Democrats were prepared to pass new voter ID requirements in Pennsylvania. Then Republicans hit the brakes

HARRISBURG, Pa. — After years of opposing such a measure, Pennsylvania Democrats on Tuesday were poised to allow a vote in the state House on a bill that, if passed, would create new ID requirements to vote in the state — acquiescing on a top GOP priority and marking the first step towards breaking a yearslong stalemate over election law in Pennsylvania.

But hours before the bill was expected to be called to the Pennsylvania House floor, it was House Republicans who requested that it not come up for a vote. They didn’t have the support they needed for the legislation to pass.

The bill, House Bill 771, would have required all voters to present a form of identification every time they cast a ballot. The vote was supposed to be paired with a sweeping election reform bill in House Bill 1396, intended to expand election access and streamline election administration, among other long-sought changes from Democrats and county election administrators.

House Democrats still approved the election code changes Tuesday in a party-line vote, 102-101. But without the accompanying voter ID component to draw Republican lawmakers to the negotiating table, the election code changes are all but certain to be unsuccessful in the GOP-controlled state Senate.

A top House Republican leader said some GOP members had outstanding issues with the voter ID bill that led them to withhold the vote Tuesday.

Pennsylvania Democrats have broadly rejected ID requirement expansions in the past due to concerns that they would create new barriers to cast a ballot and disenfranchise voters, while doing little to address voter fraud concerns.

But the concept, a Republican priority, is widely popular among Pennsylvanians, and despite some opposition within their party, Democratic leaders were prepared to allow the vote in the state House — showing a willingness to negotiate on voter ID regulations in exchange for a wide range of reforms aimed at expanding ballot access and streamlining election administration.

In the end, it was House Republicans who could not get the votes to advance the GOP-authored voter ID bill Tuesday.

House Minority Leader Jesse Topper, R-Bedford, said in a statement that GOP House members had issues with the voter ID bill they are still working through.

“These bills are about more than concepts, it’s about voting on law,” Topper said. “While I strongly support Voter ID, it is clear that our caucus has specific concerns with the details of this bill and we are continuing to try to work through those concerns.”

Topper, in a brief interview later, declined to elaborate on what concerns members have with the bill. However, several grassroots conservative groups launched advocacy efforts on Monday, asking GOP lawmakers to oppose the bill and arguing that it does not go far enough to secure the ballot box because it offers voters alternate ID options besides requiring photo identification.

“This is NOT a real voter ID bill,” Audit the Vote PA wrote in its call-to-action on Telegram on Monday.

Under the legislation stalled Tuesday, Pennsylvania voters would be required to show ID every time they cast a ballot. The bill includes a wide-ranging list of accepted forms of voter ID, from photo identification to state-issued voter registration cards and utility bills.

If voters do not have an approved form of identification when voting, they would have the option to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity or ask a friend or relative to sign paperwork vouching for them, according to the bill.

Pennsylvania voters are currently required to show ID only the first time they cast a ballot at a polling location, and present proof of ID every time they apply for a mail ballot.

Rep. Tom Mehaffie, R-Dauphin, who authored the voter ID bill, said it was drafted with respect to a 2012 state appellate court ruling, which struck down a previous voter ID law that required photo identification every time someone casts a ballot.

“This is what we’re trying to explain to our caucus members and friends that if you go any stronger, we’re sitting with a 2012 court case that holds precedence over what we can do,” Mehaffie said.

The policy had gained the support of longtime opponents to voter ID, including key Democratic legislative leaders. Even the ACLU of Pennsylvania, which has successfully argued in front of appellate courts to overturn prior voter ID laws, did not oppose the policy.

The organization stopped short of supporting the proposal but Liz Randol, legislative director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, called the proposal “benign” and said it didn’t raise legality and disenfranchisement concerns.

“It does not run afoul of a lot of the concerns that the ACLU has typically had from a legal perspective,” she said, adding that the organization’s position would change if the General Assembly altered the bill to limit the forms of acceptable ID or eliminate options for voters to fill out an affidavit in lieu of an ID.

For Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate, requiring voter ID was a must before considering any other election reforms, including early in-person voting and more time for officials to process mail ballots — both issues that advocates and election officials have been begging for for years.

A top Senate Republican leader said earlier this year that if Democrats are willing to negotiate on voter ID, it “unlocks the opportunity to have discussion on a number of issues that have not been able to advance over the last two years.”

“There are a number of items that are out there for conversation — the pre-canvassing issue, the early voting issue, same-day voter registration issue — all those conversations we’re willing to have, so long that we have confidence in the integrity of the process,” said Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman, R-Indiana, earlier this year. “The most significant thing we can do to ensure the integrity of the process is to require voter ID.”

Now that the voter ID bill has stalled, however, the future of the election reforms sent to the Republican-controlled Senate on Tuesday is in danger of faltering.

Senate Republicans prefer a constitutional change over a statutory change like the one proposed in the House, since voter ID statutory changes have previously been struck down by the courts. House Majority Leader Matt Bradford, D-Montgomery, said Tuesday that House Democrats would not allow a vote to enshrine voter ID requirements in the state constitution.

Several House Republican members remained optimistic that they will get enough support in the future for Mehaffie’s bill to change the state’s current voter ID provisions.

“Sometimes you just have to hold things for a little bit until more people from both sides of the aisle are comfortable with this bill,” Mehaffie added.

Rep. Martina White, R-Philadelphia, said she believes there’s still bipartisan support for new voter ID requirements, but each member has their own threshold of what those requirements should be to “ensure the integrity of our elections.”

Had it come up for a vote Tuesday, she would have supported it, she added.

Some long-sought changes still missing

Lawmakers still approved a sweeping reform measure on a party-line vote, 102-101, with all Democrats supporting it. The bill was authored by House Speaker Joanna McClinton, D-Philadelphia, and is aimed at expanding ballot access and streamlining election administration.

McClinton’s sweeping election bill, if approved by the Senate, would establish early in-person voting in the state, allow counties to process mail ballots before election day and eliminate the date requirement for mail-in ballots, among other changes.

Lawmakers from both parties may feel a sense of urgency to address Pennsylvania counties’ well-documented issues ahead of the midterm election next year, after a number of issues arose during the 2024 presidential election.

State courts issued conflicting rulings on whether undated ballots should be counted just days before Election Day. Bucks County was ordered to allow an additional day of in-person mail-in voting after people spent hours waiting in line for the state’s arduously slow version of early voting. And election officials spent the months before the election warning voters results might not be available on election night because of state law blocking them from processing mail ballots until Election Day.

The bill seeks to address several of these items, in many ways crossing off a wish list for advocates and election officials.

The bill requires all counties to notify voters whose mail ballots may not be counted and creates more detailed regulations around drop boxes.

By eliminating the date requirement for mail ballots, the bill addresses an issue that has been tied up in courts for years. And establishing early in-person voting may avoid the long lines that plagued election offices in the days leading up to the 2024 election.

“It sort of has sort of something for everyone,” Randol said.

However, GOP lawmakers and election officials contend the bill still does not address some of the biggest issues with Pennsylvania’s election code, including permitting a mail ballot application deadline that allows voters to apply for ballots so close to election day that the postal service may not deliver it on time.

Thad Hall, the election director in Mercer County, said significant changes would be needed to make the bill work for small counties.

Some of the policies, he said, appeared written for Pennsylvania’s larger counties with dozens or hundreds of staff members. McClinton’s bill requires early voting to be available on weekends and that counties have two drop boxes, checked daily by two workers. While a big county may manage this easily, Hall said it would be burdensome for counties with a total of just one or two election workers.

“It doesn’t help your cause if you don’t consult smaller counties and you put things in there that legitimately would undermine our ability to do our work,” he said.

But the concepts were on the right track, Hall said, noting that he was bracing for a “s— show” in 2026 if early in-person voting is not approved by then.

“I am grateful that somebody in leadership took the time to actually put together a bill that, even if it’s not perfect, at least it has the good moving parts in it that could be fixed,” he added.

_____