Pennsylvania court has 10 days to re-decide in voter-ID case: In hopeful sign, but a frustrating 4-2 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the commonwealth court judge who upheld the state's restrictive voter-ID law should reconsider. Given the timing, the decision could mean the law will not be implemented this year.

The fundamental issue behind the court's ruling was that it could impose an onerous burden on citizens who don't yet have one of the permitted IDs to obtain one in time to cast a ballot. Four of the justices, three Republicans and one Democrat, voted to remand the case to the commonwealth court to review whether it would, in fact, be such a burden. The estimate of Pennsylvanians without the right ID runs from 100,000 to 1.6 million.

The court majority ruled:



[W]e are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials, even though we have no doubt they are proceeding in good faith. Thus, we will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to make a present assessment of the actual availability of the alternate identification cards on a developed record in light of the experience since the time the cards became available. In this regard, the court is 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. If they do not, or if the Commonwealth Court is not still convinced in its predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election, that court is obliged to enter a preliminary injunction.

Seven weeks before an election, the voters are entitled to know the rules. By remanding to the Commonwealth Court, at this late date, and at this most critical civic moment, in my view, this Court abdicates its duty to emphatically decide a legal controversy vitally important to the citizens of this Commonwealth. The eyes of the nation are upon us, and this Court has chosen to punt rather than to act. I will have no part of it.

But two Democrats on the court dissented. In essence, they said it's too late to be sending this back for review, and the supreme court itself should block the law for this coming election. Justice Debra Todd

The supreme court gave Commonwealth Court Judge Richard Simpson until Oct. 2 to complete his review. Hearings will begin Monday, Sept. 25.

So far, only about 10,000 citizens have obtained a non-driver's photo ID from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. It can take a long time in line to get one, as Cheryl Ann Moore discovered. A survey by SEIU found that nearly half those seeking an ID from PennDOT had to make two trips. One woman waited 10 1/2 hours with her 1-year-old son. As David Dayen reported, only some of the state's PennDOT offices issue the required non-driver IDs and 13 of those are only open once a week.

With tongue only partly in cheek, Marcy Wheeler said:



Of course, the underlying problem is that states have cut back on services to the point where Republicans can’t even disenfranchise people efficiently enough under the law. This is not over yet—the judge in PA can still certify an inadequate DOT network hunky dory in PA. But for the moment it appears Mitt’s disenfranchisement is being drowned in Grover Norquist’s bathtub.

The Independence Hall Tea Party has declared it will seek to defeat two of the supreme court justices when they come up for election in 2013 if the voter-ID law isn't in effect in this year's election. One justice is a Democrat, the other a Republican.

(Continue reading voter suppression news below the fold.)