Civil & Human Rights

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Senator Michele Reagan (R-Scottsdale) is the sponsor of the Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, and has filed her own committee to defend her Voter Suppression Act, the purposefully misleadingly named Protect Our Secret Ballot committee (HB 2305 has nothing at all to do with secret ballots). The face of voter suppression in Arizona.

It turns out that more Tea-Publicans want in on the action suppressing voters in Arizona. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Elections
law supporters start second committee to defend it:

The referendum effort against the state’s
controversial new election law is now facing a two-pronged opposition,
as a second political action committee filed paperwork this week to
fight the referendum.

The new committee, Stop Voter Fraud, is headed up by a former staffer
for Jonathan Paton’s 2012 failed congressional campaign, Robert Mayer,
and Arizona GOP counsel Lee Miller. The group seeks to defend sweeping
changes to the state’s election laws that were adopted in the last
session.

Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, who sponsored several provisions
of the bill that was ultimately signed into law, is chairing another
committee, Protect Our Secret Ballot.

Miller confirmed that he and Mayer created the new committee over
differences among the law’s defenders about potential strategy.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

David Firestone at the New York Times delivers a damning critique of GOP voter suppression in North Carolina, in a case of "Tea-Publicans Gone Wild." North Carolina: First in Voter Suppression:

[A]s yesterday’s events in the state capital showed, one thing is
making a comeback: an old habit of suppressing the votes of minorities,
young people and the poor, all in the hopes of preserving Republican
power.

Freed of federal election supervision by the Supreme Court, the North
Carolina legislature passed a bill that combines every idea for
suppressing voter turnout that Republicans have advanced in other
states. Rick Hasen, an election-law expert at the University of
California, Irvine, called it “the most sweeping anti-voter law in at least decades.”

The law requires a government-issued photo ID card to vote, but doesn’t
allow student IDs, public-employee IDs, or photo IDs issued by public
assistance agencies. It shortens the early voting window, bans same-day
registration during early voting and prohibits paid voter registration
drives. Counties will not be able to extend voting hours in cases of
long lines, or allow provisional voting if someone arrives at the wrong
precinct. Poll “observers” are encouraged to challenge people who show
up to vote, and are given new powers to do so. [This would be the Tea Party True The Vote voter intimidation organization.]

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The voter ID trial in Pennsylvania has gone into extra innings, and is now expected to wrap up sometime next week. The AP reports Balancing voter ID law against voters' rights:

After nine days of testimony by state
government bureaucrats, nationally known experts on statistics and
communications and individual voters frustrated by the new photo ID
requirement, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley put the trial on
hold for a four-day weekend as lawyers prepare to sum up their cases in
closing arguments anticipated next week.

* * *

So far, the debate has been largely hypothetical – the court has blocked enforcement of the March 2012 law since before the presidential election – but the trial verdict will be a major step toward deciding whether it is allowed to take effect.

The law would require all voters to show a Pennsylvania driver's license or another acceptable photo ID with a current expiration date before they may cast ballots in an election. Voters who go to the polls without proper ID could only cast provisional ballots, which would be counted only if they provide local officials with an acceptable ID within six days after the election.