Opinion and good run-down of what might happen after Pennsylvania voting rights ruling, expected this week. I vaguely remember the author of this piece, Michael Smerconish, from the 2008 election as someone who appeared to lean Republican but wanted to be seen as “reasonable” – a Republican who wants to be LIKED – so I can’t vouch for the tea-leaf-reading part of the piece.
It is, however, a good explanation of what might happen next in the Pennsylvania voting rights lawsuit, whichever way the lower court judge rules:
With the testimony concluded in the challenge to the state’s voter-ID law, a decision is soon expected from Judge Robert Simpson of Commonwealth Court. Regardless of what he decides, this matter is destined for the state Supreme Court, which currently consists of six, rather than the customary seven, members. Republican Justice Joan Orie Melvin was recently suspended after being criminally charged, leaving the court with three Republicans and three Democrats, and Castille in a position of power.
When Simpson’s ruling is evaluated, Justices Baer, Todd, and McCaffery might line up in opposition to the law. Justices Eakin and Saylor could take the opposite tack. Castille would constitute the sixth vote, and any 3-3 tie would simply uphold what Simpson rules.
Here are two scenarios:
If Simpson overturns the law and the remainder of the court splits along partisan lines, Castille could become a fourth vote in support of the overturning, or could be the third vote in disagreement. Either way, Simpson’s overturning would stand.
But if Simpson supports the state constitutionality of voter ID, and the remainder of the court splits along partisan lines, Castille would be the decisive vote. He would either become a critical fourth vote to overturn Simpson’s ruling, or a third vote of affirmation.
By this logic, should Simpson overturn voter ID, the law would likely stay overturned. But if he upholds the law, all eyes would shift to Castille to see whether he would stand in the way of this becoming Pennsylvania’s partisan equivalent of Bush v. Gore.
In the voter ID case, the commonwealth acknowledges that there is not a single known case of the type of voter impersonation the new law seeks to preclude, and, by the state’s estimate, nearly one million voters lack the primary form of acceptable photo ID. Thus, it would seem that only a partisan opinion could sustain the new law. That’s a legacy I doubt Castille will embrace.
Castille was elected to the bench in 1993 at a time when the commonwealth’s highest court needed a rebranding in the aftermath of a scandal. He might soon cement that legacy by again ruling based on merit and not politics.
I don’t watch much opinion banter on tv but I spend a lot of time in the car and I have satellite radio, so I sometimes listen there. Has Ed Rendell spoken on this issue at all in his new role as pundit? I would think he’d feel some duty to speak up given his background and career as a Democrat in Pennsylvania.
Bobby Thomson
I think Begala has Rendell’s number.
TR
Smerconish is a favorite of Chris Matthews and a frequent fill-in host. He has some Republican sympathies, but he generally seems decent.
And on the voting restriction stuff, he has been pretty outraged. He’s pretty much said it’s an unwarranted and bald-faced power grab by the GOP.
Z. Mulls
Smerconish does lean right and has for years (he was an advance man for Bush 41).
But he doesn’t so much want to be liked as he wants to have a reasonable conversation. He is one of the few talk show hosts who actively listens to, and engages with, differing opinions. He has a handful of retro opinions (especially on torture) but he is willing to admit when he’s wrong and to change opinions over time.
And he voted for Obama (and took a *lot* of crap from his listening audience for it).
He was recently given Rush Limbaugh’s spot on the lineup here in Philly, which is great for him but now I don’t listen to him much, since he doesn’t do drivetime anymore.
Snarki, child of Loki
Article in the Inky today: a lawyer, former Asst. DA, who lacks the ID and can’t get it, is one of the people bringing suit against the law.
Name mismatch problems with BC/SSN, and seemingly no way to get out of the bureaucratic maze in time.
Another, where PA lost their BC, so they can’t get the ID card.
Should be a slam-dunk, but who knows?
If the law is upheld, then requiring a mandatory ID for gun purchases is the next thing to enact.
Valdivia
Hope his analysis turns out to be right.
John
The fact that the Supreme Court is split 3-3 is huge. It means that if the trial judge rules against the law, the Supreme Court is almost certainly not going to overturn him. I hope Smerconish is right about the alternative, where the trial judge upholds the law and the chief justice joins with the Democrats on the Supreme Court to throw it out anyway.
Valdivia
Yep, hoping he is right on the analysis of what happens.
If the state Supreme Court upholds the law can this be taking all the way to the Supreme Court, and an injunction put in place?
Kay
@Valdivia:
It’s going to be difficult to get there in time, for both parties.
The DOJ have to rely on Sec 2 of the VRA, because Pennsylvania is not a pre-clearance state, and the law there is murky. It’s mostly been applied to redistricting.
Bobby Thomson
@Valdivia: No. The challenge is under PA law.
Valdivia
@Kay:
thanks Kay and sorry for the double post. Site seems a bit borked at the moment.
quannlace
Well, it’s official. Sarah Palin won’t be speaking at the Convention. And won’t be campaining for either of the candidates. Has the Republicans become the party of amnesia? It’s like they pretend government didn’t exist before 2008. And therefore they can really blame everything on Obama.
Also the list of Repubs that aren’t radioactive is getting shorter and shorter.
JGabriel
Kay @ Top:
__
Rendell on CBSNews (Link to Video):
.
Kay
@JGabriel:
Thanks. I think he should have been out on the street with the protesters last week, given how much those same voters have given HIM, but that’ll do. For now.
Kay
@Bobby Thomson:
I don’t think it’s that cut and dried. The state is also relying on Crawford the disastrous SCOTUS case out of Indiana, or that’s what they claimed after the hearing. I didn’t read their brief.
JGabriel
__
__
Kay:
I’m inclined to agree, but it’s possible the protesters didn’t want him. While Rendell’s sort of well-regarded by Democrats there, he also has rep for diarrhea of the mouth.
.
Kay
@JGabriel:
Plus, I think his wife is a federal judge, so maybe he’s somewhat constrained there.
amk
If ed rendell is a democrat, then I am king of england.
themann1086
Rendell isn’t actually liked all that much (as I was typing this, @amk provided an example) by PA Democrats. He’s an amoral sleezebag who spent most of his political capital legalizing gambling instead of actually helping our collapsing public school systems, and his administration is the one that setup the current fraking debacle which Corbett picked up and ran even further into crazytown. And that’s just his time as governor.
Plus yes, the diarrhea of the mouth thing.
Allan
Rendell can’t be bothered right now. He’s busy putting the finishing touches on his Hillary Clinton shrine/masturbatorium.
Argive
@Kay:
Midge Rendell is indeed a federal judge, but Ed’s many, many extramarital dalliances led the couple to divorce recently. I personally know two women that Rendell has hit on. The guy has no shame at all.
John
@Kay:
Crawford said that states have the right to pass such laws under the federal Constitution. That’s kind of ridiculous, and it seems like there’s significant ways you could find the Pennsylvania law is worse than the Indiana law (the fact that there’s no lead in time is a big one).
But I don’t see how Crawford could have anything to say about whether this law is unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania state constitution. The fact that the state told Dave Weigel otherwise doesn’t seem totally relevant.
NotMax
If it is found to be unconstitutional, there then opens up the possibility of a case being brought under the 14th amendment to reduce the number of House members and the number of electors of the state, on the basis of intent by dint of passage of the law(s) found to be unconstitutional.
The 14th amendment, section 2 (“male” and “twenty-one” automatically become, for purposes of law, “male and female” and “eighteen” due to later amendments):
(emphasis added)
Kay
@John:
Well, it was in the context of what Valdivia asked, which was what the DOJ could do.
John
So far, I think this is the king of embarrassing right wing man-crushes on Paul Ryan.
PST
I’m not sure what to make of a writer, like Smerconish, who could produce this sentence: “Castille, the war hero who left a leg in Vietnam, has never felt compelled to toe a party line.”
Jamey
Yeah, Smirky doesn’t bother me all that much. I honestly think that he is quite ill-at-ease at the prospect of carrying water for the GOP’s craziest elements, and is mostly inclined toward erring on the side of civil liberties. In short, he realizes that any power the GOP grabs irresponsibly will eventually be used against them when the other party gains a majority.
JoyfulA
@Kay: The Rendells separated when he left office with a new tootsie from his staff. They might be divorced by now.
But Midge is how Ed spent a lot of time in the Virgin Islands (part of her judicial district) and became pals with Sam Alito.
JoyfulA
@Argive: When Ed was mayor, he got a writeup in Philadelphia magazine as a masher for failing to have the sense to avoid hitting on the mag’s interviewer.
He was just following in the footsteps of Frank Rizzo, who supposedly propositioned city hall reporter Andrea Mitchell, back in the day.
Gretchen
@John: That link is something! The gender gap will evaporate because Ryan is “dreamy”? Just wow.