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
OS,
You are supposed to be in bed. 9:00a in Court and at the top of your game requires sleep!
Blouise, the Chief and I discussed purchasing the old family homestead when it was on the market for only £200,000. At the time, that came out to about $350,000 USD. We had the idea of building an Academy for gifted girls–the Chief’s real profession is educator and school administrator. Between the two of us we could have swung the deal with no trouble. All went well until he visited the place to inspect it. No one had actually lived there for about a century and it was more than just a little fixer upper. His estimate of what it would cost to make it liveable and into a boarding school ran about two million USD. That took it out of our price range. The property is beautiful and has 23 acres around it, but got a little run down since first built in 1313. It is in the Highlands, not too far from Aberdeen.
So much for moving to Scotland.
http://i617.photobucket.com/albums/tt256/otteraylens/a26e5a48.jpg
” … maybe Scotland. They do speak English there……sort of.” (OS)
Alba gu bràth!
Bron,
And yet OS and I get along famously. We are friends on and off line. Ask yourself why that is by way of contrast and comparison again.
Curious,
You’re not a jerk–and there is no need to apologize to me.
I’d say it was Nick who was wrong…about the voucher program in Louisiana.
Elaine,
Some nights are darker than others.
Bron, so am I on all those counts, except I did not lose my wife to cancer. It was a fall and several broken ribs. Other than that, I plead guilty to all counts. I do, however, live at home where my family settled over two hundred years ago. Never cared for the idea of living abroad, except for maybe Scotland. They do speak English there……sort of.
I don’t recall slowing down much, except for stairs. Maybe other folks in my age group are a little more fragile. Y’reckon?
Bron,
Did you ever take into account that my choosing to ignore him 95% of the time is an expression of compassion I would not afford someone I didn’t think was mentally impaired?
If you talked to and about me the way he did, I’d be all over your ass and you know it. You should know. You’ve experienced that before.
However, today I’m about out of compassion for his nonsense no matter what his excuse might be. Special pleading is special pleading. If he wants to be treated nicely, he needs to learn to treat others as he expects to be treated. It’s that Golden Rule thing. Whether he learns it by carrot (as has been tried with him many times before) or with the stick or not at all is up to him.
Elaine,
I’m the jerk who defended Nick back when we were talking about vouchers. Seems I was wrong.
I apologize.
Gene,
Nick’s going to spend his night trying to figure out a way to get out of the hole he dug.
Gene H:
did you ever take into account that he is nearly 80, lost his wife to cancer and had cancer himself. All of this according to him in the last few years. Also did you think about the possibility he may not get out much and may have limited interaction with people due to his age. He is also not Swedish and so may have a limited circle of support in Sweden.
He is probably a little bit testy due to his age and who wouldnt be, getting old sucks like nothing else.
You dont need to respect his opinions but you should have a little more respect for him as a human being.
Hey! You learned something today. Good for you.
The first rule for getting out of a hole is to stop digging. Good night.
Or here’s an idea!
You could try to change the subject again.
Genius.
She had my sympathy then, Mr. Straw Man. If you want to misconstrue my sympathy for her mother as not being sympathetic to her when my sympathy for her was not addressed at all on that thread? That’s your lie to sell.
Good luck with that.
P.S. Pamper’s has a sale on the clothes you so desperately need right now.
She NOW has your full sympathy AFTER an “amateur attack by a straw man.” You’re too easy, Emporer Gene. The Men’s Warehouse has a sale on the clothes you so desperately need right now.
nick,
Straw man. What I said (the only thing I said) was in agreement with LK.
To wit:
“’So maybe her crime was actually political- she was shaking the foundation of a class based justice system.’
You know what Leslie Nielson would say about that comment, LK. :mrgreen:”
Referring to a video clip LK knows as Leslie Nielson saying “Bingo.”
This was in no way unsympathetic to the rape victim. It was, however, sympathetic to the plight of her mother who, as LK noted, was in trouble for upsetting the class based justice system as she was for protesting for her daughter. As for the daughter herself, she of course has my full sympathy.
As an aside, a straw man is an amateur night tactic.
Did you learn that from one of those lawyers whose ass you kicked in court, genius?
id707,
Since you brought it up (which is extremely relevant by the way), I think you’re nuts based on your patterns of behavior – namely, you passively aggressively attack others, play victim when called on it or given the same in return, plead for sympathy because of “po’ ol’ rabbit you”, rinse and repeat. That’s not schizophrenia by the way. If I had thought you schizophrenic, I’d have said so. However, and again, since you’ve mentioned it, I think you’re nuts in a totally different way. It’s a form of stealth bullying: you never acknowledge that you insult others, you always have to portray yourself as the victim, you blame others and circumstances for your own shortcomings or failures, then you often express admiration of people you accuse of victimizing you. It is stealth bullying in that you use your faux victimization to cast others as aggressors when you are in fact an aggressor yourself. This kind of behavior falls into several cluster B diagnosable disorders including Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, and Anti-Social Personality Disorder as well as the many variations upon them. I can tell this as an amateur student of psychology, but I cannot make a more detailed diagnosis without direct access and formal accreditation nor would I make a conclusive diagnosis remotely in any case. That does not preclude me from noticing the pattern of your behavior and concluding that it is symptomatic of some sort of mental illness as a layman.
I don’t give a damn whether you find that despicable or not, but it is why I don’t pay attention to most of your bullshit. Giving you attention only plays into your pathology no matter which specific pathology it happens to be.
If any of this presents a problem for you?
Too bad.
You should really consider to learn when to STFU.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120816_Poll_gives_Obama_the_edge__but_how_would_voter_ID_affect_the_lead_.html
Blouise, I understand completely. Don’t forget; I live in Florida. Our governor is a virtual poster child for voter suppression efforts.