UNREAL section of PA voting rights injunction decision

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 01:24 PM - Edit history (2)

First, the link. Top of Page 16

http://media.philly.com/documents/CMW330MD2012ApplewhiteDetermPrelimInj_081512.pdf

Okay... A judge, weighing a request for an injunction, has to consider what irreparable harm comes from granting, or not granting the injunction. In the PA voter ID law case there was a question of what harm would come to the state in terms of disrupting their process of preparing for the election, like educating poll workers as to the legal standards, meeting some federal requirements, etc..

In the midst of this decision is one of the more extraordinary passages I've seen from a court.

When one Department of State official was testifying about what harm an injunction would do to the processes he oversees he declined to state that the harm was irreparable, but though he did not say the harm was irreparable the judge intuited what his real testimony was from the man's body language.

I am not kidding.

In this kind of hearing the judge is the finder of fact and he is certainly allowed to weigh evidence based on demanor. But come on... this isn't a child afraid to testify against a parent, it's a public official's testimony about his official performance of his duties. And because the judge feels that his demeanor was at odds with what he actually said, thus his testimony should be taken to mean something other than what is in the transcript.

(And in no case is what "everyone in the court" thinks evidence.)

The decision does not hang solely on that one official's testimony, but it's a hell of a thing none the less. (And will probably be mentioned in appeals.)