Pennsylvania Voter Suppression law in court

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Law upheld as constitutional. Repeats over and over in the pdf.

No, it does not. The judge comments on the consitutionality, yes - but that's not what the judge ruled upon which was only the injunction

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had asked the judge to stop the law from taking effect as part of a constitutional challenge. Their complaint claims the law would make it disproportionately harder for seniors, minorities and others to vote in the Nov. 6 general election.

"Our concern is that you cannot wait until after Election Day to figure out that people lost their right to vote," says Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project, which is the co-counsel for the plaintiffs. "We wanted to make sure the voters of Pennsylvania were protected going into this election and that their right to vote wasn't encumbered by an unnecessary barrier."

Pennsylvania state court Judge Robert Simpson declined to rule on whether the law violates the state constitution. But in refusing to grant an injunction against the law, ...

etc, etc., he talks about the constitutionality. But the judge did not rule upon the constitutionality of this law. He declined to do so Please read page 68 of your PDF, which is the judges final order: it is only that the petition for injunction is denied - there is NO RULING on the constitutionality of this law.