I’ll admit to being somewhat surprised that the evidence the judge has requested hasn’t already been presented, given the importance of the underlying question. Hopefully, the data will shed at least a little light on the impact of the proposed ID law.
There’s no guarantee it will, however; as we’ve already seen in other courts, once a match is complete the arguments invariably begin about the significance of the results. Moreover, there’s no guarantee that the state (which is responsible for maintaining the voting rolls) will be able to produce the requested data: a spokesperson for the state said it will “do its best to comply” with the requirement to deliver the data by next Tuesday.
While it is encouraging to see this potential development in the Pennsylvania case, it does seems strange to be cheering the use of evidence in a trial. Still, given how little evidence has been brought forth in ID litigation across the country, even this tiny (if obvious) step suggests that we may be inching closer to a greater use of data in the fierce fights over voter ID and other election policy issues across the nation.