"Speaking to the Republican State Committee on June 23, 2012, Turzai stated that Pennsylvania's new[76] voter ID law would "allow Governor [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" in the November 2012 U.S. Presidential election. He listed the goals that the majority-Republican legislature had achieved toward that end: "Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation—abortion facility regulations—in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."[77][78] According to CBS Philadelphia, "Turzai's spokesman defends his boss's comment, saying Turzai meant that assuring voter integrity will make for a fairer election."[79]
Turzai's comment heightened national debate and concern over whether the goal of the voter ID laws then being passed in Republican-controlled states was actually to check voter fraud or to set obstacles against "elderly, disabled, low-income people and the homeless, plus married women who have changed their names, transgender individuals, and students who have photo IDs that don't list an expiration date",[79][80][81] in Pennsylvania an estimated 750,000 of whom were already registered voters, as acknowledged by the state.[82] A lawsuit had been filed in April challenging "Act 18," the new law, signed in March, which amended the Election Code's definition of "proof of identification" to include only certain forms of ID as acceptable.[83][84][85] Before the suit went to court in July, the state "signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there 'have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.'"[86] In August, in a statement praising the Commonwealth court for upholding Act 18, Turzai said, "It is unfortunate, but there has been a history of voter fraud in Pennsylvania. The elections in the Commonwealth will be on a more level playing field thanks to voter ID and other recent election reforms."[87]
The plaintiffs appealed to the state supreme court, which vacated the lower court's decision and sent it back. Justice McCaffrey wrote, "While I have no argument with the requirement that all Pennsylvania voters, at some reasonable point in the future, will have to present photo identification before they may cast their ballots, it is clear to me that the reason for the urgency of implementing Act 18 prior to the November 2012 election is purely political. That has been made abundantly clear by the House Majority Leader.".[85] That month during a Fox News debate with state senator Daylin Leach, Turzai claimed that the legislation, for which no Democratic representative had voted,[82] had bipartisan support, and argued that it "is really just about presenting voter identification, which you do when you're buying Sudafed at a drugstore, or going to a place to buy beer, or to a gym, or going to an airport."[88]"
= new reply since forum marked as read