OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Applewhite v. Pennsylvania

Case Information

Date Filed: May 1, 2012
State: Pennsylvania
Issue: Voter ID
Courts that Heard this Case: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Case 330 MD 2012); Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Case 71 MAP 2012)

Issue:

Whether Pennsylvania's newly passed state voter ID law violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and whether or not the law can go into effect for the 2012 general election.

Status:

Petition for Review filed 5/1/12. Trial scheduled for 7/25/12. Motion for preliminary injunction denied 8/15/12. Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court of Pennsylvania filed 8/16/12. Order granting motion to expedite and setting briefing schedule filed 8/23/12. Oral argument set for 9/13/12. Appellant's brief filed 8/30/12. Appellee's briefs filed 9/7/12. Order Vacating Judgment and Remanding Case filed 9/18/12. Opinion and Order Granting Preliminary Injunction filed 10/2/12. Trial on Permanent Injunction scheduled for July 2013. Joint stipulation that preliminary injunction will continue through May primary election filed 2/14/13. Preliminary injunction granted 8/16/13. Respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed 8/30/13. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed 8/30/13. Opinion and order granting permanent injunction filed 1/17/14. Respondent's Application for Hearing before En Banc Panel filed 2/3/14. Petitioners' Opposition to Respondents' Application for Hearing before En Banc Panel filed 2/6/14. Petitioners' Brief filed 2//28/14. Order Denying Application for Relief filed on 3/11/14. Opinion and Order Denying Respondents' Post-Trial Motion filed 4/28/14. Governor Corbett declines to appeal, announced 5/8/14.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Documents

Commonwealth Court Documents

Related News

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Symposium: Wechsler, history and gerrymandering

A post written by Professor Edward Foley was published on SCOTUSblog.

“When we look back on the half-century since Sullivan, we see a legacy in which the Supreme Court itself contributed to America’s growth as a people committed to political freedom. Sullivan is entrenched as precedent precisely because it is now indelibly part of our national self-understanding," Foley writes. "For Gill to be successful like Sullivan, it too will need to become woven into our sense of America as a democracy. The way for Gill to accomplish this is to declare: 'Although the original Gerry-mander was never tested in this Court, the attack on its validity has carried the day in the court of history.' If the court says this, then 50 years from now—thanks in large part to Gill itself—we may have matured into the genuinely representative democracy we are still striving to be.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a gerrymandering case involving Wisconsin state legislative districts. The court also granted a request by the state to temporarily block the lower court\'s decision until the appeal is resolved. The case is Gill v. Whitford.

more info & analysis...