Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Professor Richard L.
Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the
University of California, Irvine. Hasen is a nationally recognized
expert in election law and campaign finance regulation, and is co-author
of a leading casebook on election law. He is editor of the Election Law Blog.

Hasen writes at Slate today that "North Carolina’s new voter suppression law shows why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary." Supreme Error:

Usually it takes years to judge when the Supreme Court gets something very wrong. Think of Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the court in the 2010 campaign-finance case, Citizens United,
freeing corporations to spend money on elections. He wrote that the
“appearance of [corporate] influence or access will not cause the
electorate to lose faith in our democracy,” a point that remains hotly
debated even as the amount of money in federal elections skyrockets.

But the conservative justices’ decision this past June in Shelby County v. Holder, striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, has already unleashed in North Carolina the most restrictive voting law we’ve seen since the 1965 enactment of the VRA. Texas is restoring its voter ID law
which had been blocked (pursuant to the VRA) by the federal government.
And more is to come in other states dominated by Republican
legislatures.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post editorial board, which in no way can be mistaken for liberal, condemned North Carolina's "draconian" new voter suppression law today in a damning editorial opinion. North Carolina law takes war on voting rights to a new low:

IN THE wake of the Supreme Court’s
Shelby v. Holder
decision, which gutted significant portions
of the Voting Rights Act, it’s difficult to say which of the many
recently passed voter-suppression bills constitutes the greatest threat
to that most sacred of American freedoms: the right to vote. The contest
has several leading contenders, but the winner just might be North
Carolina’s especially draconian bill, signed into law on Monday.

The bill includes the usual provisions that have come to
characterize the quiet assault on the franchise: a shortened
early-voting period, the elimination of the state’s successful same-day
registration program and, of course, a strict photo identification
requirement despite any evidence of voter fraud in the state.

What makes this law unique is how much further it goes. It includes no fewer than 12 extra provisions
that prohibit such things as counties extending polling hours by one
hour in the event of unusual circumstances (such as, say, long lines);
provisional voting should someone, say, mistakenly go to the wrong
precinct; and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, who could
previously register to vote before they turned 18.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: We have an injunction issued by the court today, Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Barred From Enforcement In November Election By Judge: A state judge on Friday barred enforcement of Pennsylvania's strict voter-identification law in the Nov. 5 general election. The state also cannot require local elections officials to verbally tell voters at … Read more