II. Preliminary Injunction Standard
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a petitioner must establish that: (1) relief is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages; (2) greater injury will occur from refusing to grant the injunction than from granting it; (3) the injunction will restore the parties to their status quo as it existed before the alleged wrongful conduct; (4) the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits; (5) the injunction is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and, (6) the public interest will not be harmed if the injunction is granted. Brayman Constr. Com. v. Dep't of Transp.,
608 Pa. 584, 13 A.3d 925 (2011).
"For a preliminary injunction to issue, every one of these prerequisites must be established; if the petitioner fails to establish any one of them, there is no need to address the others."
Petitioners did not establish, however, that disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable. On the contrary, the more credible evidence on this issue was that offered through Commonwealth witnesses.16 I was convinced that effortsby the Department of State (DOS), the Department of Health, PennDOT, and other Commonwealth agencies and interested groups will fully educate the public, and that DOS, PennDOT and the Secretaries of those agencies will comply with the mandates of Section 206 of the Election Code. Further, I was convinced that Act 18 will be implemented by Commonwealth agencies in a non-partisan, even­handed manner.
In their post-hearing brief, Petitioners argue that the plan to create a new DOS photo ID is a legally insufficient basis to avoid a preliminary injunction. They rely primarily on out-of-state authority.18 Unfortunately, none of the cases upon which Petitioners rely involved a facial challenge to a presumably constitutional statute. Moreover, believable evidence regarding the new DOS photo ID is clearly relevant here to the "immediacy" or inevitability of harm element of proof. For these reasons, Petitioners' post-hearing argument is not persuasive.