POLITICS PA: The docket sheet read: “After hearing and after consideration of the oral and written arguments of counsel, it is ordered and decreed as follows: Petitioners’ Application for Preliminary Injunction is denied.” He also pointed to the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding an Indiana Voter ID law despite the absence – and proof of the absence – of voter fraud in the state. Simpson said the lack of fraud does not mean that the law cannot stand Furthermore, to have obtained the injunction, six criteria must be have been met by the plaintiffs. It must be proved that the injunction is the only way to prevent “immediate and irreparable” damage that cannot be compensated with monetary reward; that greater harm would come from not granting the injunction; that the injunction will restore both parties to the “status quo” that existed before (in this case, before the law was passed); that the petitioner is likely to prevail in a full trial on the merits of their case; that the injunction is reasonably suited to prevent the “offending activity”; and that the public interest will not be harmed if the injunction is granted. Simpson ruled that the plaintiffs failed to meet three of the standards. MORE
RELATED: Judge Simpson’s Opinion [DOWNLOAD]
PREVIOUSLY: The Fraudulent Fox Voter Fraud Unit
PREVIOUSLY: Top PA Election Official Admits Under Oath She Doesn’t Know What The New Voter ID Law Says
PREVIOUSLY: State Admits Voter ID Is A Law In Search Of A Crime
PREVIOUSLY: CHINESE DEMOCRACY: New GOP-Sponsored Voter ID Law Could Disenfranchise 758,000 PA Voter