Meet the Pontius Pilate of Voting Rights: Pennsylvania's Supreme Court

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/meet-the-pontius-pilate-of-voting-rights-pennsylvanias-supreme-court/262559/


Justice Seamus McCaffery offered a dissenting opinion. (Reuters)

Yesterday I wrote about the strange ambivalence many Americans feel toward the right to vote. It's a good idea for the "right" people, but very dangerous in the "wrong" hands. Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision in a closely watched voter ID case in that state (dissents here and here); and that decision, while nominally a victory for those challenging the law, is dangerously cavalier about a concrete danger to the upcoming election.

Simply put, the majority of the state Supreme Court held that the state of Pennsylvania has not followed the law -- not the part of it, anyway, that requires the state Department of Transportation to provide voters with a valid ID. In Pennsylvania, people who don't drive can go to a DOT driver's exam station and, for a fee, obtain an identification card, called a 1510(b) card. Until now, those cards have cost money, and required much the same kind of identification as a driver's license -- e.g., a birth certificate.

But under the voter ID law, a potential voter who lacks a photo ID can sign a sworn statement that he or she "does not possess proof of identification . . . and requires proof of identification for voting purposes." At that point, a 1510(b) card is to be issued free of charge. The problem is that the DOT has been refusing to adopt the new, looser requirements specified in the Voter ID law, arguing that the 1510(b) card can be used for security purposes like boarding an airplane. For that reason the DOT has continued to require documents such as a birth certificate, despite what the law says.

Given that it is late September, that would, one would think, be enough to justify an injunction against imposing the ID requirement on the November election. But four Justices of the six-member court decided instead to remand the case to the Commonwealth Court, which had upheld it on August 15, to take another look at whether it can implemented before November 5. The majority concedes that the population that may encounter difficulty voting in the fall "includes members of the most vulnerable members of our society (the elderly, disabled members of our community, and the financially disadvantaged)." This puzzling ruling reminds me of a word I learned years ago from an Italian politician: ponziopilatismo, the Pontius Pilate maneuver, washing one's hands and looking the other way.

[justiceischeap]

1. Maybe leaving grounds to appeal to a higher court?

Don't know much about the law... could be that or they are mostly Repubs.

[HopeHoops]

3. See my post (#2) for more on what's going on.

[HopeHoops]

2. It's much more complicated than that. The dissents were because those two wanted to over turn it.

The majority sent it back to Simpson with some tough restrictions that will likely result in an injunction (deadline 2 Oct), but the two who voted against it felt the PASC should just overturn it on the spot or at least issue their OWN injunction. Simpson has a tough job because the burden of proof is on the state to show they won't disenfranchise anyone.

The lowest estimate of those affected (the state's of course) is 100,000, while the opposition quotes the more realistic number of 750,000. So far, less than 10,000 of those have gotten IDs and at the rate they are going there's no way to even get close to 100,000, much less 750,000. There's also the matter of the political intent of the law and House Republican leader Mike Tursai's statement that the law will give the state of PA to Romney.

As for the proof needed, the Corbett administration quietly changed the requirements (VERY quietly) from a SS card and birth certificate to just your SS number and two forms of proof of residency like a utility bill, property tax notice, or phone bill as long as the addresses match. But that's not the main obstacle. For many people it is the distance to the nearest PennDOT location and their lack of transportation (or the cost of it). And I still haven't figured out how my eldest daughter will vote since she's out of state at college. Absentee ballots are a huge unanswered question. I'll probably drive down to get her and take her back the same day.

Simpson is holding hearings next week and will have to rule by the 2nd, but it's unlikely he'll find a loophole to avoid an injunction. That doesn't kill the law, but it means it wouldn't be enforced until after the election and the PASC won't review it again probably until their next session. I think there was agreement among them that it should probably be overturned, but there wasn't sufficient time to give it a thorough review. Now that Orie's under indictment, the court's a 3-3 split by party affiliation, but it's one of the few SCs in the country that regularly crosses the expected party-line vote in favor of doing their job of interpreting the state and federal constitutions.

pennlive.com does excellent coverage of the issue. The print edition is far more in-depth, but the on-line one covers the basics pretty well.

[fearnobush]

4. Co worker just got a big flyer in the mail

Im holding it and it says, "If you want to vote SHOW IT."
Then it has a big picture of a PA drivers license with a middle aged white woman on it. The flyer looks intimidating, almost Orwellian.

[HopeHoops]

5. What was the origin? I'm curious if that came from the state or an advocacy group.

[dsc]

6. I think this was a compromise that got the GOP justices to go along

This should be as good as a win. The judge pretty much has to overturn the law if there is any voter who can't vote due to the law.