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

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Constitution Needed a Judicial Assist

Edward B. Foley

“The majority contends that its counterintuitive reading of ‘the Legislature’ is necessary to advance the ‘animating principle’ of popular sovereignty.” With this sentence in his dissent (at page 14), Chief Justice Roberts gets to the heart of the debate in today’s 5-4 decision in the Arizona redistricting case.

more commentary...

In the News

David  Stebenne

Can Kasich win all 88 Ohio counties?

Professor David Stebenne was quoted in an Ohio Watchdog article about the possibility of Governor John Kasich winning all 88 Ohio counties in his re-election bid.

“It’s really hard to do,” he said. “As popular as the governor is and as weak as his opponent is, I doubt he’ll carry all 88 (counties).”

Stebenne said Ohio has some unusual counties, which tend to be really Democratic or really Republican.

He said a good example was the election of 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower carried 87 of 88 Ohio counties.

“He lost one of the Appalachian counties — a poor county where the residents tend to vote Democratic no matter what,” Stebenne said. “There was even some humorous discussion in the Oval Office about that one county.”

Glenn and Voinovich were “the two most popular candidates in modern history,” he added, “and they each only did it once. While Kasich is popular, he really doesn’t have the broad appeal that these two did.”

Stebenne said that both Voinovich and Kasich come from communities that tend to be more Democratic in voter registration, but that Kasich’s first race for governor was more divisive than the races for Voinovich.

“Voinovich had electoral success in Cleveland and as governor because he was able to persuade Democrats to vote Republican,” he said. “Glenn had national appeal across party lines.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Fifth Circuit Affirms that Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act

Today, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the Texas voter ID case of Veasey v. Abbott, affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court\'s decision. The Fifth Circuit disagreed that Texas\' voter ID law is a poll tax under the 14th and 24th Amendments. The Court also vacated the District Court\'s judgment that the law was passed with a racially discriminatory purpose, remanding the case for a determination using the proper legal standard and evidence. However, the Court agreed that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act due to its discriminatory effect. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case for the District Court to determine the appropriate remedy.

more info & analysis...