From the main site:

An Allegheny County judge today found in favor of a number of court administrators who had sought to have subpoenas issued by suspended state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin quashed.

Justice Melvin requested the records from the Superior and Supreme courts for her preliminary hearing on nine counts that she misused her court staff to run election campaigns for the high court. It is scheduled for Monday.

Judge Jeffrey A. Manning wrote in his nine-page opinion that much of the evidence being sought would be used to impeach witnesses' credibility, which isn't relevant in a preliminary hearing.

"It is clear from the broad and reaching scope of the request for production for documents attached to the subpoenas issued to Justice [Max] Baer and the administrative employees that the defendant is seeking impeachment evidence," he wrote. "The subpoenas represent the proverbial 'fishing expedition' where the defendant hopes to locate, in this large volume of material, some evidence that might be helpful in presenting a defense to the charges."

Judge Manning also quashed a subpoena to Judge Kevin Sasinoski, whose wife was Justice Melvin's chief law clerk on the Superior Court and who is a key witness against her. Lisa Sasinoski later went on to work for Justice Baer, who defeated Justice Melvin for the Supreme Court in 2003.

As part of his opinion, Judge Manning also refused to recuse himself from the matter.

"The defendant has pointed to no facts that would suggest that this court is not capable of addressing the matter pending before it in a manner consistent with the dictates of the Canons of Judicial Conduct," he wrote.

The left-leaning Public Policy Polling has a new Pa survey out showing Barack Obama with a 6-point lead over Mitt Romney in the state, a tad less than the 8-point lead the Democrat enjoyed in their last poll in May.

Obama leads the Republican presidential contender 49-43% largely due to a big lead with women and holding his own with white men. But his approval numbers are still underwater. From PPP:

Despite his lead Obama's approval numbers in Pennsylvania continue to be a little bit worrisome. Only 46% of voters approve of him to 50% who disapprove. His numbers are better in Michigan where he has a 51% approval rating to 44% who are unhappy with him. Romney continues to have personal likability issues in both states. In Pennsylvania his favorability rating is 39/51 and in Michigan it's 38/55.

The automated poll of 758 Pennsylvania voters was conducted between July 21st and 23rd with a MoE of +/-3.6%.

More results here.

Fights over Pa's Voter ID bill get a lot more serious today with the opening of legal arguments in Commonwealth Court -- the state appellate court that deals with government/election issues.

Karen Langley previews the proceedings today, including the stipulation that there will be no evidence presented of election-day voter fraud (and related arguments on what that means):

"What you're not going to hear about very much is voter fraud in this case," said Jennifer Clarke, an attorney for the challengers and executive director of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia.

Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for the attorney general, declined to comment on the July 12 stipulation. But in court filings, attorneys for the state argue that legislators need only a conceivable purpose for the legislation -- not known cases of voter fraud -- for the law to meet its constitutional burden. They also write that the opponents have shown no credible reason that people without an acceptable ID cannot obtain one in the three months before the election.

"Voting, like so many other constitutionally protected activities, does not occur without each person sharing the responsibility to exercise that right," the brief says.

You can follow Karen's updates (where court rules allow) here on Twitter. Here's the decorum order posted by Judge Robert Simpson, a Republican who joined the court in 2002:

Pittsburgh religious leaders will protest the bill at a 1 p.m. rally at Freedom Corner (Centre & Crawford) today in the Hill District.

Chris Potter at Pittsburgh City Paper has a different take on the stipulation from the state Attorney General's office stating it has no evidence of election day voter fraud.

Chris notes the AG has only admitted it won't argue the matter in court, and he goes to other court filings to show the state indeed believes fraud exists:

As the stipulation agreement notes, the state's "sole rationale for the Photo ID law," is contained in a response to written questions filed by the ACLU. And in that answer, the state makes quite clear that it has plenty of suspicions that Voter ID does take place ... and that one purpose of the law is to ferret out such cases.

State officials "are aware of reports indicating that votes have been cast in the name of registered electors who are deceased, who no longer reside in Pennsylvania , or who no longer reside in the jurisdiction where the vote is cast," the state's answer asserts. And without some proof of ID, the state contends, "there is a risk that votes may be cast in the names of registered electors who are dead or who have left [the area] by a person other than the registered voters ... Requiring a photo ID is one way to ensure that every elector who presents himself to vote [is] the person that he purports to be, and to ensure that the public has confidence in the electoral process. The requirement of a photo ID is a tool to detect and deter voter fraud."