Updated at 11:10 a.m. ET -- A Pennsylvania judge has blocked enforcement of the key section of a voter identification law which the state legislature enacted and Republican Gov. Tom Corbett signed last March, meaning that the law will not be in effect for the Nov. 6 election.

Judge Robert Simpson said that even with the streamlined procedures that state officials proposed to make it easier for voters without ID cards to obtain them, “the proposed changes are to occur about five weeks before the general election, and I question whether sufficient time now remains to attain the goal of liberal access” to ID cards.

He said, “I expected more photo IDs to have been issued by this time. For this reason, I accept Petitioners’ argument that in the remaining five weeks before the general election, the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed.”

Those challenging the law included the Homeless Advocacy Project, the League of Women Voters and other groups.

Simpson ruled that those voters who cast provisional ballots will not be required to return to their county election board within six days of the election to show proof of identification.

Simpson’s ruling means that the photo ID requirement won’t be in effect for the Nov. 6 election, but it may be in effect for future elections. His decision did not strike down the entire law; in fact he rejected efforts by those challenging to law to stop state officials from educating voters about the voter ID requirement.

Simpson also said that those challenging the law have conceded that the part of the law which requires proof of identification for absentee voting does not harm would-be voters and may be implemented.

According to a recent Franklin & Marshall poll, nearly three out of five registered Pennsylvania voters favor the photo identification requirement.

Although some Republicans had hopes this summer of making Pennsylvania competitive in the presidential race, recent polling shows GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney between 7 and 12 percentage points behind President Barack Obama in the state.

Pennsylvania also has a Senate race this year, but Democratic Sen. Bob Casey Jr. is 12 points ahead of Republican challenger Tom Smith, according to that Franklin & Marshall poll.

Special report: Voting rights in America

State Republican Party chairman Rob Gleason said in August that no matter what the courts ruled, voters in the state think they need a form of identification, so the law will have an effect. Gleason said, “Enough has been said; everybody’s heard about it. No matter what they (the courts) decide now, people think you’ve got to have it.”

Even in the wake of Simpson’s injunction, opponents of the law still contend that it is deeply flawed.

“While we’re happy that voters in Pennsylvania will not be turned away if they do not have an ID, we are concerned that the ruling will allow election workers to ask for ID at the polls and this could cause confusion,” said Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, an advocacy group opposed to the law. “This injunction serves as a mere Band-Aid for law’s inherent problems, not an effective remedy.”

An initial assessment by Pennsylvania Secretary of State Carol Aichele’s office found that 91 percent of the state’s 8.2 million registered voters have Pennsylvania Department of Transportation-issued licenses which are acceptable ID for voting.

It also reported that names of nearly 760,000 voters couldn’t be matched between the state’s voter list and the driver’s license database. But some of those non-matching names were merely name mismatches of the same person between one database and another.

The law also says other forms of ID are acceptable, such as military ID cards, U.S. passports, identification cards from accredited Pennsylvania colleges or universities or state senior care facilities, or other photo identification cards issued by the federal, Pennsylvania, county or municipal governments.

Today's Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on a challenge to the state's strict new voter ID law amounts to this message to the state: either prove that voters can easily get a new photo ID card or face the near-certain prospect that the state Supreme Court will block it from going into effect.

A state court judge in Pennsylvania ruled last month against a group of challengers to the new law, citing insufficient proof that it would disenfranchise minority voters. The challengers immediately appealed, and now the state's Supreme Court has overturned the lower court ruling, sending the case back to the judge with instructions to figure out what the practical implications of the law will actually be.

Here's the rub. The Pennsylvania legislature, in requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls, intended to make it easy for residents without a drivers license to get a voter ID card by showing only a minimal amount of identification when they apply for one. But the state agencies responsible for issuing voter ID cards are instead insisting on more rigorous proof of identity than the new law requires. 

The agencies are demanding that applicants produce a birth certificate stamped with a raised seal, a Social Security card, and two other forms of identification showing the current residence. The state agencies say if they give the cards out on the more relaxed basis spelled out in the new voter ID law, that would create a homeland security problem, because the cards can be used to board aircraft.  

So today, the state Supreme Court instructed the judge to take another crack at this case and determine whether the state will actually make it difficult to get one of these ID cards.

Until then, the law remains in effect. But the court made it clear today that unless the state can demonstrate that the voter ID cards can be obtained in the more relaxed manner spelled out in the new law, then the court would almost certainly block the voter ID law before the general election in November.  

The Justice Department approved New Hampshire's new voter ID, a version that is stricter than existing rules in the Granite State, but not as restrictive as other voters ID laws that the DOJ has rejected.'

Recommended: Democrats see complacency and 'crap' as barriers to repeat Florida win

Under New Hampshire's previous rules, no ID was required as a condition of voting. Ballot clerks checked the names that voters announced at the polls, read back the addresses for verification, and handed over a ballot.

Under the state's new law, voters must present a photo ID -- a driver's license, a voter ID card, a military ID card, a US passport, a student ID card, a photo ID issued by any level of government, and any other photo ID deemed legitimate by supervisors at the polls.

A year from now, the list of acceptable ID's will be narrowed to a driver's license, a non-driver ID card, military ID, or passport.  But voters unable to produce the required identification can sign an affidavit, attesting to their identity, and cast a regular ballot. Beginning next year, any voter doing so will also be photographed.

New Hampshire's list of acceptable IDs as of 2013 is actually more restrictive than the set of IDs Texas would have accepted under that state's voter ID law, which a federal court blocked last week.

So why the difference? It seems New Hampshire's decision to also make it possible for voters without the proper ID to cast a regular ballot, provided they sign an affidavit and have their picture taken, allowed enough leeway.

The Voting Rights Act requires federal approval for election law changes in states with a history of discrimination against minority voters.  Most of the states subject to the law are in the South.  New Hampshire's change required approval because 10 townships in the state are covered by the act, even though the entire state is not.

Pennsylvania this week became the second northern battleground state to enact a voter identification law since Republicans took control of the governorships and legislatures in those states in the 2010 election.

Wisconsin enacted a voter ID law earlier this year, but it is being challenged in federal court.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican elected in 2010, signed the bill into law Thursday, saying that it “protects a sacred principle, one shared by every citizen of this nation. That principle is: one person, one vote.’’

The Pennsylvania law requires voters to present a driver’s license, passport, an identification card from an accredited college or university in Pennsylvania, an U.S. Armed Forces ID card or an ID issued by long-term care nursing facility or assisted living residence.

With Pennsylvania being a potential battleground state in the November presidential election and also having a Senate race in which Democratic Sen. Bob Casey is up for re-election, the law may skew turnout, if it keeps low-income people or other groups away from the polls.

“I don’t think the impact is -- in terms of actual people -- large,” said pollster and political scientist Terry Madonna at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. “But you cannot say that it will not affect some people; it will. There are people -- older people, indigents -- who will not have an appropriate photo ID. Do I think the number is huge? No. Are there some? Yes. Is there a lot of evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania? Not particularly, but some in Philadelphia over the years.”

“This debate in our legislature was hugely partisan and bitter,” he added. Three GOP state senators crossed over in the Senate to oppose the bill, he said; no Democrat in the Senate voted for it. No Democrat in state House voted for it; three GOP House members voted against it.

The law allows an eligible would-be voter who does not have an ID to apply to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for a photo ID to use for voting.

“I haven’t had a chance to look at the actual bill, so I don’t know much about the specifics, but I think the idea in principle of making sure that we have integrity in our voting process makes sense,” said Sen. Pat Toomey, R- Pa., who was elected in 2010. He said he did not think the law would have much impact on voter turnout.

A new study from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law said Thursday that 70 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidential election will come from states with laws that require photo ID, limit early voting, or impose new requirements on groups doing voter registration drives. Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program said, “These laws represent the most significant cutback in voting rights in decades.”

In an election year dominated by battles over health care mandates, tax rates, and rising gasoline prices, it’s the mechanics of voting – and who’ll get to vote in November – that’s getting full-time attention from state legislators, election lawyers, and judges.

In the latest example, the Virginia state Senate is headed for a vote Friday on a new voter identification requirement – one more indication that the voter ID controversy will keep boiling in legislatures and in the courts right up to Election Day.

These new voter ID laws are being proposed almost exclusively by Republican legislators and governors in states throughout the nation, spawning both litigation and angry rhetoric from Democrats.

“All of a sudden after the 2008 election, these (voter ID laws) miraculously appear,” said Rep. Frederica Wilson, D- Fla. at a recent anti-voter ID event at the Capitol. “Why? Because we have a black president in the White House and it is to stop all of the people of color from … coming out to vote, because they (the proponents of voter ID laws) know who they are targeting …"

Here’s the status of some recently enacted voter ID laws and states where such laws might be considered this year:

Enacted but blocked
South Carolina: Last December, the Justice Department denied approval of the state’s voter ID law requiring voters to present photo identification that Gov. Nikki Haley had signed in May. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, South Carolina is one of nine states that must seek approval, or “pre-clearance,” from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington, D.C., in order to make any change in voting procedure.

State Attorney General Alan Wilson brought suit in federal court, arguing that the requirements “are at most a temporary inconvenience” to some voters. The state contended that its law was nearly identical to one enacted by Indiana and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008. Therefore barring South Carolina from doing what Indiana had done would “raise serious constitutional concerns” about whether Section 5 “violates South Carolina’s right to equal sovereignty.”

In a separate but related case with big implications for voter ID laws, Shelby County, Ala., is fighting in the federal appeals court in Washington to have Section 5 of VRA struck down as unconstitutional. The appeals court heard oral arguments on Jan. 19 and a ruling is likely in the next several weeks.  The Shelby County case will likely end up before the Supreme Court and if the justices were to strike down Section 5, the Justice Department would no longer be able to pre-emptively block changes in voting laws.  The department would still be able to use another Section of the VRA to challenge voting laws that have a racially discriminatory impact.

Enacted but likely to be blocked
Texas: State Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a suit last month in federal court, asking that Texas be permitted this year to use the photo ID law Gov. Rick Perry signed last spring.

Under Section 5 of the VRA, the Justice Department is now considering Texas’s law, having asked for additional information from the state on the race and ethnicity of Texas voters and drivers. The department must give its response to the Texas law by March 12.

In his filing, Abbott said Texas did not have the racial and ethnic data the Justice Department wanted. “Indeed, the very reason Texas refuses to maintain racial and ethnic data on its list of registered voters is to facilitate a colorblind electoral process,” he said.

Even in the unlikely event the Justice Department were to approve the Texas law, opponents of the law contend that there would be problems implementing it.

“The state is not ready to allow citizens the ability to obtain this kind of voter ID,” said Rep. Charlie Gonzales, D- Texas. “It goes way beyond just going to the Department of Public Safety and standing in line. You still have to have your birth certificate; if you’re divorced and your name is different you have to get a certified copy of your divorce decree. There are so many hoops to jump through.”

Enacted but may be blocked
Laws similar to those in South Carolina and Texas have passed in several states and are likely to be opposed by the Justice Department over the same concerns.

Alabama:  Another Section 5 state, Alabama passed a voter ID law which doesn’t take effect until 2014.

Mississippi:  Voters last November approved a ballot initiative to create a photo ID requirement. But the legislature must provide funding to implement the law and the state must receive Justice Department approval since Mississippi is a Section 5 state.

Wisconsin: On Tuesday Wisconsin conducted its first elections under the voter ID law that Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed last year.  Wisconsin is not covered by Section 5 of the VRA but challenges have already been launched. On Thursday civil rights groups and a labor union coalition filed a suit against the law arguing that it discriminates against black and Latino voters. The American Civil Liberties Union has also filed a suit seeking to block enforcement of the law. One argument ACLU makes is that the cost of obtaining a copy of a birth certificate ($20 in Wisconsin, more in other states) in order to get a state ID card would be “a severe financial burden” for some people, a burden that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The voting in municipal and county primary elections in Wisconsin went smoothly, according to the Associated Press. Walker commented on his Twitter account: “1st election w/photo ID required & it seems to have run well. Proof that common sense still works.”

But Rep. Gwen Moore, D- Wisc., a longtime political foe of Walker, alleges the governor "clearly has had a goal for many, many years to disenfranchise people of color."

She also contended that the law would hurt President Barack Obama’s chances to win the state in November, adding, “This is strictly designed to disenfranchise people who would otherwise vote for Democrats."

Asked to comment on Moore’s remarks, Walker’s spokesman Cullen Werwie said, “Requiring photo identification to vote is common sense – we require it to get a library card, cold medicine, and public assistance.  Gov. Walker will continue to implement common sense reforms that protect the electoral process and increases citizens’ confidence in the results of our elections.” 

May be enacted this year
Virginia:  The state Senate is likely to vote Friday on a bill that would require a voter to present some form of identification but would allow him or her to use an employee identification card containing a photograph of the voter, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, or paycheck that shows the name and address of the voter. As a VRA Section 5-covered state, Virginia would need to gets its law cleared by the Justice Department.

Pennsylvania:  The Pennsylvania House passed a voter ID bill last year. Both Republican and Democratic sources say that there will be a renewed push for voter ID to pass in the state Senate, where the GOP has a 30 to 20 majority, and to be sent on to Republican Gov. Tom Corbett for his signature in the next couple of months. Corbett has said he supports a voter ID law.

Minnesota: A Minnesota state senate committee has approved a proposed amendment to the state constitution to require photo ID for voting, but it has yet to be approved by the full state senate and the state House. Last year, Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, vetoed a voter ID bill which had been passed by the Republican-majority state legislature. 

Missouri: On the November ballot is a proposed amendment to the state constitution which would allow for the legislature to impose a photo ID requirement. Republican state Sen. Bill Stouffer, the sponsor of that measure, predicts it will pass with 75 percent or more of the vote. The legislature last year passed a photo ID bill which Democratic Gov.  Jay Nixon vetoed.

Recently enacted
Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Kansas all enacted photo ID laws last year. None has yet been enjoined or struck down.  None of those states are covered by Section 5 of the VRA.

Not likely to be enacted this year
Iowa: The state’s Republican Secretary of State Matt Schultz has proposed a photo identification law but state Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal opposes the idea.

Ohio: The Ohio House passed a photo ID bill last year but the Senate didn’t act on it. The prospects do not look good for passing a bill this year, said Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican.

He said the photo ID bill last year “polarized people over the whole concept of election reform and modernization. The photo ID bill was much more ‘nuclear,’” he said, than another bill, which he supported, to shorten and standardize the early voting period in every country in the state.  “Once it (the photo ID bill) came on the scene, the common-sense conversations stopped and … it was really hard to build consensus around thoughtful reforms,” Husted said.