Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Donate to DCW


Follow DCW on Twitter
Follow DCW on Facebook
2012 Democratic Convention
2012 Republican Convention Charlotte Host Committee
DNCC
2010 Census

Follow DCW on Google+
DCW iPhone App Info
A Guide to DemConWatch
Tags
FAQ
2008 Democratic Primary Links
2008 Democratic National Convention Links
DemConWatch Archives '05-'08
DemConWatch Speeches
Inauguration Information
DCW Store

HOME
Mobile Version




Search


Advanced Search
Contributors:
MattOreo
DocJess

This site is not affiliated with the DNC, DNCC, or any campaign.

Email us at

Blog Roll
Frontloading HQ
The Field
MyDD
Swing State Project
DemNotes
DemRulz

DCW in the News
St. Louis Channel 2 News
AP
Politico
Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
NPR
Wired
US News & World Report

PA Supreme Court Ruled in Voter ID Case

by: DocJess

Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 14:10:47 PM EDT


From the PA Supreme Court: 
 
Overall, we are confronted with an ambitious effort on the part of the General Assembly to bring the new identification procedure into effect within a relatively short timeframe and an implementation process which has by no means been seamless in light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch. Given this state of affairs, we are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials, even though we have no doubt they are proceeding in good faith.
 
Thus, we will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to make a present  assessment of the actual availability of the alternate identification cards on a developed record in light of the experience since the time the cards became available. In this regard, the court is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly
attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards. If they do not, or if the Commonwealth Court is not still convinced in its predictive judgment 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, that court is obliged to enter a preliminary injunction.
 
Accordingly, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is returned to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order. The Commonwealth Court is to file its supplemental opinion on or before October 2, 2012. Any further appeals will be administered on an expedited basis.
 
Jurisdiction is relinquished. 

Full judgement:
 
 
DocJess :: PA Supreme Court Ruled in Voter ID Case

Follow Democratic Convention Watch on Facebook and Twitter. Iphone/Android apps available.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I don't get it (0.00 / 0)
so now the decision to uphold is vacated but the lower court gets to make another decision to uphold, which I'm sure they will, right? so as it stands the law is still in essence in effect and the PA Supreme court could possibly maybe then say that their reasons for upholding the law aren't good enough and then what do they strike down the law or just say it can stand in future elections just not this year?

Ruling (0.00 / 0)

Decision to uphold is set aside.

Supreme Court states what issue needs to be decided by lower court.

Lower court gets to decide that issue (but a very hard test for the State to meet to keep the law in efect for this election).



My theory (0.00 / 0)
The Voter ID legislation is 100% political, of course. The judge (Robin) who ruled in its favour is a Republican. He was a lifelong Democrat who was appointed to the bench to fill out a term, and then he ran. Like every first-time judge running in the primary, he cross-posted, won the Republican nomination, and not the Democratic nomination. After he won a full term, he said that he needed to respect the people who elected him, and he switched parties.

In this ruling, he used the SCOTUS decision that was very narrow to uphold the law. In that decision (which ran 70 pages and is incredibly tedious) he applied a standard which left the burden of proof on the plaintiffs. He claimed that while the arguments were compelling, the onus was on the plaintiffs to show that the state had acted in bad faith.

The PA Supremes said basically that his ruling needed to be instead based on the liberal standard, which relates to the idea that the state needed to show that there would be NO disenfranchisement.

While I am in no way a conspiracy theorist, I am convinced that Robin's ruling was completely political in nature, and dedicated to pleasing the Republicans who elected and funded his 2011 retainment election.

Now, though, he probably will have to, at least, delay implementation until after this election. The two dissenting  PA Supremes (both Democrats) dissented because they believe the ruling should actually be made by that court. If Robin STILL upholds the law, they'll likely strike it down as a matter of law a few days after the appeal is made. This doesn't strike down the actual law, rather its implementation for 2012. So this could go on for a while.




Menu


Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Make a New Account


Currently 0 user(s) logged on.



Subscribe to Posts

DemConWatch on Twitter
DemConWatch on Facebook


View blog authority

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics

Who links to my website?

Sign the Petition (A)
Powered by: SoapBlox