Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear voter ID case this Thursday

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The suprising, and wrongly decided Pennsylvania superior court decision on voter ID, will go before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this Thursday. Voter ID law set for review by state Supreme Court | PennLive.com:

Pennsylvania will take its place as a battleground state on a different political front this week as supporters and opponents argue the validity of the state’s new voter ID law before the state Supreme Court.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Thursday in Philadelphia. They will be televised live on Pennsylvania Cable Network at 9:30 a.m.

The six-member court — evenly split between Democrats and Republicans — will be tasked with reviewing Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson’s August ruling that permitted Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law to be implemented for the Nov. 6 election. If the justices are deadlocked, Simpson’s decisions will stand.

* * *

Plaintiffs in this case say the state, as of Tuesday, had issued nearly 7,000 nondriver’s license photo ID cards since March, when the law was enacted. That proves their point that with at least 100,000 voters needing IDs, there’s strong evidence that “you are going to have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, without ID on Election Day,” said Witold Walczak, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania’s legal director.

While the presidential campaigns typically have tried to stay above the fray on the Pennsylvania fight, President Barack Obama made an unmistakable reference to the issue in his speech to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Thursday.

He said: “If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void, the lobbyists and special interests, the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election and those who are trying to make it harder for you to vote.”

The Supreme Court ruling is key because it is expected to be the final word on the voter ID legislation before the election, and Pennsylvania has been seen as one of the battleground states upon which the presidential election will turn.

For this court, it also might be one of its most highly anticipated decisions in generations.

The plaintiffs have argued in their briefs that Simpson failed to address the essential question of which risk is greatest on Election Day: that fraud will taint the results or that voters will be deprived of their right to vote.

The question tilts in their favor, the plaintiffs’ attorneys asserted, given that state attorneys stipulated that there is little documented fraud in Pennsylvania’s elections. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Carol Aichele has put the number of voters without ID at 100,000 or fewer, although the law opponents think there are many more.

They also argued that Simpson did not give appropriate weight to voting as a “fundamental right,” an issue that governs which side has the burden of proof in this case. Under Simpson’s ruling, the plaintiffs are required to prove that the state’s new voter requirement is discriminatory.

Seth Kreimer, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who was consulted by the ACLU on this case, said Simpson relied too heavily on a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding a similar Indiana law. He said Simpson overlooked the fact that the Pennsylvania Constitution provides stricter voting-right protections than are provided in the U.S. Constitution.

“The ACLU argument on the substance is Judge Simpson just got it wrong. He didn’t look at the Pennsylvania constitutional rights,” Kreimer said.

* * *

The state, in a reply brief filed by Attorney General Linda Kelly’s office Friday, argued that it has rolled out a full-scale publicity campaign to make sure everyone knows about the requirements of the act and it has bent over backwards to help everyone meet them. A public-service ad about the law will begin airing statewide this week. Postcards will be sent this month to every household with a registered voter. And the Department of State came up with a new form of photo ID for voting purposes.

Registered voters can get a free photo ID card by showing their Social Security number and two proofs of residence, such as a utility bill or bank statement, at the nearest licensing center.

As a result, the state argues that Simpson was correct in refusing to block the law, based on findings that there is no immediate danger that the plaintiffs in the case cannot meet the requirement of the act by Election Day “if they want to.” In fact, the state asserts that case testimony established a path for every one of the plaintiffs to qualify for a card.

The state also argued that Simpson was correct in rejecting the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction because, in its view, the likelihood of seeing the act overturned for constitutional reasons is remote. “This is nothing more than an even-handed law that applies to everyone, which has to do with the conduct of elections,” the state’s attorneys said.

* * *

Lawyers expect that Thursday’s court session will draw a wide audience because as Witold said, “It is such an important issue because … you are talking about [potentially] impacting hundreds of thousands of voters, voters of all political stripes.”

I would expect a quick decision given the election deadlines in Pennsylvania.