For the past two Sundays, I have posted election projections, in which I have forecast an Obama/Biden victory as highly likely. However, I have included the caveat that my calculations do not account for Republican prohibition of the voting rights of legitimate Democratic voters. Unless this Republican election fraud is stopped, their voter suppression could tip the balance in several states. One such is Pennsylvania with 20 electoral votes. I’m happy to bring good news.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court today vacated a lower-court decision upholding the state’s voter ID law, instructing Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson to rehear the case, looking specifically at whether the state is doing enough to make sure that every eligible Pennsylvania voter has the right ID to cast a ballot. The supreme court, in a 4-2 decision, found a “disconnect between what the Law prescribes and how it is being implemented,” and noted that “if the Law is enforced in a manner that prevents qualified and eligible electors from voting, the integrity of the upcoming General Election will be impaired.”
Two key sections of the court decision:
Overall, we are confronted with an ambitious effort on the part of the General Assembly to bring the new identification procedure into effect within a relatively short timeframe and an implementation process which has by no means been seamless in light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch. Given this state of affairs, we are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials.
…We will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to make a present an assessment of the actual availability of the alternate identification cards on a developed record in light of the experience since the time the cards became available. In this regard, the court is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards. If they do not, or if the Commonwealth Court is not still convinced in its predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election, that court is obliged to enter a preliminary injunction.
The important takeaway from the ruling is that the supreme court shifted the burden of proof from the plaintiffs, who in lower court had to show that eligible voters would be disenfranchised by the law, to the state, who now has to prove that voters will not be disenfranchised. That’s why lawyers for the plaintiffs, which includes the ACLU and the Advancement Project, are optimistic about the chances of receiving a preliminary injunction when the Commonwealth Court rehears the case, possibly as soon as next week. A decision is mandated by October 2… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The Nation>
Photo credit: bolgernow
Given that Pennsylvania Republicans have openly stated that this law was intended to steer the election to Willard, and given that PennDOT lacks the capacity to process the needed ID in the time allotted, the state’s burden of proof is insurmountable.
14 Responses to “This Could Win the Election”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Sometimes things work out— but now the struggle continues to be sure every voter VOTES
That's right!
It seems only a matter of common sense to me but these Republican Tea-Bags never cease to amaze me… 🙂
Stealing elections is their favorite way to win.
It should be noted that while the Court's remand was a pretty harshly-worded rebuke of the lower court, I would have been happier if they didn't punt and just enjoined the law then and there.
Of note is that the four in the majority are 3 Repubicans and 1 Democrat. BUT the 2 dissenting votes (both Democrats) agreed that there already is enough evidence to demonstrate the state cannot do so, and wanted to enjoin the law immediately.
So while it's relatively good news, it could have been even better, and put this idiot law to rest permanently.
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=40364
I agree, Nameless. That would have been preferable, but I feared the court would split 3-3 on party lines, thus leavcing it unchanged.
I , too, wish the courts had struck down the law, without the part about the state proving they could get all these people registered and not disenfranchised. There is no way that they can do it in the time frame, so for this election, at least, the people of Pennsylvania are safe. They just need to get out and vote.
Let's keep our fingers crossed!
This seems like a good news/bad news scenario. Or maybe good news/not so good news.
Good news — There is likely no way that the state can have all eligible voters with the correct ID before the 2012 election so that is good for this round.
Bad News or Not So Good News — Once the matter is reheard, it still means that given the makeup of the courts, the law will take effect after the 2012 election, but at least there will be time to deal with it before the 2014 midterm elections.
Wrote dissenting Justice McCaffery:
There are 3 points I highlighted in Justice McCaffery's dissent that were telling:
1) acknowledgement that he was elected by the people and as such cannot be a party to disenfranchising some of those same people;
2) acknowledgement that the speedy implementation of the law is a partisan political ploy geared to help one candidate win the election;
3) acknowledgement that the right to vote is a constitutionally guaranteed right that cannot be "trampled by partisan politics."
The Republican/Teabagger perfidy has to be stopped otherwise the US will become a totalitarian corporate state — company town will become corporate country!
Get out the vote!!!!!
Vote Democratic 2012!!!!! Vote Obama/Biden 2012!!!!!
Excellent analysis!
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson needs to rehear the case quickly and make a non-partisan determination. If he does that according to the Constitution, the law will be struck down.
That is my hope!
I know some bleeding heart freedom lovers will object, but the most democratic system is the Australian one. COMPULSORY voting by ALL eligible electors. You could even improve by adopting the Tasmanian State electoral system of Proportional voting which guarantees the election of a member if the State's overall quota is filled and not just in an individual seat..Can't see that happening as it is too "Fair" & Just..
We have nearly a 100% voters turn out, not less than 50% as happens in America. The down side is it doesn't guarantee an informed and intelligent vote. So nothing changed there.
Welcome Tom. 🙂
First we don't call each other names here. For you to impugn anyone who does not share your point of view is rude and disrespectful. If you wish to comment here, please treat others with respect.
Regarding compulsory voting, since that is what Australia have chosen for themselves, far be it from me to suggest that it is not appropriate for Aussies.
However, my concern for here is that forcing people who are ignorant through their own apathy could increase Quantity at the expense of quality? How can we overcome that problem?