voting rights

Arizona’s authoritarian Tea-Publicans are coming for your constitutional rights

by

The Arizona Constitution clearly spells out that Arizona citizens are the ultimate lawmakers:

Arizona Constitution, Article 4 Part 1 Section 1 – Legislative authority; initiative and referendum

1. Legislative authority; initiative and referendum

Section 1. (1) Senate; house of representatives; reservation of power to people. The legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act, of the legislature.

But our authoritarian Tea-Publican state legislators and governor, and their masters in the Chamber of Commerce organizations and the “Kocktopus” network,  are planning an assault on the constitutional right of Arizonans to enact their own laws unfettered by legislative interference. Lawmakers plan assault on voters’ right to make laws:

A series of measures being proposed would change everything from signature threshold to imposing new requirements on the ability to use paid circulators. But the biggest would ask voters to repeal the measure they approved in 1998, theVoter Protection Act, which specifically bars lawmakers from tinkering with what the public approves at the ballot.

imussol001p1That’s not to say there won’t be other issues consuming lawmakers’ time when the session begins Monday. Those issues range from how to divide up the more than $9 billion in revenues to who gets tax cuts, especially because Gov. Doug Ducey vowed during his 2014 campaign to propose a tax cut every year he is in office. And he told Capitol Media Services he remains committed to that.

The big issue, obviously, is school funding. But don’t underestimate the political fighting that will occur over initiatives and who gets to write – and repeal – state laws.

It was voters who approved not only higher taxes on tobacco but also limits on where people can smoke. And it was voters who required funding of early childhood education programs, allowed the medical use of marijuana and approved the state’s first-ever minimum wage.

But it was the more recent 58-42 percent approval of Proposition 206 – the law that hikes the minimum immediately to $10, takes it to $12 by 2020 and mandates paid time off – that has angered members of the business community. They want new registration requirements on those who collect signatures for money, as well as make it easier to challenge those signatures.

There also are moves to require a certain percentage of signatures on ballot propositions to come from the state’s 13 rural counties.

Read more

SCOTUS divided on racial gerrymandering cases

by

On Monday, cases from North Carolina and Virginia came before the eight justices of the Supreme Court, presenting the challenge of finding the delicate balance in considering race when redistricting political boundaries — and the court’s reluctance to weigh in on partisan politics. Questions Of Race And Redistricting Return To The Supreme Court:

The_Gerry-Mander_EditThe North Carolina case comes from a group of voters who went to court challenging the state’s first and 12th districts. They contend that the Legislature packed more minority voters into these two districts in an effort to dilute their voting strength in neighboring districts.

The state defends the lines drawn for one of the challenged districts by saying it was trying to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act that minority voters have the chance to elect their chosen representatives. It defends the other as based on the goal of increasing a partisan advantage, not on race.

So far at least, the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that race may not be the predominant factor in redistricting except in narrow circumstances. But the court has refused to get involved in partisan gerrymandering.

“If your claim is ‘we were just exercising naked political power,’ well, the courts are not touching that, at least not yet,” observes Richard Hasen, an election law specialist at the University of California, Irvine. “But if the claim is about race, then the courts are going to get involved.”

The distinction is often “nonsensical,” he says, especially in places in the South, for instance, where the vast majority of African-Americans are Democratic voters, the majority of whites vote Republican, and the overlap between race and party is enormous.

Read more

A reform agenda for voting rights

by

The Arizona Secretary of State emailed me a missive entitled “Preparing For The Future of Voter Registration” in which she says:

MicheleReaganArizona is using an aging, cumbersome voter registration system that could potentially expose the identities and voting behavior of millions of citizens. County election personnel are bogged down engaging in manual processes in order to perform the most fundamental requirements of their job. It’s time to be proactive and take steps to improve efficiency and better ensure our data is secure.

Over the past several months our office has undertaken a complete top-to-bottom review of the more-than decade old registration system. While election officials around the state are well aware of its technological limitations, we’ve come to better understand the unique challenges that will face future election officials as well. As the number of voters continues to grow, the time has come to prepare for the future.

Once we finalize our assessment, we’ll begin working with our county partners to develop a plan for the future. That future must include 21st century cybersecurity protections and a registration system that makes it easier for elections staff to process basic information efficiently.

Election officials around the state have begun the process to transform the way we do business internally, as well as how we will deliver services to voters in the future. I’m looking forward to help spearhead the process and partner with our local officials to usher in this new era.

You will note that the Secretary’s focus is entirely on “a registration system that makes it easier for elections staff to process basic information efficiently,” not on a registration system that makes it easier for citizens to register and to vote.

Read more

Rigged elections: GOP voter suppression and the Voting Rights Act

by

The egomaniacal Twitter troll Donald Trump spent more than a year seeking to undermine American’s confidence in their electoral system, first claiming without evidence that the GOP primaries were rigged, then spending months claiming the general election was rigged. Trump falsely claimed without evidence that millions of illegal voters voted to explain losing the popular vote by well over 2 million votes.

Trump even suggested that his supporters might resort to “Second Amendment remedies” if the election did not go his way, Donald Trump Suggests ‘Second Amendment People’ Could Act Against Hillary Clinton, eschewing the American tradition of deciding elections by the ballot box, not bullets.

This is the man who is now in a position to impose GOP restrictions on voting in pursuit of the GOP’s mythical “voter fraud” fraud — in reality, voter suppression of Democratic-leaning voter constituencies. After Bitter Campaign, Election Positions Trump to Shape Rules on How You Vote:

Voting-RightsAfter an extraordinarily contentious election, crucial elements of the rules that determine how Americans vote will be under assault from conservatives and facing legal challenges heading toward the Supreme Court as Donald J. Trump prepares to become president.

Mr. Trump’s claims of a “rigged” election — made before he won — and his false declaration after his victory that “millions of people” had voted illegally for Hillary Clinton made headlines.

They also amplified longstanding Republican claims that rampant voter fraud justified a welter of state laws making it more difficult to register and vote. Democrats say the laws are not about combating fraud but about suppressing the vote of minorities and other Democratic-leaning constituencies.

Mr. Trump will have enormous power to shape future policy on voting.

Read more

SCOTUS stays 9th Circuit Court of Appeals injunction of Arizona ballot collection law

by

Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog reports Justices reinstate Arizona ban on “ballot harvesting” for election:

VotersOnly days before the November 8 election, an emergency application involving voting procedures was filed at the court – specifically, a challenge to an Arizona law, known as H.B. 2023, that makes it a felony for anyone other than election officials, mail carriers, family members, or caregivers to collect early voting ballots. [Saturday] morning the justices blocked (Order) the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in favor of the challengers, thereby allowing the Arizona law to remain in effect in advance of Tuesday’s election.

* * *

Late yesterday afternoon, Arizona asked the Supreme Court to step in, reverse the en banc court’s “unprecedented and unsustainable order,” and allow the law to remain effect. It relied heavily on Purcell v. Gonzalez, a 2006 challenge to another Arizona voting law. Purcell, the state contended, suggests that, as an election draws nearer, courts should be more reluctant to order changes to voting laws, because of the possibility that doing so will cause voter confusion and incentives not to go to the polls. With only four days before the election, the state emphasizes, “emotions and rushed judgment typically have no place and should be avoided.”

Arizona adds that H.B. 2023 is hardly an outlier: twenty-six other states bar this kind of ballot “harvesting,” while thirteen other states make it a felony.

Read more