Judge blocks Pennsylvania voter ID law
Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in on ruling
- Duration 5:31
- Date Oct 2, 2012
Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in on ruling
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Alert early voting begins today in the key battleground state.
Of Ohio there's also some breaking news though on a -- new voter ID requirement in Pennsylvania judge is now blocking.
That new requirement ordering -- not be in forests in the presidential election Democrats.
Have mounted a furious opposition to -- law -- requires each voter to show a valid photo ID before filling out about Republicans say it's necessary to prevent.
Election fraud at least for now.
It's not gonna happen police in the state of Pennsylvania jetted into -- kind of as a Fox News senior judicial analyst so.
Why now why did this ruling now we're so close -- the election.
-- -- says a great question -- this this litigation started months ago.
And the judge who ruled today a couple of months ago upheld the legislation has said it could be enforced.
And then those who challenge that appealed his decision to the supreme court of Pennsylvania.
Supreme court of Pennsylvania took a few months and it ruled that the judge needed to reexamine whether the enforcement.
Of the legislation is written.
You must have any state issued ID card in order to vote or we won't let your vote count.
Whether that enforcement of that law would cause people to lose their right to vote.
In in looking at whether that what happened.
He stated this morning he feared no one knows for sure he feared that it would cause people to lose their right to vote.
Therefore he's going to let the state ask you for your IED.
But if you don't have one or don't produce one you still get the right to vote then he's going to hold a hearing.
After Election Day on whether this -- this legislation.
Can proceed on to affect other who votes in Pennsylvania go next year.
It's back to business as usual on Pennsylvania to weighted voting has been done in the past but it's not yet over for the challenge to have voter ID be a requirement.
-- precisely because what the judge did today is -- what we -- a temporary injunction.
He has stopped of the enforcement for a short period of time to take it beyond this presidential.
But he may allow it to be enforced for elections in Pennsylvania in 2013.
And again the only difference when you go to the polls in Pennsylvania.
Next month as to opposed to when you went last year is that we'll ask you for an ID you don't have -- you still get to vote somewhat of a waste of time.
So forth with that with the election process this time around will the judge -- and team.
Anecdotes evidence anything that happens in the selection process.
As a part of his ruling for whether or not this is permanent hello this election play -- from either side.
I think he probably will if if -- challengers to the statute can show.
All of the hoopla over the legislation.
Of course people to stay home who otherwise would go and vote well the public policy of -- that people should vote.
So that's a bad thing and that would help him to invalidate the statute.
But if they can't show that anybody's right to vote was impaired by this.
Partial enforcement if you will of the statute.
Then there's then there's no evidence of pushing in that direction.
To add another level to this they're probably will be an appeal of the decisions he came down with this morning.
Back to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
They were very short period of time and it actually rules -- it may overturn his ruling -- Election Day yes they can they can they they have procedure whereby they can rule in just a couple of days and they married may very well say.
You know what we're just gonna let this play out or we don't like what he did we're going to change it to this extent.
Well let's see what happens in the state of Pennsylvania next when asked you a quick question -- -- can send national law that affects us all.
The health care overhaul we heard from the Supreme Court yesterday that they had an interest in and it in a particular case that had to do with the Christian college.
That doesn't want a forced parts of the health care a lot because they feel in conflict with that I hope I got that are great judge PS I did that were what is the Supreme Court -- it and doing what does this mean for the health -- I don't.
-- general back in June the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate which requires that everyone have health insurance.
While that was going on the challenge to the individual mandate.
This Christian school liberty university and in Virginia challenged what's called the employer mandate.
That forces all employers of a certain number of people or more.
To provide health care coverage for those employers that covers abortion.
Contraceptive services and euthanasia.
So this college basically said well we don't believe in any of those three things if we purchasing health care policy for our employees.
Offers those services that will violate our values the Supreme Court has shown an interest in hearing that challenge.
Whether -- not the employer mandate as opposed to the individual mandate.
Violates that First Amendment protection which prevents the government from interfering with your religious sectarian.
She's -- an interest does that mean we see a case anytime soon -- is isn't this the years away.
Well if the Supreme Court had let these challenges work their way up you're talking years away but but what they did yesterday.
We'll probably get it to the Supreme Court next year and the answer your question is no just because they've shown an interest in something.
Doesn't mean they're going to affect the outcome but they probably wouldn't do this if they weren't interested in ruling on the merits very interesting -- thank you for.
Crisscrossing both of those topics for us is a -- -- crisscrossing -- very good idea very flattered that I I think I wouldn't I wouldn't expect nothing less of course.
My judgment -- had a nice to have -- Greg.