the decision was 4-2, with the three conservative members joining with one of the three liberals. the two dissenters each would have blocked the voter ID law, rather than send it back to the trial judge as the majority ordered. that means that no one on the court was willing to uphold the lower court's decision denying the plaintiffs' injunction and permitting the law to be in force on election day.
of course sending it back to the commonwealth court for further consideration is not as good as blocking the law. but the instructions to the commonwealth court is to focus specifically on the adequacy and availability of the replacement ID card in time for election day, which means the disenfranchisement issue will be front and center in any subsequent litigation.
of course sending it back to the commonwealth court for further consideration is not as good as blocking the law. but the instructions to the commonwealth court is to focus specifically on the adequacy and availability of the replacement ID card in time for election day, which means the disenfranchisement issue will be front and center in any subsequent litigation.
