Aa
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back By State Supreme Court
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back By State Supreme Court To Lower Court For Reconsideration
In a potentially significant victory for Democrats, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a lower court's decision to uphold the states's restrictive new voter ID law on Tuesday, and asked the judge to consider enjoining it instead.
The law, passed by a Republican legislature and governor, requires voters to have specific, state-issued photo ID -- a move that opponents say could disenfranchise tens of thousands of people, most of them minorities, students, and the elderly.
"We are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials," the court wrote of arguments that voters would not be disenfranchised by the law.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court judge, but with instructions that seemed almost designed to force him to enjoin the law.
The judge was instructed "to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment" of ID cards comports with the law as written -- which the court itself made clear was not the case. "The Department of State has realized, and the Commonwealth parties have candidly conceded, that the Law is not being implemented according to its terms," the justices wrote.
The justices, for instance, noted in their decision that while the law called for voters to be granted state-issued ID simply upon an affirmation, "as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT -- apparently for good reason -- has refused to allow such liberal access."
If those procedures are not being followed, or if the judge was "not still convinced...that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election" then he would be "obliged to enter a preliminary injunction," the higher court wrote.
The court agreed that the short timeframe of the law's implementation just months before Election Day presented a potential constitutional issue, but noted that even the appelants agreed that such a law could be implemented.
The two Democratic justices who were most outspoken during last week's oral arguments both dissented from the majority opinion, saying the high court should have issued an injunction itself.
Justice Seamus P. McCaffery wrote in his dissent:
I was elected by the people of our Commonwealth, by Republicans, Democrats, Independents and others, as was every single Justice on this esteemed Court. I cannot now be a party to the potential disenfranchisement of even one otherwise qualified elector, including potentially many elderly and possibly disabled veterans who fought for the rights of every American to exercise their fundamental American right to vote. While I have no argument with the requirement that all Pennsylvania voters, at some reasonable point in the future, will have to present photo identification before they may cast their ballots, it is clear to me that the reason for the urgency of implementing Act 18 prior to the November 2012 election is purely political. That has been made abundantly clear by the House Majority Leader. I cannot in good conscience participate in a decision that so clearly has the effect of allowing politics to trump the solemn oath that I swore to uphold our Constitution. That Constitution has made the right to vote a right verging on the sacred, and that right should never be trampled by partisan politics.
cCaffery was referring to a declaration in June by Pennsylvania's GOP House majority leader, Mike Turzai, that the voter ID law "is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."
The decision gave Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson until Oct. 2 to file his new opinion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1894069.html
In a potentially significant victory for Democrats, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a lower court's decision to uphold the states's restrictive new voter ID law on Tuesday, and asked the judge to consider enjoining it instead.
The law, passed by a Republican legislature and governor, requires voters to have specific, state-issued photo ID -- a move that opponents say could disenfranchise tens of thousands of people, most of them minorities, students, and the elderly.
"We are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials," the court wrote of arguments that voters would not be disenfranchised by the law.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court judge, but with instructions that seemed almost designed to force him to enjoin the law.
The judge was instructed "to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment" of ID cards comports with the law as written -- which the court itself made clear was not the case. "The Department of State has realized, and the Commonwealth parties have candidly conceded, that the Law is not being implemented according to its terms," the justices wrote.
The justices, for instance, noted in their decision that while the law called for voters to be granted state-issued ID simply upon an affirmation, "as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT -- apparently for good reason -- has refused to allow such liberal access."
If those procedures are not being followed, or if the judge was "not still convinced...that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election" then he would be "obliged to enter a preliminary injunction," the higher court wrote.
The court agreed that the short timeframe of the law's implementation just months before Election Day presented a potential constitutional issue, but noted that even the appelants agreed that such a law could be implemented.
The two Democratic justices who were most outspoken during last week's oral arguments both dissented from the majority opinion, saying the high court should have issued an injunction itself.
Justice Seamus P. McCaffery wrote in his dissent:
I was elected by the people of our Commonwealth, by Republicans, Democrats, Independents and others, as was every single Justice on this esteemed Court. I cannot now be a party to the potential disenfranchisement of even one otherwise qualified elector, including potentially many elderly and possibly disabled veterans who fought for the rights of every American to exercise their fundamental American right to vote. While I have no argument with the requirement that all Pennsylvania voters, at some reasonable point in the future, will have to present photo identification before they may cast their ballots, it is clear to me that the reason for the urgency of implementing Act 18 prior to the November 2012 election is purely political. That has been made abundantly clear by the House Majority Leader. I cannot in good conscience participate in a decision that so clearly has the effect of allowing politics to trump the solemn oath that I swore to uphold our Constitution. That Constitution has made the right to vote a right verging on the sacred, and that right should never be trampled by partisan politics.
cCaffery was referring to a declaration in June by Pennsylvania's GOP House majority leader, Mike Turzai, that the voter ID law "is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."
The decision gave Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson until Oct. 2 to file his new opinion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1894069.html
" I don't think anyone's arguing the fact that a voter ID is a necessity.
If i'm understanding correctly, I think the argument most people has is the TIMING of making it an issue."
That's my beef with it!
If i'm understanding correctly, I think the argument most people has is the TIMING of making it an issue."
That's my beef with it!
I agree, it's the timing that's fishy.
If we are going to require voter ID, then how about the law is passed a full year before an election.
But it still seems silly to me to put all this time and expense into something that simply is not a problem.
Voter fraud is practically non-existent.
If we are going to require voter ID, then how about the law is passed a full year before an election.
But it still seems silly to me to put all this time and expense into something that simply is not a problem.
Voter fraud is practically non-existent.
ACORN... this is where the acorn thing was brought to light during this last election. Everyone will remember ACORN "registering the dead", right?
I too think its cyclical. Good time to bring it up though, really. One more thing for us to belly ache about and not pay attention to the real issues.
I too think its cyclical. Good time to bring it up though, really. One more thing for us to belly ache about and not pay attention to the real issues.
Besides a couple of people here in the CE Forum, I don't think anyone's arguing the fact that a voter ID is a necessity.
If i'm understanding correctly, I think the argument most people has is the TIMING of making it an issue.
But as you said, Brice, this was brought up during the last election-cycle, and has just taken this long to come to the forefront, and receive media attention.
Seems to me, that right around election'time, the voter-ID issue gets raised. After the election? It's forgotten again (until the NEXT election'cycle begins again).
If i'm understanding correctly, I think the argument most people has is the TIMING of making it an issue.
But as you said, Brice, this was brought up during the last election-cycle, and has just taken this long to come to the forefront, and receive media attention.
Seems to me, that right around election'time, the voter-ID issue gets raised. After the election? It's forgotten again (until the NEXT election'cycle begins again).
Obviously it must be important as he asked for our help. Others that are a challenge are those disabled that have a hard time getting anywhere and standing in the lines.
If it were that important for me to vote, I'd do all I could to get an ID.
Our community has volunteers to help those who dont have access of getting one. Let me tell you it can be more complicated than one thinks. For instance, there is a guy that was not born in a hospital. He is older, doesnt drive and has a 6th grade education. This one is proving to be a bit of a issue. Then you have the expense, and the long lines for everything including voter id.
I remember talking about this after the last election. This subject got tangled up with the immigration issue around here. A friends daughter (Hispanic and Irish) got asked for her ID on a traffic stop, and threw a fit..... duh! The first thing a cop does on a traffic stop is check ones ID, regardless of race/nationality. The cop told her that this wasn't "a matter of race, that it was a matter of a traffic violation".
I don't get it either way. I'd even pay for 1 person, less fortunate, to get their ID.
I don't get it either way. I'd even pay for 1 person, less fortunate, to get their ID.
I have absolutely no problem with people needing an ID to vote. NONE. I do have a problem with waiting till 3 months of a major election to broach the subject. THAT is election tampering imo.
I don't worry about voter fraud, because, as you say, it's pretty much non-existent; I do worry over the concern for the need to have ID when you vote. If we're all on the up and up, why would we mind having to show ID to vote, just as we have to show ID to be admitted to a hospital, see a doctor, cash a check, drive a vehicle, etc. Nearly every time I leave my house, I have to show my ID for one reason or another. That's a fact of life. My DL even carries a little yellow star to show that I've proved who I am and live where I said I do, from birth, through marriage and to the present.
We all have to have photo ID for everything else, so as long as we have it, what's the deal with showing it at the voting poll? Rather than trying to fight the voter ID issue, maybe more people could help those who might have a hard time to get one. You know, elderly, minorities, etc; they can go vote, but they can't get to the proper office to get ID... I'd be happy to help them, because they could use that ID everywhere they go...
We all have to have photo ID for everything else, so as long as we have it, what's the deal with showing it at the voting poll? Rather than trying to fight the voter ID issue, maybe more people could help those who might have a hard time to get one. You know, elderly, minorities, etc; they can go vote, but they can't get to the proper office to get ID... I'd be happy to help them, because they could use that ID everywhere they go...
Does anyone else wonder why there is so much energy going into this non-existent problem of voter fraud ?
I, personally, spent the better part of a day, last year, to take my 93 yr old Auntie to get her state issued photo ID, when her DL expired (she hasn't driven in years), because she has to have it to even be admitted to a hospital or to be seen by a doctor. In FL, we even have to provide the paper trail that proves who we are and where we live: birth certificates, marriage license, divorce decrees, bills - anything that might result in a name or address change...... I had to do this, also, to renew my own DL/state issued photo ID, which I, too have to submit prior to voting.
BTW - Auntie is white and has been a registered Democrat all her life and actually voted the party ticket. Unfortunately, she is no longer able to go vote, though I'd be happy to take her if she were.
BTW - Auntie is white and has been a registered Democrat all her life and actually voted the party ticket. Unfortunately, she is no longer able to go vote, though I'd be happy to take her if she were.
Truly, great minds think alike LOL!
"That has been made abundantly clear by the House Majority Leader. I cannot in good conscience participate in a decision that so clearly has the effect of allowing politics to trump the solemn oath that I swore to uphold our Constitution. That Constitution has made the right to vote a right verging on the sacred, and that right should never be trampled by partisan politics."
Justice McCaffrey
I think he said it best.
Justice McCaffrey
I think he said it best.
"That Constitution has made the right to vote a right verging on the sacred, and that right should never be trampled by partisan politics. "
I know old person who doesn't drive, lives on a limited income and she has an ID. Oh wait, she's white and republican.
NEXT!
NEXT!
"...requires voters to have specific, state-issued photo ID..."
It just requires an ID of some type, state-issued, but it doesn't have to be an ID specific to voting.
A library-card, drivers-license, hunting-license, bus-pass, etc, would suffice.
That IS a little too much to ask, and would FOR SURE keep many, many, many black people (minorities) and old people from voting.
#1... this law is racist against black people (minorities), as everyone knows, it's nearly impossible for black people (minorities) to get photo-ID's, not to mention the cost implications (black people, minorities, can't afford the $10 it'd cost to get this done).
#2... this law is prejudiced against old people, as everyone knows, it's nearly impossible for old people to get photo-ID's, not to mention the cost implications (old people can't afford the $10 it'd cost to get this done).
Republicans... racist & prejudiced since 1998.
It just requires an ID of some type, state-issued, but it doesn't have to be an ID specific to voting.
A library-card, drivers-license, hunting-license, bus-pass, etc, would suffice.
That IS a little too much to ask, and would FOR SURE keep many, many, many black people (minorities) and old people from voting.
#1... this law is racist against black people (minorities), as everyone knows, it's nearly impossible for black people (minorities) to get photo-ID's, not to mention the cost implications (black people, minorities, can't afford the $10 it'd cost to get this done).
#2... this law is prejudiced against old people, as everyone knows, it's nearly impossible for old people to get photo-ID's, not to mention the cost implications (old people can't afford the $10 it'd cost to get this done).
Republicans... racist & prejudiced since 1998.
If they are talking about a specific ID for voting only, its a dumb idea. I have to show my drivers license when I vote. That will suffice.
Show me a student without an ID.
Just idiots.
Just idiots.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
