The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just now sent the state's new voter ID law back to a lower court for review. Under the law passed by the new Republican majority this year, as many as 1 million Pennsylvanians have been expected not to be able to vote in November.
State officials assured the court that everything would be fine and that voters would get the IDs they need. The court was not having it. From the ruling (pdf):
Overall, we are confronted with an ambitious effort on the part of the General Assembly to bring the new identification procedure into effect with in 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.
Since the law went into effect, a couple of high-profile Pennsylvanians without the required documents have managed to get IDs anyway. One state official advised voters in need to ask clerks at the DMV for leniency. With the 4-2 vote today, Pennsylvania's high court is saying that a patchwork, beg-your-way-through system is not good enough.
The Supreme Court sent the matter back to the lower Commonwealth Court for a review of whether the ID cards voters will need are in fact reaching the public in time. The justices set a deadline of October 2. The ruling is not an injunction -- the justices are looking for more information before they make a final decision. The Philadelphia Inquirer says it's not clear how today's ruling will affect the law's standing for the November election. Dave Weigel calls it a win for Democrats, implicitly, and explicitly. for the voting-rights groups that challenged the law.
Adding: In her dissent (pdf), Justice Debra McCloskey Todd says that by deferring a final call this close to the election, the court is ducking its duty. "The ideas of the nation are upon us, and this Court has chosen to punt rather than to act," she writes. "I will have no part of it."
After the jump, a little more from the ruling.
Pennsylvania's Supreme Court recognized the burden of the voter ID law on vulnerable groups of voters. From the ruling:
While there is a debate over the number of affected voters, given the substantial overlap between voter rolls and PennDOT's existing ID driver/cardholder database, it is readily understood that a minority of the population is affected by the access issue. Nevertheless, there is little disagreement with Appellants' observation that the population involved includes members of some of the most vulnerable segments of our society (the elderly, disabled members of our community, and the financially disadvantaged).
The court has posted the full ruling, along with the Todd dissent and Justice Seamus McAffery's concurring dissent (all pdfs). Please point out parts that strike you as interesting in the comments.
Leave a Comment:
Can someone weigh in on the timeline here? Is the law on hold, who must act when etc....
The lower court has a deadline of October 2 -- I added it to the post.
The solution is both simple and obvious. If you voted two years ago, or four, or forty, you are registered to vote.
If you are a new, first time voter, then produce a birth certificate (showing your age and citizenship) and a 'residency document' - gas bill, envelope with your address, etc- to show you live in the Commonwealth.
Unfortunately, this does NOT solve the REAL problem: Voting while Democrat.
Maybe the strategy should be to tell them you plan to vote GOP. Bet you'd sail through the process then.
They would want you to swear allegiance to the GOP and Norquist, then drink the tea.
No Paul not the tea !!! ..
I am surprised that TEAparty did not change the Constitution in anticipation of the odd chase that these Draconian laws might be challenged. But that might be to much credit of right wing fanatics
In New York, we do not have to have a photo ID. Something with our name and address on it is fine. Throwing the birth certificate into the mix, especially this late in the game, adds a possible cost, which is unacceptable.
that will not be enough...you need the photo id from a governmental unit, and it must have an expiration date. The partisan creep who made the original decision said he based it on how easy it would be to get to vote via absentee ballot, and all that was needed to get one was to fill out a form and give the last 4 digits of your SS #. I ordered the application, and LO...it's not easy at all. One must have a MEDICAL excuse and give doctor's name and address to verify OR have a legitimate business reason (also explained in detail) to be out of town on election day. This is a guy who should NEVER have been given back the decision for him to make since he so blatantly lied in his explanation of why he refused to block the law.
Day , if you move and your address is different , the gop poll watchers can have your vote thrown out , they did it to me and my brother in the 2004 elections here in iowa , we received letter a week after it was over , and bush won iowa by 10,000 votes that year
I knew my addy was not correct , but I went and voted early at the library thinking it was no big deal , still lived in the same county and city and all , just did not up date my addy , the gop are scum bags
Love Justice Tood's dissenting statement here (the last paragraph):
Of course, the rest of her statement signals that she does not believe the law can or should be implemented by Nov. 6. The state can say they'll get everyone their IDs by then, but that's not realistic for the poor, disabled, and elderly.
I can't remember if it was on Rachel's show but someone did it and it was 4 hours . You go to the DOT office and have to wait in line with people their to get their licenses. WTF? . I remember a time in Florida when you could get a picture ID at the Police station.
They probably figure that if you have to wait for 4 or 5 hours, you'll just give up and leave. In fact, they're probably banking on that happening!
California allows a person to make an appointment for a DL. Even with an appointment a person can wait an hour or more.
S-N-E-T - I heard 6 over 2 days, and something like $65, at least for one person. Do you work at a job where you can easily take 4-6 hours off? Do you have $65 to spare? Lucky you. You also have to consider that there will be a whole slew of people trying to do the exact same thing at the same time.
From what I can gather, reading the pdf, the law has been sent to the lower court to ascertain if it is reasonable for all impacted by the law in the immediate election to actually acquire the necessary identification. They must do this by October 2nd and any repeals sound like they are guaranteed to be immediately dealt with. It looks like the law will stand for sure in the election of 2014, because that would obviously be enough time for all impacted voters to acquire the necessary identification, but they are questioning whether it is reasonable to implement it for this election. That is what I got. Not sure if makes anything clearer. I guess we have to wait for the lower court to rule by October 2nd.
You're right -- the lower court has a deadline of October 2.
How in the Lord's name will the State be able to process that many requests in a month?
They can't. That was the whole purpose.
Wouldn't that then mean that they have to delay it until the next election so that there is enough time to get everyone these i.d.'s? If there is no way the state can actually provide them, it seems like the opinion provided directs that it be put off until after the election.
My only question is, did they send it back to the same guy who based his ruling on a bigoted ruling from 1869 decrying the idea that just any old riffraff were able to vote? I'd guess it was an ancestor of Mr. 47% except that they were probably fleeing to Mexico so they could keep their "traditional" multiple marriages about that time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/voter-id-law-pennsylvania_n_1873941.html
Could it be that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is politely, but implicitly, telling Judge Simpson of the Commonwealth Court to do his job properly and just follow the Pennsylvania Constitution?
That's how I read it. "We're going to give you a chance not to be embarrassed by public Supreme spanking before the eyes of the nation. Don't blow it."
"We review for an abuse of discretion. Yet, the majority utterly fails to apply
that standard to this appeal. My application of the required standard leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the lower court indeed abused its discretion in failing to find that irreparable harm of constitutional magnitude — the disenfranchisement of a substantial number of eligible, qualified, registered voters,..."
Herein is the salient point of the dissent, and what the court should have done because the lower court failed it's job and gave the state a more leeway than it should have! So basically to seem "objective" and "nonpartisan" the High Court chose to "kick the can back to the lower court" , what chickenshyts they are! There are less than 50 days to go, and the Court has decided to give the state time to see if they can register everyone, otherwise they will be disenfranchised, say what!?!
This is fragga-nackle nonsense! Had the state done this 3 years ago, I might have said shame on Pennsylvanians that didn't get registered, but no they had to wait for a majority of reethugs to be on the Legislative body so that they could rush this thing thru - really?! And yet they could point to NO instance of "VOTER FRAUD", so someone please explain to me again how this isn't the Jim Crow 1950's poll taxes and all!?!
we must VOTE... and get these people out of our legislatures!! To have even gotten this far in so many states is beyond me!!!
I completely agree as to the quote you picked out. The appellants clearly showed that they, and so many others similarly situated here in Pennsylvania, will be disenfranchised by this law, and the Commonwealth Court abused its discretion in failing to grant a preliminary injunction. Justice Todd's opinion today made me very proud to be a former attorney in her law firm from before she took the bench.
And in their attempt to appear 'nonpartisan', they've made it appear as though they are partisan. I find the whole thing distasteful. Especially when you have, on video, a Pa. lawmaker basically stating that voter ID laws will get Mitt Romney elected. Disgusting.
More & more we are seeing the danger of state laws creating havoc. This is serious. People have died fighting for the right to vote. Having it denied by a partisan legislature or a partisan attorney general is so very wrong. The right to vote is sacred, we need to make certain it stays that way. The segment Rachel did last night was very disturbing. We need to see more actual cases where this is actually happening. In this case an ID was finally obtained, not everyone will be that successful due to time & number of people involved & all the steps necessary. It is a deliberate plan made difficult by Repubs to supress the vote & is utterly despicable.
Oh just wait . There is a sleeping giant here in Florida. They put 10 amendments on the ballot and as a result of the 2000 fiasco all the ballots must be optically scanned and it will be 10-14 pages . So people picking 10 choices (most of which yes means no) and scanning all those sheets ., should run smooth as silk .
I swear the Republicans are diabolically evil
The majority decision acknowledges that the efforts to implement the law in a proper fashion has failed. The state has conceded that point and has represented to the trial court that they can fix this problem in a short time without disenfranchising a lot of citizens. But the court also acknowledges that the state has conceded there is no case of voter fraud in Pennsylvania or elsewhere to justify the purpose of the law. In essence, the court is deferring to the legislative rationale for the law despite the state's concessions about voter fraud and giving the case back to the trial court to have additional hearings and findings on the remedial steps taken by the state. The court has intimated that they recognize the short period of time between the law's implementation which has been inadequate. This may be a hint to the trial court to issue the preliminary injunction for this election. If the trial court finds that the remedial steps are adequate, it may end up in the higher court which may issue the injunction. The dissents notes the concessions by the state and the majority's own statements about the implementation and the short time to election. When the case is back in the higher court, the dissents are going to make a lot of "noise" about the case in the event the higher court denies the injunction. I don't think the court wants to be in the hot seat over an explosive political issue. They can defuse the whole situation by issuing the injunction for this election. However, the higher court's findings may be sufficient to get the parties into the federal courts for an injunction if the Pennsylvania courts fail to issue the state injunction.
I love the way MR. JUSTICE McCAFFERY gets to the heart of the matter:
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. Exhibit 42 at R.R. 2073a. 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.
You said it, brother!
The four Republicans politely avert their eyes from the entirely pretextual nature of the law's ostensible purpose. The dissenters do not. But, the Republicans have essentially ordered the trial court to enjoin the law unless the state can prove no one will be disenfranchised.
The Supreme Court might as well have not put in the part about determining whether "liberal access" is being provided. The disjunctive "or" means the state's burden of proof has an implicit conjunctive "and" attached to it. That is, the state has to prove both that the liberal access thing is getting done and that no November 2012 voter will be disenfranchised by the state's implementation of the law.
(Yeah,"and" and "or" are the most litigated words in the English language. Tiny little words that frequently carry a huge amount of freight in the law.)
Gives a whole new meaning to the song "Conjunction Junction," doesn't it?
You have no idea how many brief-writing or reviewing lawyers break out in that tune when they get to the words "conjunctive" and "disjunctive." Words which we use to avoid the existential crisis we'd have if we truly reflected upon the amount of time we spend arguing about the significance of the use of two and three letter words.
True that - in fact I'm quite surprised that the legal minds have not come up with a few new two- and three-letter words to quibble over - you know, to pad those billable hours...
Oops - probably just started that ball rolling.
But, this doesn't mean people should stop getting their I.D.'s, as there will be efforts to invalidate their votes. It is repugnant, but not voting is worse.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vacate
http://www.pacourts.us/NR/rdonlyres/676A25C6-3760-4376-B7EF-71EA4A6623F9/0/CMW330MD2012ApplewhiteDetermPrelimInj_081512.pdf
OK, so here's a silly question ... What happens if the lower court for some reason does not issue a ruling by October 2? Is the law then struck down, or what happens?
If the trial court fails to issue its ruling by Oct 2, then the Supreme Court can take the case away, review the hearings and issue its own decision.
OK, thank you.
Funny that this should take place on the same day that I received a flyer in my mail (I live in Northwestern PA by the way) from the Secretary of the Commonwealth telling me and my family that if we don't have a valid I.D. that shows an expiration date that we can get one free at any PA drivers location. My 87 yr old mother, who is licensed but doesn't drive, is once again worried that she does not have the proper I.D. We go through this every time the ads are on tv, she sees it in the paper, news or now the mail. If she's scared, even though we assure her she will be able to vote, how many other seniors are out there worrying and deciding it's not worth it? And then you have the college kids...80% of the state colleges and universities DO NOT have college I.D's with expiration dates on them...hopefully these kids have drivers licenses and/or non-drivers licenses with them. It's just a mess in PA Rachel, and the Governor and his minions are responsible. I've never voted straight ticket before in my life, but for the first time I'm voting straight Democratic ticket!! And when Corbett and the others are up for re-election this mess and the school system fiasco in our state are going to come back to haunt them. Thank you for all of your dilligence on this topic, it does not fall on deaf ears!
Jamie, I'd love to see the mailer. Do you think you could scan it? If you can, you could upload the image here.
Oh, yeah. No doubt they are acting in good faith. I love court opinion irony.
The silly thing is a drivers license is relatively easy to fake. It also doesnt prove you are a citizen. In fact , many non citizens have drivers licenses.
Laura, where did you get "The ideas of the nation are upon us, and this Court has chosen to punt rather than to act," she writes. "I will have no part of it."
The dissent clearly -- and logically -- reads: "The eyes of the nation are upon us, and this Court has chosen to punt rather than to act."
"The ideas of the nation are upon us . . . " doesn't even make sense.
Obama has his biggest lead in the swing states in PA according to latest poles. Guess this explains the motivation of the State Legislators. I feel the Federal Gov should come up with something that does not allow States to have power over people's vote. Historians say that the civil war was about state's rights. The Southerners wanted to have the right to keep slaves. There is the same kind of thing going on now in the States with Repub Governors How many of these same states took money from Obama's stimulus to balance their budgets? What they are doing is criminal. Where is the outrage?
Ok, so reading McCloskey's dissent makes the ruling even more clear... she was in favor of reversal.
Just to clarify, her last name is Todd, not McCloskey (which is her maiden name). The other dissenting justice is McCaffrey, not McAffrey as was spelled in the initial post. I hate to seem picky, but I don't want anyone to be confused as to which justice is which. And I agree, she definitely would have reversed.
If MSM would have paid attention to this story 2 years ago alot of this could have been avoided. I guess when it only looked as if Black people will be affected no one cared. White Dems AND Repugs will be affected by these laws.
Shame many ignored. Told ya so.
The Supreme Court should let the GOP have their way with the new voter laws nation wide, but not until 2017! That gives everyone two national elections to get the required ID. I'm not against showing ID to vote as much as I am against the Republicans trying to ram this down everyones throat in time to stop everyone from voting this year.
Hello TRMS!
I've been watching in shock and awe about all of this voter suppression stuff, and was a bit disturbed when I recently got a post card in the mail from the WASHINGTON Secretary of State (Republican Sam Reed who prosecuted ACORN folks years ago) telling me that "You may be eligible to vote, but don't appear to be registered." I've been an active and registered voter at this address since 2008. I called the number listed and did get to speak to someone to confirm that my husband and I are registered, but that likely the computer did not recognize the cross referencing of the VOTER ROLES with WA state DRIVER's License roles. She told me that they have been "cleaning up the lists" and are using the Driver's licensing list to VERIFY signatures. She tells me that this effort has actually INCREASED voter registration and that no one has been purged from the roles. BUT, I'm a little nervous. My county is a vote by mail county now. In 2004 our Democratic Governor narrowly won against the republican after a re-count and it was the ABSENTEE BALLOTS (which I know that mine was because I was overseas that year) were the decisive votes. It seems like they may be setting themselves up to PROTEST and throw out votes where the signature "doesn't match." Who is qualified to determine that a signature doesn't match? AND, is there a system in place to check with the VOTER to confirm that they DID/did not send thier ballot in? We aren't a swing state, but this feels a little hinky to me, this close to the election. Thanks for letting me share, and even more if this is worthy of checking in to further.
Thanks for this walk through of the decision, folks! I am not a legal-language person, so trying to follow all of the twists and turns of this decision has been very confusing. I moved to PA recently from MD, and I was really surprised to see that the voter ID issue will touch me. I have a valid MD driver's license that I just renewed at the beginning of the summer and do not own a car/won't be driving while I live in PA So I didn't bother to get a new license, because I just paid for a new one before I moved! My passport is also expired, so I am renewing my passport (I'll get more use out of a fresh passport than I would out of a 65 dollar PA driver's license!) for the proper ID. This law is only for political reasons, and I think that is horrible. Hopefully it will be pushed back until the next election year.