Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PA Supreme Court Voter ID decision (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Sep 2012 OP
No stay pending review? leveymg Sep 2012 #1
That is what is unclear... BumRushDaShow Sep 2012 #2
No. They have instructed the lower court to rule by Oct. 2. PA Democrat Sep 2012 #3
Here is the end of the PA Supreme Court's decision: PA Democrat Sep 2012 #4
Thanks. BumRushDaShow Sep 2012 #6
Ya think the court which previously found the law passed muster before will find good faith... Junkdrawer Sep 2012 #7
Ha. Not a chance. nt BumRushDaShow Sep 2012 #8
Yeah, it is a full time job trying to keep up with their latest machinations PA Democrat Sep 2012 #9
Plus they said that extended hours won't go into effect in Philly only BumRushDaShow Sep 2012 #10
Two of the more liberal justices wrote dissenting opinions. PA Democrat Sep 2012 #5
What a lame decision. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #11
Yeah, that's so going to help. HopeHoops Sep 2012 #12

BumRushDaShow

(127,312 posts)
2. That is what is unclear...
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:09 PM
Sep 2012

The lower court refused the injunction request so the state SC would need to do it pending the review.

PA Democrat

(13,225 posts)
4. Here is the end of the PA Supreme Court's decision:
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:17 PM
Sep 2012

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.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-114-2012pco.pdf

BumRushDaShow

(127,312 posts)
6. Thanks.
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:25 PM
Sep 2012

Am sure they will twiddle thumbs until Oct. 2 while the state continues to modify their procedures (like they did over the weekend) to make it appear like they are doing something.

There was a woman on Sharpton last night who is working with other volunteers to get IDs for people and she said that out of the approx. 100,000 in Philly who would need an ID, only about 372 (don't remember the actual number) have been issued so far.

Junkdrawer

(27,993 posts)
7. Ya think the court which previously found the law passed muster before will find good faith...
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:31 PM
Sep 2012

the suspense is killing me.

PA Democrat

(13,225 posts)
9. Yeah, it is a full time job trying to keep up with their latest machinations
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:35 PM
Sep 2012

to pretend the law will not disenfranchise voters.

I saw that same segment and you're right that the number of people in Philly who have gotten the ID was only in the hundreds. I was shocked.

BumRushDaShow

(127,312 posts)
10. Plus they said that extended hours won't go into effect in Philly only
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:46 PM
Sep 2012

until the end of the month.

The thing they may be forgetting though is how many in Pennsyltucky don't have IDs. The rural areas of PA really don't have access to a PennDot office nearby.

PA Democrat

(13,225 posts)
5. Two of the more liberal justices wrote dissenting opinions.
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:20 PM
Sep 2012

Justice Todd wrote:

Like the majority, I am not “satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based
primarily on the assurances of government officials.” But, unlike the majority, I have
heard enough about the Commonwealth's scramble to meet this law's requirements.
There is ample evidence of disarray in the record, and I would not allow chaos to beget
chaos. The stated underpinnings of Act 18 — election integrity and voter confidence —
are undermined, not advanced, by this Court's chosen course. Seven weeks before an
election, the voters are entitled to know the rules.

By remanding to the Commonwealth Court, at this late date, and at this most
critical civic moment, in my view, this Court abdicates its duty to emphatically decide a
legal controversy vitally important to the citizens of this Commonwealth. The eyes of
the nation are upon us, and this Court has chosen to punt rather than to act. I will have
no part of it.

Mr. Justice McCaffery joins this dissenting statement.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»PA Supreme Court Voter ID...