch told the justices.

Lawyers for the state argued that the justices should defer to the Legislature's decision on a policy matter and to the lower court judge's decision not to halt the law.

The justices quickly put them on the defensive.

"This court is reviewing a refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. Listening to what I'm listening to today, it's as if for some reason we're going to give up the entire history of what we do with preliminary injunctions," a lawyer for Corbett, Alfred Putman, told justices. "You are an appellate court."

The high court normally has seven members. But it heard the case with just six, and a 3-3 deadlock would allow the lower court decision to stand. A seventh justice, a Republican, was suspended in May after being charged in a political corruption investigation.

The plaintiffs include eight individuals, plus the Homeless Advocacy Project, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous was on hand for the arguments.

Several dozen opponents of the law filled the hallway outside the Philadelphia City Hall courtroom after the arguments, many of them minorities or senior citizens.

One, Mary Allen, a retired teacher from Philadelphia, questioned why the law had to be rushed into effect this year, rather than give people more time to get photo IDs.

"It's a move against Obama and Democratic voters," she said.


Levy reported from Harrisburg, Pa.

Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Florida Eliminates Early Voting On Sundays

    Tensions run high in Florida, a critical battleground state that passed an election law last year with several contested provisions. One bans a decade-long practice of early voting on Sundays before the election -- a window when as <a href="" target="_hplink">many as 30 percent</a> of black voters have previously cast ballots after attending church in a "souls to the polls" movement. Republican lawmakers claim the provision is meant to reduce election fraud, but some black Democrats say the calculation is more sinister. "It's my feeling it was done deliberately, a premeditated design, to suppress the vote of African-Americans in this country because it's playing out all over the nation in every state. It was intentional," Florida Sen. Arthenia Joyner (D-Tampa) said.

  • Photo ID Firestorm Rocks South Carolina

    The Justice Department <a href="" target="_hplink">dealt a blow </a>to South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley's law requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls, arguing that it discriminated along racial lines. Haley's administration fired back <a href="" target="_hplink">with a lawsuit</a> that is expected to be decided in September. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) said earlier this year that Republicans hope to tip the outcome of the presidential election by lowering voter turnout by 1 percent in each of nine states that have passed voter ID laws, the <a href="" target="_hplink">West Ashley Patch reports</a>. "I know nothing has changed yet," he said. "But I just do not trust the judiciary that we're operating under."

  • Disenfranchised Grandmother Sues Pennsylvania

    Under Pennsylvania's new voter ID law, voters must show a photo ID issued by the state or federal government. The state-issued IDs are free, but getting one requires a birth certificate, which costs $10 in Pennsylvania. Not everyone is having an easy time navigating the new system. Earlier this month, Viviette Applewhite, 93, <a href="" target="_hplink">filed a lawsuit </a>with the ACLU and NAACP challenging the law. Applewhite, who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement, does not have a driver's license, and the state cannot find her birth certificate. She is afraid that this year will be the first since 1960 that she will be unable to vote. Applewhite's dilemma is not uncommon. Some <a href="" target="_hplink">700,000 Pennsylvanians</a> lack photo ID and half of them are seniors. According to <a href="" target="_hplink">the Brennan Center</a>, 25 percent of voting-age black citizens have no government-issued photo ID, compared to 8 percent of white citizens.

  • Kansas Moves To Accelerate Proof Of Citizenship Law

    The Kansas House <a href="" target="_hplink">voted earlier this year</a> to move up the date a proof of citizenship law goes into effect to June 15, 2012, so it will limit who can vote in the presidential election. HuffPost's John Celock <a href="" target="_hplink">reports</a>: <blockquote>Rep. Ann Mah (D-Topeka) said the entire idea of proof of citizenship to vote would fail in court due to it being discriminatory against married women who change their names. Mah said that women who change their name need to provide proof of marriage and citizenship and an affidavit regarding the name change.<br> Rep. Scott Schwab (R-Olathe) took issue with Mah's claims of court challenges. "I get frustrated that everyone who does not like policy says we'll end up in court," he said.</blockquote> Only 48 percent of voting-age women with access to their birth certificates have a birth certificate with a current legal name, which means that as many as 32 million American women do not have proof of citizenship with their current legal name, <a href="" target="_hplink">according to the Brennan Center</a>. The bill to change the start date <a href="" target="_hplink">eventually failed</a>, but will still go into effect next year.

  • Wisconsin Law Continues To Disenfranchise Voters After Suspension

    Last year, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker <a href="" target="_hplink">signed a voter ID bill into law</a>, calling it a "common sense reform" that would "go a long way to protecting the integrity of elections in Wisconsin." As Walker's June 5 recall election approached, <a href="" target="_hplink">two judges suspended it on the basis that it is unconstitutional</a>. Still, poll workers <a href="" target="_hplink">reportedly asked some voters to show photo ID</a> during Wisconsin's April 2 primary, and one woman said that <a href="" target="_hplink">she and her 87-year-old mother were turned away at the polls </a>because they lacked current photo IDs -- even though they were registered to vote. "We were listed on their friggin' poll list and yet we had our names highlighted," the woman, who wanted to remain anonymous, <a href="" target="_hplink">told the <em>Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</em></a>.