Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Amicus Brief to PA Supreme Courtsigned

Amicus Brief to PA Supreme Courtsigned

Amicus Brief to PA Supreme Courtsigned

Page 1: Amicus Brief to PA Supreme Courtsigned

Category:General

Number of Pages:20

Date Created:September 6, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:Courtsigned, Amicus, Supreme


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE SUPREME COURT PENNSYLVANIA 
No. MAP 2012 
VIVIETTE APPLEWHITE; WILOLA SHINHOLSTER LEE; 
GLORIA CUTTINO; NADINE MARSH; BEA BOOKLER; JOYCE BLOCK; 
HENRIETTA KAY DICKERSON; DEVRA MIREL ("ASHER") SCHOR; 
THE LEAGUE WOMEN VOTERS PENNSYLVANIA; 
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT COLORED PEOPLE, 
PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE; HOMELESS ADVOCACY PROJECT, 

Appellants, 
THE COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA; THOMAS CORBETT, 
CAPACITY GOVERNOR; CAROL AICHELE, HER CAPACITY 
SECRETARY THE COMMONWEALTH, 

Appellees. 
BRIEF AMICI CURIAE REPRESENTATIVE DARYL METCALFE AND 
REPRESENTATIVES STEPHEN BARRAR, STEPHEN BLOOM, BRYAN CUTLER, 
GARY DAY, GEORGE DUNBAR, ELI ANKOVICH, GARTH EVERETT, MARK 
GILLEN, SETH GROVE, ADAM HARRIS, SCOTT HUTCHINSON, ROB KAUFFMAN, 
TIM KRIEGER, RON MARSICO, MARK MUSTIO, DONNA OBERLANDER, KATHY 
RAPP, BRAD ROAE, AND ROSEMARIE ANGER SUPPORT BRIEF APPELLEES 

Appeal from the August 15, 2012 Order the 
Commonwealth Court Pennsylvania, Docket No. 330 2012 Theodore Hoppe, Jr. Attorney l.D. No. 62082 Hoppe Martin, LLP Orange Street, Suite 215 Sovereign Bank Building Media, 19063 (610-497-3579 
TABLE CONTENTS 

TABLE CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 

TABLE AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... 

INTEREST AMICI CURIAE ......... .................. ................................... ........................... 

SUMMARY TIIE ARGUMENT.................................................................................. 

ARGUMENT
...................................................................................................................... 	
Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the General Assembly 
Possesses the Undoubted Authority Regulate Elections ..... .................... 

II. 	
Pennsylvania Courts Apply Gross Abuse Standard 
............................................................................. ....... .... Election Statutes 
III. 	
There Substantial Legal Question That Must Resolved 6................. 

IV. 	
Appellants Did Not Demonstrate That They Are Likely Prevail the Merits ................................................................................. 	

Facial challenges are the most difficult challenges successfully mount 9...... ................................................. 	Act does not disenfranchise qualified electors ....... ..................... 	Act secures "free and equal" elections
........................................ 	
Act does not impose any additional 
qualifications vote ........................................................................ 

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 

TABLE AUTHORITIES 
Cases 

Appeal Cusick, 136 Pa. 459 (Pa. 1890) ........................................................................ 4-5 

Bryaman Construction Corporation 
Department Transportation, 608 Pa. 584 (2011) ................................................. 

City Council Taxpayers for Vincent, 
466 84) 
Clifton Allegheny County, 600 Pa. 662 (2009) ......................................................... 
Buffalo Township Jones, Pa. (2002) .................................................................. 
Fischer Department Public Welfare, 491 Pa. 267 (1982) ........................................... 
Gonzalez Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) ........................................................................ Nomination Paper Rogers, 
908 A.2d 948 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) ..................................................................... Nader, Pa. (2004) ........................................................................................... 
James Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 

505 Pa. 137 (1984) ................................................................................................... 
Mixon Commonwealth, 159 A.2d 442 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000) ................................... 5-6 
Patterson Barlow, Pa. (1869) .......................................................... 3-5, 7-8, 12-14 
Schmehl Wege/in, 592 Pa. 581 (2007) ............................................................................. 
United States Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 1987) ............................................................... 9-10 

Washington State Grange Washington State Republican Party, 
552 us. 442 (2008) ................................................................................................ 
Winston Moore, 244 Pa. 1914) ...................................................................... 

INTEREST AMICI CURIAE March 14, 2012, the Pennsylvania House Representatives passed House Bill 934 with 104 members voting support the legislation. Later that day, Governor Tom Corbett signed House Bill 934 into law, the Act March 14, 2012, P.L. 195, No. ("Act 18"). Act requires qualified elector (i.e., registered voter) provide evidence his identity when casts his ballot. addition, Act designates the various types documents qualified elector may provide when casts his ballot. The various types "proof identification" are those that: (1) were issued the United States, the Commonwealth Pennsylvania, municipality the Commonwealth employee that municipality, accredited Pennsylvania institution higher education, Pennsylvania care facility; and (2) generally contain the name and photograph the qualified elector well expiration date. Also, prior election, qualified elector does not have one the acceptable documents, Act requires the Pennsylvania Department Transportation provide acceptable document the qualified elector cost. Moreover, qualified elector does not have one the various, acceptable types documents needed cast ballot, Act permits that qualified elector cast provisional ballot, which will counted when the qualified elector affirms affidavit within six calendar days that was the individual who cast the provisional ballot. Finally, the law requires the Secretary the Commonwealth assist the public complying with the new requirement for voting. 

The Pennsylvania Senate passed earlier version House Bill 934 with amendments March 2012. The March 14, 2012 vote the Pennsylvania House Representatives passed House Bill 934 with the Senate's amendments. 

The Amici are Representative Daryl Metcalfe -the author of, and the driving force behind, Act -and members the Pennsylvania House Representatives who voted support Act 18.2 Amici therefore have direct interest this matter. 
Appellants sought preliminary injunction the Commonwealth Court prevent Act from taking effect. deciding whether issue preliminary injunction, the lower court considered the following factors: (1) whether the injunction necessary prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot adequately compensated money damages; (2) whether greater injury would result from refusing the injunction than from granting it; (3) whether the injunction will restore the parties their status existed prior the alleged wrongful conduct; (4) whether Appellants are likely prevail the merits; (5) whether the injunction reasonably suited abate the offending activity; and whether the injunction will not adversely affect the public interest. Determination Application for Preliminary Injunction Applewhite Commonwealth, 330 2012 (PA. Commw. Ct.), dated August 15, 2012 ("Determination") (citing Bryaman Construction Corporation Department Transportation, 608 584 (2011)). Following briefing and preliminary injunction hearing, the Commonwealth Court found, addition other factors support Act 18, that Appellants were not likely prevail the merits. 
Rep. Stephen Barrar, 60th Legislative District; Rep. Stephen Bloom, 99th Legislative District; Rep. Bryan Cutler, lOOth Legislative District; Rep. Gary Day, 187th Legislative District; Rep. George Dunbar, 56th Legislative District; Rep. Eli Evankovich, 54th Legislative District; Rep. Garth Everett, 84th Legislative District; Rep. Mark Gillen, 28th Legislative District; Rep. Seth Grove, 196th Legislative District; Rep. Adam Harris, 82nd Legislative District; Rep. Scott Hutchinson, 64th Legislative District; Rep. Rob Kauffman, 89th Legislative District; Rep. Tim Krieger, 57th Legislative District; Rep. Ron Marsico, 105th Legislative District; Rep. Mark Mustio, 44th Legislative District; Rep. Donna Oberlander, 63rd Legislative District; Rep. Kathy Rapp, 65th Legislative District; Rep. Brad Roae, 6th Legislative District; and Rep. RoseMarie Swanger, 102nd Legislative District. 
Appellants now appeal that ruling. Appellants' argument twofold. First, they argue 
that under Fischer Department Public Welfare, 491Pa.267 (1982), they were not required satisfy each element the preliminary injunction test because there substantial legal question resolved. Second, they argue that, even they were required satisfy each element the preliminary injunction test, they have demonstrated that preliminary injunction warranted. Although Amici believe that, under either standard, none the factors support issuance preliminary injunction, this brief focuses solely whether substantial legal question exists and whether Appellants are likely prevail the merits their case. This Court reviews such questions novo. Buffalo Township Jones, 571Pa. 637, 644 (2002). 
Appellants' entire argument hinges whether the Commonwealth Court should have applied strict scrutiny when decided the merits the case. However, Pennsylvania courts have always used the gross abuse standard when determining whether election laws violate the "free and equal" clause the Pennsylvania Constitution. Therefore, Amici submit this brief primarily help clarify the proper standard employed and support the General Assembly's undoubted authority pass commonsense legislation regulating elections. 
SUMMARY THE ARGUMENT 
Amici' position simple and straightforward. While the Pennsylvania Constitution requires elections free and equal, does not provide the framework for how secure this. This Court has recognized that "system laws regulating the elections only the means securing" free and equal elections. Patterson Barlow, Pa. 54, (1869). addition, ''this system regulation the subject legislation over which the General Assembly exercises sound discretion." Id. passing Act 18, the General Assembly did more than exercise its 
sound discretion and create commonsense regulatory scheme secure free and equal elections. 
The General Assembly undoubtedly had such authority and used accordingly. addition, because the General Assembly has the discretion pass laws regulating elections, the courts must not overturn the policy choices the legislative branch unless that branch acts with gross abuse. this matter, the General Assembly used its undoubted authority regulate elections. using its authority, has not caused anyone disenfranchised. Nor has changed the qualifications set forth the Pennsylvania Constitution. Rather, has maintained and promoted free and equal elections. For these reasons, the Commonwealth Court correctly concluded that Act should not preliminarily enjoined. 
ARGUMENT 	Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the General Assembly 
Possesses the Undoubted Elections. 
The Pennsylvania Constitution "appoints the time the general election, prescribes the qualifications voters, and enjoins the ballot." Patterson, Pa. 75. addition, requires that elections "be free and equal." says nothing more. The Constitution does not establish any rules provide any guides ensure free and equal elections. Id. The manner which elections are conducted left solely statute. Id. The General Assembly therefore must pass legislation provide framework for conducting elections. Id. ("[T]he power regulate elections legislative one, which has always been exercised the General Assembly since the foundation the government."). this Court has stated, "Who makes the law? The General Assembly." Winston Moore, 244 Pa. 447, 454 (1914). The question, therefore, becomes what laws the General Assembly has the authority pass. This question too has been answered the Court. The General Assembly may pass laws "to regulate elections" effort "preserve the purity 
the ballot." Appeal Cusick, 136 (1890). Such regulations include "designat[ing] 
the evidence which shall identify and prove ... the persons and the qualifications the electors." Patterson, Pa. 75; see also (It the duty the General Assembly ''to secure freedom and equality such regulations will exclude the unqualified and allow the qualified vote."). sum, has been settled for well over 100 years that the General Assembly has the 
authority pass legislation that regulates elections. 1890, this Court succinctly declared: 
While the constitution has thus defined the rights voters, silent many respects how those rights shall exercised. prescribes very clearly the qualifications which voter must possess, but provides machinery which ascertain whether particular voter possesses such qualifications. All this has been wisely left the General Assembly. would out place the fundamental law. 
Appeal Cusick, 136 Pa. stated above, laws regulating elections "have always been regarded peculiarly within the province the legislative branch government." Winston, 244 Pa. Therefore, this Court has continuously held that such laws "should never stricken down the courts unless plain violation the fundamental law." Id. "When the General Assembly possesses undoubted authority regulate ... its discretion not the subject review." Patterson, Pa. 79. Similarly, the Court has explained that because the discretion belongs the General Assembly, any laws regulating elections "cannot reviewed any other department the government, except case plain, palpable and clear abuse the power which actually infringes the rights the electors." Id. 75; see also Mixon Commonwealth, 
759 A.2d 442, 447 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000), ajf'd, 783 A.2d 763 (Pa. 2001) ("Any party 
challenging legislative enactment has heavy burden, and legislation will not invalidated 

unless clearly, patently, and plainly violates the Constitution this Commonwealth. Any doubts are resolved favor finding constitutionality." (internal citations omitted)). addition, this Court has specifically defined the standard review for laws regulating elections follows: the absence any express constitutional limitation upon the power the General Assembly make laws regulating elections and providing for official ballot, nothing short gross abuse would justify court striking down election law demanded the people, and passed the law-making branch government the exercise power always recognized and 
frequently asserted. Winston, 244 Pa. 457. This gross abuse standard remains the standard this day. The Commonwealth Court recently emphasized the long line Pennsylvania authority dating back least early 1914 that establishes this standard: 
From Winston Moore, find that our Supreme Court has applied "gross abuse" standard determine whether election statutes violate the "free and equal" clause, thereby giving substantial deference the judgment the General Assembly. This stands stark contrast the standard utilized under the federal constitution, which employs "balancing test." Nomination Paper ofRogers, 908 A.2d 948, 954 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006); see also Determination 57-58. other words, for least 100 years, Pennsylvania courts have applied gross abuse analysis when reviewing laws passed the Pennsylvania General Assembly regulating elections under the Pennsylvania Constitution. 

Although they failed raise this issue the Commonwealth Court, Appellants argue that they are not required demonstrate all six factors the preliminary injunction test. Specifically, they argue that, under Fischer, if"substantial legal questions must resolved[,]" 

they are only required demonstrate that "the threat immediate and irreparable harm 
evident, that the injunction does more than restore the status quo and that the greater injury 
would result refusing the requested injunction than granting it." Brief Appellants 25. Regardless whether Appellants are correct that, under Fischer, their burden lessened, they are incorrect that, this matter, substantial legal question must resolved. 
Although Pennsylvania authority could not more definitive, Appellants assert that the level constitutional scrutiny which Act must subjected raises substantial question. Brief Appellants 27. Contrary the long line Pennsylvania cases explicitly applying gross abuse analysis when reviewing laws passed the Pennsylvania General Assembly regulating elections, Appellants argue that the proper analysis strict scrutiny. Yet, Appellants fail cite any Pennsylvania case which applies strict scrutiny such instance. Instead, they argue that, because voting fundamental right, Pennsylvania courts should apply strict scrutiny. other words, because Appellants not agree with the Commonwealth Court's ruling, they are asking that this Court overturn hundred years precedent and the first court hold that strict scrutiny applies when reviewing laws passed the Pennsylvania General Assembly regulating elections under the Pennsylvania Constitution. 
There genuine dispute about whether voting sacred right. Brief Appellants 33; Page Allen, Pa. 338, 347 (1868). Nor disputed that the right vote must protected. Brief Appellants 34; Nader, 580 Pa. 22, (2004). for these reasons that the Pennsylvania Constitution authorizes the General Assembly pass legislation regulate elections. this Court has declared: 
[An] election free and equal where all the qualified electors the precinct are carefully distinguished from the unqualified, and are protected the right deposit their ballots safety, and unprejudiced fraud. That election not free and equal where 
the true electors are not separated from the false; where the ballot not deposited safety, where supplanted fraud. is, therefore, the duty the legislature secure freedom and equality such regulations will exclude the unqualified, and allow the qualified only vote. free and equal election the end, regulations attain are the means. 
Patterson, 76. Qualified electors will only have confidence the election process the General Assembly passes legislation that ensures that elections are free and equal. 
Because the General Assembly possesses the undoubted authority regulate elections, Pennsylvania courts -including this Court -have recognized that regulations should not struck down the courts unless they are plain violation the right qualified electors vote. Act does more than regulate elections. Therefore, the lower court properly applied gross abuse standard. addition, contrary Appellants' assertions (Appellants Brief 38), Pennsylvania law does not require courts apply strict scrutiny where Pennsylvania fundamental right may burdened. Appellants cite the decisions this Court James Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 505 Pa.137, 145 (1984) and Schmehl Wege/in, 592 Pa.581, 585 (2007). Yet, each those cases, the Court was analyzing whether the challenged legislation burdened fundamental right protected under the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause. James, 505 Pa. 145 ("Under typical fourteenth amendment analysis governmental classifications, there are three different types classifications calling for three different standards judicial review. the second type cases, where ... fundamental right has been burdened, another standard review applied: that strict scrutiny); Schmehl, 592 Pa.581 583 ("The question presented whether Section 5312 the Domestic Relations Code violates the Equal Protection Clause the United States Constitution."). This Court has not held that strict scrutiny standard must applied when reviewing Pennsylvania legislation 
that may burden Pennsylvania fundamental right. Instead, the Court has explicitly held that 
Pennsylvania courts should apply gross abuse standard when reviewing laws passed the Pennsylvania General Assembly regulating elections under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Therefore, there substantial legal question that must resolved, and Fischer does not 
apply. 
IV. 	Appellants Did Not Demonstrate that They Are Likely Prevail the Merits. 
Because Fischer does not apply, Appellants must satisfy all six preliminary injunction factors, including demonstration that they are likely prevail the merits. challenging Act prior any qualified elector casting vote even before the Commonwealth has had opportunity fully implement Act 18, Appellants clearly brought facial challenge. See Determination 21. Because Appellants brought facial challenge, their burden demonstrating that they would likely prevail the merits was even greater. Consequently, Appellants failed demonstrate that Act disenfranchised all qualified electors, that made elections longer free and equal, that changed the qualifications set forth the Pennsylvania Constitution. the Commonwealth Court properly noted, bring successful facial challenge, plaintiff must satisfy "extremely rigorous legal standard ... requiring demonstration that there are set circumstances under which the statute may valid." Determination 21. addition, this Court has recently recognized that facial challenge "is the most difficult challenge mount successfully." Clifton Allegheny County, 600 Pa. 662, 703 (2009) (quoting United States Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). facial challenge the most difficlt challenge for plaintiff mount successfully for 

two reasons. First, such challenges generally are disfavored the courts because they rest speculation, run contrary the fundamental principal judicial restraint, and threaten "short circuit" the democratic process. Washington State Grange Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008). When legislative enactment attacked facially, court disadvantage because does not know how the law will applied construed enforcing authority. the U.S. Supreme Court has declared, "It neither our obligation nor within our traditional institutional role resolve questions constitutionality with respect each potential situation that might develop." Gonzalez Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 168 (2007). Instead speculating about hypotheticals, courts typically prefer wait until the law construed "in the context actual disputes." Washington State Grange, 552 U.S. 450. court "must careful not beyond the statute's facial requirements and speculate about 'hypothetical' 'imaginary' cases." Salerno, 481 U.S. 745. 
Second, courts impose "heavy burden" plaintiff who brings facial challenge. ("[T]he fact that statute] might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set circumstances insufficient render wholly invalid."). court cannot find statute facially unconstitutional unless every reasonable interpretation the statute would unconstitutional. Id; see also City Council Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 796-97 (1984). other words, unlike applied challenge, which plaintiff applies specific facts the challenged statute, facial challenge must show that "no set circumstances exists under which the [statute] would valid." Washington State Grange, 552 U.S. 449 (emphasis added). seeking preliminary injunction prior any qualified elector seeking vote election, Appellants asked the Commonwealth Court precisely what this Court Clifton warned against: prematurely interpreting and unnecessarily speculate the constitutionality Act factual vacuum. The lower court properly rejected "speculation about hypothetical imaginary cases" and found that ]one these situations [is] evident the face Act 18. Moreover, these situations actually arise, they can remedied individual basis. Speculation about these situations does not support invalidation all lawful applications Act 18." Determination 21-22. fact, Appellants' case highlights the reality that their facial challenge must fail. Regardless whether estimated qualified electors -at the time the hearing3 did not have the requisite evidence needed cast their ballots ensure that they are who they say they are, undisputed that 99% qualified electors already possess the requisite evidence cast their ballots. other words, almost every instance, Act can, and will, constitutionally applied. Clifton, 600 Pa. 706. 

Amici dispute factual matter that Act places onerous burdens qualified electors. 
Act only requires qualified elector present one several types documents when 
casts his ballot. qualified elector does not have acceptable document, the Pennsylvania 
Department Transportation will provide one the qualified elector cost. addition, has been widely reported the news media, the lead Petitioner, Viviette Applewhite, after the conclusion the preliminary injunction hearing, received one the various types documents she may provide when she casts her ballot. Since Ms. Applewhite registered elector, Act therefore will not prevent her from casting ballot. Jessica Parks, Lead Plaintiff Pennsylvania voter case gets her photo ID, Philly.com (Aug. 18, 2012), available http:// articles. philly .com/2012-08-18/news/33249335_1 _penndot-id-new-voter-identificationlaw-penndot-center. 
executive agencies have sought decrease any bureaucratic inconveniences that may associated with obtaining acceptable document. See Determination 60-61. Because Act does more than designate various documents that may presented when qualified elector casts his ballot, Amici dispute that the law places heavy burden the process voting. addition, Pennsylvania courts have recognized that "hardship not the test the constitutionality law." Patterson, Pa. 83. Courts should not declare laws regulating elections unconstitutional "on grounds mere hardship, for defects regulation, which are not clear and palpable violations the letter very spirit the Constitution." Id. 85. law can only pronounced unconstitutional ''when the law itself subverts the true electors' rights." Id. 
Appellants not assert that the law itself disenfranchises qualified electors. Appellants assert instead that the General Assembly's policy decision require qualified elector submit evidence his identity when casts his ballot may burden qualified elector. However, laws requiring qualified elector demonstrate his identity are nothing new. For example, firsttime qualified elector qualified elector voting for the first time new polling place must provide form identification, such document containing photograph Pennsylvania tax bill. other words, laws that some qualified electors may find burdensome already exist and are constitutional. Inherent any requirement that evidence presented the fact that some individuals may have difficulty satisfying the requirement. However, that not legitimate reason overturn commonsense policy choice the General Assembly. the Commonwealth Court stated, "Because under the plain language Act the photo IDs are free, and under new procedures birth certificates with raised seals are longer required for those born Pennsylvania, the inconvenience going PennDOT, gathering required 
documents, and posing for photograph does not qualify substantial burden the vast supermajority registered voters." Determination 60. sum, Appellants failed demonstrate that Act itself disenfranchises any qualified electors. 

The "free and equal" provision the Pennsylvania Constitution does not require uniformity. Patterson, Pa. ("[The Constitution] has not said that the regulations effect this shall uniform."). this Court has explained: uniformity regulation unsuited different localities, the end must attained diversity. one part the state system secures electors free and equal election, but fails secure another part because the difference circumstances, what principle constitutional law makes unlawful pass other provisions counteract the circumstances, and secure the true purpose the Constitution? Good sense, good order and sound morality require this diversity regulation when secures the end; and great fallacy substitute uniformity regulation for free and equal election. 
Id. 75-76. The General Assembly passed commonsense regulatory scheme secure free and equal elections. designating numerous types acceptable documents, Act attempts ensure that all qualified electors, they desire, have the opportunity and ability cast ballot. Although allowing for the possibility that qualified electors will provide different evidence prove their identity not "equal" its means, the scheme passed the General Assembly seeks ensure that each vote cast qualified elector counted. other words, the law, the end, secures free and equal elections. Act therefore constitutional under the Court's holding Patterson. addition, the Commonwealth Court concluded the same. Determination 64-65. 

Act creates framework which qualified elector who casts ballot presents evidence that he, fact, the qualified elector claims be. The evidence determined the General Assembly document that: (1) was issued the United States, the Commonwealth Pennsylvania, municipality the Commonwealth employee that municipality, accredited Pennsylvania institution higher education, Pennsylvania care facility; and (2) generally contains the name and photograph the qualified elector well expiration date. addition, qualified elector does not have one the various, acceptable types documents needed cast ballot, Act permits that qualified elector cast provisional ballot, which will counted when the qualified elector affirms affidavit within six calendar days that was the individual who cast the provisional ballot. other words, Act "designates ... the evidence which shall identify and prove ... the persons and the qualifications the electors." Patterson, Pa. 75. does not entitle individuals vote who are not qualified electors. Nor does preclude individuals who are qualified electors from being entitled vote. Act simply seeks ensure that only qualified electors participate elections. Importantly, the Commonwealth Court could have not agreed any more. Determination (The Commonwealth Court stated that Appellants claim that Act improperly adds qualification vote "has merit whatsoever."). 
CONCLUSION this Court has previously declared, "The power regulate elections legislative, and has always been exercised the law-making branch the government." Winston, 244 Pa. 
454. promote voter confidence the election process, the General Assembly decided that qualified elector must provide evidence his identity when casts his ballot. addition, 
designated the various types documents qualified elector may provide when casts his 
ballot. other words, the General Assembly did more than use its undoubted authority 
pass legislation that regulates elections. 
Importantly, the Commonwealth Court agreed. The court found Act more 
than law regulating elections and well within the General Assembly's authority regulate 
elections. Specifically, the lower court held, "Act does not attempt alter amend the 
Pennsylvania Constitution's substantive voter qualifications, but rather merely election 
regulation verify voter's identity." Determination 35-36. addition, the court 
concluded, "Act does not attempt alter the state constitution's substantive voter 
qualifications. Instead election regulation designed verify voter's identity." Id. 36. 
Simply put, the commonsense policy choice the General Assembly was not gross abuse 
its authority. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Amici respectfully requests that this Court 
affirm the lower court's ruling. 
Dated: September 2012 Hoppe, Jr. 
Attorney I.D. No. 62082 Hoppe Martin, LLP Orange Street, Suite 215 Sovereign Bank Building Media, 19063 
(610) 497-3579 
Counsel for Amici Curiae Counsel: 
Paul Orfanedes Michael Bekesha JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
425 Third Street S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 
(202) 646-5172 THE SUPREME COURT PENNSYLVANIA 

VIVIETTE APPLEWHITE; WILOLA 
SHINHOLSTER LEE;GLORIA CUTIINO; 
NADINE MARSH; BEA BOOKLER; Docket No. map 2012 
JOYCE BLOCK; HENRIETTA KAY 
DICKERSON; DEVRA MIREL ("ASHER") 
SCHOR; THE LEAGUE WOMEN VOTERS PENNSYLVANIA; NATIONAL 
ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADV CEMENT COLORED PEOPLE, PENNSYLVANIA 
STATE CONFERENCE; 
HOMELESS ADVOCACY PROJECT, 
Appellants, 
THE COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA; 
THOMAS CORBETT, His Capacity 
Governor; CAROL AICHELE, Her Capacity 
Secretary The Commonwealth, 
Appellees. certify that this day, September 2012, serving the foregoing BRIEF AMICI CURIAE upon the persons below via first-class, U.S. mail, postage prepaid, which service satisfies the requirement Pa. R.A.P. 121: 
Witold Walczak ACLU Pennsylvania 313 Atwood Street Pittsburg, 15213 
Jennifer Clarke Benjamin Geffen Public Interest Law Center Philadelphia 1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, 19103 
Marian Schneider Advancement Project 295 Swedesford Road, 348 
Wayne, 19087 
Penda Hair 
Denise Lieberman Advancement Project 
1220 Street, N.W., Suite 850 Washington, 20005 
David Gersch 
Arnold Porter LLP 
555 Twelfth Street, N.W. 
Washington, 20004 
Attorneys for Appellanls 
Patrick Cawley Calvin Koons Linda Kelly John KnotT III 
Office Attorney General Strawberry Square, 15th Floor 
Harrisburg, 7120 
Kevin Schmidt 
Governor's Office General Counsel 17th Floor, 333 Market Street Harrisburg, 1710 
Attorneys for Appellees