In the latest chapter in the saga of Pennsylvania’s Voter ID law, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley last week ruled the law unconstitutional.
“[The Voter ID Law is] invalid and unconstitutional on its face as the provision and issuance of compliant identification does not comport with liberal access and unreasonably burdens the right to vote,” he wrote.
Now the question is, what will be the next step in this ongoing drama? Specifically, will the state decide to appeal Judge McGinley’s ruling to the State Supreme Court?
Attorney General Kathleen Kane released a statement from her office on Monday stating that, given the Judge’s ruling, the decision to appeal was not up to her.
“The decision to appeal Judge McGinley’s decision rests solely with the Governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth,” her office clarified in its statement.
Therefore, it appears that Governor Corbett alone must decide whether to appeal the decision to the State Supreme Court. The deadline for such a move is Monday January 27th.
So, what do you think, should the state appeal the latest Voter ID ruling?
Do you agree that ByteDance should be forced to divest TikTok?
- Yes. It's a national security risk. (60%)
- No. It's an app used by millions and poses no threat. (40%)
- What's ByteDance? (0%)
Loading ...
Loading ...
7 Responses
David Diano, Esq.
Don’t quit your day job.
Denny Bonavita-
Are you doing a sarcastic impression of an idiot (like Colbert)?
The VoterID law infringed on a fundamental CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. There is no “logic connection” from that to the regulation of a product that cannot legally be purchased by those underage. Just like there is no logical connection between gay marriage and people marrying animals.
So, please, stop embarrassing yourself.
I love the “activist judges” and “jurists arrogance” coming from those who love it when judges restrict women’s abortion rights and give corporations the freedom of spend whatever they’d love to during the election seasons.
Yup, activist judges standing up for people’s rights and undue burdens.
An “arrogant jurist making law”? What do you think they are there for?????
Activist Judge – n. an epithet typically used to describe a judge with whom one disagrees.
Yes, appeal, not only because the decision is wrongheaded, but because this is a case of an arrogant jurist making law. If you follow his logic out, the state can’t even require photo ID to buy liquor. Stupid ruling from asinine jurist. Those should always be appealed.
They should only appeal if they want to waste taxpayer dollars and hand Corbett another embarrassing political defeat in court.