Law is not being implemented according to its terms. I am not a lawyer, but I think you're supposed to implement a law according to its terms. And it cannot be a good thing when you have to admit you're not doing it in front of the state's supreme court. Also, too: Oops! However, preparations for the issuance of Department of State identification cards were still underway as of the time of the evidentiary hearing in the Commonwealth Court in this case, and the cards were not slated to be made available until approximately two months before the November election. Coincidence is a marvelous thing. Moreover, still contrary to the Law's liberal access requirement, applicants for a Department of State identification card may be initially vetted through the rigorous application process for a secure PennDOT identification card before being considered for a Department of State card, the latter of which is considered to be only a "safety net." Jesus, people, at least pretend this is serious business. Nevertheless, there is little disagreement with Appellants' observation that the population involved includes members of some of the most vulnerable segments of our society (the elderly, disabled members of our community, and the financially disadvantaged). Again, coincidence. How does it work anyway? Upon review, we find that the disconnect between what the Law prescribes and how it is being implemented has created a number of conceptual difficulties in addressing the legal issues raised. I do, too. Of course, that is a feature, not