January 17, 2014
Statement from Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane in response to the Commonwealth Court's permanent injunction to the implementation of the Voter ID law:
"I respect Judge McGinley's very thoughtful decision in this matter. The Office of Attorney General will continue to defend the rights of all Pennsylvanians and we will work with all related Commonwealth agencies to carry out this decision and ensure that all voters have access to free and fair elections."
Q&A regarding Attorney General Kane's position:
1. How does this decision affect Attorney General Kane's previous concerns?
Attorney General Kane's previous concern and legal analysis mirrored the concern and ultimate decision of the courts in that implementation may not be sufficient to ensure free and fair elections.
2. What happens now in terms of an appeal?
The Office of Attorney General is awaiting direction from its client.
3. Why did Attorney General Kane defend this case and not DOMA?
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney is obligated to withdraw from a case when they have a fundamental disagreement with their client. Additionally, it was quite clear from Attorney General Kane's legal analysis that DOMA unconstitutionally violated the rights of due process and equal protection. Based on existing case law, the Voter ID law appeared to be constitutional on its face. The issue was always the implementation of the law.