Fate of Pennsylvania's voter ID law rests in the hands of 6 state Supreme Court

Millions of Pennsylvanians will cast ballots in the November election, but six votes could carry the most weight.

http://media.pennlive.com/patriot-ne...3154-large.jpg Enlarge The Associated Press Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices from top left: Seamus P. McCaffery, Max Baer, Debra McCloskey Todd, Joan Orie Melvin. From lower left: Thomas G. Saylor, Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, and J. Michael Eakin, (AP Photo/Matt Rourke) Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices gallery (8 photos)

Six justices on the state’s Supreme Court stand to play a bigger role in determining the outcome of this year’s elections in Pennsylvania than any other voter.

The fate of the state’s voter ID law now rests in their hands. The justices are being asked to decide if voters must show a valid photo identification to cast a ballot.

Critics say it could deprive people of the right to vote, particularly members of minority groups, seniors and the poor. Supporters say the law is a common-sense measure to ensure the integrity of elections.

It’s one of the more prominent cases ever to reach the state’s highest court. Regardless of how the justices rule, their decision will be seen as affecting more than the vote in Pennsylvania.

Given Pennsylvania’s swing state status in the race for the White House, some see the decision as critical in deciding if President Barack Obama wins re-election, or Republican candidate Mitt Romney takes the Oval Office.

For all these reasons, the state’s voter ID law has gained national attention.

Only six of the high court’s seven justices will hear the case, since Justice Joan Orie Melvin has been suspended as she battles criminal charges. Groups suing to block the law must convince four of the justices that its unconstitutional.

To get a better understanding of the six justices who will decide the case, The Patriot-News interviewed a dozen legal observers and experts.

The six justices who will hear the case are split along party lines: three Democrats and three Republicans.

Analysts say that the justices’ party affiliation isn’t always a barometer of how they’ll vote.

‘You can’t typecast them’

The law takes effect on Election Day. Republican Gov. Tom Corbett signed it into law in March; it passed the GOP-dominated Legislature without a single Democratic vote.

Last week, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson upheld the law.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups sued to block the law and filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court the very next day. A spokesman for the high court said the justices would likely hear the case quickly.

With less than three months before the election, the plaintiffs are seeking an expedited hearing and ruling.

Opponents of the voter ID law worry that tens of thousands of voters — mostly minorities, poor and elderly who tend to vote Democratic — may be denied the chance to cast a vote because they lack the appropriate ID. Some in cities don’t drive, and some retirees haven’t had a license for years.

A decision to overturn the law, likewise, will cause an uproar from the law’s supporters, saying it could damage the election’s integrity. Supporters say that the law will detect voter fraud and is a reasonable expectation when photo IDs are so indispensable in daily life.

Legal analysts generally agree that while this court is capable of deciding cases along partisan lines, that is more the exception than the norm.

They cautioned against making assumptions about the justices’ personal political beliefs playing a role in this case.

“You can’t typecast them easily,” said one experienced Philadelphia-area litigator who has argued cases before the Supreme Court. “Some of them you pretty much know where they generally are going to go, but they are far more balanced and far less predictable.”

Ken Gormley, dean of Duquesne University’s law school, regards the justices as bright, independent-minded people who take their jobs seriously and spend a lot of time researching and writing their opinions.

Most certainly, he said they do not fall into a cookie-cutter mold based on their political beliefs.

“They really do try to get it right, and there is a shared pride in the fact that this is the oldest Supreme Court in North America,” Gormley said. “I do not think any of these justices would throw one for the team in terms of trying to get a result to favor a particular political party.”

Partisanship aside, Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause of Pennsylvania, offered another observation lingering in his mind about the court’s consideration of the voter ID law.

He noted the Supreme Court last spring poked its finger in the eye of the Legislature by rejecting the GOP’s redistricting plan for the state House and Senate.

“The question becomes, is the court willing to poke its finger in the Legislature’s eye twice within one session?” he said. “Maybe they are. We’ll find out.”

Eyes on the chief justice

Most see the justices as friendly and respectful toward each other.

A few analysts suggested that wasn’t the case when Justice Joan Orie Melvin was an active member on the court. She butted heads on occasion with several of the justices, especially Chief Justice Ronald Castille, they said.

Melvin was suspended in May but is still collecting her $195,309 salary, plus benefits, after being charged in Allegheny County with improperly directing the use of her Superior Court staff for political and campaign purposes. But she has refused to resign.

It has led the court twice to 3-3 split decisions, which has the net effect of allowing the lower court ruling to stand.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association has written to Castille to ask him to consider appointing a temporary justice to allow the court to return to full strength.

The primary objections voiced by analysts about the court primarily centered on the small number of cases it chooses to consider, and the length of time it takes to process them.

Several said it moves slower than the U.S. Supreme Court, which takes on many more cases. Yet, they noted the state Supreme Court is capable of making a quick decision when it wants to.

Most expect that to be the case with voter ID.

If a majority of the court takes a position on the case, several observers said they expect Castille will be the one to write the majority opinion on voter ID, given the case’s prominence.

Many also see him as the one to watch in this case after seeing him side with the three Democratic justices in rejecting the GOP-drawn redistricting map.

A Philadelphia lawyer who has argued cases before the Supreme Court said that while the voter ID law applies statewide, it is the predominantly Democratic areas of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh where it is the biggest issue. The attorney asked not to be identified, because he argues cases before the court.

In Philadelphia, Castille knows the people that critics said will be most negatively affected by the voter ID law. He once served as the city’s district attorney.

“That will give him some perspective on the evidence,” the Philadelphia lawyer said. “It will be interesting to see his vote.”


Fate of Pennsylvania's voter ID law rests in the hands of 6 state Supreme Court justices | PennLive.com