[EL] PA voter ID law decision

[Doug Hess]

>From end of one of the two dissents (both joined each dissent):

"The majority correctly sets forth the standard of review that we, as
the appellate
court, are to apply in reviewing a lower court's order granting or
denying a preliminary
injunction.  We review for an abuse of discretion.  Yet, the majority
utterly fails to apply
that standard to this appeal.  My application of the required standard
leads me to the
inescapable conclusion that the lower court indeed abused its
discretion in failing to find
that  irreparable  harm  of  constitutional  magnitude  — the
disenfranchisement  of  a
substantial  number  of  eligible,  qualified, registered  voters,
many  of  whom  have  been
proudly voting for decades — was likely to occur based on the present
structure, timing,
and implementation of Act 18; in my assessment, the lower court should
have granted a
preliminary injunction.  Therefore, I would reverse.

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."

Doug


On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Doug Hess <douglasrhess at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see. But nothing about informing people of how this works? I still
> imagine lots of people who live under rocks (or watch "Matlock"
> re-runs all day) will be caught by surprise. Is there a "day off"
> alternative that doesn't include the penalty of "come back later"?
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:25 PM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think I read that they have adopted a "close enough" rule or practice to
>> give IDs to people who don't have specific documents mentioned in the
>> statute -- sort of like SC's "we'll take your word for it" policy.
>>
>> Nothing like litigation to effect change
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Doug Hess <douglasrhess at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So, the court will likely use what measure or method to determine if
>>> the voter ID law can be implemented without disenfranchisement?
>>>
>>> Seems the Supreme Court of PA has already noted that "...both  state
>>> agencies involved appreciate that some registered voters have been and
>>> will be unable to comply with the requirements maintained by PennDOT
>>> to obtain an identification card under  Section  1510(b).  See N.T.
>>> at  713  (testimony  from  a  deputy  secretary  for PennDOT that “at
>>> the end of the day there will be people who will not be able to
>>> qualify for a driver’s license or a PennDOT ID  card”), 749, 772, 810,
>>> 995."
>>>
>>> So what's left to decide (for the near term)? Or is there really
>>> nothing to decide and the language of what is "instructed" is just
>>> worded that way? Are these "alternate IDs" being given out readily? Do
>>> people know about them?
>>>
>>> The text: http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-114-2012pco.pdf
>>>
>>> Doug
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>