Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Puts Voter ID Law In Jeopardy
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/09/18/867841/breaking-pennsylvania-supreme-court-wipes-out-pro-voter-id-decision-but-declines-to-block-law/Last month, a Pennsylvania trial judge upheld that states Voter ID law, in an opinion that relied at least in part on Nineteenth Century precedent which claimed that vote suppressing laws may be permissible to protect against rogues, strumpets, and wandering arabs. Today, the state supreme court vacated that order, noting that the law is not living up to its own promises of ensuring voters will have access to ID:
The Law contemplates that the primary form of photo identification to be used by voters is a Department of Transportation (PennDOT) drivers license or the non-driver equivalent provided under Section 1510(b) of the Vehicle Code. Furthermore, the Law specifically requires that notwithstanding provisions of Section 1510(b) relating to the issuance and content of the cards PennDOT shall issue them at no cost . . . . As such, the Law establishes a policy of liberal access to Section 1510(b) identification cards.
However, as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT apparently for good reason has refused to allow such liberal access.
Instead, the Department continues to vet applicants for Section 1510(b) cards through an identification process that Commonwealth officials appear to acknowledge is a rigorous one. Generally, the process requires the applicant to present a birth certificate with a raised seal (or a document considered to be an equivalent), a social security card, and two forms of documentation showing current residency. The reason why PennDOT will not implement the Law as written is that the Section 1510(b) drivers license equivalent is a secure form of identification, which may be used, for example, to board commercial aircraft.
The Department of State has realized, and the Commonwealth parties have candidly conceded, that the Law is not being implemented according to its terms. . . . 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, even though we have no doubt they are proceeding in good faith.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1349 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (15)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BREAKING: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Puts Voter ID Law In Jeopardy (Original Post)
trailmonkee
Sep 2012
OP
No the Republican assholes on the court simply punted it back to the lower court.
PA Democrat
Sep 2012
#3
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)1. Here is to hoping they do the right thing.
But i do not have much faith in them.
PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)3. No the Republican assholes on the court simply punted it back to the lower court.
Cowards.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)4. exactly!
PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)5. Justice Todd actually used the term "punt" in her dissenting opinion.
Justice Todd:
"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."
BumRushDaShow
(129,127 posts)6. A bit more positive spin than I would expect
being that the state will continue to spend money implementing while the courts run out the clock. The hope is whether they can request an injunction or stay right away rather than let it drag out for 2 more weeks.
trailmonkee
(2,681 posts)7. let's hope