as david weigel highlighted the other day, one of the key points that judge simpson made in his decision not to enjoin the pennsylvania voter I.D. law is that all 14 of the named plaintiffs had some alternative means to get an I.D. in time for the election. for many of them, that alternative means was their ability to apply online for an absentee ballot.
so naturally, just after the issue came out declining to block the new voter I.D. law, the corbett administration dropped its plans to permit online applications for absentee ballots.
if the PA supreme court weren't such a bunch of yahoos, this would be good news, because it would show that judge simpson's decision was based on an assumption that turned out to be incorrect. but unfortunately, the appeal of judge simpson's decision will be heard by the PA supreme court.
hey can anyone riddle me this: why are these cases in state court? isn't voting a fundamental right under the 14th amendment? couldn't they have gotten a federal judge to apply strict scrutiny (which would almost certainly doom the voter I.D. law)? why did they bring this case in the commonwealth court?
so naturally, just after the issue came out declining to block the new voter I.D. law, the corbett administration dropped its plans to permit online applications for absentee ballots.
if the PA supreme court weren't such a bunch of yahoos, this would be good news, because it would show that judge simpson's decision was based on an assumption that turned out to be incorrect. but unfortunately, the appeal of judge simpson's decision will be heard by the PA supreme court.
hey can anyone riddle me this: why are these cases in state court? isn't voting a fundamental right under the 14th amendment? couldn't they have gotten a federal judge to apply strict scrutiny (which would almost certainly doom the voter I.D. law)? why did they bring this case in the commonwealth court?
