The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Philadelphia Officials Preparing for ‘Messy’ Election Day

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

As Pennsylvania’s voter identification law goes into effect Tuesday – without enforcement of its key provision after a Commonwealth Court decision last month – Philadelphia city officials put out the message that while judges of election can ask for photo IDs, non-first-time voters can’t be required to present IDs in order to vote.

Even before the new voter ID law was passed, first-time voters needed to show some form of identification.

District Attorney Seth Williams said 60 members of his staff will be available to respond in mobile units to any type of reports of voter intimidation or other problems. A county detective and a prosecutor will be paired to respond to such reports, Williams said at a press conference today.

Williams said his office will prosecute charges, if appropriate, such as assault, vote fraud, harassment, terroristic threats and voter intimidation. Voters can make complaints to the District Attorney’s Office by calling 215-686-9641, 215-686-9643, 215-686-9644 or 215-686-9884, according to the District Attorney’s Office.

The Committee of Seventy’s Zack Stalberg said it likely will be a “messy” election. “We’re talking about a race neck-and-neck” between President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Stalberg said. “Additionally, we’re talking about a state that has seemed to move back to the swing state category.”

Any election-related questions from across Pennsylvania can be made by calling 1-866-687-8683, according to the Committee of Seventy.

City Commissioner Stephanie Singer, chairwoman of the office that runs elections for Philadelphia, said that, despite rumors to the contrary, Philadelphia voters can opt for a straight-party ticket and have their vote for all of the candidates from that party counted. There is a straight-ticket option available to those who wish to vote solely for Democrats, Republicans, Greens, independents or Libertarians.

Amaris Elliott-Engel can be contacted at 215-557-2354 or [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @AmarisTLI.

Voter ID Ads Could Continue Until Election Day

By Saranac Hale Spencer
Of the Legal Staff

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson this morning declined to hasten the pace for deciding on a motion filed by challengers to Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law asking him to enforce the injunction he issued earlier this month keeping the law from taking effect this November.

The challengers, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a petition late last week requesting that the court enforce the order because the state hasn’t amended the advertising campaign it began earlier this year to reflect the change to the law’s implementation.

The petition asks Simpson to order the state to send corrective literature to voters who have gotten mailings indicating they will have to show ID to vote, immediately stop any advertising that tells voters they must have ID in November, and reword robo-calls to clearly state that an ID won’t be required for the upcoming election, among other things.

Simpson asked the state to respond by October 30 and the challengers quickly followed that order by filing a motion to speed up the time frame. Because October 30 is only a week before the election, they argued, if the court were to grant the motion to enforce the injunction, there wouldn’t be enough time to correct what they contend are misleading advertisements indicating that voters will need to show a photo ID before casting a ballot.

“Petitioners’ petition for supplemental injunction to enforce court’s October 2, 2012, order implicates new legal issues,” Simpson said in a two-page order, explaining that he wanted to offer the state sufficient time to respond.

“I exercised my discretion to reduce respondents’ time to respond from the standard 30 days … to six days,” Simpson said.

Battle Over Voter ID Law Could Continue Until Election Eve

By Saranac Hale Spencer
Special to the Legal

An order to the state to show cause from Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson today was quickly followed by a motion from the challengers to Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law to accelerate the timeline.

Simpson asked the state to respond by October 30 to the challengers’ October 19 petition to enforce his injunction issued earlier this month, which will keep the law from taking effect for the November 6 election.

Because October 30 is only a week before the election, if the court were to grant the motion to enforce the injunction, there wouldn’t be enough time to correct what challengers contend are misleading advertisements indicating that voters will need to show a photo ID before casting a ballot.

Earlier this month, Simpson enjoined the voter ID law from taking effect for the November election and the challengers to the law were optimistic that the state would change its advertising to alert the public.

However, the state hasn’t amended the advertising campaign that it began earlier this year to reflect the change to the law’s implementation, the petitioners, which include the American Civil Liberties Union, alleged in their October 19 petition.

The petition asks Simpson to order the state to send corrective literature to voters who have gotten mailings indicating that they will have to show ID to vote, immediately stop any advertising that tells voters they must have ID in November, and reword robo-calls to clearly state that an ID won’t be required for the upcoming election, among other things.

“This really is a situation where justice delayed is justice denied,” Witold “Vic” Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in a prepared statement. “Even a favorable ruling next week will be too late to undo the damage.”

Voter ID Case Back On – State Must Correct Its Advertising

By Saranac Hale Spencer
Of the Legal Staff

Petitioners who challenged Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law are back in court after winning an injunction earlier this month because, they argue, the state is confusing voters by neglecting to correct its ad campaign about the photo identification requirements that will not be enforced for the coming election.

“The radio silence from the commonwealth about the abrupt change in voting requirements occasioned by the court’s October 2 injunction, and the failure to affirmatively correct six months of what is now false information about the need to have photo ID to vote on November 6 is indefensible and reasonably likely to disenfranchise voters without photo ID who have been led to believe they cannot vote and thus are likely not to bother trying,” according to the petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other public interest groups that fought the law.

After being denied by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson in their effort to secure an injunction that would have stopped enforcement of the measure, challengers prevailed after the state Supreme Court remanded the case to Simpson with strict instructions.

Simpson’s October order means the law’s implementation will be the same as it was during the primary elections earlier this year, during which voters could be asked for ID, but didn’t need to show one in order to cast a ballot.

However, the state hasn’t amended the advertising campaign it began earlier this year to reflect the change to the law’s implementation, the petitioners allege.

“Petitioners’ counsel has received dozens of complaints from people that they have heard and seen radio and television ads that still say voters need photo ID to vote,” according to the petition filed today.

Just after Simpson issued the injunction, Ron Ruman, of the Department of State, said the state would review its ad campaign. He said it would focus on the radio and television spots that are airing because those have language indicating the IDs will be “required” in November, whereas the billboards and transit signs will likely stand.

“If we can’t get cooperation” from the state on amendments to the ad campaign, then the petitioners might file an appeal, said Witold “Vic” Walczak, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania, during a telephone press conference after the injunction came down.

“The commonwealth’s information campaign has been re-tooled to conform to the injunction, but the changes have been so slight and subtle that they do not and cannot effectively offset and counter the widely publicized pre-injunction messaging that voters without photo ID will not be permitted to vote in November,” according to the petition.

The petition asks Simpson to order the state to send corrective literature to voters who have gotten mailings indicating they will have to show ID to vote, immediately stop any advertising that tells voters they must have ID in November, and re-word robo-calls to clearly state that an ID won’t be required for the upcoming election, among other things.

They asked that the state respond by noon on Monday.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Thursday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is an analysis of the general election and the challenges it poses to attorney general candidates Kathleen Kane and David Freed. As reporter Ben Present writes, observers indicate that the Republican Party cares more about the position than any other row office. The GOP has held the position since it became an elected posted in 1980.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the out-of-county judge presiding over the First Judicial District’s legal malpractice suit over the Philadelphia family courthouse project said the first Supreme Court justice to preside over the initiative, Sandra Schultz Newman, is not entitled to protective order from having to give a deposition.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that the state Supreme Court has granted allocatur in a negligent infliction of emotional distress insurance case.

Also below the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel has the latest from the priest sex-abuse trial. Yesterday, a witness testified he was not warned about defrocked priest Edward V. Avery.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that claims against British Airways are time-barred under an international agreement governing aviation.

Also on Page 3, Ben Present writes that Penn State has again lost a venue fight after a judge ruled the First Judicial District was not an inconvenient forum for the university.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

On the Paralegals Page, Judy Stouffer writes that the time has come to consider digitizing your law firm’s case files, while Christine Flynn writes about the benefits of paper records and the pitfalls of their digital counterparts in a point-counterpoint.

In a Young Lawyer Editorial Board column on Page 7, the board writes about the challenges and opportunities of shingle hanging for those fresh out of law school.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Voters to Decide AG Primary Tuesday

By Ben Present
Of the Legal Staff

On the day before an increasingly heated Democratic attorney general primary race is settled, a snowy forecast for Western Pennsylvania echoed a theme prevalent throughout the entire race: low visibility.

Tuesday, voters will tap one of two Democrats – former Lackawanna County Prosecutor Kathleen Kane or former U.S. Representative Patrick Murphy – to take on David Freed, the Republican who hopes to continue what has been a clean sweep for the GOP since the office became an elected one. And despite what political observers have called the best chance for a Democrat to replace the Republicans for attorney general, a number of distinctions between Kane and Murphy and no shortage of on-air negative advertising to point them out had one political observer saying there was simply no way to predict who is ahead.

“I don’t think the Democratic voters have a clear sense about these candidates,” said G. Terry Madonna, the director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster. “In a low turnout [situation], who can get to the polls certainly matters.”

Madonna noted there were a number of interesting issues over which the hopefuls have been duking it out, but questioned whether any of it was hitting voters to an extent that could turn Tuesday’s primary. Something like increased female turnout, he suggested, might have just as significant an impact as the millions of dollars candidates have spent on TV.

Madonna pointed to issues such as contraception and abortion, which are resonating with Democratic women voters in recent weeks, noting those would favor Kane.

But that may or may not play into Tuesday’s primary, he added, reiterating that political watchers have little to go off of to predict the winner.

“If you’re not getting answers out of those of us who follow politics, it means two things,” Madonna said. “It means we don’t have good polls” and that it’s a low-visibility race.

What information voters do have would likely be from television.

Kane, through several TV advertisements, has called out Murphy for not having prosecuted a case in Pennsylvania and for having taken the Minnesota bar exam. Boasting an endorsement from former President Clinton, Kane used television advertising to point out her 13 years in the Lackawanna County District Attorney’s Office and the 3,000 prosecutions under her belt.

Murphy’s televised attack has focused on a $500 donation Kane made to the campaign of Governor Tom Corbett’s re-election campaign for attorney general in 2008. He said Kane presented an inflated resume to the public by saying she prosecuted 3,000 cases and called her family’s trucking company “anti-union.”

On Monday, both were in the state’s Democratic epicenter at some point.

A Kane spokesman told The Legal the campaign would hit Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Scranton by the close of business Monday.

Murphy, now an attorney at Fox Rothschild, planned to spend Monday night knocking on doors in his native Northeast Philadelphia, a campaign spokesman said.

Meanwhile, both campaigns offered levity facing a late-April snowstorm in the already-uncertain western part of the state.

“We talked to the folks out in Western Pennsylvania,” said Nat Binns, a Murphy spokesman. “They’re not scared of a little snow.”

Binns was referring to campaign volunteers. He was optimistic voters would feel the same.

Josh Morrow, a Kane spokesman, also shrugged off the forecast, noting it was set to taper off by Tuesday afternoon.

Morrow said Kane’s campaign was heading into the primary with the momentum, pointing to the Clinton endorsement.

“The candidate with the momentum usually wins,” he said.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Thursday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is the First Judicial District leaders deciding not to change the FJD’s foreclosure program. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, the leadership had planned to put time limits on mandatory conciliation in cases of a Philadelphia homeowner facing mortgage foreclosure. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judges John W. Herron and Allan L. Tereshko said in a notice to the bar Tuesday that they were not going to change the widely praised residential mortgage foreclosure diversion program.

Below the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that a second witness testified that he reported alleged abuse to Monsignor William J. Lynn. The witness, M.B., was the second to say he was abused by defrocked priest Stanley Gana and reported it to Lynn when Lynn was the secretary of clergy from 1992 to 2004 and was in charge of priests’ assignments.

U.S. Representative Patrick Murphy responded to The Legal’s questionnaire for the attorney general candidates. His responses are available here.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Gina Passarella writes that an ex-Pittsburgh Steeler has won workers’ compensation benefits but not attorney fees, because he went on to play for other pro teams and was therefore not disabled.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Legal Marketing column on Page 5, Adrian Dayton of Legal affiliate The National Law Journal writes about building better lawyer bios to give potential clients the information they want.

In a Young Lawyer column on Page 7, Ellie Austin writes the last part in her series, “Making the Leap,” about leaving her first legal job and entering back into the uncertain world of job hunting.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Today's paper also includes the Workers' Compensation supplement.

The top story in today’s Legal is reporter Ben Present’s look at the state attorney general race, in which candidates Kathleen Kane and David Freed diverge on health care and the investigation of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Both candidates answered questionnaires, which appear in full in the paper.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that an ex-priest said Monday that he reported alleged abuse to Monsignor William J. Lynn, a defendant in the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia sex-abuse case. The ex-priest said he left the priesthood because one of his colleagues, whom he claims abuse him for four years, was not removed from ministry by church officials.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that Stevens & Lee has filed a sanctions motion against Elliott Greenleaf and its chairman for alleging that a partner who left Elliott Greenleaf for Stevens & Lee misused escrow funds. This is the latest chapter in an ongoing battle between the two sides.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a federal judge has ruled in favor of South Philadelphia sandwich shop Steak’em Up in a trademark suit filed by national frozen food giant Steak-umm.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an E-Discovery column on Page 5, Ross Cunningham and Elizabeth Lemoine write about preparing for e-discovery supplemental obligations.

In a Litigation column on Page 7, Harrie Samaras and Judy Weintraub write about what you need to know about selecting a mediator for ADR.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the state Supreme Court grappling with PTSD benefits for police during oral arguments last week. As Ben Present writes, the question of “abnormal working conditions” and “extraordinary” events loom large.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that the plaintiffs bar is criticizing the state Supreme Court’s ruling that courts must consider a product’s multiple uses when assessing that product’s risk. Some plaintiffs attorneys have said it gives defendants an unfair advantage.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes that a Lackawanna County judge has ruled that a pair of Pennsylvania homeowners may proceed with their claim that Wells Fargo committed a breach of contract by failing to offer the permanent changes to their mortgage payments after a trial period with lower rates.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he says a lawyer must be careful if paying a non-expert witness; Sam Pond and Allison Wheeler’s workers’ compensation commentary about proposed legislation extending treatment time that promotes “doctor shopping”; a defamation suit against a mortgage company pre-empted by the FCRA; a ruling that PennDOT highway plans were de facto taking; and Jeff Jubelirer’s public relations commentary about how to respond to commenters.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Thursday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is the state Supreme Court granting allocatur in a case in which it has been asked to stop a scientific debate over whether shale is a “mineral” before the debate even begins. As reporter Zack Needles writes, this could potentially lead to “chaos” according to one Pennsylvania lawyer, if it is determined that shale is in fact a mineral.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that Stevens & Lee and one of its partners have rebutted a lawsuit filed against them by Elliott Greenleaf over alleged theft of client files through remote software. Stevens & Lee have said the lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to interfere with client relationships the partner took with him when he left Elliott Greenleaf to join Stevens & Lee.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel details the graphic testimony heard yesterday in the priest sex-abuse trial.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Dan McCormick writes about a new scholarship initiative created by Archer & Greiner to award scholarships to diverse Temple University law students and allow them to work in the City of Philadelphia Law Department as well as at the firm.

Also on Page 3, reporter Ben Present writes that a defamation suit filed by Daniel D. McCaffery has been allowed to move forward. McCaffery claims that the Philadelphia Board of Ethics and its executive director defamed him days before he came in second in the race for Philadelphia district attorney three years ago.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an Asset Management column on Page 5, Michael A. Gillen and Stanley V. Todd write that parallel IRS investigations have returned after a 35-year hiatus.

As it is Thursday, this week’s Young Lawyer column is on Page 7, as Martha “Frannie” Reilly writes about reasons to join a nonprofit board and concerns to address before doing so.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

House Speaker Blasts Supreme Court for Special Election Decision

By Ben Present
Of the Legal Staff

The speaker of the state House of Representatives issued a strongly worded statement Thursday accusing what he called an “activist majority” of the state Supreme Court of “creating a constitutional collision between two of the three constitutionally created co-equal branches of government.”

The statement follows the Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision Wednesday, delivered as a per curiam order, requiring Rep. Samuel H. Smith, R-Jefferson, to issue special election writs to fill six vacancies in the House of Representatives.

“Make no mistake,” Smith said, “they are tipping the scales of power in their own favor.”

Smith said the majority of the court ignored the high court’s own precedent in the ruling Wednesday. The court decided that a citizen’s right to be represented trumped an Election Code provision that Smith had argued would allow him to delay issuing any special election writs until after the state Legislative Reapportionment Commission issues a final plan.

Smith said Thursday that the court had still ignored thousands of voters, though, whom he said would be displaced by conducting elections on dated legislative maps. Last month, the justices indicated that the state’s primary elections would have to go along legislative districts created in 2001. Following failed federal challenges to the 4-3 court’s instruction, it seemed likely the primary would use the 2001 lines.

“While the court rightly expresses concern for those citizens of the six districts that are currently vacant, it showed no concern for the thousands of voters deprived of equal representation, many of whom have special minority status under the Voting Rights Act, in its order on the reapportionment plan recently discarded by this same majority,” Smith said. “That decision requires elections to be held in districts that, based on the 2010 census numbers, are wildly and undeniably unconstitutional.”

“Perhaps someday, the agenda of this activist majority will be unveiled,” he added.

In an interview with The Legal, Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille said he was “shocked” by Smith’s comments Thursday.

While Castille could not comment on the merits of the court’s decision because the matter is still before the justices, he did respond to Smith’s comment about the court’s “agenda.”

“There’s no hidden agenda anywhere,” Castille said. “I’d like to know where the hidden agenda might be.”

“I’ve always had great respect for Speaker Smith,” Castille added. “I don’t know what caused the speaker’s office to go to this extreme reaction because we did our constitutional duty as we saw it.”