Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson issued an important ruling on Wednesday that rejected a motion for a preliminary injunction of the Pennsylvania Voter ID law. Since these motions are based on a determination of the likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the decision has a significant impact not only for the case but cases around the country. Even if one disagrees with Simpson’s decision, the 70-page opinion below is well-reasoned and will be, in my view, difficult to reverse in the appeal to the state supreme court (which is divided evenly between Republican and Democratic jurists). With one Republican justice, Joan Orie Melvin, fighting criminal corruption charges, the Court is divided three to three along party lines. However, there is no reason to assume that these jurists will all vote in line with their political affiliations as opposed to their view of the law. A tie on the Supreme Court would result in a decision upholding the decision. I will be discussing the case this morning on CNN.
The law requires the showing of an ID for voting, which can include a driver’s license, military ID cards, U.S. passports, identification cards from accredited Pennsylvania colleges or universities, Pennsylvania senior care facility IDs, or other photo identification cards issued by the federal, Pennsylvania, county or municipal governments.
Simpson not only rejected the legal basis for the challenge but added factual findings that could pose a problem on appeal — minimizing the impact of the voters affected by the law.
Challengers to the law (which is similar to laws in nine other states) insist that it is designed to disenfranchise voters who are minority, poor, or elderly. Those are critical groups in the democratic base and the law is viewed as a Republican effort to suppress turnout. Even Pennsylvania admitted that voter fraud is exceedingly rare in the state and national studies have found similarly low numbers in other states. That reinforces the view that this was a politically motivated law by state GOP members concerned about the expected close presidential election in November.
Simpson acknowledged the possible political machinations and chastised comments by the Republican House leader, Mike Turzai, as “disturbing” and “boastful.” Turzai seemed eager to undermine any claim of a neutral rationale for the law in proclaiming at a dinner that the new law “is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”
However, Simpson did not view such admittedly revealing (and rather moronic) public statements to be determinative in the legal analysis. He found that the Commonwealth’s asserted interest in protecting public confidence in elections is a relevant and legitimate state interest sufficiently weighty to justify the burden.” More importantly, he ruled that requiring a voter to show one government ID is a “reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life.”
Simpson’s decision is buttressed by the 2008 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) upholding an Indiana law requiring photo IDs. That decision was written by liberal icon Justice John Paul Stevens who found that such laws are “amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” Stevens wrote in the 6-3 decision (which Simpson cites extensively):
“The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.”
Simpson is likely to be challenged on not requiring more of a showing from the state on critical points. He gave “substantial deference to the judgment of the Legislature” on these questions. He specifically opted not to apply a strict scrutiny standard as requested by the challengers who argued that the standard applied due to the denial of a fundamental right. Simpson acknowledged in the opinion that “[i]f strict scrutiny is to be employed, I might reach a different determination.”
However, Simpson iron-plated his decision with extensive legal and factual findings. This is no ideological diatribe. You can disagree with him, but the opinion is well-constructed and well-presented.
The situation in other states can vary. Some of those states (like Texas, South Carolina and Florida) fall under added restrictions under the federal voting law and new voting laws must be approved by the Justice Department. The Obama Administration is opposed to the laws and Attorney General Eric Holder recently spoke to black ministers on fighting the efforts in these states. Moreover, while nine states — Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin — passed new ID laws, only Kansas, Pennsylvania and Tennessee appear set to apply the laws to the November elections.
Notably, Simpson created a factual record that found a much lower number of people affected by the law — a factual finding that is generally given deference on appeal as opposed to legal findings. Simpson rejected the estimate that 9 percent of the state’s 8.2 million registered voters lack a viable ID.
As I mentioned, I would bet on the decision being upheld or effectively upheld with a tie on the state supreme court. It is also doubtful the United States Supreme Court would intervene in the case before the November elections, particularly if it is upheld by the lower court. That will not be welcomed news in a key state for the President but the Obama campaign may be wise to focus on preparing voters rather than betting on a reversal.
Here is the opinion: Simpson Opinion
Mike Appleton,
Of course you are right and I appreciate the sound advice but sometimes I just want to throw a pie at the bench and stomp off in a fit of temper.
There are many of us, here in Ohio, Democrats and Republicans, who are very busy helping those who need it to get their proper forms of identification and/or absentee ballots.
I want to specifically mention Republicans for I am working with many of them who do not support their party’s shenanigans and firmly believe that all who wish to vote should be able to do so without hassle.
Being a positive person, I’ve been trying to find something positive to say about Geneand I just found it; he is consistent. Gene is exhibiting the same empathy here as he did about the Chinese rape victim yesterday. He should have included a smiley face here to be totally consistent, but nobody’s perfect.
Otteray Scribe,
Your words, which I relate, are on record. That is all that is needed. I do not lie, nor have illusions as to the basis of my words and my recounting of what happened after ElsieDl complained.
It is apparent that you do not stand for what you said.
Then all that I experienced after that was an paranoic illusion, or it was reality.
That you agreed with GeneH in his accusations of me as suffering from another mental illness, is also on record.
That again is a violation of professional conduct.
Psychiatrists do not do diagnosises via internet with someone to whom they have no relation or other contact to base the diagnosis on.
But you are not alone in that.
I simply find such behavior despicable. But then some psychiatrists are so. And you are not the first one.
The first one tried to seduce my girlfriend who was a client, and then me. My girlfriend thought it amusing, but that was her reaction. I thought it abhorrent and broke off.
LK,
Counterpoint plus the eight references I provided to show that voter fraud is a statistically insignificant issue.
Fallacy of special pleading.
You don’t get to get away with being insulting to others and play the victim when they push back just because you’re a “paranoid inclined person”, id707.
That’s specious logic and a double standard.
Tunica Harold, point and
counterpoint:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8634
Rafflaw,
Your reasoning is correct. But “banning” as OS said was done is beyond the pale, IMHO (if yóu permit the allusion to jewish history).
Who would indeed want to have to deal with me? But seeing yourself as others see you is not easy, that I conclude, based on that being a posssible clarification on why I get so many “lessons” here.
Do you want to know something else about me? Here it comes anyway.
It has been a plague for me to go and judge all that meets my eyes all these years. It led to a bad attitude, and desire to correct things, to do whatever presumptious thing you can think of. Part of my latest renaissance is the discovery of this and telling it to go to hell when it pops up. It was a constant companion before.
And it has led me to deal out many a snart here. Great fun (sarcasm!!!). Tolerance and forebearance have to be learned, even at my age. And I did this discovery on my own, no shrink help at all. He is in Cape Cod now.
BTW, it is so nice and quiet now. I just note things and pass on, not judging, not engaging my guts in disapprobation. Recommended to those in need of it.
Thanks for making an exception this time.
Combining my initial assertion that those who don’t like photo id laws should take positive actions via pro bono legal work and/or volunteers to help folks get the id’s, and the tangential education issues inserted in this thread, I saw a news piece today. Like most school districts, Saginaw, Mi. has severe financial issues. Most here live in more affluent districts but Saginaw is like many blue collar and poor districts that have to make tough decisions. Like many of these poorer districts, Saginaw initiated a “pay to play” rule. If you want to play sports, you must pay a fee. Lamar Woodley, a professional football player didn’t whine, cast blame, rationalize. He wrote a check for 60k so that any kid in his hometown who wanted to play, could play.
NOTICE: I speak only for myself. If anyone ascribes different motives or attributions to me, they are mistaken. On a blog full of lawyers and scholars, I cannot and will not speak for anyone else until I am appointed Emperor of the Universe. Then I might consider it for no more than 0.2 seconds.
Now if everyone will excuse me, I am out of here. I have to be in court at 9:00 in the morning and need a lot of prep time.
idealist707,
“We all claim noble intentions. No harm in that. So I accept on face value your declarations with reservations. Your previous actions question these declarations. But as it may…..”
What previous actions? This is the first time we have substantially communicated, and this will probably be the last as I have no time to massage egos.
“There is a group here. Call it what you will. Of them, Otteray Scribe has declared that all of the “regulars” have decided to ignore me. He did that to my face, as it were, when a newcomer complained of my snartiness. So I have been aware of this possibility since then.
I have been effectively ignored by all until about a week ago when non regulars have begun to respond. So there is reason, not just paranoia behind my conclusions. No one has confirmed Otteray’s words, but the results have been like a brick wall, perceptibly so.”
A lot of my comments are ignored, so what? I take this as a sign of either people missing them (which is easy to do on long threads), not agreeing and choosing to be polite, agreeing yet feeling that what I offered was inconsequential to the thread, or just not having the time. To view this as personal is something only you can address.
Not all mothers get this praise. Some have an obvious loose attachment, regarding the child as an object to be handled, or a prize to show up. Those I ignore.
It is much better than the 70’s and 80′ when young Swedish mothers were as cold as ice. Wonder why the change? Is it true, or just me.
Just as people say the denizens of NYC are polite now. When did that change. They were the icons of inciviility once upon a time. Remember “Midnight Cowboy”.
I babble. Thank you for now.
Rafflaw, I never asserted voter fraud was a problem, just support for common sense laws requiring photo id. I gave an abbreviated list of the transactions that require aphotor id and merely stated they were common sense as were id’s to vote. Certainly I could have given a lengthy list of transactions that require photo id but I don’t ascribe to the philosophy that “more is better” which seems to be the norm here. We all have busy lives, to varying degrees, and long comments can be tedious and self absorbed.
As I’m sure you know, hiring employees[I had from 2-6 during my years] exponentially increases your regulations, laws and taxes. That causes many folks to be sole proprieters as yourself. I hope we can agree that should not be the case. There should be incentives to hire and expand, not disincentives. That is one of my beefs w/ Obamacare. I appreciate your apology but it was not needed. After busting your balls about impatience[I’m a ballbuster, “Guilty” not no contest or an Alford plea] this last round I figured you were billing some hours. I NEVER begrudge someone earning $. I have found people who don’t need to apologize often do, and those who should, never do. It’s akin to guilt. Those who don’t need it are often overcomed w/ guilt, and those who could use a healthy dose, don’t have a lick of it.
I’ve read the entire opinion and believe that Prof. Turley’s analysis is pretty much spot on. Forget the phony “voter fraud” issue. Of course the Republican push for voter ID laws is intended to disenfranchise lawful voters. They’ve admitted as much, but that is not the point. The courts have to tread carefully when it comes to second guessing legislative policy determinations, even if those determinations are stupid. Any notion that a law requiring a photo ID will be ruled unconstitutional per se is delusional thinking. The court in this case, regardless of his political leanings, still has to contend with a Supreme Court ruling that finds these sorts of statutes constitutional. The only flaw in the court’s rationale, in my view at least, is that the time frame for education and implementation is woefully short. I believe a temporary injunction might have been justified on the basis that it would be unconstitutional to permit the legislation to be effective for purposes of the November election, and I hope that issue is addressed on appeal. But those of us who are Democrats would be smart to focus efforts on doing what is necessary to make certain that eligible Democrats have the required identification.
Elaine,
I share your joy. Just as Í do almost daily with young mothers of the 3 and under group. I praise with glances and words, and we glow the both of us. To see such brave young ones in our world is life essential to me.
Elaine,
I wonder and hope there are more than you, of the regulars here, who were not informed or gave consent to the “ignore him” decision.
Otteray did this some 2 or 3 weeks since. It was a response to ElsieDL, I think that is her “name”. She came declaring her experience from Afganistan, and I raised some questions to her, asking her for more details, and implying that in her position she was in fact in no position to say A or B about the situation there. I feel that if you don’t speak the language well, and don’t travel on your own, then you can not be a true witness, in spite of your good intentions.
She started to reply in a civil manner, but tiring at the end, broke out into a tirade saying she had seen my ways before and refused to tolerate them. It was then Otteray Scribe reassured her, saying that the “regulars” had decided to ignore me, and that she should do so also.
The regulars paraded one by one reassuring her with one breath that she was welcome, and with the next breath saying that her opinions would require more than her declarations to be given weight here. Good notice. She apparently took heed of it all.
How to traumatize a paranoid inclined person. And Otteray calls himself a professional psychiatrist. What a laugh.
OK, hope I have answered your question.
Mississippi NAACP leader sent to prison for 10 counts of voter fraud.
Paranoia will destroy ya……then again schizophrenia runs deep…..
idealist,
My granddaughter just turned one. She is the light of my life and gives me great joy. Thanks for asking.
ElaineM,
You teach me a new lesson which I have already wondered about. You teach me of my mistake in casting general aspersions, for instance that of the thin veneer of civility.
Someone, if not all, will take that aspersion as a personal attack, instead of a mild reproof and reminder of our commoon human failings which we share. That was my intent. And your reply shows how miserably such general aspersions fail.
As to which person it was, it was not me, but my chivalry is awakened not by chivalry, but old reflexes grounded in childhood. And I am the one who lives with it daily.
You are apparently firmly grounded in yourself. As most seem here. Some also display exceptional perceptivity on many matters, not the least of personal interactivity.
But blows such as Otteray Scribe dealt me, see above comment to GBK, do great harm to me. As intended I presume.
And permit me to be presumptious and ask: How is the grandchild?
idealist,
When did Otteray declare that the “regulars” had decided to ignore you? I consider myself to be on the the regulars–as I consider you to be–and I never decided to ignore you…or anyone else who comments on this blog.