Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Amicus Brief to PA Supreme Court

Amicus Brief to PA Supreme Court

Amicus Brief to PA Supreme Court

Page 1: Amicus Brief to PA Supreme Court

Category:

Number of Pages:20

Date Created:September 6, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:September 11, 2017

Tags:Grange, quali, ARGUMENT, Equal, assembly, Appellants, Commonwealth, Elections, Fischer, Amicus, Constitution, appeal, Pennsylvania, Supreme, ACLU, Supreme Court, Washington


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE SUPREME COURT PENNSYLVANIA
No. MAP 2012
VIVIETTE APPLEWHJTE; WILOLA SHTNHOLSTER LEE;
GLORIA CIJTTINO; NADINE MARSH; BEA BOOKLER; JOYCE BLOCK:
HENRIETTA KAY DICKERSON; DEVRA MTREL ASHER SCHOR;
THE LEAGUE 017 WOMEN VOTERS PENNSYLVANIA;
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT 017 COLORED PEOPLE,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE; HOMELESS ADVOCACV PROJECT,
Appellants.
THE COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA; THOMAS CORBETT, HIS
CAPACITY GOVERNOR; CAROL AICHELE, HER CAPACITY
SECRETARY THE COMMONWEALTFL
Appeum.
RRIEE AMICI CUIUAE REPRESENTATIVE DARYL NEETCALFE AND
REPRESENTATIVES STEPHEN BARRAR. STEPHEN BLOOM. BRYAN CUTLER.
GARY DAY. GEORGE DUNDAR, ELI EVANKOVTCH. GARTH EVERETT. MARK
GILLEN. sETI-I GROVE. ADAM HARRIS SCOTT HUTCHINSON, ROB RAUEFMAN.
TIM KRIEGER. RON MARSICO. MARK MUSTIO, DONNA OBERLANDER. KATHY
RAPP, BRAD ROAE,AN1) ROSEMARIE SWANGER SUPPORT BRIEF APPELLEES
Appeal fmm Lhe Augusl 15. 2012 UIdzrothE
Commonwealth Conn ofl emlsylvania, Docket No. 330 MT) 2012 Theodor: Hoppa.
Annuity N01 62032
Happe Marlin. LLP Orange sum, $qu 215
Sovereign Bank Building
Media, 19053
(610-497-3579
TAELE CONTENTS
TABLE CONTENTS
TABLE AUTHORITIES.
INTEREST AMICI CURIAE
SUMMARY THE ARGUMENT...
ARGUMENT Undcl Pamsylvania Conslimion the Geneial Assembly
Possmsm the Undouhled Authority Regulale Elcclionsl
11. Pennsylvania Cnu Apply Gmss Abuse Smndard Elcc Slalules
In. There Suhslamial Legal Queslian That Must Resolvedl
iv. Appellants Did Not Dalmatians That They Axe Likely Prcvail the Merits Facial challenges are [he most dif cult
challengaa succcssfully mounlll Ac: does run disenfmnchise quali electors Acl secures free and equal eleclious Act dues not impos: any additional
qualificmions vote
CONCLUSION
TABLE AUTHORITIES
Cases
Appeal ofctoiok, 136 Pa. 459 (PA 1390)
Batman Carixrruction Corporation
Department ofTrarisportatiun, 608 Pa. 534 (2011)
Cily Cunncil Taxpayenfur Vineent,
466 11317390934)
Cityton Allegheny County, 600 662 (2009) ala Township Janet. 571 637 (2002)
Fischer Department ofPublic Wei zre, 497 Pa. 267 (19112).
Gonzalez Carhart, 550 11.51 124 (2007) Nomination Paper o/Ragers,
903 A.2d 948 (Pa. Commw. cm, 2006] Nader. 510 P11. (200414
Jarnoo Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,
505 Pu. 137 (1984)
[111qu Commonwealth, 759 A.2d 442 (Pa. Commw. CI, 2000)
page Aiien, Pa, 338 (1868)
Patterson 12, Barlaw, Pa. (1869)
Schmohl Wegeltn. 592 3.le (2007)
Umted State: Salami). 48] 1.1.51 739 (1937)
Washington State Grange Washington State tiepttbiioan Party,
552 List 442 (20031
Winston Moore, 244 Pa. 447 (1914) TEREST OFAMICI CURIAE
0.. March 14. 2012. the Pennsylvania Hons: nfReplesenulives passed Hausa Blll 934
wilh 104 membels vnung support ofth: legislniion. unenlini any, Govcmor Tom 0mm
signed House Bill inin law, Act March 14, 21112, PL. 195. 11: 18). requires quali =1:mnr(i.co,legismmd vale!) pmvide evidence afhis identily whmi
wsls his hnllei. nndiiinn designnies ihs various iypes ofdoulmems quali elector
may piovide when onsia his bnlloi. The Vuinus typ=s pmofofidentiflcadon ale noose
ihan (1) were issued the Unitcd sum, nie Cnmnnwnahh nfpannsylvania, municipality
die Cnmmnnweallh employee municipaliiy, uncredited Pennsylvania ins mtion
orhiglm education, pannylyania minty; and (2) generally onninin Lb: name and
plimogvnph ohhe quali elecmx well expimlion data. Also, onion eleciion. iiu
quali elector does nni have one onhe nooepuhle dncummls. Acl requires the
Pennsylvania Depnmncnl nmeupom piovide ncceuinhle doz menl she quali
elem: Dust. Moreover, ira claclm ones nollmvc one orihe various, nanenmhle
iypas docnmsnts needed as! aballol, Act 11; penuiis Lhal quali elecioi
pinvisional ballot, which will coun=d when Lhc qun1i elccmr amnns davil wiihin
six calendar days Lhnl was the individual who casl ihe pmviaienal ballot. Finally,mhe1aw
Icquims 1h: Secmury onhe Cnmmollweath Wis: the public complying withlhc new
muirunzm forvoti
The Penusylvnnin Sena-e passed enriiex v=rsicn orHousc 13111934 with umendmcnla March 2012 The Mad: 14. 2012 vol: the Pennsylvania House Repnes-mives
passed House Bill 934 WiLh die Sennie amendmenix,
Tile Amicl are Represenniiye Daryl Mamalfe are amnar oi, and the driving force
behind. and members afrne Pennsylvania House Represenuniyes who yaied
support Acl 13.2 Amici mime have diieei lmzmn inauer
Appellanls sauglna preliminary injuneuon ibe Carnnrnnwealih Court pieveni Aei from taking eea deciding wheLher mus aprelirninary injunction, Ihe lowei caurr
anneideed the following facials: (1) wlieibei lhe injuneiian neeessary preyern immedim:
and ineparnble llnrm aannar ndequnnely campensaied rnnney damages; (2) thLh
glealer injury would resull reinsing die injunction Lhan iruni granang it: (a) whethm die
injunclian will resume the parnes dieir sianis exisled priar die alleged wrangnd
eandnei; (4) wbeiliei Appellanis are likely pic vall 01-1 Ill: merirs; (5) wneurerrne Injunction
reasonably sniied abane lhc eniing mvity; and (a) wneilierme injnneiian will nut
advencly affect die pnblie inleresL Deierminaiion Applicaiiou for Preliminary Injunction
Appiewiiiie Commanweahh, 2130 2012 (PA. Cnmmw. an). dared Angusi 15, 2012 DWI-nimliml (ailing mama Conxmliuri Curpnraiiun Dcparimem
rmnsparrarian, 503 Pa. 514 (2011)). Following brie and pielirninary injuneiion heaiing,
die Corninnnwealrli Court found. addition miner fhcmrs suppan Act 11;,ueniAppellnnis
were not likely pievail the meriis Rep. Smphcn barren lamb Legislalivc Disniei; Rep. Slap-hen Blnarn. 1991b Legislalive
Disuim; Rep. Bryan onler, 1mm. chislative Disiri Rep. Gary Day, 137m Legislanye
Dim-1:1; Rep. George Dunbar. 56111 Legislaliye Disaici; Rep Eli Evankavich. 54:1: Legislniye
Districl: Rep. Ganh Everett. 34in chjslmlve Dismei, Rep. Mink Gillen. 122m. legislaiiye
Distnd: Rep. Sell. Grove. 195m legislrniye Dish-Eel; Rep. Adam 1-lnrris, 81nd Legislaiive
Districl: Rep. Sean Huwhinsml. 64m Legislaaive Dinner; Rep. Rab Kaumnsn, ILh Legislniive
Disarici; Rep. Tim Krieger. 57m Legislaiiye District; Rep. Rnn Mnsica, losilr Legislnive
Disaiei; Rep. Mark Musiin, Legislative Disuiei; Rep. Danna aha-lander, 63rd Legislaiiye
Disiriei; Rep. Kinny Rapp, 55111 Legislative Disin Rep, srnd Rnae Slh Legislative pisirieu
and Rep. RoseMarie Swanger, loznd Legislniive Disn iei.
,2.
Appellnnts now appeal Ihal ruling. Avpellams argument Mofold. First they argue
ihal under Fischer Deparlmerll rngubltc Welfare. 497 Pa. 267 (19x2), they were not required suttsfy eueh element ofthe preliminsry injunction test heeouse there suhstantisl legal
question resolved. Sewnd. they argue thtt, even ifthey wee required satisfy eoch
clanzm nrthe preliminary injunction test. they have demonstruted that preliminary injunction wurmnted. Although Amer helieye int. under either standard, nnne orthe famms support
issuance pnlimilury injunclim this hrierfoeuses solely whether submmial legal
question exists and whether Appellants are likely prevnil the merits oftheir else. This
Court reviews such questions tie nova. Bums/n Township Jones, 571 Pa. 637, $44 (201m
Appellnnu entire nrgmnent hinges whether the Commonweslth Courl should have
applied strict scrutiny when decided the merits ofthe ease. However. pennsylysnis tours
hove always used the gross abuse sundard when detenninlng whether elecLinn laws violste the
free end eqtud clause oflhe YennsylvnniaConstimlinnl Therefore,.tmisi sulimit this hrierto
primarily help elst-iry the pmpcr stunderdto employed sudno support the Gal-mil Asembly
undoubted authority pass commonsense legislalion regulating elections.
SUMMARY THE ARGUMENT
Amim: posilitm simple and stmlghtforwnrd. While the Pennsylynhis Constitution
requires eleetions hee and equal, does not pmyide the mnewor [01 how secure Ihis
This Court has recognized thnt symm otluws regulnting the elections only the means
securing hee and equal elections Patterson Bottom Pa. 54, (1369). addiLion, this
sysmrn nhegulnlion the subject legtslntion nverwhich the Genenl Assembly exercises
sound diseretion. [at passing Act the General Assembly did more than exercise its
,3,
sound discrelion and creme commonsense regulalory scheme sewn Tree and equal elecnnns.
The Geneanl Assembly undouhledlyhad such suchonry and used aoaordinidy. addirion because lire General Assembly has Iln: discrelion pass laws regulaling
elecrions, lire oouns musr nol ovmum the policy chuioes oflh= legislnliye bmch unlas Lbal
hianeh acts wirh gmss abuse. lhis manner, the General Assembly used its unduuhled authority regulam cloclions. using anthnrily, has not canned anyone disenfranehised. Non
has changed quali calians set Toni. the Pennsylvania Consnmdon anchor, has
mainrained and pmmoled free and ennui eleelions For Ihcse reasons, Oommonwullh Conn
coneolly concluded lira: Act should nol preliminarily enjoined.
ARGUMENT Under the Pennsylvul Constitution, General Ammbly
renames line UndnuMod Amino ngg Ele 9n;
The Pennsylvania Consmmlon moinm the durc omc gmeral elcelion. prescribes the
qlla flcaljms volels, and :njnins the ballaL Pallerxan, P3. addition, requires
Lhal eleelions free and ennnlr says naming name, The Cunsrinniun does nor esrahlish any
rules provide any guides ensure free and equal eleerions. id. 75a The manner which
eleecions at: conducled solely name. Id. The Gama] Assembly rhereloie lSt
pass lcgislmian provide -nrneworlr for conducting eleeiians. Id. [Tjhe powei regulal:
eleelinns legislnnye one, which has always been cxmcisad thc General Asseinhly sinee
dre foundalinn guvernlnenl.). rhis Conn has mind, who rnaires the lean The Generni Assanbly. Wrnszun
Maura, 244 447. 454 (1914). The qulition. thrill-Ole, becomes What IBWS the General
Asmbly has lhe auLhmity pass Tins qneslian has been answered llrc Conn The
Cullen! Assembly may pass laws ieguinae elections preserve the pumy
the ballot. Appeal uftaaiclc 13a 459, 457 (1890). such regulations include dcsignal ngJ
the evidenne which shall idenriry and pmve th: persans and the qualifications attlie
electars Putters-171,60 75; lee uLvo ili (it rlre duty nfthc General Assembly
secure freedom and equality such regulaLions will exclude the unquali and allow the
quali vote). sum. has been settled for well 0ch 100 years Lhal the General Assembly has Ille
auihbrity pass legislaljun that regulates eleetinns lm, this Conn suminclly declared;
While the eonsriunian has thus defined she rights nfvolers,
silent many respects how those rights shall exercised.
prescribes very clearly the quali aaricns which Vomr rnust
mssess, but provides machinery which asccnain
whedrsr panicular voter pnssesses such quali cations. All this
has been wisely the General Assembly. wnuld ant
place the fundamental law.
Appeal ofCuxlck, 135 pa, is. Pmmylvnnll chum Crush Ahuae Standard Election smut... stated above. laws mgululing elemiuns hnv: always hem regarded peculiarly
within the province orthc legislative branch govemmmt. Winrtan. 144 Pa. 455.
Thcmfbn, this Caurt has cannnuausly held Lhnl such laws shmlld neverbc stricken down the
cenns unless plain violation orthe fundamental law. 14, Whm the Gennml Ambly
possesses undoubted authariry regirlale its discmlion nhtlhe subject nfreview.
Panama. Pa. 79. Similarly, the Court has explained that because the discretion belongs
the General may, any laws regularing eleetinns sauna! nvicwnd any nrher
dcpnnmznl lhs govcmmcnl. excepr case plain. palpable and clear abuse nrthe pawer
which acmally infringes the rights omre elecms. 75; see am; Mrxtm Cammunwzullh,
759 A.2d 442, 447 (Pa. Cammw. Ct. 2000), aid, 73: Aid 763 (Pa, 2001) Any pany
,5,
challenging lenishiiye enaem-renz has heavy buideu, and legislininn will nor inyalidaied
unless clearly, palmllyi and plainly violalas ebe Constilmion orrbis Commonwealth, Any
dbubis resnlyed layer finding nfeenslinninnaliiyr (mlcmnl eimnnns nrnined addirinn ibis Conn has speci cnlly ned Lhe standard renew for laws regrdnuing
clcclinns fnllnws: the absence ofany express cons luuonal lirniiaiinn upnn the
power nmre General Assemblym ruahe laws regularing clocLinns
and providing for cial ballm, nolhing shnrl nfgmss abuse
would iusiin enun slriking down electinn law demanded the people and passed ihe lay-making branch
gouemmem th: exereise bra power always recognized and
mqmlly harmed
Wimmn. 244 Ya. 457. This gross abuse slandard remains llre siandard lhis day The
Commonweuhh Court reeearly emphasized the [mug line ochnnsylval-lin anthm-Ity dating back leasl early 1914 lhai enablishes rhis sinndard: Wlrufrm Mme IbaL our Supreme 0mm has
applied gross abuse slandard determine whether ekction
mules violale the flea and equal clause, lbereby giving
substanllal deference the judgmenlcfthc General Ascmhly.
This slands susrlr eunnasl lbs slandard uLilized under rhe
federal consLiImiDlI. which employs bahncing lcsl. Naminmian PapEr u/Rngm, 90)] Arm gas. 954 (Pa. Cnnrmw. 2006); see also
DeIcl-minmiun 57-58. orher wurds, for [cm loo years, Pmnsylvania wurls have applied gross abuse analysis when reviewing luws passed lbs Pmnsylvania General Assembly
regulating eleeiinns under use Pennsylvania Cdushnuinn.
in. There Submnlial n-nn Mun Resolved.
Akhmlgh mey inilerl raise ibis issue 11: Commanwenlrh ColnL Appellann argue
that rhey are no! required demnnsmne 1st {mums nnhe prelimhmry injunedon usL
Speei eally, they ugue ihan. under Fischer, aumanlial legal quesuons mustbe resnlvedLr
.5,
they are only required demonstrate thar Lhe thrent ofiturnedmtc and irreparable hnnn
evident that the injunction does more than restore the status quo and that the greater injlny
would result refusing the requestod injunetion than granting it. Bricfctf Appellants
Regardless ofwhether Appellants are ourrect that, undchLreher, utcir hurden lessened, they
are incorrect that this matter, substantial legal oucstion must resolved.
Although Pennsylvania authority could not more nitive. Appellants assert that the
level otcunstitutiunal scrutiny which Act nrusthe subjecled raises substantial question,
Blief oprpellams 27. Contrary the long line otrennaylvunia ems explicilly applying
gross abuse analysis when reviewing laws passed the Pennsylvania General Ami-ably
regulating elections. Appellants argue that the proper analysis strict scrutiny. Yet, Appellants
fail cite nny Pennsylvania case which applies strict scnltiny such instance. instead. they
argue that hecattse voting tundamental righo Pennsylvania courts should apply strict
srnttiny. other words, heeauss Appellams not agree with the Commonwealth Cuuns
ruling. they are asking that this Conn ovmurn hundred years orpreeedent and the rst court hold that shim scrutiny applies when reviewing laws passed the Pennsylvania General
Assembly regulating elections under the Pennsylvania Constiuition.
There genuute dispute ahout wthher voting sacred right. Brietof Appellants
3:; Page Allen, Pa. 333. 347 (1868). Nor disputed tltat the right vote must
protected Briefof Appellnnts 34:1nlle Nader. 530 22, (2004). torthese reasons
that the pennsylvania Constiturion authorizes the General Assemhly legislation
regulate elections. this Court has declared:
[An] election free and equal where all otthe quali electors
the precinct are rarehrlly distinguished truna the unquali and
are pmwclcd the right deposit their ballots safety, and
uuprejudited fraud. That election not flee and equal where
.7.
lire true eleolors not separmed from the ialse; where the ballet nul depesiied surely, where supplanted fnmd, is,
therefore the duly oilhe leyslatule secure freedom and equality such mglda ons will exclude the unquali ed, and allow the
quali only vnte. free and equal clecLion the and.
regulations attain are the means.
Pallermn, Pa. 76. Quali eleoiais will only have aonfldenoe the election prneess
the General Assembly past legislation that ensures that elections are re: and equal.
Because Lb: Genemi Assembly possesses the undoubted authorin regulate eleoiions.
Pcnnsylvmlia court including tins Cnurt have rung-HM that mgulallons should not
slnwk down the courts unless they are plain violnlion ofthe right eiquali eleemrs
vane. Ael dees more than rcgulale eleeilnns. Therefore, the lawns calm pinpeily applied
gmss abuse standard. ndditinn, :nnmry Appellants medians (Appellants Biierat as), Pennsylvania law
does not require com: apply sniet scmliny when: rennsylyania fundamental right inuy
buldmd. Appellants cite the decisions this Court James Southeastern Parting/(Vania
Trampar/an Awhurity, 505 Pa. 137, 145 934) and Srhmzhl Wegelin, 592 P3. 535
(2007), Yet, each lcsc oases, the Couriwas analyzing whether the challenged legislation
hurdened hindamenial right piutemd undei the Constitution, speeiiieaily the Equal
Prolwtinn Clause. James. 505 Pa. 145 (Undex typical fauneanth amendmeni analysis
govenunenul classi cauens, there are three zrent types oielassirleations calling for three eient standards judicial review. the seoond type dream. where iundameinal
iighl has been burdened, another standard ofreview applied: that ofshicl scmliny); Sell/MM,
592 Pa. 581 533 The quesuen presented whether Section 53I2 aiihe Dmnestic Rnlmimu
Cod: violales lhe Equal Pmkc Clause aflhe United Slams Conslimtion.). This Ocunhxs
not held lhal strict semliny slandard musl applied when reviewing Pennsylvania legislation
.3.
him may hurden prurnsylvanin flmdamenlal righl, hlsleud, Lh: Conn. his explieiuy held rhal
Pennsylvania cuuns shnuld npply glass abuse slandald when levicwing laws passed rhc
Pmnsylvania General Assmlbly regulating eleciiuns under nhe renrrsyluanin Connimtion.
Ihcreiurc. Lhar: subsumtial legal question that mllsl resolved, and Fischer dues not
apply,
lvr Appdhnlx Did nanumlrale They Are Likely
Prevail the Merits.
Because Fivnher does not apply, Appellunra rnusl sarisiy all six plelimimary injunmiun
incurs, including derncnsnmion that lhey are likely prevail the merirs. chnllenging prior any quali eleclcr curling yure even bcfum Cummonweillh hes hurl
cppcrnnriry fully ilnplmem Acl 18, Appellams elenrly bmughl facial clmllenge, See
Dawnnillzlion 21. Because Appellams brought racial challenge, their burden
demonstrallng Ihxtthcy would likcly prevail the mails was even when. Consequenrly.
Annellunrs led dmlonsn-atc that Act discnfrdnchiscd ull quuli elm, that mad/.-
eleciinns longafmc and cqunl, lhxt changed quali cations set lunh use
Pennsylvania Cum-union, Rani-l dauncnges are lhe man dilurull challenge: succusfnlly mnunlr the commnnwealih Cnun prcperly noled, bring asuccessful mini challenge,
plund musl andst exmcly gomus legnl sinndnrd mquiring demonsn-ation Ihal
there are set ofeircrunnanecr under which zhe 5mm: may valid. Delamilm 21.
addmnn. this Court has recognized rhnr facial chullenge Lh: mosl dif cult
dlallellgc moIInI suecersiully. CIi/lun Allegheny County, has as; 703 (2009) (qunring
Unite-15101:: Salemay us. 739, 745 (1987)),
.9. faoial challenge the most dimcnlr rhallenge for plainiimo rnounr snoccsslnlly for
rwo reasons. FirsL snoh ohallcngca pnera are dislavored the cnurls bceanae thgy rest
speculation, comrary the tirndanrcnlnl principal afjudicia] rash-ainL and lhreaun short
eircnil lh: demncmlic process, Washington Slate Grange Washingmn State Rtpublimrl
Party, 551 vs. 442. 449 away When lzglslalive mammal! macked racially, ennrr disadvanragc because does nor know how law will applied oonsrrned
mfnming auihoriry. Ihe us. Supreme Conn has declared, neiihcr our obliga nor
within our aadiiional insiirniinnal role resolve queazions wnslimtinnality with respeoi
cad: pobcnlial sin-anion dial might develop. Gamlzz Curhlzrt, 550 His. 124, (2007)
lnslead ofspoculbting abonl hypolhcticals, com typically prcrer wail nnril the law
eonslrued Ihe context ofaooral dispales. Washinglon snare Grange, 552 vs. 450
mun hlusl awful no: beyond rhe sutures facial requiremenls and specrrlale about
hypomelical imngmnry cases Enigma, 4X1 U5, 745,
Second. eanns inrpose heavy burden plaindlr who brings facial challenge. [nhe ihar statule] might operare unccnslimljolmlly under somc conceivable sec
circnmsrances insuf cianl render wholly invalid). court eannoz sun-re
hrcially uncunstituliolwl unless every reasonable inlmprcmlion bnhe Mamie would
uncallxlitulionmc 111;.we aLm Council Tawayeufor mccm, Aoo use 739, 796-97
(1934). orber words, unlike applied challenge. which aplaiorill applies speci faols rhe challenged mm, facial challangl: mosr show ll-lm is: orcrrcummncei err-sh under
whiehihe [swube] would wlid Warhingron snare Grange, 552 vs. 449 (emphasis
added).
.10, seekmg preliminary injuncrien prier any quali elcmr seeking vote
denim Appellanls asked Commonwulth Conn precisely whal rhis Court Ell/ion
warned against: pmnaturely inlapleling and unmecssa speenlnre lire eanarilulionuliiy
Aei mernhl vacuum The lower court pmperly mjectcd speculation about hypcdw cal
imaginary cases and found rhar [n]ane efrhese situations [is] evident die face ofAc 18.
Moreover, ifihese sicuaiiena aerually ansa: drey een remedied individual basis.
Speculaljon about ureae siiuaearie dees rim suppnn invalidaubn bran lawful applications Aer
IX. Dcurnrinndon 5121-12. fair], Appellanrs case highlighie die renliry rhal rheir facial challenge musl fail.
Ragan ess whether eeiimaled orquali elecwrs auhe iirne the hear-ing
did nolhavcthe kquisit: evidence needed cast rheir ballots ensure that rhey are whe
say ihey are, undisputcd rim 99% afqualifled eleerdrs already possess lire requisire
evidenee near melt hallms. oLher words, almost every inaerree, can. and will,
eerrsliluiionnlly applied. amen, son Aer dots inn diienirunehiae gnalmed electors.
Amici dispule email runner Act phreee enereus hurdenra qualified eleciors.
Act mlly requires quali elbemr preeern an: nfszveml types ofdocumenls when
duals his hallei. quali eleelar deer her have acceptable document. are Pennsylvania
Depanment ofTrunspei-miun will pmvide one the quali elecwr all Cost, addiliun, has been widely reparied rlre news media, are lurl Peulioner, Applswhibe,
mer the conclusion o[Lhe preliminary injunction hating, received one mire various rypee
doeumenrs she may provide when she reels her ballul. Since Ma, Applewhim regisiered
elecwr, Act Lhmfun will nnl prevent her fmm earring ahalloi. Jessica Parka Lmd Mama/r Pennylvnnid voler are herphero Philly.com (Aug. ix, 2011), available
hdp:l/nriielea.plrilly,eerrr/2012-os-l 3/llCW /3324933571JmndDI-id-WW-erridm mlion-
lawVpanndoI-oenlzr.
-1I.
exeeuiive xgcnciu hnv: sought deems: nny hureaucruiic inconveniences Lhal may
associmd wiili obtaining aeeepiahle documcm. See Detcmlinalion some Because Act
does more uinn designalc various doenrnenis may prescuied when quali elecior
casls his balch Amici dispuie ihai ilie law places heavy burden die process voling. eddirion, Pennsylvania coum have renngnieed ihai hardship nouhe ccsi ufdw
cons mtiomlity ofa law. lewwn, Pa. 33, Cau should not declare laws regulniing
elections unconsiicuiional grounds eiinere hardship. for defecis ofkgulation, which
are nor cleer end pelpahle violations athe lener very rapid: orrhe Constitution Id.
law can only pmnouucod unconslilmilmal when ihe law inelisnhveris Lbs nue elecmls
riglns.
Appellmzs uni assert ms: Ihc law ivaclr discu unchisee quali cleciors. Appellania
nasen rnsiead rlie General Ascmblys poliey deeisionio require quali elecmrlo suhruii
evidenee his ideniiiy when mic his ballol may burden quali eleeior. However, laws
requiring quali eleciei dernonsneie his ideniiiy are narhing new For example,
dine quali elecinr qun eleeior voring for che rsi iinie new polling plaee niusi
provide form rdeuii caiinn, such doernneni containing phmugndph rennsylvnnia
lair bllL oiher words, laws char seine quali eleciors may huidcnsonre already exisi and
are eonslinr onal. lnhereni any requimeni thatcvidcnoe pmwd the {nor that some
individuals may hnve icully ssiisrying ihe requimnmt, However. Lhal legiiiniare
[canon nveriurn nenrnrnonsense pniicy choice orihe Genernl Assembly
Commonwa Couri sieied, Because under ihe plain Language ofAcL ihc phcio are
ne, ind under new pmcedures hirih ccrri caies wuh raised Sal: at: 1011ch icquired for
thou horn yeonsylvnnie ihe inconvenience goingm PannDDT, geiheniug required
.12.
documents and posing turn phumyaph does not qualify sulosmnilnl burden the vast
supennajority ufmgismred voters, Determination so, sum. Appellants failed
demonstrate that Aet iuelrdiseutranchtaes any qualilied electors. Act recurs. tree and cgu-l eleetinns
the tree and :qunl pmvisinn ofrhe Pennsylvania Constitution does not require
uniformity. Patterson, Pa. [Thc Constinnion] has nor said that the regulations eet Ihis shnll ruritorrn.). this Court has explained:
lruniturnrity ofxcgulalion unsuited ditterent localities. the
end must attained diversity, one pan ofthz state
sysmm smut-es :Ibclom free and equal election, tails
secure another pan because orihe dirrerenee orcireumsunces,
what principle ofmnsliluuanal law makes unlawful pass other
pmvtaions counteract the cllvummnccs and secure the true
purpose orthe Cnnslimtinn Gnnd sense. gund order and sound
maralily require this diversity orregolstion when seem the
end; and great fallxcy substitute uniformity ofregularlon
{or and equal electron
1.1 75-76. The General Assembly passed commonsense mgulslory scheme seenre tree
and equal elections designing numerous types nfoeeeprahle doeurnents, Act attempts
ensure tho: ell quali eleetors, ibeey desire. have the opportunity and ability east
ballot Alvhmtgll alluwing for the possrhility that quali eleetrns will provide mnt
evidence prove their identity not equal its mews, the scheme passed the Geaetal
Assembly seeks ensure LhaA eaeh vote east quali eleetor oonnred, other words
the law, the end, seernes tree and equal elections. Act thereioie senstitutional larder the
Courts hnlding Panama. addition the Commonwealth Dunn concluded the same
Detamination 64-65,
.13.
11. Act does run imEose uddirional gulli glls vole.
Aei mates framework which aqua fled eleeior who ensis belloi preseuis
evidence iliui he, tea, the qunlilied eleeibr elninis be. evidenoe deiennined
ihe General Assembly ndncnmmt Ihal: (l) was issued ihc Uniied Sieies. ibe
Commonweslih uipennsylvanie. munielpaliiy omie Cnmmonwcal mployee
niunicipeliiy, accmdimd rennsylvunia insiinulon olhigher edueuiion Pennsylvania
faciliiy; ind (2) genzmlly coniuins ibe nenie ind phomgxuph orihe quali eleeioras well
cxpiralicn dame addiiion, ire quali elector does have one uiihe various neeepieble
iypeii ofdocllmcnis heeded cast abellov, Act pennlis iher quali elemer
provisional ballot, which will mourned whcn Lhc quali cleclnr rms 11y amdavll within
six calendar days ilisi was ihe individual who casi ilie pmvisiml ballots uiher wurdss Aei designales ihe evidence which shall idcnriry and prov:
ihe persons and ihe quelilieeeons elecions. Penman, Pay 75. does not eniiile
individuals was who are nniqueliried clcciols. Nor does preclude individuals who hie
quelihed eleciois rioni being enlitled vole, simply scare ensure thlonly quali
eleclmx pmicipale elecliolls. lmpcmmly, ihe Commonwealth Conn could Imve noi agreed
any home. Deiennineiion (The Commonweilib Coun slated lhntAppizllar clbiin that Aer improperly adds quali cnllnn voie has incl-ii whatsoever.).
CONCLUSION ihis Counhas pieviuusly declared, The pawcrlo reguleie eleerions legisleiive. and
has always been exercised ihe law-making braneh onhe governmeni, Winsinn, 144 Pa.
454. piurnoie voier con dence she eleeiien process, rhe General Ambly decided ihui
qualified clecmr must provide evidinicc liis ideiiu when casis his ballm. addition,
.14.
dumgnake/J yams orducumum (imam clam): 9mm when cum-1m
1mm. 0th wows. the General Asscmwy more
mm: mummy
pnsi lcgislauon mulum ciedimxx
lmpumxmly Cnmmmmmhh (wn greed Th: 0mm 1mm mom
man akin xugmming elections and Mtbm (he (Ecncn Awml mlhulit) regulgtc
cwmm. gwr dn- ltmcfmull held dam: mummy): alwroramcnd
PennsyhmiaCuum mum- swimmm: ww:qwlt wuuumhulmdmk 1e! numviou
wmmn mm; war In-am} lielu mmuiomu
cozxcluomi ummmmp arm constimlims summm
(minimums. lnslcud steam-n mgumm desvgntc wrify sldcnm
Simp dwtomnumgxmupn cyclmmoz zelkum alA ,nmgmmbwoi mmm Lharehmt. lhc >rcgu1ngmmons,.imxurcspccu uiiy mqmm Cum
Mum uwcrawx mm, bcmemhem 2012 RedgmUhUyS uni
Niamey 620
0me mm. 0me Sum. Sun:
Saver BunkBuildmg mam
gamma
Cwnsci .mm coma: Orfanadcs mum :me www- 9mm!
levam, 20024
(2023 (Wu THE SUPREME COURT PENNSYLVANIA
VIVIETTE APPLEW HFIE; WILOLA
SHINHDLSTFR LEE;GquA CUITINO;
NADINE MARSH; BEA BOOKLER; Docket map 2012
JOYCE BLOCK; HENRIETTA KAY
DICKERSON: DEVRA MmEL ASHER)
SCHOR; THE LEAGUE WOMEN VOTERS PENNSYLVANIA; NATIONAL
AssocmnON FOR THE ADVANCEMENT COLORED PEOPLE, PENNSYLVANIA
STATE CONFERENCE:
HOMELESS ADVOCACY PROJECT.
Appellants.
THE COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA;
THOMAS COREETT, His Capnchy
Guvcmm; CAROL AICHELE, Her Capacily
Smmry om: Cummonweakh,
Appellces
CERTIFICATE ERVICE cmil Iml this day,Se1-n:mbcr 6,2012, saving {ongoing BRIEF OFAMICI
cme upon the pelsuns below Vin rst-class, us. mail. posuge prepaid, which service
satis dle requiremcnl Pa, RAE lZl:
Wiwld Walzuk
ACLU onennsylvEnia Atwood Street
Yinshnrg, 15213
Jennifer Clarke
Benjamm
Public Intcmsl Law 0mm orvhnmlnhin
1709 mjnnn. anklin Parkway, 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, 19103
Marian Schnaidex
Advanmenll wjecl
295 Swedesfunl Road. 343
Wnyum M}?
rem Hair
Dans: Lieberman
Admmmm 1,0 Sham. Sun: x50 Mhmg xm.
Havtd (leach
Amou [mm-r
555 Twink 8mm, V. 11620004
A;(omwj _/nr awe/mm
Patrick Elm-Icy
(mm Kenna
mm.
John Knox: ll] mmmqum
mummy Squaw, Hum
Hmmbwgl my; widx
Governor omcmm mmsei Moon 333 MLukeLSml
11mm: PAHH) //01 M(} wum
up,