A state court has upheld the state constitutionality of the new Republican-enacted polling place Photo ID restriction law in Pennsylvania which critics say may imperil the votes of more than a million legally registered voters in the Keystone State this November.

In his 70-page ruling [PDF] issued today, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson acknowledged that the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and other civil rights organizations, “did an excellent job of ‘putting a face’ to those burdened by the voter ID requirement,” but failed to demonstrate “facial unconstitutionality”. The judge did not rule on the merits of the case, but on whether or not it could be enjoined by the court.

That, despite the fact that:

• The Pennsylvania state Constitution guarantees that “Every citizen 21 years of age [lowered to 18 years of age by the twenty-sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution]…shall be entitled to vote at all elections,” subject to certain restrictions by the General Assembly as to who may register to vote.
• Independent studies have determined that some 1.6 million otherwise eligible voters in PA, including nearly a million in Democratic-leaning Philadelphia alone, may lack an unexpired state-issued driver’s license by this November’s Presidential election, which is just 83 days away.
• The state admitted, before the trial even began, that they were unaware of any “investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania”; that they “are not aware of any incidents of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and do not have direct personal knowledge of in person voter fraud elsewhere”; and that the state would offer no evidence at the trial “that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the Photo ID law.”
• The Republican Secretary of the Commonwealth, charged with implementing the law, admitted on the stand that she does not “know what the law says.”
• The Republican Governor who signed the bill, and lied about “voter fraud” in the state, does not even know what type of ID would now be eligible for voting under the new restrictions.
• The Republican House Majority Leader admitted that the bill, passed in the state legislature without a single Democratic vote, was meant to “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania” this year.
• During the trial, as described by plaintiffs, “[S]tate officials admitted they underestimated the number of registered voters without acceptable photo ID, admitted the law will disenfranchise voters, admitted the law will hold different voters to different standards, admitted voters casting an absentee ballot will be able to vote without ID.”

Given all of the above, following the close of the trial, the plaintiffs had predicted a “slam dunk” ruling in their favor. We had also predicted that the law was likely to “go down in flames.”

We’re still reviewing the opinion of Judge Simpson, who is a Republican, and will have a more detailed analysis of the specifics of his ruling in the coming days.

Plaintiffs have already vowed to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court, where four votes will be needed to overturn the Commonwealth Court’s ruling. Currently, there is a 3-3 Republican/Democratic split on the high court, as the 7th jurist, a Republican, has stepped aside for the moment pending a corruption investigation. If the state Supreme Court splits on the verdict, Simpson’s ruling would hold. Though, depending on how the state Supremes decide, and if federal rulings are a part of whatever decision they may make, it is possible the plaintiffs could later take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court in the event that the state Supreme Court fails to overturn the lower court’s verdict.

Separately, the U.S. Dept. of Justice has opened it’s own investigation of the law to determine whether or not it may be in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and/or the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. They may decide to file their own federal case to block the law in the weeks ahead.

UPDATE 8/18/12: On Aug. 16 plaintiffs filed a formal notice of appeal. Once the opening brief is available, The BRAD BLOG will furnish a detailed analysis of that appeal in the context of the rationale applied by Simpson, along with an assessment of the alternative litigation which the U.S. Department of Justice could potentially file in U.S. District Court.

UPDATE 9/4/12: The plaintiffs have now filed their appeal to the PA Supreme Court. Our legal analyst Ernest Canning details their appeal and some of the absurdities they point out in the original ruling by the Commonwealth Court judge right here…