June 1, 2011
BRIAN BOWLING, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
With Project Vote and other organizations gearing up to register voters in time for the 2012 presidential election, a federal judge promised today that she would rule “sooner rather than later” on the constitutionality of a state law that regulates how those organizations pay workers who register people to vote.
The plaintiffs in the case — Project Vote and former Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now local office director Maryellen Hayden — contend the so-called “quota” law is unconstitutional both because it bans paying workers based on the number of people they register and because its vaguely worded enough to support a prosecution for organizations that set performance goals for their workers.
The state contends that it can constitutionally ban organizations from paying workers commissions or bonuses based on the number of people they register because the practice encourages workers to submit fraudulent registrations and burdens the state`s electoral process.
On the second issue, the state contends that Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. misinterpreted the state law in 2009 when he charged six election workers with violating that part of the election law.
The workers were paid by ACORN, and that organization was the original plaintiff in the federal lawsuit. ACORN filed the lawsuit after Zappala said he was considering charging it with violating the state “quota” law.
Zappala agreed to drop the quota charges against the workers in return for being dropped from the federal lawsuit, but he successfully prosecuted the six people on fraud and forgery charges for submitting false voter registrations. ACORN later filed for bankruptcy and also withdrew from the lawsuit.
State Deputy Attorney General Howard Hopkirk argued today that Zappala`s misinterpretation of the state law doesn`t render it unconstitutional. Vic Walczak, an ACLU lawyer, countered that the lack of any official ruling on how the law applies opens the door for any other district attorney in the state to start a similar prosecution.
“This continues to be a real danger for anyone involved in third-party voter registration,” he said.
The state also has failed to present any evidence that paying workers based on the number of people they register would unduly burden election officials or otherwise increase the likelihood of corruption in the electoral system, he said.
“They`ve come forward with nothing,” he said.
Hopkirk said the state doesn`t have any evidence because no one has used a commission system in the state with the exception of one Republican party chairman who was prosecuted in Lancaster County about a decade ago. The state can use common sense and ban a practice without first seeing if it damages the electoral process.
“The Legislature has the right to stop harm before it happens,” he said.
U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer took their arguments under advisement and said she would rule on their competing motions for summary judgment in less than the 90 days it usually takes.
Read more of the original Pittsburgh Tribune Review article here.