Voting Rights Act of 1965

As part of an ongoing lawsuit filed earlier this year to challenge our lawless TeaPublican legislature’s election law changes, the Democratic Party asked a federal judge to block the ballot collection provision. Democrats ask federal judge to block ballot collection law:

Lawyers representing state and national Democratic groups opposed to a new Arizona law outlawing collection of early ballots by get-out-the-vote groups urged a federal judge Wednesday to block it from going into effect.

U.S. District Court Judge Douglas L. Rayes heard nearly two hours of arguments Wednesday for and against the Democrats’ request for an injunction blocking the law from taking effect. He said he’ll rule later on the request.

The law makes it a felony to return someone else’s ballot to election officials in most cases. Republicans pushed House Bill 2023 through the Legislature earlier this year, arguing that so-called “ballot harvesting” can lead to election fraud. Gov. Doug Ducey signed it into law in early March, saying it will ensure a chain of custody between the voter and the ballot box.

Read more

The Washington Post reports, Federal judge blocks N. Dakota’s voter-ID law, calling it unfair to Native Americans:

A federal judge on Monday called North Dakota’s strict voter-ID law unfair to Native Americans and blocked its use in the coming election, continuing a series of recent victories against restrictions imposed by state legislatures.

Here is the Order (.pdf).

In recent days, judges have blocked or loosened voting restrictions in Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Kansas. The fights have pitted Democrats and civil rights groups who say restrictive ID laws discriminate against minorities against Republican legislators, who say they enacted the laws to combat voter fraud and protect the public’s confidence in elections.

U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland said North Dakota for years had provided a safety net for those unable to provide the specific kinds of ID required, and that eliminating it in 2013 would mean eligible voters are disenfranchised.

Before 2013, the state allowed many forms of identification for use at the polls, and those without could sign affidavits to their identity. But the 2013 law allowed only four forms of ID: a North Dakota driver’s license; a North Dakota non-driver’s ID card; a tribal government-issued ID card; or an alternative form of ID prescribed by the secretary of state.

A provision added last year prohibited the secretary of state from allowing college IDs or military IDs to be used.

Read more

The GOP war on voting rights suffered another major defeat today.

A partially divided three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down North Carolina’s “most restrictive voter law in the nation.”  Appeals court strikes down North Carolina’s voter-ID law:

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down North Carolina’s requirement that voters show identification before casting ballots and reinstated an additional week of early voting, finding that legislators had acted with “discriminatory intent” in imposing strict election rules.

[You can read the 83 page decision here. (.pdf)]

The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was an overwhelming victory for the Justice Department and civil rights groups that argued the measures were designed to dampen the growing political clout of African American voters, who participated in record numbers in elections in 2008 and 2012.

“We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel.

North Carolina’s Republican legislative leaders issued a fiery joint statement in response and said they will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

The decision by the Richmond-based court on Friday reverses a lower-court ruling that upheld the voting measures passed in 2013.

Read more

The Supreme Court set a soft July 20 deadline for a decision in the Texas voter ID case before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Ater that the Court has invited plaintiffs to seek immediate relief for this election before the Supreme Court.

Today the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals met the Supreme Court’s deadline. In a 203 page opinion, the 5th Circuit, sitting en banc, issued an opinion holding that Texas’s voter identification law, one of the strictest in the country, violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Breaking and Analysis: Divided 5th Circuit Holds Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act:

The bottom line is that the majority of the 5th Circuit has done what the panel opinion had originally held: there is a remand on the question whether Texas acted with a discriminatory purpose, but there is enough evidence of a discriminatory effect so as to render the Texas ID law a Voting Rights Act violation.

Ian Millhiser at Think Progress reports, BREAKING: Texas’ Voter ID Law Struck Down By An Extraordinarily Conservative Appeals Court:

In a stunning, unexpected decision from one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down a decision on Wednesday holding that a Texas voter suppression law violates the Voting Rights Act. The court heard this case, en banc, a rarely invoked process where a full appeals court (as opposed to a panel of three judges) meets to decide a case. The vote was 9-6, although the majority split on whether to uphold a lower court’s finding that Texas acted with discriminatory intent in enacting this law.

Read more

Back in April I posted that a North Carolina Judge upholds that states’ ‘most restrictive voting law in the nation’.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals expediting the appeal of this case, and oral argument was heard today by a three judge panel. Federal appeals court skeptical of North Carolina voting restrictions:

Wide-ranging restrictions on voting in North Carolina came under attack as racially discriminatory in a federal appeals court Tuesday, with one judge saying the legislature’s rush to impose limits after getting a green light from the Supreme Court “looks pretty bad to me.”

The law is the most expansive of any passed after the high court’s 5-4 ruling in 2013 freed mostly Southern states from needing federal approval before changing their election procedures.

Read more