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
rafflaw
“you could be right, but the money that they will steal from the middle class to give to the rich”
There is no taking from the middle to give to the rich. I like your choice of words because what about all these years that government has stolen from the rich and given to the poor? Maybe that is why trillions of dollars are overseas instead of here.
AY,
you could be right, but the money that they will steal from the middle class to give to the rich will either send us into a full depression quickly, or will cause riots across the country when people realize that a plutocratic takeover has been finalized.
And the bank bailouts supported by then-Senator Obama does not mean there has already been a plutocratic takeover?
Nick,
You wrote:
“Elaine, Even teachers and administration who didn’t like me will say I had virtually no discipline problems in my classroom. I never griped about parents and I had often the highest turnout for parent/teacher conferences. I was direct to kids and parents as I am here. I had discipline and work expectations that were high.
“One of the things that put me in bad favor w/ the strident union teachers was my writing assignments. It was a shock to me when I started teaching @ middle age just how poorly kids wrote. So, I had them writing daily. The kids hated it, but did it. The parents loved it. What shocked me even more was the pressure I got from “fellow” colleagues to not “Show them up!” That was not my intent, I didn’t give a rat’s ass what they did. But, parents saying, “Mr. Spinelli gives a lot of writing assigments, why don’t you?” didn’t sit well. I’m sure most of you can figure it out, but writing assignments were not only work for the kids but a lot of work for me. So what! That’s what they needed. This mentality Elaine of 30 years, was instrumental in my giving up my quixotic quest in actually teaching, not assigning work sheets. I know your reaction before you even say it.”
*****
I don’t know where you taught. I’m sorry you had such a bad experience.
It seems you’re full of bluster about what a tough guy you are. I’m surprised that the teachers’ union and your teaching colleagues forced a manly man like you to give up your “quixotic quest.”
You judge all teachers, public schools, and teaching unions by your bad experience. I’m happy to say that I had a much better experience as a professional educator–not that I didn’t encounter a couple of difficult years during the course of my teaching career.
Working on writing skills was a major focus in my school system. Many teachers had their students keep daily journals. My daughter–who attended school in the district where I taught–was assigned plenty of writing assignments–including creative projects, essays, term papers, etc. She got an excellent foundation in written expression and the fundamentals and mechanics of writing that prepared her well for college.
I am well aware that there are some ineffective/lazy teachers. There are also many teachers who are competent, caring, dynamic, and effective. Teaching unions, I might add, also protect excellent teachers–not just the losers. Some outstanding educators–many of whom are outspoken–often run afoul of administrators who want all teachers to do as they are told and to not express opinions that may differ from those of the powers that be.
Many teachers maintain good discipline, have high expectations for their students, and have a positive impact on them.
I guess this was the reaction you expected from me.
Thanks, Lee. It sure looks that way. Obama has a 6 point lead there but it might.take more than that to carry the state.
Thanks Elaine, I tend to forget to make sure there is a space between my words and the link. (Just turned 60 so thats my excuse ((*_*)) )
SwathmoreMom Corbett and his minions will do whatever they think it will take for Romney to win the state, everything but allow all citizens the right to vote.
Pa. Drops Online Absentee Ballot Application, Voter Registration
Ryan J. Reilly 10:06 AM EDT, Friday August 17, 2012
Pennsylvania announced on the same day that a judge said he would not block a controversial voter ID law that the state will not be offering online voter registration or give voters the ability to apply for an absentee ballot online this year. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:
A spokesman for the Department of State said county elections officials told the agency that implementing the new online initiatives as well as voter ID requirements was too much to handle less than three months before the election.
Absentee ballots would allow residents who lack a valid form of photo identification to cast a ballot under the voter ID law.
leejcaroll,
I think your link will work now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/pa-voter-id_n_1795741.html
Swmom, have a great time and Blouise, enjoy!
One person got her temporary cardhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/pa-voter-id_n_1795741.html
iof course what the others who cant get proof will do who knows?
More like corporatist fascism.
Nothing is going to be done for the people except to oppress them.
Socialism, like democracy, operates on the principle of public trusts and ownership in common. These clowns are for privatization and violating every public trust they come to.
Ditto what gene said……
Raff,
When David Stockman came out and said it he Ryan plan was a fairy tale…. I had to take a pause and read what he was saying….. After reading it….. I think that Ryan is scarier than Palin could ever be imagined…… He has a sorta evil charisma that people want to believe….. If my take is correct we are headed to a totalitarian government with socialist implications…….
Gene,
I think Goofy is correct!
And a lot more like Mickey Mouse.
Or is that Pinocchio?
Perhaps Goofy.
All those Disney characters bleed together after awhile.
Elaine,
Ryan seems to be more like Sarah Palin then I initially thought!
FT investigation: Romney’s take-off
By Robin Harding
An early deal by Bain Capital has been marked by unlawful suppression of a pilot’s union
8/16/12
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3a5dc3ce-e7b0-11e1-95e1-00144feab49a.html#axzz23np8qya6
Paul Ryan Is Not a Vice President. Paul Ryan Is a Fake.
By Charles P. Pierce
8/9/12
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/paul-ryan-vice-president-2012-11518368
One day, some years from now, I’m going to figure out how Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny-starver from Wisconsin, managed to fool so many people for so long. He’s a garden-variety supply-side faker. His alleged economic “wonkery” consists of a B.A. in economics from Miami of Ohio — which he would not have been able to achieve without my generosity in helping him out with the Social Security survivor’s benefits that got him through high school after his father kicked. (You’re welcome, zombie-eyed granny-starver. Think nothing of it. Really.) Whereupon he went to work in Washington for a variety of conservative congresscritters and think-tanks, thinking unremarkable thoughts for fairly unremarkable people. Once in Congress, however, he has been transformed into an intellectual giant despite the fact that, every time he comes up with another “budget,” actual economists get a look at it and determine, yet again, that between “What We Should Do” and “Great Things That Will Happen When We Do” is a wilderness of dreamy nonsense, wishful thinking, and an asterisk the size of Lake Huron. At which point, Republicans who’d like to have careers in five years take to hiding behind the drapes when he comes down the hall. Then, a few months later, he’s at it again. And even some putatively liberal commentators shrug and tell themselves that, at least, Paul Ryan is a Serious Person. He gets credit for sincerely wanting to “reform” entitlements, when his entire career makes it quite plain that he doesn’t believe in the concept of entitlements, let alone the ones we actually have. He gets a pass on obvious mendacity that none of us would buy from, say, Herman Cain. (In a way, it’s not dissimilar to all those valentines to the mighty intellect of Newt Gingrich that we read back in the early 1990’s, until everybody figured out that Newt’s default position on almost everything was being a thoroughgoing creep.) Outside of the very real possibility that it’s all being done to give Paul Krugman a stroke, I don’t get it.
I had to chuckle, Elaine. 😀
Paul Ryan: Randian poseur
Mitt Romney couldn’t have chosen a better example of the fakery at the heart of today’s GOP
BY JOAN WALSH
8/12/12
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/12/paul_ryan_randian_poseur/
Excerpt:
Paul Ryan was born into a well-to-do Janesville, Wisc. family, part of the so-called “Irish mafia” that’s run the city’s construction industry since the 19th century. When his lawyer father died young, sadly, the high-school aged Ryan received Social Security survivor benefits. But they didn’t go directly to supporting his family; by his own account, he banked them for college. He went to Miami University of Ohio, paying twice as much tuition as an Ohio resident would have; the in-state University of Wisconsin system (which I attended) apparently wasn’t good enough for Ryan. After his government-subsidized out-of-state education, the pride of Janesville left college and went to work for government, where he’s spent his entire career, first serving Republican legislators and then in his own Congressional seat, with occasional stints at his family-owned construction business when he needed a job (reportedly he also drove an Oscar Mayer Wiener Mobile for a while).
Ironically, Ryan came to national attention trying to dismantle the very program that helped him go to the college of his choice, pushing an even more radical version of President Bush’s Social Security privatization plan, which failed. He has since become the scourge of the welfare state, a man wholly supported by government who preaches against the evils of government support. He could be the poster boy for President Obama’s supposedly controversial oration about how we all owe our success to some combination of our own hard work, family backing and government support. Let’s say it together: You didn’t build that career by yourself, Congressman Ryan.
Thus Paul Ryan represents the fakery at the heart of the Republican project today. It starts with the contradiction that Mr. Free Enterprise has spent his life in the bosom of government, enjoying the added protection of wingnut welfare benefactors like the Koch brothers. If Herman Cain is Charles and David Koch’s “brother from another mother,” as he famously joked, Ryan is the fourth Koch, swaddled in support from Americans for Prosperity and other Koch fronts. The man who wants to make the world safe for swashbuckling, risk-taking capitalists hasn’t spent a day at economic risk in his entire life.
The other component of GOP fakery Ryan exemplifies is the notion that a pampered scion of a construction empire who has spent his life supported by government somehow represents the “white working class,” by virtue of the demographics of his gradually gerrymandered blue collar district. I write about this in my book: guys like Ryan (and his Irish Catholic GOP confrere Pat Buchanan) somehow become the political face of the white working class when they never spent a day in that class in their life. Their only tether to it is their remarkable ability to tap into the economic anxiety of working class whites and steer it toward paranoia that their troubles are the fault of “other” people – the slackers and the moochers, Ayn Rand’s famous “parasites.” Since the ’60s, those parasites are most frequently understood to be African American or Latino – but they’re always understood to be the “lesser-than” folks, morally, intellectually and genetically weaker than the rest of us.
Today, though, the “parasites” Republicans rail against also happen to be white. Ryan’s intellectual soulmate Charles Murray, of course, has shown that the struggling white working class is now besieged by the same bad morals that dragged down African Americans – laziness, promiscuity and a preference for welfare over work. Ryan himself rails against the “takers” who are living off the “makers.” And while in the realm of dog whistle politics, many Republicans hope working class whites still see the takers as “other,” in fact, Ryan’s definition of “taker” includes much of the GOP base. It’s up to Democrats to make that plain to the electorate.
gbk,
““Well I don’t know exactly when it balances because — I don’t want to get wonky on you, but we haven’t run the numbers on that specific plan,” Ryan said.”
Right out of the mouth of the wonky number cruncher himself!
Elaine,
Paraphrasing the capellmeister’s statement to Mozart in “Amadeus,” too many words!!
Rock on, Elaine.
Ryan mocked in media for inability to defend his own budget plan
By David Ferguson
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/15/ryan-mocked-in-media-for-inability-to-defend-his-own-budget-plan/
Excerpt:
Media figures spent Wednesday morning mocking vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’s inability to defend his budget plan or provide any specific numbers in what should have been a softball interview with Fox News’s Brit Hume.
Media Matters reports that Ryan, who is widely lauded as a “budget guru” and a man of ideas within the confines of Fox News, talk radio and the rest of the right wing media world, was forced to admit to Hume that “we haven’t run the numbers yet” on the very budget that he is proposing, a pronouncement that seemed to leave some commentators genuinely flabbergasted.
On Wednesday morning’s edition of “Morning Joe,” the panel sat in stunned silence for a beat after they watched a clip of the uncomfortable encounter between Ryan and Hume. Hume asked Ryan, among other things, how much in savings his plan would produce. Ryan immediately got evasive, “The point is — we, we — I joined the Romney ticket,” he said, but that the savings to Medicare would come “for the next generation.”
Hume then asked when Ryan’s plan would balance the budget, which made the congressman even more uncomfortable. After hemming and hawing about bringing the size of the government down to 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product by 2016, and being asked again by Hume when the budget will be balanced, Ryan finally made a genuinely startling revelation. He doesn’t have any idea.
“Well I don’t know exactly when it balances because — I don’t want to get wonky on you, but we haven’t run the numbers on that specific plan,” Ryan said.