Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to Pennsylvania’s 2012 Voter ID Law and held that the Commonwealth Court had to reassess, on a developed record, whether identification cards were actually available through procedures providing liberal access. The Court vacated the denial of preliminary injunctive relief and remanded for further proceedings, directing that an injunction be entered if implementation threatened to disenfranchise qualified voters.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Commonwealth Court abused its discretion by denying preliminary injunctive relief based primarily on predictive assurances concerning implementation of the Voter ID Law.
- Whether the disconnect between Act 18's liberal-access requirements and the Commonwealth's actual identification-card procedures required a present factual assessment of whether qualified voters would be disenfranchised.
- Whether a facial constitutional challenge may be sustained, and preliminary injunctive relief granted, when a statute's short-term implementation violates constitutional norms even if the statute might be validly enforced in the future.
Holdings
- An appellate court reviews an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion.
- The denial of preliminary injunctive relief could not stand because the Commonwealth Court had relied on a predictive judgment and governmental assurances rather than making a present assessment, on a developed record, of the actual availability and accessibility of alternate identification cards.
- A facial constitutional challenge may be sustainable when a statute violates constitutional norms in the short term, even if the statute might be validly enforced at a later time; in that circumstance, a preliminary injunction may be an appropriate remedy.
Factual background
Pennsylvania's Act 18 of 2012 generally required most registered voters to present photo identification before voting. Although the statute contemplated liberal, no-cost access to PennDOT identification cards for registered electors lacking identification, PennDOT continued to apply a rigorous documentary-verification process. State officials acknowledged that the statute was not being implemented according to its terms and that some eligible voters would be unable to obtain identification, prompting the Commonwealth to develop an alternative Department of State identification card shortly before the upcoming election.
Procedural history
Appellants filed a Petition for Review in the Commonwealth Court challenging the constitutional validity of Act 18 and sought a preliminary injunction against its implementation. After an evidentiary hearing, a single Commonwealth Court judge denied relief based on a predictive judgment that voter education and remedial identification-card efforts would prevent disenfranchisement. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated that order and returned the matter for a present assessment on a developed record.
Remand instructions
The Commonwealth Court was directed to make a present assessment, on a developed record and in light of experience since the alternate cards became available, whether the procedures for deploying the cards provided the liberal access required by the General Assembly and whether implementation would disenfranchise voters. If the procedures did not provide liberal access, or if the court remained unconvinced that disenfranchisement would be avoided, it was required to enter a preliminary injunction. The Commonwealth Court was directed to file a supplemental opinion by October 2, 2012, and further appeals were to be expedited.