On Wednesday, in a closely watched case, a state judge in
Pennsylvania declined
to block the state’s controversial voter ID law from taking effect. If the ruling
is upheld on appeal,
registered voters in the state will be required to show acceptable
photo ID during the general election in November.

There’s been a lot of attention on this lawsuit, given the closeness
of the election and greater focus on voter ID laws, which critics say could
disenfranchise voters who are likely to lack photo ID, often the poor, elderly,
and minorities. (To catch up on this issue, check out our guide on everything
you need to know about voter ID laws.)

Yesterday’s ruling
has generated plenty of criticism
and concern.
But it’s far from the first time a judge has ruled on voter ID laws, a number
of times in favor of them. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Indiana’s
strict voter ID law, saying in 2008 that it’s constitutional.

Lawsuits have continued to crop up challenging the laws,
mostly on the grounds that they violate state constitutions. Meanwhile,
Republican-led state legislatures are continuing to pass the laws.

To get a real sense of where things may be going, it’s
helpful to look at the past. Here’s a rundown of state court decisions on voter
ID laws:

Three rulings in
favor of voter ID laws

  • In July 2007, in an advisory opinion sought by
    the state House of Representatives, the Michigan
    Supreme Court     concluded that the state’s photo ID requirement was a
    “reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction designed to preserve the purity of
    elections and to prevent abuses of the electoral franchise.” The court said there
    was no need for the legislature to prove voter fraud existed before taking “prophylactic
    action    .” As part of the ruling,
    the court said
    the photo ID restrictions were not overly harsh. The opinion included two
    dissents    .
  • In June 2010, the Indiana
    Supreme Court     sided with a lower court judge in dismissing a motion to toss
    out the state’s voter ID law. The court ruled that the law is a valid “election
    regulation    ” and held the burdens were not “sufficiently
    unreasonable    .” In addition, the court frequently referenced the 2008 U.S.
    Supreme Court decision,
    which upheld Indiana’s voter ID law on federal constitutional grounds. The state
    Supreme Court’s decision included one dissent.
  • In March 2011, the Georgia
    Supreme Court     affirmed a lower court’s ruling upholding the state’s voter
    ID law. It found the state’s photo ID requirement was a “minimal, reasonable,
    and nondiscriminatory restriction” and repeatedly cited
    the U.S. Supreme Court decision as persuasive authority. It also rejected the
    argument that Georgia’s Constitution afforded greater voting protections than
    the federal Constitution, arguing it was “coextensive” and that “we
    apply them as one    .” There was one dissent.

Rulings against voter
ID laws

  • In October 2006, the Missouri
    Supreme Court     upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the state’s
    voter ID law for violating the state constitution. The court ruled that there
    was no compelling state interest to justify the
    burdens     posed by the law. It pointed to the lack of any reported
    instances     of voter impersonation fraud in the state and to the fact that
    the law was not tailored to prevent other types of voter fraud aside from impersonation. There was one dissenting
    vote    .

    Missouri passed a photo ID law again
    in 2011, but it was vetoed
    by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. Earlier this year, a ballot
    proposal     to amend the state Constitution for a photo ID requirement was
    rejected by a state judge and not revised before the legislature recessed.

  • In March
    2012    , the first of two state judges in Wisconsin to rule on the law barred
    enforcement of the law. The judge warned
    of possible disenfranchisement of voters that could include “those struggling
    souls who, unlike the vast majority of Wisconsin voters, for whatever reason
    will lack the financial, physical, mental, or emotional resources” to comply
    with the law.

    In July, a separate state judge similarly blocked
    the law. The judge cited
    the time and cost of obtaining photo ID and the strong voting protections
    extended by the Wisconsin Constitution.

    Although the Wisconsin Attorney
    General filed an appeal of these two decisions to the state Supreme Court, it’s
    not likely the appeals will be considered before
    the November election.

    • In Wednesday’s
    ruling     out of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson referenced
    many of these past court rulings, particularly the ones that upheld voter ID
    laws. He also stressed the need for deference
    to the Pennsylvania legislature. Criticism of Pennsylvania’s law had
    intensified after the Republican majority leader of the state’s House had been quoted
    saying the voter ID law would benefit Republicans. Although the judge called
    the remark “disturbing,”
    he wrote that it didn’t change his reasoning.

    Pennsylvania’s photo ID requirement, the judge concluded,
    “is a reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the
    broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life.”

    That doesn’t end things for Pennsylvania. The Justice
    Department has launched its own investigation into some states’ voter ID laws, including
    Pennsylvania’s.