12 September 2012

OK, This Could Be Big

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has vacated the lower court ruling which upheld the law.

While this is not an injunction, it does appear that the court is very dubious of the claims by state government:
Signaling that it will tolerate "no voter disenfranchisement," a divided state Supreme Court is sending the dispute over Pennsylvania's new voting law back to a lower court to decide whether the state is doing enough to get photo ID cards to voters who need them.

In a 4-2 ruling issued Tuesday, the high court ordered Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr., who upheld the law in August, to file a supplemental opinion on whether the alternate-ID programs set up by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and state election officials are providing the "liberal access" to ID cards that the legislature intended.

"If they do not, or if 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 . . . that court is obligated to enter a preliminary injunction," the majority said in an unsigned opinion.

The justices gave Simpson until Oct. 2 - just five weeks before the presidential election - to decide.
So, it appears that they are demanding affirmative proof that the state has set up its voter ID program properly.

I find it highly unlikely that they will be able to show this.

Of course, it is concerning that they basically kicked it down the road until October 2.

It's a clusterf%$#, and I would argue that this is by design. The goal is to keep blacks and Hispanics from voting.


Post a Comment