Judging Voter ID
The judge in the controversial voter ID case is an interesting case himself.
Judging Voter ID
John Baer, Daily News Political Columnist
The state judge deciding the controversial and highly-political Pennsylvania voter ID case is an interesting political case himself.
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert "Robin" Simpson is a Republican who used to be a Democrat.
Seems fitting that he sits in judgement on a Republican-pushed law passed in the Legislature without a single Democratic vote.
The veteran jurist first was appointed to the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas in 1989 by Democratic Gov. Casey. (Here's a picture of him being sworn in.)
Simpson, of Nazareth, then cross-filed to run in the primary for the county bench that year, losing on the Democratic side but winning as a Republican.
In the fall of `89, he narrowly beat the brother of former Democratic state party chairman and former state lawmaker T.J. Rooney.
Rooney tells me the campaign included the Simpson camp educating local voters with a message that Simpson's opponent, Fred Rooney, was not the Fred Rooney who served the region in Congress for 15 years during the `60's and `70's.
That Fred Rooney was T.J.'s and judicial candidate Rooney's uncle.
Ever notice how many Pennsylvania pols have family in the same business?
Simpson was elected to the state court in 2001. He appeared on the ballot as Robin Simpson, which some suggest was to make statewide voters think he was a woman. He one won of three seats up that year with 17.8 percent of the vote, beating his closest rival, Pittsburgh Democrat James Dodaro, by 1.4 percentage points.
But Simpson is regarded as someone who doesn't play political favorites and has a record supporting that, including a 2008 decision in which he sided with ACORN (The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) in a case in which the state Republican Party disputed ACORN voter registration efforts.
His ruling in voter ID, expected the week of August 13, could end up being final since it will be appealed to the state Supreme Court which currently includes three Democrats and three Republicans. Ties at the higher court level usually mean the lower court decision stands.
Almost certainly a Simpson ruling in favor of Democrats will have some Republicans label him `the John Roberts of PA politics,' and a ruling in favor of Republicans will draw Democratic whines such as "what did you expect, he's a Republican."
But there appears to be little evidence in Simpson's background or demeanor to suggest he'll decide on a partisan basis.
Comment removed.- The ACORN matter was yet another case where ACORN was completely cleared. All the investigations that were launched after the rightwing smear campaign cleared ACORN.
The reason ACORN won was because there was no evidence of voter fraud. If this judge strikes down the Voter ID Law, it will be for the same reason- because there is no evidence of voter fraud. The Republican Attorney general admitted that before her office had to defend this law in court.— Blanketman - Comment removed.
- (almost) An outright lie.
The state didn't even mention ACORN
ACORN lost it's funding when a Republican lied about sex in the name of god.
(Didn't that Republican die a sudden and young death?)
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/No-Wrongdoing-in-ACORN-Prostitute-Scandal-85864572.html
— Cuddles - Comment removed.
- As Cuddles pointed out, the GOP in Congress pushed through the bill to defund ACORN before the Congressional investigation which, like EVERY SINGLE OTHER INVESTIGATION, cleared it, 100%.
A lot of folks who don't get all their news from FOX know that ACORN was cleared after it was smeared. We have already figured out that O'Keefe and Breitbart faked the whole thing, so quite peddling your lies about ACORN here. We have seen the results of the investigations, so your BS doesn't fly here.
If there was evidence of ACORN doing ANYTHING here in PA, then the PA AG's Office wouldn't have had to admit that they have NO EVIDENCE of any voter fraud. This voter ID law was based on lies and those lies are now coming apart in court. If you guys had ANYTHING, then why didn't you bring it to court?— Blanketman - Did you actually watch the CNN coverage till the END of the ACORN "smear and clear? — Blanketman
- Comment removed.
- "Robin Simpson"...He knows the gimmicks
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's amazing, from a Supreme Court perspective anyway, how many judges become more liberal.
Funny that the state didn't even mention ACORN, which was actually (the fine point of the law and all that jazz) registration "fraud" that did NOT result in one fraudulent vote.
We now have the perspective of the very case itself: The state did not put up one voter as a witness.
June 28, 2012.
— Cuddles - there is absolutely no way the state should win this case. Sec. Aichele went out there and completely embarrassed the state and herself. The ACLU killed them in court. Anybody who votes in favor of voter ID, votes against democracy.— Ryan
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- There is a big difference between the state claiming something and proving it to be true. The state comnpletely failed to show that the law wasn't burdensome. They had a witness claim that it wasn't, but she fell apart and had to admit that she had no idea how many people had IDs or even what constituted a legal ID under the law! This was the secretary of state who is supposed to administer it? What a joke! She was the ONLY WITNESS the state presented. On the other hand, the plaintiffs had many witnesses who gave specific proof that there were obstacles to getting a legal ID. They also PROVED that there were a million legal voters in PA without ID. The state had to admit before the case began that it had NO EVIDENCE of voter fraud.
So what case does the state actually have? What plaintiffs have failed to do in previous challenges to voter ID is substantiate the claim that actual people were facing hurdles to getting an ID and show the numbers of who would be affected. In this case, the plaintiffs did their homework and have proven their case. furthermore, they have managed to push the state to admit that it has NO EVIDENCE of voter fraud.
If the court doesn't throw this Jim-Crow law out after the state failed to prove any of their claims or refute any of the plaintiffs', then that will be the biggest kangeroo court decision since Bush v. Gore.— Blanketman
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
