Voter ID: Failure of nonfeasants |

Voter ID: Failure of nonfeasants

The Corbett administration apparently can’t walk, govern and chew gum at the same time. And the Pennsylvania Legislature doesn’t appear to be any more coordinated.

Gov. Tom Corbett, weak-kneed in the conviction department, on Thursday walked away from his push for a voter-identification law. He said he will not appeal to the state Supreme Court a January ruling by a Commonwealth Court judge that said the measure placed an undue burden on voters. Not only will there not be an appeal, the Legislature won’t attempt to pass another version of the law during the rest of this year’s session.

Each cited more pressing legislative “priorities.” Protecting the sanctity of the franchise isn’t a “priority”? Really?

And never mind that Judge Bernard McGinley’s ruling was a farce and stood an excellent chance of being overturned. His decree that the Pennsylvania Department of State lacked the authority to oversee special voting cards that eased the ID-obtaining process was a political poison pill. Good grief, if the department charged with overseeing the commonwealth’s electoral process lacks such authority, then nobody has it.

As for the overpaid, overperked and corrupt body that is the Pennsylvania Legislature, how does it keep a straight face in saying that it cannot, over the next five months, work to create a challenge-proof voter ID system?

Talk about a lack of will. Talk about nonfeasance.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.