From Ellen Kaplan of the PA Voter ID Coalition, which is helping voters get IDs and has been critical of the law:
The PA Supreme Court sent the voter ID challenge back to the Commonwealth Court (order attached) to determine if the state is making it harder for people to get their photo ID card than the law envisions. They want the Commonwealth Court to decide whether the Department of State ID, which is less restrictive than the PennDOT issued photo ID and has only been available since August 27, comports with the law. If the Commonwealth Court believes that some voters are still being disenfranchised, the Supreme Court says they are obligated to issue a preliminary injunction.
Justices McCaffery and Todd issued (the attached) dissenting statements saying they would send it back to the Commonwealth Court to block the law immediately.
This matter is still not over. The Commonwealth Court has until October 2 to act – only 35 days before the November 6 election.
In the meantime, the PA Voter ID Coalition will continue its aggressive efforts to make all Pennsylvanians aware of the voter ID law and to help those who don't have a photo ID to get one.
From Pittsburgh's Cliff Levine, a Democratic attorney:
By a 4-2 vote (Todd and McCaffery dissenting) the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Commonwealth Court to determine whether, in fact, PennDOT's efforts to relax the standards to obtain voter ID have been successful. The Court wants Judge Simpson to "make a present 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. " Judge Simpson is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirements of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of Penn DOT ID cards. The Court then said, "If they do not {adhere to the liberal access standards}, 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 Court essentially is unwilling to rely on the Department of State's assurances and wants to know how the implementation process is actually working.
Justices Todd and McCaffery strongly dissent and say that on this record, it is clear that a significant number of voters will be disenfranchised.
From the AP's story:
"It's certainly a very positive step in the right direction in that the court recognizes that the state does not make adequate provision for people to get the ID that they would need to vote," said David Gersch, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs challenging the law's constitutionality. "In addition, there is a practical problem with getting the ID to people in the short time available."
From Wendy Weiser, Democracy program director of voter ID opponents at the Brennan Center for Justice:
"This decision is a clear victory for Pennsylvania voters. The Supreme Court was right to express skepticism that this sweeping new voter ID law can be implemented so close to an election. Many eligible voters will have to struggle to get an ID in time. It is wrong for politicians to try to manipulate the system for their own benefit by rushing through new voting requirements at the last minute. As the leading democracy of the world, our voting system should be free, fair, and accessible to all Americans. We are optimistic this restrictive voter ID law will not be in effect for the 2012 election."
From the United Steelworkers:
"The Pennsylvania so-called Voter-ID law disenfranchises women, minorities, the elderly and the
young and must be halted before the election to ensure a fair election process," said USW International
President Leo W. Gerard. "The Pennsylvania Supreme Court took the first step towards halting this
unreasonable law."
USW International Vice President Fred Redmond said the USW is fighting hard in this election to
ensure no voter is disenfranchised. "Although this decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is not
final, the so-called Voter ID law creates problems for as many as 800,000 Pennsylvanians who are
registered to vote but would face difficulties getting the mandated forms of identification that would be
required by this law to vote."
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court for reconsideration.
A key concern of the Supreme Court is that the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)
has not made ID cards liberally available, as required by the statute, because of security concerns. The
Supreme Court instructs the lower court to grant a preliminary injunction stopping implementation
of the law if either PennDOT's procedures do not meet the law's requirement of easy access or if the
Commonwealth Court remains convinced no one will be disenfranchised as the law is implemented.
"All of this so-called Voter ID legislation addresses problems that do not exist anywhere, including
Pennsylvania," said Gerard.
From the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights Under Law, a voter protection group:
Basically, the PA supremes did not enjoin the voter ID law. Voter ID law is still live and in the courts. They just sent it back to the trial court for a new assessment of whether it should be preliminarily enjoined based on the recent experiences with rolling out IDs.
From Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills:
"In vacating the decision, the court left it to the Commonwealth Court to determine if the photo ID law is being implemented properly and whether there is liberal access to voter ID cards in compliance with the legislative intent of the law.
"The facts of the case haven't changed. There was ample and overwhelming evidence presented during the Commonwealth Court's hearing of this case to conclude that there are multiple obstacles that voters must navigate in order to gain a valid voter ID that permits them to cast a vote that will be counted on Election Day.
"This case is about voter suppression and the partisan attempt to influence the General Election. The right to vote and a citizen's access to the ballot box must be guaranteed. Unquestionably, there continues to be problems with the current, expedited implementation of the law.
"Given the short time line for Commonwealth Court to consider the case and determine the status of the law, it appears that the only decision is on issuing the injunction."
Here's a long statement from the ACLU.
