The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday called for more hearings on whether a new Republican-backed voter ID law can be implemented this fall without disenfranchising voters who currently lack the needed photo identification.

The decision drew sharp rebukes from two of the six justices. They said it was already clear that some legitimate voters could not secure the needed ID in time for the election.

"I have heard enough about the Commonwealth's scramble to meet this law's requirements," wrote Justice Debra McCloskey Todd. “There is ample evidence of disarray in the record, and I would not allow chaos to beget chaos.”

Pennsylvania's law, passed this spring on a strictly partisan vote and signed by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, is one of the most restrictive in the country in terms of the specific kind of photo ID required and the documentation needed to secure an ID.

Because of Pennsylvania's historic role as a battleground state, the law has taken a prominent role in the voting wars that have swamped the country's courts this year.

Republicans in the legislature, concerned about machine politics in Philadelphia, have said the photo ID requirement is necessary to combat the threat of voter fraud.

Democrats note that the state has not proved such fraud exists and argue that the real purpose is to make it harder for urban, poor and minority voters, who are more likely than others to lack the kind of specific ID the law requires.

Their position, they say, was reinforced when House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R, listed the law as an accomplishment at a meeting of GOP activists.

"Voter ID — which is going to allow governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done," he said.

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said Turzai's "boastful" comment was regrettable but added that requiring photo ID was not particularly burdensome, and he expressed confidence that Pennsylvania officials could provide proper ID to otherwise qualified voters in time for the election.

But the Supreme Court majority was not sure that goal could be met. The law could well be constitutional in the long run, it said, but could disenfranchise voters in the coming election.

It returned the case to Simpson and told him to conduct a hearing and rule by Oct. 2.