Sunday, October 21, 2012
Poll workers can ask for your photo identification but you still can cast your ballot without it.
One of the provisions of Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson's ruling on the state’s voting law will permit poll workers to ask for photo identification but allows voters to cast a ballot without subsequently having to show their ID. Simpson ruled Oct. 2 that Pennsylvania's tough new Voter ID Law should be put on hold until after the Nov. 6 general election. His decision strikes down two provisions of the law that would have required voters without identification to show their IDs within six days of voting or appear before the county board of elections. The state will still be allowed to educate voters about the new identification requirement. Supporters argue that the law signed by Gov. Tom Corbett in March will prevent voter fraud. …
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson talks about his decision, state House Majority Leader Mike Turzai's gives reaction—and see what Pennsylvanians are saying on Twitter.
Here are some stories from our sister Patch sites in eastern PA regarding Tuesday's decision by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson: Why Judge Simpson Delayed Voter ID Law GOP's Mike Turzai Issues Pa. Voter ID Statement Twitter Reacts to Voter ID Ruling Remember, Tuesday, Oct. 9, is the last day to register to vote or to change your voter information. _______________________ Sewickley Patch is on Facebook and on Twitter . Don't forget to sign up for our daily email newsletter by clicking here .
Commonwealth Court judge rules after hearing two days of testimony. An appeal to the state Supreme Court is possible.
A judge ruled today that Pennsylvania's tough new Voter ID Law should be put on hold until after the Nov. 6 general election, according to an Associated Press report. The ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court, which said it would expedite any further action in the case since Election Day is just five weeks away. Do you agree with the ruling? Tell us in the comments section below. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson heard two days of testimony last week, as directed by the Supreme Court, to determine whether the state has made it easy enough to get a photo ID in order to vote. Opponents say the law disenfranchises voters—especially the young, poor and elderly, who tend to vote for Democrats. Supporters say the law will …
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The state Supreme Court is pushing the Voter ID law back to Commonwealth Court for further review.
The state Supreme Court is pushing Pennsylvania's new Voter ID law back to Commonwealth Court for further review, multiple news organizations are reporting. A week after hearing oral arguments, the justices voted 4-2 to have the lower court once again review the measures included in the law. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson on Aug. 15 released his decision that parties challenging the Voter ID law were not able to prove it will cause “immediate and irreparable harm” to the electorate. However, the justices want the court to reconsider whether there are enough alternative forms of identification allowed by the law so as not to disenfranchise voters, according to PennLive.com. The order from the Supreme Court justices insinuates that …
Sunday, August 26, 2012
The motion to intervene was filed Friday.
Two state Republican leaders on Friday entered a motion to intervene in the appeal made by the state in the wake of a Commonwealth Court judge striking down provisions of the new Marcellus Shale law that dealt with local control of zoning—deeming them unconstitutional. State Senator Pro Temore Joe Scarnati and state Leader of the House Rep. Samuel H. Smith made the request to intervene in the appeal, which was filed a day after the Commonwealth Court ruled that portions of the new law was unconstitutional. The request was previously made to the Commonwealth Court, which found that Scarnati and Smith had no basis to intervene in the Act 13 litigation. To read the motion, click on the PDF attached. To read about the challenge, click here. To…
Friday, August 17, 2012
A caveat in state law had lawyers arguing in Commonwealth Court Wednesday over a legal technicality that left Act 13 provisions in effect despite an earlier ruling indicating they were unconstitutional.
Cecil attorney John Smith said Thursday that 99 out of 100 municipalities in Pennsylvania might not have realized it, but despite a Commonwealth Court ruling that struck down portions of Act 13—the state’s new Marcellus Shale law—as unconstitutional July 26, the provisions were still technically in effect the next day. That’s because of a caveat in state law dictating that the decisions of a lower court in which the state is a defendant are stayed until an appeal is hashed out. The state appealed the ruling July 27. That’s why Smith said he travelled to Harrisburg to argue that the Commonwealth Court reinstate its order—telling the judge that it would cause “chaos” at the municipal level and give officials a no-win scenario if the law was …
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
A former motel on the four-acre site remains shuttered.
A battle over a proposed development of the Sewickley Country Inn property on Ohio River Boulevard continues to wind its way through the court system years after lawsuits were filed appealing a zoning variance. Sewickley Solicitor Richard Tucker said he will appear in Commonwealth Court this afternoon in Pittsburgh to begin oral arguments in the matter of the former Sewickley Country Inn property at 801 Ohio River Boulevard. Borough Manager Kevin Flannery, who will also be there, said Monday night that ongoing litigation has cost the borough $50,000 in legal fees up to this point. Sewickley resident and attorney Michael Lyons and developer Clifford Krey in November 2009 each filed lawsuits against the borough and MCM Ventures Ltd. in …