This must have upset the lefty lawyers pushing the suit no end.
One of the key tactics the legal shills at the ACLU and other left wing organizations used in order to challenge Pennsylvania's common sense voter ID law was to search for 'poster child' plaintiffs who claimed they would be unable to receive photo IDs under the new law.
Needless to say, the judge saw through this attempt at protecting voter fraud, the injunction they wanted was not granted and the case was set for appeal.
But then the lead plaintiff, Viviette Applewhite, 93 did something without consulting the lawfare team:
The day after a judge upheld Pennsylvania's new voter identification law, the lead plaintiff in the suit seeking to block the law went to a PennDot office and was issued the photo ID card she needs to vote.
Nothing has changed since Viviette Applewhite, 93, testified in July. The law stands. She still doesn't have a driver's license or Social Security card. The name on her birth certificate is still different from the name on her other documents - all of which, under the law, should have barred her from getting her photo ID.
But at precisely 1:16 p.m. Thursday, she got it anyway.
"You just have to keep trying," said Applewhite, who uses an electric wheelchair. "Don't give up."
State officials called it an unplanned exercise in what they've been saying for weeks: Clerks behind counters at Pennsylvania Department of Transportation centers can take age and other factors into consideration when granting exceptions to the list of documents the law requires, licensing bureau director Janet Dolan said.
"PennDot has said all along that they would work with folks on a case-by-case basis," said Ron Ruman, a Department of State spokesman.
Call it the Applewhite rule.
Word of her success threw her lawyers into something of a tizzy. A leader of a civil liberties group challenging the law promptly cast doubt on the state's motives.
"PennDot was flexible providing the ID without Mrs. Applewhite having the documents required by law. We wonder if that would be the case for someone who wasn't a lead plaintiff in a lawsuit and the subject of a lot of attention in the press," said Penda Hair, codirector of the Advancement Project.
Even so, an Inquirer reporter who accompanied Applewhite to the PennDot center on Cheltenham Avenue in the city's West Oak Lane section saw no sign that the clerk recognized her or realized she was a major figure in the battle over the law.
She used a frayed Medicare card from the 1990s that listed her Social Security number with only the last seven digits visible, a Pennsylvania department of Public Welfare document that showed her name, signature, and Social Security number in her own handwriting, and documents showing her street address. She had nothing verifying that the Viviette Virene Brooks listed on her birth certificate was the same person as the Viviette Applewhite applying for an ID.
She still got one.
Ms. Applewite's story was that her purse was stolen soe months ago with her social security card and other documents. For some reason, she was unable to go through the process Social Security has set up to provide duplicate social security cards in these cases.
But the DOT clerks have received training to help people in her situation as part of the law.
According to the Inquirer story, Ms. Applewhite told her neighbor, "I didn't fight for nothing. I fought and got my rights."
She 'fought' all right. Ironically, if it wasn't for Pennsylvania's new voter ID law, the one she was a front person in the lawsuit against, she probably wouldn't have gotten one.
She's going to have to be dropped from the suit now as a plaintiff, since her complaint no longer exists..it's moot, as lawyers say. Actually, the entire lawsuit is bogus, since Pennsylvania's law mirrors the one in Indiana the Supreme Court has already ruled as constitutional and in compliance with federal laws.
But of course what the lawsuit is really about is tying the law up if possible until after November, so the usual voter fraud can occur.
Want to bet the ACLU's other 'plaintiffs' could get voter ID's with similar documentation?