Talking Points Memo has this helpful piece. I myself was concerned if my last piece in any way misled anyone into thinking that the voter id law as already been overturned. This hasn't happened yet. This was the piece. I initially had said "voter id law vacated" in the title but changed it as I see that might give the wrong picture.
PA voter id decision law vacated http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/09/pennsylvania-sc-vacates-voter-id-law.html
Here is TPM:
"Some of the initial reports about this afternoon’s ruling by the state Supreme Court on the state’s new voter ID law were confused and contradictory, so let me briefly explain."
"The court did not, as some reports suggested, throw out the voter ID law. Rather, it decided that the lower court’s decision not to block the law was premature — or to put a finer point on it, didn’t fully take into account all the relevant facts that it should have in declining to block the law."
"As I explained below, the state Supreme Court is sending it back to the lower court for a do-over, with specific guidelines on what to consider in making the decision.
"Ryan Reilly has our full report."
Here then, is Reilly:
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court cast serious doubt on the state’s voter ID law on Tuesday, ordering a lower court to rethink its decision upholding the law earlier this year."
"In a 4-2 ruling, the justices ordered the lower court to toss the law unless Pennsylvania can prove it is currently providing “liberal access” to photo identification cards and that there “will be no voter disenfranchisement” on Election Day."
"The ruling said there was a “disconnect” between what the law prescribes and how it was actually being implemented. It said an “ambitious effort” to implement identification procedures in a short timeframe “has by no means been seamless in light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch.”
"While the court had “no doubt” state officials were “proceeding in good faith,” the justices in the majority said they were not satisfied making “a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials.”
"But beyond simply punting the decision, the Supreme Court specifically said the lower court would be “obliged to enter a preliminary injunction” if there was convincing proof that voters would be disenfranchised in the upcoming election because of the law."
"The lower court was told to consider “whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards.”
"After the ruling, the plaintiffs said they were happy about the decision and optimistic the lower court would eventually stop the law in its tracks."
“We’re glad to see that Pennsylvania Supreme Court is taking the actual impact on voters seriously,” said Advancement Project Co-Director Judith Browne Dianis. “Requiring the state to prove the law will not disenfranchise voters is the right step to take. We’re confident that the evidence demonstrates that this law does disenfranchise of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania voters and should be enjoined.”
One of the many questions this law has raised is what's the rush? Other states that have pushed such laws took many years to implement it. It's getting to the point now where it's not plausible that-even if it's a necessary law of which I'm very skeptical-it can be done properly in under two months.
Score this as another case of our judicial system working-as was shown in the case over ObamaCare.