Pennsylvania Voter Suppression law in court

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and back to the topic at hand (gotta love the title to this thread )


judge rules:


http://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-j...141100233.html

He found that the civil rights groups failed to show that the law was unconstitutional under all circumstances since it applies to all qualified voters, requiring them to present a photo ID that can be obtained for free. Judges would also be stationed at polling places on Election Day to resolve individual disputes, he added.

While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said.


much like the scotus ruling a few years ago. the burden to get i.d. is the same for all, the law isn't discriminatory.

Just to be clear ... the judge did not overturn the challenge or rule on the challenge, nor did he rule the law Constitutional. He simply addressed the technicalities. It's going right to higher court for ruling.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Just to be clear ... the judge did not overturn the challenge or rule on the challenge, nor did he rule the law Constitutional. He simply addressed the technicalities. It's going right to higher court for ruling.

"Petitioner's counsel did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by the voter ID requirement," Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said in a 70-page ruling.

Nope, no ruling there.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

"Petitioner's counsel did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by the voter ID requirement," Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said in a 70-page ruling.

Nope, no ruling there.

Yes, the judge used the word "ruling". There's a little more to it than that.

No, it was not a ruling on the merits of the case (whether the law was constitutional or not) it was a ruling on that he would not give an injunction right now against implementation. Will you give us an injunction temporarily halting implementation, Judge? No, Judge says. But the law is still being appealed immediately to the higher court for a ruling on the Constitutionality of the actual law. The law has not been ruled "legal".

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, it was not a ruling on the merits of the case (whether the law was constitutional or not) it was a ruling on basically, if he would rule on it.

" He found that the civil rights groups failed to show that the law was unconstitutional under all circumstances since it applies to all qualified voters, requiring them to present a photo ID that can be obtained for free. Judges would also be stationed at polling places on Election Day to resolve individual disputes, he added.

Before the trial, Pennsylvania conceded that it was not aware of any instances of voter impersonation fraud in the state.

While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said."

You sure?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

" He found that the civil rights groups failed to show that the law was unconstitutional under all circumstances since it applies to all qualified voters, requiring them to present a photo ID that can be obtained for free. Judges would also be stationed at polling places on Election Day to resolve individual disputes, he added.

Before the trial, Pennsylvania conceded that it was not aware of any instances of voter impersonation fraud in the state.

While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said."

You sure?

Yes, according to the legal opinions that have been stated about what it was the judge was ruling upon, which was only the injunction. The judge was asked to stop the current implementation, while the constitutionality is determined. The judge chose not to block implementation while the constitutionality is being determined.

Try this, it's pretty detailed:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...-supreme-court

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had asked the judge to stop the law from taking effect as part of a constitutional challenge. Their complaint claims the law would make it disproportionately harder for seniors, minorities and others to vote in the Nov. 6 general election.

"Our concern is that you cannot wait until after Election Day to figure out that people lost their right to vote," says Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project, which is the co-counsel for the plaintiffs. "We wanted to make sure the voters of Pennsylvania were protected going into this election and that their right to vote wasn't encumbered by an unnecessary barrier."

Pennsylvania state court Judge Robert Simpson declined to rule on whether the law violates the state constitution. But in refusing to grant an injunction against the law,

... etc. continued

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, according to the legal opinions that have been stated about what it was the judge was ruling upon, which was only the injunction. The judge was asked to stop the current implementation, while the constitutionality is determined. The judge chose not to block implementation while the constitutionality is being determined.

Try this, it's pretty detailed:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...-supreme-court

http://www.pacourts.us/NR/rdonlyres/...Inj_081512.pdf

This is more detailed. And not a blog.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

http://www.pacourts.us/NR/rdonlyres/...Inj_081512.pdf

This is more detailed. And not a blog.

NPR is not a "blog".

The judge did not rule on the constitutionality, he was not asked to rule on the constitutionality, he was asked, and he ruled only not to give an injunction while the constitutionality goes to the higher court to be addressed.

You can't possibly still be disputing that, are you? You are saying you think the judge ruled the law unconstitutional? No, he didn't.

The judge only ruled against a temporary injunction. He only ruled the law can go into effect (no injunction) while the constitutionality goes to the higher court to be addressed before November.