Pa Supreme Court vacates voter id law.

[timber84]

Source: Huffington Post



In a potentially significant victory for Democrats, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling on the state's controversial voter ID law Tuesday, sending it back to the court for review.

This is a developing story...check back for more information...

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1894069.html

[reflection]

1. Yeah!

on edit: Looks like I jumped the gun. Damn.

[msanthrope]

2. Yes!!!! nt

[bigdarryl]

3. Sending it back to the lower court for review WTF!!! does that mean

[movonne]

5. Yes what does it mean...

[timber84]

6. Definition:

A vacated judgment makes a previous legal judgment legally void. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court.

[mac56]

8. If I'm not mistaken it means:

"We're giving you a chance to change your decision."

[PatSeg]

12. At first I was excited

but now I'm wondering the same thing - WTF does that mean?

[avebury]

28. I think if means that if the lower court is not convinced

that all eligible voters would have time to get the required documentation necessary to vote in November, the lower court is expected to overturn the law.

[PatSeg]

30. Okay, thanks

I haven't heard much about it on TV today and I would think it was a big story.

[PatSeg]

4. Thank goodness!

[noel711]

7. I do not get this...

We are PA residents, and have been waiting for this ruling...
BUT what does this mean?
Does it mean the law can't be implemented until ruled?

Or what?

[elleng]

21. Read my #19.

Sorry about the confusion.

[Kteachums]

31. Yes, get rid of the Republican Water Boy!

[montanacowboy]

9. Isn't the Supreme Ct the final say?

looks like it's going back to the lower court for review WTF

[onehandle]

10. Don't get excited. No real decision made yet. nt

[hue]

11. This means the voter ID law will prob NOT be in effect for Nov. 6th!!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

13. Hopefully PA will forced to stop their scare tactic ads

Basically saying if you are white, you get to vote....everyone else better be ready to show ze papers.

[juajen]

23. Excuse me! That is more than scarey, and true.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

26. I'm talking about the ones the state runs

Basically putting a white model on there smiling with her new "voter ID".

[madashelltoo]

16. Right. One of justices asked,

"Why is this here?" Meaning it should never have made it to the Supreme Court. If the lower court cannot prove that there will be no impact on voters for Nov. 6th the law has to be rescinded. And, we all know there is no way everyone will have i.d. between now and then.

[PatSeg]

14. Updated

The judge was instructed "to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment" of ID cards comports with the law as written -- which, in testimony before the Supreme Court, appeared not to be the case.

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.

Two Democratic justices dissented, saying the high court should have issued an injunction itself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1894069.html

[cosmicone]

15. This is bad ...

1. The law was enacted.
2. Many people went to court.
3. The lower court ruled the law was fine.
4. That decision was appealed.
5. Instead of reversing the lower court and declaring the law unconstitutional the chickenshit supreme court simply vacated the judgment and sent it back to the lower court.

This means the law still stands and no ruling on its constitutionality has been made.

The same lower court repuke judge can once again decide he was right all along and let the law stand.

All this does is burns up time while creating massive uncertainty which is not good for the democrats.

[Empowerer]

18. It's not bad

It's not necessarily good, but it's not bad.

The lower court ruled that if the voter ID law disenfranchised voters, it would be unconstitutional, but that the state had put into place certain safeguards that the court predicted would ensure that every voter could easily get the ID they needed to vote.

The Supreme Court found that the State seems to be having numerous problems actually putting those safeguards in place, so it vacated the lower court's order and instructed it to determine whether the state's process would ensure that voters would not be disenfranchised. If it can't, the justices instructed the lower court to enjoin enforcement of the Voter ID law.

[elleng]

20. Not bad at all.

Read my #19.

[Empowerer]

17. The Court didn't vacate the law - it vacated the lower court's order

and sent the case back for further proceedings.

[elleng]

19. PA Supreme Court said:

"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 court ruled 4-2, with two dissenting justices saying it should have blocked the law outright. One justice accused the court of "punting" and said she would have "no part in it."

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. Given the timing, the justices wrote, "the most judicious remedy, in such a circumstance, is the entry of a preliminary injunction, which may moot further controversy as the constitutional impediments dissipate." . .

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.

-----------

Sounds pretty strong, in favor of We the People!

[cosmicone]

25. Thank you for your post. n/t

[Cosmocat]

27. Pretty weak ruling

these laws are being totally reversed in pretty much every other state and Pa has been recognized as having the most stringent.

They kicked it down to the same moron who was VERY glib in upholding it in the first go around.

I don't have a lot of confidence that he suddenly removes his partisan alignment and do the right thing.

It is a BAD law, just putrid.

If they aren't going to flat overturn it, the least they could do is put it on hold for a year or two.

[0rganism]

32. now will the partisan dipshit in the lower court will come around?

The two dissenters are correct - this ruling could have been a lot stronger than it is. There's a chance the lower court will try to uphold the law one way or another, because that's what the judge's unofficial job for this year is. If he figures the benefits of rigging the election permanently for the republicans outweigh the risk to his perceived legitimacy, he may just try to pull the same ruling again.

Above all, the republicans want this law in effect come November. It doesn't have to last through December. Their game may be to seek a way to put the law into action for the election through temporary measures and clever timing.

[malthaussen]

22. Chickenshit decision, I agree with the dissenters.

Summary: appellate court lacked the balls to overturn the law, so are sending it back to lower court to review on a technicality. Which may work okay, provided lower court is pleased to follow the instructions of appellate court.

The technicality is that the law is not being enforced as written, and therefore it "might" be better to issue an injunction rather than implement it. (Wonder what happened to the injunction already issued) The Court, therefore, does not have the will or inclination to declare voter ID laws as a rights violation, and is only quibbling about how such laws are carried out.

-- Mal

[truthisfreedom]

29. +1 but I am still happy and hopeful!

[BlueStreak]

33. It gets to the same place and it leaves the appeallate court in control

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:16 AM - Edit history (1)

At least that's my reading as a lay person. Maybe a lawyer can provide a more expert opinion. But it seems to me that if this court overturned the decision, then the State would appeal to the next level up. By doing it this way, this court is still in the loop. Obviously this court has determined that the law should not be used for the November election and they are essentially telling the lower court that is what they expect the court to decide.

I'm not sure exactly what would happen if the lower court refuses, but considering that it was essentially a unanimous 6-0 decision, I cannot imagine the lower court would not fall in line.

And if the lower court does fail to act, it seems that the appeals court could then issue a 6-0 decision to stay the implementation of the law. It is hard to imagine a 6-0 decision being overturned on further appeal, particularly considering the short time remaining before the election. The basic theory of an injunction is to prevent irreparable damage, and that is exactly what would be happening in this case. Given the absence of any demonstrable voter identification fraud, there is no proven damage that would occur by staying the law for this election, but an enormous amount of damage could be done if the law is used for this election. I don't think this will be a hard decision for anybody.