Judge upholds Pa. voter ID law

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

By Amy Worden

INQUIRER HARRISBURG BUREAU HARRISBURG —

A Commonwealth Court judge denied a bid by civil rights groups to block the new voter identification law from taking effect, delivering a first-round victory to Gov. Corbett and legislative Republicans who pushed the measure through this spring saying it was needed to prevent voter fraud.

Judge Robert E. Simpson said the plaintiffs had not proved the new law would impose "irreparable" harm on citizens seeking to exercise their right to vote and that the legislature has the power to regulate elections.

Lawyers for the ACLU and other groups seeking the injunction are expected to will appeal the ruling.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120815_Judge_upholds_Pa__voter_ID_law.html

---

Next step. State Supreme Court.

Adding Washington Post link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-wont-halt-pa-voter-identification-law/2012/08/15/f0620852-e6d8-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html

[TheMastersNemesis]

1. How Much Bribe Money Did The Judge Get?

A lot of judgeships are elected offices.

[reflection]

3. I read that

he's a former Democrat turned Republican, for what it's worth.

I know I'm not sitting there with all the facts in front of me... but I just don't see how anyone can view this with a dispassionate eye and even begin to think it's fair and just. Let's hope the higher court sees it differently. This is such a naked power grab by the Republicans.

[bigdarryl]

4. He's a RIGHTWING judge thats the problem

Hopefully the State Supreme Court rejects this decision.There's a few progressives on that court

[happyslug]

6. None, ruling for the restriction was the safest bet on part of the Judge

Remember, the Judge said he would make his decision is plently of time for either side to file an appeal. If the Judge really wanted to STOP this action, all he had to do was to hold off a decision till after election day. Instead he made a decision, forcing one side to appeal. Thus the IMPORTANT decision was NOT on the constitutionality of the the Law BUT the decision to make a decision by August 15th.

As to the actual judge's ruling, the courts have ALWAYS given great deference to the state legislature in that the law PRESUMES all acts by the State Legislature are constitutional. In simple terms, the law in constitutional UNLESS it is clearly shown it is not. Thus the Judge accepted the decision of the Legislative that what it was doing meet the requirements set forth in the State Constitution. Thus the safe decision was to rule it constitutional and kick it upstairs for the Appealante courts to rule it unconstitutional.

[femmocrat]

30. That is pretty much how I look at it, too.

The judge ruled that the legislature could pass such a law, not on the constitutionality of the law. That is for a higher court to decide.

Someone posted an excerpt from the PA Constitution a while back and the law seems to be in direct violation--- (at least IMO, which is worthless. LOL)

Thank you for your insightful explanation, happyslug!

[drm604]

56. Is the next stop the PA SC?

That's my understanding. Are there any others before that?

[BumRushDaShow]

57. There is a Superior Court

which does general appeals as the Commonwealth court is the lowest of the "state-wide" courts. However I think they are trying to get to the SC first to halt the process more quickly and in PA, they can do this -

The court must review certain types of cases such as all death penalty cases and appeals from lawsuits that originate in Commonwealth Court. The Supreme Court also can take up any case in any court in Pennsylvania if it considers an issue of immediate public importance to be at stake. When it does this, the court exercises one of two powers known as the "King's Bench" power or the power of "extraordinary jurisdiction."

http://www.pacourts.us/T/SupremeCourt/

[freeandequalpa]

71. The appeal will go directly to the Supreme Court

An order by a Commonwealth Court judge granting or denying a request for a preliminary injunction in an original jurisdiction case such as this one is appealable directly to the Supreme Court (Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure 311(a)(4) and 1101). It will not go to the Superior Court. In fact, cases never go from the Commonwealth Court to the Superior Court. It can be confusing:

PA has two intermediate appellate courts -- the Commonwealth Court and the Superior Court. So those two courts are equal level courts. Usually cases start in the county trial courts (or in administrative agencies) and then are appealed to either the Commonwealth Court (which hears cases where the state or its agencies or local governments are a party) or the Superior Court (which hears all other appeals). However, the Commonwealth Court has “original jurisdiction” over claims brought by or against the Commonwealth itself, which means that when the Commonwealth sues or is sued, the parties bypass the county trial courts and go directly to the Commonwealth Court, which then puts on its "trial court hat." So even though Judge Simpson is an appellate judge sitting on an appellate court, he served as the trial judge in this case. Since there is no court between the Commonwealth Court and the Supreme Court, it will go to the Supreme Court.

[durablend]

2. I knew it

They weren't going to let this go.

I'm also guessing Simpson is a Republican

[Blue Idaho]

5. Legislating from the bench.

Right wing trash.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. I understand people are upset

But how does a judge legislate by upholding a law as written?

[DainBramaged]

38. You don't get it do you

or don't want to?


What a completely shitty thing to say, I understand people are upset. That's not only condescending, it's ignorant. This isn't about parking or trash removal or dog license fees, this is about people having roadblocks thrown at them to prevent them from voting.


Ignorant, that's what it is.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. You're ascribing sentitments to me that I neither feel nor expressed.

I wasn't addressing the rightness or wrongness of the decision; I was addressing the misapplication of the term "legislating from the bench." Just as calling me "ignorant" implies a lack of knowledge but none of your preceding comments seem to grant me that much benefit of the doubt.

I understand people are upset but too many are making emotional responses where forethought would better serve their interests. I understand people are upset but poorly framed rebuttals -- and baseless rants -- aren't the best means for confronting serious issues. I understand people are upset because I am trying to be empathic and sympathetic about making sure everyone gets a fair chance to vote.

Less emotionalism allows more clarity of thought.

[DainBramaged]

45. Like more guns means less crime......

your sentence was inexcusable and dismissive of our concerns. Your attempt to clarify is even less excusable.


But we've come to expect that.


Have a nice day.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. No, that's how you chose to label it.

Being emotional won't improve anything. Nor will mislabeling terms or tossing around non-existent arguments. I can't help but think of one of the movies by the 3 Stooges where they are in a sinking boat. One of them says this is no time to panic but another insists it's the perfect time to panic.

That's what this sub-thread feels like.

[DainBramaged]

50. ......

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. Sorry, but I can't see photobucket images.

[KamaAina]

47. When the law is a blatantly unconstitutional attempt at vote suppression

and he rubber-stamps it anyway.

[DainBramaged]

55. I know the feeling, I just took asprin to make the pain go away

pointless conversation

[Gothmog]

7. This is horrible news

I hope that Attorney General Holder and the DOJ have time to file suit on this horrible law

[onehandle]

8. Blacks, Students, the Elderly, and the Poor are a big problem for the GOP in PA.

They just keep voting.

Now if they could only do something about the woman vote.

I know... Only married women and their husbands must vote as a proxy for them.

The goal is narrowing the vote to middle-aged white men like myself.

So what am I complaining about? I got mine, jack.

[Voltaire]

10. REVOLUTION BABY!

I am sick of having to deal with these motherfuckers in every motherfucking state of the motherfucking union. GET RID OF THEM!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Just how many people are you planning to kill?

[MH1]

39. Why do you infer violence on the part of the other poster?

There are many ways to "get rid of" someone in a political sense. Typically, that would refer to voting them out. I think YOU are the one suggesting violence without any indication that the other poster intended it.

[NoMittens]

11. Civil Right Groups & ACLU need to Help EVERYONE GET A PHOTO ID SO THEY CAN VOTE IN MASSIVE NUMBERS!

DO NOT ALLOW THE SUPPRESSION OF VOTERS!!!!!!! MAKE THEM WISH THEY NEVER PASSED THE VOTER ID LAW!!

[drm604]

24. The PA Dept of Transportation can't possibly supply all of the needed IDs in time.

The whole thing is a travesty.

[3feetofsnow]

12. Right wingers make good communists!!

Right wingers, whomever they may be, think their shit don't stink, and they show the world we live, it should operate the way they see fit. This is how they operate as seen in the judges ruling.
Right wingers have serious problems up in their heads.
Right wingers make good communists!!

[RBInMaine]

13. They have implemented a free VOTING ONLY ID card so that makes it easier.

To head off a bad ruling, I understand they added a VOTING ONLY ID card that is free and does not require a birth certificate. Just a social security number and a piece of mail showing your address. The state did this BEFORE the court hearing and made this a big part of their argument for keeping the law.

So the thing to do is make sure everyone who needs an ID gets the hell to DMV or wherever else they can get them and get a VOTING ONLY ID card ASAP.

[3feetofsnow]

15. Nice idea

but...there are over 700,000 people needing an ID in Pennsylvania. How many DMV's?

[LynneSin]

20. very good point!

And btw welcome to DU

[Igel]

68. Quick 2 answers.

First, the #s usually tossed around are what are called "upper bounds". They're about the largest possible numbers, assuming nobody moved, left the state, has military ID, died without having the DMV notified, or registered under two (or more) different names. The # is probably far less than the upper bound. By hundreds of thousands.

Second, even if you don't have an ID you can still vote absentee. That would be a bit messy for the BOE, but manageable.

[freeandequalpa]

72. Absentee voting is not available to everyone

You only may apply for an absentee ballot if you expect to be out of town on election day or are too ill to make it to the polls. If your plans change and you are in town or have recuperated on election day, you are required by law to go to your polling place, void your absentee ballot and vote in person. If you do not, and someone finds out you are able to vote in person, they can challenge your absentee ballot and it may be voided. So you cannot just vote absentee (at least not legally) because you do not have an ID.

Here are more details on absentee ballot requirements:

http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1174088&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=7&mode=2

Here is the absentee ballot application, which you will see requires you to certify the reason you are entitled to vote absentee (also note the warning at the bottom):

www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/http;//www.portal.state.pa.us;80/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_160329_1240045_0_0_18/AbsenteeBallotApplication.pdf

[BumRushDaShow]

29. The DMVs are few and far between and are already overloaded

with people getting regular driver's licenses, taking driver's and permit test, etc etc. The state workers at them can barely handle the current workload. The state even admitted that they didn't have enough resources to generate and distribute these IDs.

As a note, it would just be for those who don't have any other "specified" photo ID with expiration date.

[MH1]

41. Is the transportation to and from the DMV (or wherever) free? Are they repaid for lost time?

I'm pretty sure the answer is NO.

That makes it a poll tax and the "free" id just a fig leaf.

[Iliyah]

14. Even the PAs who do have IDs will vote against R&R

in huge numbers. This shit will backfire on the hateful GOPs across the country. This judge didn't even consider the merits.

[meow2u3]

60. That is reason alone for the PA Supreme Court to overturn this unconstitutional law

Simpson's decision is not based on the law or the constitution, but on sheer Repuke ideology. I wonder whose payroll he's on, besides the Pennsylvania taxpayers.

BTA, Northampton County, PA (where I happen to live) is notorious for judicial corruption and bribery.

[broadcaster75201]

16. This is just really bad ... so

Just fight harder. Get people out to vote. Get them registered. Run up the score. Don't even bat an eye. Do'nt talk about silly "he got paid off", blah, blah, blah. Let the ACLU do its job and you do yours. Now.

[LongTomH]

59. "Just fight harder" is right!

Forget this "Obama will win in a landslide" bit and be prepared to fight. Even if Mr. Obama is way ahead in the polls, the GOP can still steal it. We've been thinking they can steal a close election; it looks more and more like they will try to steal even a landslide election!

I'm working on a voter registration drive here in Missouri, and I'm going to have to get more active!

[hughee99]

17. A proper heading "Judge punts"

It's a lower court being asked to decide the constitutionality of a law passed by the legislature. This guy's word wasn't going to be the last word on the issue no matter what his ruling. The one thing he did was to rule quickly enough to move the process along.

[classof56]

18. Kick and Rec for justice!

[LynneSin]

19. Absolute BULLSHIT - investigations have found 4 cases of the past decade of voter fraud

that's hardly worth spending all this taxpayer dollars to pass these laws for something that doesn't exist except extremely rare cases.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. Didn't Ann Coulter land in hot water for voting in FL *and* NY? n/t

[DainBramaged]

40. Nope, her so-called investigation disappeared like the vapor the Right Wing courts breathe.

if you search, it goes back to 2009 and poof, Right wing vapor. State elections officials have dismissed the complaint FOR 'Lack of evidence'.


There's your laws in action.

[MH1]

42. Off topic, but I LOVE the pic in your sig line (ROFLMAO for ROMNEY bumper sticker)

I may have to steal it.

[DainBramaged]

44. You are absolutely welcome to

[olegramps]

21. I hope that the churchs will encourage people to get the free voter registration.

Churchs should be in the forefront of this fight regardless of whether they are Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Morman... This is a basic right that they should lead the fight for. They should bus seniors, the poor and youth and whoever doesn't have transportation to get the necessary ID. I sincerely hope that it blows up in the damn Republicans face with massive voter turnout of the working class.

I can only hope that this energizes those who haven't voted to awaken them to the fact that their non-participation only results in their exploitation who are determined to emslave them in poverty.

[drm604]

25. The PA Dept of Transportation can't possibly supply all of the needed IDs in time.

There are too many people and not enough PennDOT photo centers. And the photo centers are already full of people renewing their driver's licenses.

[olegramps]

32. More the reason to flood the photo centers and declare violation of constitutional equal protection

[drm604]

33. Exactly.

We need to bring people in by the busloads.

[The Wizard]

23. Voter suppression

violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. But don't expect the highly partisan Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution if the decision would help Democrats.

[elleng]

27. Gotta go to Federal court.

[drm604]

35. As I understand it, the PA Supreme Court is the next stop.

It's currently split 50/50 between Democratic and Republican appointees, so it's hard to say what will happen.

[femmocrat]

36. Apparently, if the court splits, the decision stands.

From JPZenger of the PA forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10742193

I am going from "cautiously optimistic" to "we are doomed".

[drm604]

37. That's correct.

Even though it's my state, I have to confess that I don't know much about the current PA SC justices or how partisan they are, so I can't really predict how they'll rule. To me it seems obvious that PennDOT can't possibly supply all of those photo IDs in time and that in itself should be enough to at least postpone implementation, but that assumes the judges will rule impartially.

I understand that the US Justice Dept. has gotten involved so the PA SC may not be the end of the road.

In the meantime we all have to work to get IDs for as many people as possible and to register as many drivers as possible, on the assumption that it's going to stand.

[happyslug]

63. No, The US Supreme Court has said such state laws pass US Consitutional muster

Thus there is NO federal issue in this case. If the State Supreme Court says the law meets the State Constitutional requirement as to voting, that is where the case will stop.

More on the US Supreme Court Decision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

The Actual Opinion is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

[elleng]

65. Fact-based decision,

not an overall 'pass' for such laws.

At trial, the plaintiffs were unable to produce any witnesses who claimed they were not able to meet the law's requirements. The defendants were likewise unable to present any evidence that the corruption purportedly motivating the law existed.

In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population, and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud.

[reformist2]

70. What if that "small percentage of the population" is the very group they wanted to disenfranchise?

Seems to me John Paul Stevens inadvertently made our case for us.

[Coyotl]

34. Bring on the Federal Courts and federal Civil Rights law. Calling Eric Holder!

This is why Issa is trying to emasculate the Attorney General, the cheaters want to fix the election for Romney!

[happyslug]

64. No Federal case, The US Supreme Court has ruled that such laws pass US Constitutional muster

Thus there is NO federal issue in this case. If the State Supreme Court says the law meets the State Constitutional requirement as to voting, that is where the case will stop.

More on the US Supreme Court Decision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

The Actual Opinion is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

[elleng]

66. Not exactly.

At trial, the plaintiffs were unable to produce any witnesses who claimed they were not able to meet the law's requirements. The defendants were likewise unable to present any evidence that the corruption purportedly motivating the law existed.

In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population, and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud.

[KamaAina]

46. Was this introduced into evidence?

[BumRushDaShow]

52. Yes. See post #51. n/t

[underpants]

62. The supporters admittted that there is no evidence of voter fraud

but the judge allowed it because it is in the realm of what legislators can do.

This was an odd choice of judge to do this - and I think the ACLU filed in his jurisdiction - he normally rules on zoning laws and the like.

This COULD decide the election. This is very very frightening.

[barbtries]

49. i hope they offered as evidence

tape of that republican blatantly saying the reason for the law, which has nothing to do with supposed voter fraud.

[BumRushDaShow]

51. They did in fact offer that clip.

In his closing argument Witold Walczak, the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s legal director, told the judge that the number of voters without a photo ID could number around 1 million. He said the state has no idea either, since its numbers range from 500,000 to 1.5 million.

“Whichever set of figures we’re talking about, there are a lot of people who do not have photo ID,” Walczak said.

Walczak played a video clip showing House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny County, boasting that the voter ID law is going to allow Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to win Pennsylvania. Turzai’s spokesman said the comment at a state GOP gathering was taken out of context.

More: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/judges_ruling_unlikely_to_end.html

[barbtries]

54. okay.

i guess the judge just wanted the issue off of his desk.
no way that remark was taken out of context.

[freeandequalpa]

73. Judge Simpson Actually Addressed This Head-On

Though I cannot say I agree with his conclusion:

Judge Simpson:

“considered allegations of partisan motivation for Act 18 in general, and the disturbing, tendentious statements by House Majority Leader Michael Turzai to a Republican party gathering in particular. Ultimately, however, I determined that this evidence did not invalidate the interests supporting Act 18, for factual and legal reasons. Factually, I declined to infer that other members of the General Assembly shared the boastful views of Representative Turzai without proof that other members were present at the time the statements were made. Also, the statements were made away from the chamber floor. Legally, the United States Supreme Court stated in Crawford that ‘if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.’”

[malthaussen]

58. Bah. That is disgusting.

Outpointed in the first round. Return to your corners and get ready.

-- Mal

[sakabatou]

67. Hopefully the state supreme court will stop this law

[freeandequalpa]

69. 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/

[madville]

74. I have had to show ID in Florida for years

What is different about PA or any of the other challenges than Florida's law? Is Florida being sued to get it overturned as well?