PA. Appeals Court Refuses to Stop Voter ID Law

[JPZenger]

Decision announced this morning. I had hoped the judge would delay the implementation for a year to provide time for voters, counties and PennDOT to get up to speed.

It is being appealed to the State Supreme Court. If they vote on straight party lines, it would be a 3-3 decision, which would mean this Appeals/Commonwealth Court decision would stand.

[femmocrat]

1. Here is the link to LBN.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014194741

I didn't know about the possibility of a tie on the Supreme Court.... What is the political make-up of that court?

The law seems blatantly unconstitutional, to me at least.

[svip]

3. Reason for current 3-3 tie ..

Court is 3-3 due to a Republican Judge getting indicted for numerous counts of campaign fraud.

Shocker, eh?

[Pat Riot]

6. Yeah, Orie, right?

With her out it made a tie, I believe. Sux.

We should spread the word that they must give you your ID for free. You must tell them you need it to vote. Some ruling to the effect that it would be considered like a poll tax if people had to pay.

[Freddie]

2. PennDOT is not prepared to handle this

Our side should organize bus loads to swamp the license centers at peak times like Saturday afternoons. Are they going to turn people away?

[Pat Riot]

9. I like this idea.

We should seriously do this.

[MH1]

4. Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. will not face a retention vote, I am told.

(that was my first question)

He was just re-elected ("retained&quot for a 10-year term and then will be too old too run again (over 70) so will retire.

Next question: what are the retention circumstances of the SC judges likely to vote to uphold the law?

[JPZenger]

5. Rare to lose retention vote

It is rare for a Supreme Court justice to loose a retention vote - I think it only happened once or twice in the last 40 years, and one of those was after the illegal midnight pay raise.

[meow2u3]

7. I wonder how much money the GOP paid Simpson for this blatantly partisan ruling

The plaintiffs had much more than sufficient evidence to prove that the photo ID law amounts to voter genocide. Any reasonable, fair judge would have tossed out this ethnic voter cleansing law as the piece of unconstitutional garbage it is. So Judge Simpson must be on the Koch Bros.' payroll; that's the only reason I can think of for him to side with the rethugs.

[freeandequalpa]

8. Summary of Judge Simpson's Opinion

For anyone interested in more details, I've posted a summary of Judge Simpson's opinion here:

http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/petitioners-request-to-enjoin-enforcement-of-photo-id-law-denied/

[Pat Riot]

10. Summary of the summary

Shut up. Fuck you. Because we say so.

[freeandequalpa]

11. sigh

I could have saved myself so much time and effort . . .

[Pat Riot]

12. ha ha, sorry

But thanks for doing it anyway! I was trying to read the whole thing, but then I got so mad...

[MH1]

13. I appreciate your effort

the short summary was interesting and I hope to dig into the detailed summary later. This part I did not know, and it just floors me, as in "Really????" (but then I'm not a lawyer) (emphasis added):

(b) Petitioners were required to but did not establish that the law is unconstitutional in every possible application (in other words, Petitioners failed to show that the law is unconstitutional even when applied to voters who already possess acceptable photo ID).

You probably put it in the detailed summary, but, could you explain that bit and whether/why it makes ANY sense under the law of PA and/or laws of the US? (Realizing that in your blog article, I think you are just trying to expose Simpson's thinking, without commentary. Commentary is ok here. )

[freeandequalpa]

14. not always possible to simplify

In an effort to simplify things in my quick summary, I fear I caused confusion.

Judge Simpson, noting that Petitioners brought a "facial challenge" to the Photo ID Law, wrote: "A statute is facially unconstitutional only where no set of circumstances exist under which the statute would be valid." As I understand it, he is saying that voters who already possess identification OR can get identification OR can vote absentee OR are indigent (and, therefore, do not have to show identification) will not be denied the right to vote. Since Petitioners failed to prove that any voters who do not fall into one of those categories exist, they did not show a set of circumstances under which the law would be invalid, and therefore, did not show that the law is facially unconstitutional. At least, I think that it what he is saying.

Judge Simpson left open the theoretical possibility that a voter could bring an "as applied" challenge -- that is, that a voter could challenge the law as unconstitutional as applied to him. But that challenge only would succeed, Judge Simpson seemed to say, if brought by a voter who:

1) Does not have an acceptable ID.

2) Could not, had he tried in a timely fashion, have obtained an acceptable ID.

3) Is not entitled to vote absentee.

4) Goes to the polls on election day and casts a provisional ballot.

5) Is not indigent (because those who are indigent do not have to show photo ID to have their provisional ballot counted - they only have to submit an affidavit saying they are indigent within 6 days of the election).

6) Asks the county board of election within 6 days of the election to count his provisional ballot, but is refused.

7) Brings a lawsuit to have his provisional ballot counted and loses.