IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Viviette Applewhite; Wilola Shinholster Lee; Grover Freeland; Gloria Cuttino; Nadine Marsh; Dorothy Barksdale; Bea Bookler; Joyce Block; Henrietta Kay Dickerson; Devra Mirel ("Asher") Schor; the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Pennsylvania State Conference; : Homeless Advocacy Project, : Petitioners y. 1 No. 330 M.D. 2012 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : HEARD: July 25, 2012 Thomas W. Corbett, in his capacity as Govemor; Carole Aichele, in her capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, Respondents BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON FILED: August 15, 2012 DETERMINATION on APPLI for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIO! Presently before this Court is a request for preliminary injunctive relief filed by several individuals' and organizations? (collectively, Petitioners), ' When Petitioners filed their complaint, the individual Petitioners were Vivietle Applewhite, Wilola Shinholster Lee, Grover Freeland, Gloria Cuttino, Nadine Marsh, Dorothy (Footnote continued on next page...)supported by various friends of the court,’ seeking to enjoin Respondents," the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Thomas W. Corbett and Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele and their agents, servants, and officers, from enforcing or otherwise implementing the Act of March 14, 2012, P.L. 195, No. 18 (Act 18), which requires citizens voting in-person on election day to present one of several specified forms of photo identification (ID). (continued...) Barksdale, Bea Bookler, Joyce Block, Henrietta Kay Dickerson, and Devra Mirel (“Asher”) Schor. By agreement of the parties, the Court entered an order granting voluntary nonsuit as to the claims of Petitioners Dorothy Barksdale and Grover Freeland during the course of the hearings on Petitioners’ request for preliminary injunetive relief, ? The organizational Petitioners are the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Pennsylvania State Conference, and the Homeless Advocacy Project. 3 The City of Philadelphia and Stephanie Singer, Chair of the City Commissioners; Senior Law Center, AARP, Pennsylvania Association of Area Agencies on Aging, Center for Advocacy for The Rights and Interests of the Elderly, Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans, the Pennsylvania Homecare Association, Eldemet of Lower Merion and Narberth, The Institute for Leadership Education, Advancement and Development, Intereommunity ‘Action, Inc, and Jewish Social Policy Action Network; Pennsylvania AFL-CIO; Dennis Baylor; Stephen J. Shapiro, In his Capacity as Judge of Election for district 635, Tredyfirin Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania; Chelsa Wagner, Allegheny County Controller; and, State Representative Anthony H, Williams and 18 Pennsylvania State Representatives, filed briefs as amici curiae in support of Petitioners, * State Representative Daryl Metealfe and 49 Pennsylvania State Representatives; George W. Ellis, Pro Se; and Bipartisan Group of Electors, filed briefs as amici curiae in support of Respondents.I Background A. Factual and Procedural History On May 1, 2012, less than two months after the enactment of Act 18, Petitioners commenced this action by filing a 5l-page “Petition for Review Addressed to the Court’s Original Jurisdiction” (complaint). On the same day, Petitioners filed an application for special relief in the nature of a preliminary injunction. Through their complaint, the individual Petitioners aver they lack an acceptable form of photo ID, which is now required to vote in-person under Act 18. As a result, the individual Petitioners allege they will be disenfranchised or severely burdened by Act 18’s photo ID requirement. For their part, the organizational Petitioners allege that the enactment of Act 18 caused them to reallocate and devote substantial resources to educating their members and the public about Act 18"s requirements. Additionally, the organizational Petitioners aver they may have members whose right to vote is impermissibly burdened by Act 18. Petitioners allege Act 18’s photo ID requirement will disenfranchise and deter qualified Pennsylvanians from exercising their fundamental right to vote, which is expressly guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution. They assert the crucial facts are straightforward and largely undisputed. By any count, Petitioners aver, the individual Petitioners are among hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians who are eligible to vote, but who lack an acceptable form of ID