Judge Robert Simpson has declined to block Pennsylvania's new voter ID law. I'm only a little bit surprised. Having covered the trial (for a few days), I saw the petitioners (against the law) give a strong case, focusing on the difficulty of getting hundreds of thousands of voters sorted out before a November election. The state based its argument on the 2008 Crawford case, arguing that you couldn't possibly strike down a law just because some voters would be inconvenienced -- voting is inconvenient!
What does the state's win mean, effectively? The ACLU will eventually take its case to the state Supreme Court, which (due to a scandal surrounding one member) is split 3-3, Democratic and Republican members. If the court splits on this law, the Simpson decision is reaffirmed.
When the 70-page decision is available online, it will be up at that link.
Update: Here's the decision. How did the Republican House Majority Leader's boast that the law would help Mitt Romney play out?