.

Supreme Court Sends Voter ID Law Back to Lower Court for Further Review

The state Supreme Court is pushing the Voter ID law back to Commonwealth Court for further review.

The state Supreme Court is pushing Pennsylvania's new Voter ID law back to Commonwealth Court for further review, multiple news organizations are reporting.

A week after hearing oral arguments, the justices voted 4-2 to have the lower court once again review the measures included in the law.

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson on Aug. 15 released his decision that parties challenging the Voter ID law were not able to prove it will cause “immediate and irreparable harm” to the electorate.

However, the justices want the court to reconsider whether there are enough alternative forms of identification allowed by the law so as not to disenfranchise voters, according to PennLive.com.

The order from the Supreme Court justices insinuates that the state has not had enough time to effectively implement the law. It also states that initial intentions by the state for Voter ID to be easily obtained has not come to fruition because of strict standards for government-sanctioned identification.

They also said that the Commonwealth Court should decide whether an alternative Photo ID used only for voting would satisfy the requirements of the law and be implemented in time.

"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 time frame and an implementation process which has by no means been seamless in light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch," the majority justices wrote in their opinion.

The justices released a 7-page announcement Tuesday afternoon. The document can be found by clicking this link.

Erin Conners September 27, 2012 at 01:21 PM
Last day for the Twitter Bomb Protest asking Judge Simpson to halt the Voter ID law for the upcoming presidential election. They are doing really well! Good for Singer. On Monday, we reached 10,791 people. Tuesday, we reached 26,101. And Wednesday we reached 139,737!!! Again that’s not counting repeats. If we add those in, we reached 145,401 people! Yet we’re still not technically “trending.” I think it’s because the 6-9 p.m. block is a very busy one. If we reached that many accounts at noon, we’d trend. It would just be much harder because less people are on-line. However, I think it’s more valuable that we reach the most number of people so despite not trending, I think we’ve picked the right time to Twitter bomb. Which brings me to Day 4 of our Twitter bomb - the final day! Thursday, 9/27/12, starts the last day of hearings before Judge Simpson on the Pennsylvania voter ID law. And there’s good news! On Tuesday, Judge Simpson seemed to be inclined toward halting implementation of the law. "I think it's possible there could be an injunction entered here," he said. "I need some input from people who have been thinking about this longer than I have." Well, we’ve given him quite a bit of input. Let’s do this one more time! Info on how to join tonight: http://svteach.wikispaces.com/
Erin Conners September 27, 2012 at 01:22 PM
I forgot to put quotes around the excerpt. That is a message from Steven Singer, organizer of the Twitter Bomb protest.
NE12Ukid September 27, 2012 at 01:43 PM
NE12Ukid cc, There ARE (4) four sources, plus reference to three (3) newspapers; what have you got as proof otherwise? NOTHING. cc5:48 pm on Saturday, September 22, 2012 mr ne12ukids what the dumocrat newpapers rely on snopes and factcheck for all their proof `````````````````` So, sisi, you are saying that you still have no contrary evidence, and cannot debunk any of the FOUR cites (plus three newspapers) presented. Point proven. Thank you.
NE12Ukid September 27, 2012 at 02:46 PM
Si' si', senor! Where's the links/cite sources for your copied texts?
NE12Ukid September 27, 2012 at 02:51 PM
(CBS News) In separate interviews, the president and his challenger answer questions on topics of critical interest to America's voters -- including the economy and jobs, healthcare, national security and the federal budget. Steve Kroft interviews President Barack Obama, and Scott Pelley interviews Governor Mitt Romney. You can read the actual words here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57518495/campaign-2012-obama-vs-romney/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel If you missed the show, you can watch it here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7422764n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox
cc September 28, 2012 at 01:13 AM
so do we cry that this is the last day of the prank. 145,401 isn't actually a big number. There are UTube video's that get over a million hits in a day, and this prank has been going on for how long now?
Erin Conners September 28, 2012 at 01:24 AM
That little bit of nastiness was totally unprovoked. This is one man who organized an online protest a few days before a court ruling. Youtube is national. The two are not even comparable unless you would like to talk about the quality of the videos that get over a million hits a day. Here are today's top youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/charts/videos_views?t=t 145,401 is a plenty big number, and you should congratulate Mr. Singer's efforts even if you do not agree with the cause...or just be miserable. Doesn't take a thing away from all of the hard work that guy has done for something that he truly believes in.
Amanda Gillooly September 28, 2012 at 02:15 AM
No name calling. No personal attacks. Keep it clean and civil, folks. Thanks!
NE12Ukid September 28, 2012 at 04:07 AM
<<Erin Conners 8:39 am on Thursday, September 27, 2012 And that is great! I thought we were really on to something here! Thanks for the info, as I did appreciate the read and especially the differentiation between socialism and communism which was a subject that I was hesitant to approach. CC's excerpts saying that socialism is a stepping stone to communism sounds very sketchy to me...>> Thats why "si' si" gives no cited reference. she just copies stuff, probably from fox or limbaugh. :-)
Erin Conners September 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Our total for Day 4 - the final day of the Twitter bomb the courts campaign - is 176,484 people reached! Even more impressively, if we count repeated tweets, we get 394,935! I am humbled by how much so many of you took to this crazy project. I had heard of Twitter bombs before but never even participated less than lead the charge. Yes, as some of you noted, Twitter bombs have sometimes been used to spread lies and disinformation. In 2010, Iowa Conservatives used a Twitter bomb to smear U.S. Senate Candidate Martha Coakley who narrowly lost to Republican Scott Brown in a special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. However, we used this same device for good. Instead of smearing anyone, instead of spreading lies and rumors, we told the truth. We showed that Twitter bombs are tools that in the words of Abby Normal (@RealSillyPutty) “this is not so much a twitter "bomb" as a legal, peaceful protest.” So here’s how our impact breaks down: Day 1: 10,791 Day 2: 26,101 Day 3: 139,737 Day 4: 176,484 Today Judge Robert Simpson concluded his hearing on Pennsylvania’s voter ID law. I expect we may have his decision tomorrow, but certainly no later than Oct. 2. And tomorrow from 6-9 p.m. turn off your darn computer and visit with your families! ;) Yours, Steve
Erin Conners September 28, 2012 at 10:29 AM
CC, you have pretty much said that every newspaper that disagrees with you is "dumocrat" and all of them rely on Snopes and FactChecker. You know that this is not true right? The best articles/blogs (can be good sources too) link where they have received their information. Judge quality based on those links. I have been on this Free Talk Live kick lately (basically a show dedicated to whatever anyone wants to talk about with the hosts being "lovers of liberty" but often disagreeing w/ strictly libertarian ideology). The entire show is centered around calls, and it is amazing. People get heated occasionally, but articles are shared, calls are ended when the caller has nothing left to say, and anyone that calls is expected to have evidence or critical thought behind their view. It is really pretty cool.
cc September 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Erin, Your numbers are very low for how many people live in Pennsylvania that are registered Democrats. How many of the same people went and clicked on it a 100 times in a day just to bring the numbers up or made up names to join, isn't the the democratic way to make up names so they can vote more than one time. obama's accorn is very know, even in Pittsburgh for signing people up more than once to vote. They actually were found guilty, paid a fine and were put on probation for this act. Yet you all still claim that no one is voting more than once. We need PHOTO ID to vote, because each American should only have ONE VOTE, but democrats think they are entitled to vote more than once. they listen to obama and his entitlement.
cc September 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM
snopes is owned by two democrats and have been known to postI false information, but the democrats use this as their bible because if it isn't on snopes then it must not be true. Erin I have been searching for newspapers, news stations that says that they use snopes.com for all their reliable information to cite, and yet I can not find one article that says they use them to verify stories.
Ed M September 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM
"snopes is owned by two democrats and have been known to postI false information, but the democrats use this as their bible because if it isn't on snopes then it must not be true." There is no basis for this cc. You seem to be one of those "it must be true because it's on the internet" people. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence to back any of your claims and now it seems you are starting to push rumor as truth. I would like to ask Erin Faulk and the other Patch people on this site to seriously consider not allowing cc to continue posting.
NE12Ukid September 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Usually cc gives no evidence cite but when she does,she prefers fox news and True the Vote for her "unbiased" information: <<<cc8:56 am on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/voter-watchdog-group-claims-to-have-uncovered-absentee-ballot-fraud-in-florida/ "A national voter fraud watchdog group announced Tuesday that it has uncovered...">>> True the Vote is a small grassroots initiative spun out of a Houston, Texas-based Tea Party organization called King Street Patriots,backed mainly by Republican lawmakers. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jan/27/true-vote/true-vote-says-eric-holder-supports-naacp-request-/
Erin Conners September 28, 2012 at 11:45 AM
"Erin I have been searching for newspapers, news stations that says that they use snopes.com for all their reliable information to cite, and yet I can not find one article that says they use them to verify stories." ...Exactly?
Ed M September 28, 2012 at 01:54 PM
"Usually cc gives no evidence cite but when she does,she prefers fox news and True the Vote for her "unbiased" information:" Then everything cc posts should be considered opinion and not fact.
Cindy Cusic Micco September 28, 2012 at 02:40 PM
Every now and then, I see commenters say that snopes is owned by (fill in the blank) and supports one political party. Another website that checks facts, truthorfiction.com, has deemed this to be fiction: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm "In October, 2008, stories began circulating via forwarded emails that the popular urban legends site Snopes.com was owned by liberals and was "in the tank" for presidential candidate Barack Obama," truthorfiction.com states. It continues: "These anti-Snopes emails have probably been prompted by someone who does not like Barack Obama and does not like the fact that Snopes (or TruthOrFiction.com for that matter) has debunked some of the emails that are not true about him. " Here's another source about Snopes. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/ Anyone can post anything on the Internet and people can send around emails stating anything - truth or fiction. The reader needs to look at the source and decide which ones are credible ... or not. I am more impressed with websites that cite their sources. Here is a description of snopes and the people who run it. I don't recall anyone being able to give a fact-based account that debunks what founders Barbara and David Mikkelson have to say in this "about us" description. http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp
Mike Jones (Editor) September 28, 2012 at 03:20 PM
@Cindy... I wouldn't let the facts get in the way of the facts.
cc September 28, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Ed m just like what you post has no barring on the truth either as you quote articles written by democrats and we know that they are all lies. same with ne12ukid and all of his other alias that post half articles that they like to print part of the article with other parts to make it look important but when you actually go read the article it isn't exactly the truth what they have copied and pasted. Erin in the only one that has actually printed articles and how she interprets them
Ed M September 28, 2012 at 05:42 PM
What article have I quoted cc? All democrats are not liars. Stating so is irresponsible. Your opinion is not fact cc. You have not backed up any claim you have posted with anything other than your opinion. Your claim about Snopes is totally baseless. You are not a reliable source of information, cc.
Sue T September 28, 2012 at 06:22 PM
I'm not sure I'd characterize this as a "prank" but I can tell you my reaction if I were the receiving end of this twitter war. I won't take the time to read any of it, and would be pissed that my assistant would have to spend good time hitting the delete key. Now, an online petition signed by an equal number of people would catch my eye. One simple straight forward document presenting the concerns and the people that had signed on. Keep in mind the judges are busy people with a lot more responsiblities then reading 1,000's of twitters. Consider the audience.
Erin Conners September 28, 2012 at 08:55 PM
Absolutely. Always consider your audience. But what you are failing to recognize is that another (and possibly primary) goal of this "twitter bomb" (I posted an email in which Singer comments on how that is a poor name as there is no "twitter war") is to trend on twitter. Meaning that the hashtag will show up. People can also search these hashtags. The goal is to increase the audience and spread the idea. Just the sole act of spreading an idea is never a wasted action. Singer is well of aware of what he hopes to accomplish through this "twitter bomb." He has made multiple (I know of at least two bc I signed them) petitions, collected thousands of signatures, and has also protested in person at court houses. Give this guy some credit. He knows what he is doing and why.
NE12Ukid September 28, 2012 at 08:58 PM
Ms. Cusic Micco, Excellent link! http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/ Sure debunks everything old cc claims too. Plus now we know where she got her "information"---another of those silly email hoaxes! LOL
Erin Conners September 28, 2012 at 09:02 PM
Also, as far as I know, there is no need to "delete" these tweets. It is not set up like a facebook page where you have a homepage that everyone can see. The court gets the info and sees the message, and the tag increases in popularity reaching more people through searches, etc. Nobody is paying their assistant to spend time deleting these "tweets." They are out there, they cannot be removed.
NE12Ukid September 28, 2012 at 10:57 PM
<<Another website that checks facts, truthorfiction.com, has deemed this to be fiction: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/snopes.htm "In October, 2008, stories began circulating via forwarded emails that the popular urban legends site Snopes.com was owned by liberals and was "in the tank" for presidential candidate Barack Obama," truthorfiction.com states. It continues: "These anti-Snopes emails have probably been prompted by someone who does not like Barack Obama and does not like the fact that Snopes (or TruthOrFiction.com for that matter) has debunked some of the emails that are not true about him. " Cindy Cusic Micco >>> You should be named poster of the week! Great information! Did you ever hit that nail squarely on the head!
Roger September 29, 2012 at 01:04 AM
I stopped giving any credibility to Snopes after I learned it was basically two people sitting at their kitchen table in their home writing the materials. They have no accountability to anybody, but have gained a reputation. Shopes seems to be another case that it garnered enough reputation to be considered useful, whether or not that be the case. Isn't technology in the news wonderful?
Roger September 29, 2012 at 01:10 AM
So, tell us Erin, if I check my Twitter account and find I was not "bombed," should be be offended? Should I start doing a search as to why I was left out? Or, if in the check I find the "bomb," should I be honored? If this be the case, should I start doing a search to find why I was in the list of addressees? It is amusing how some get enamored with this silly stuff. This "bomb" is another case of quantity over substance, that is, somebody thinking they can capture their target with 140 characters. Is this the mentality of those charged with teaching in our public schools? Or, in any school system?
NE12Ukid September 29, 2012 at 04:51 AM
AS Mis Cusic Micco said: Anyone can post anything on the Internet and people can send around emails stating anything - truth or fiction. The reader needs to look at the source and decide which ones are credible ... or not. I am more impressed with websites that cite their sources.
NE12Ukid September 29, 2012 at 01:04 PM
Act of Kindness: Since the messages of the past few days have seriously debunked poor cc's claims, in a gesture of kindness, I share that cc is not the only one to be suckered by those email hoaxes. Most of you are familiar with The Onion, but may not have seen this collection of 'being fooled by the Onion"....maybe cc is in interesting, if not impressive, company? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/onion-ahmadinejad-article-fools-iran-news-agency-fars_n_1923126.html#slide=1536593

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »