voting rights

Democrats settle lawsuit over long lines at polling locations in Maricopa County

by

Press release from the DNC Press:

Democrats Settle Election Dispute with the State of Arizona

VotersThe Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Ann Kirkpatrick for Arizona, the Arizona Democratic Party, Hillary for America, and Sanders, Inc., announced that they reached a settlement in their joint lawsuit against Maricopa County, Arizona that will make it easier for residents to vote.

Maricopa County miscalculated voter turnout and underestimated the number of vote centers needed to accommodate voters during the March presidential primaries. In the federal lawsuit, Democrats proffered a line expert explaining why Maricopa County’s allocation formulas were wrong, and offered a number of remedies. In response to the Democrats’ motion for an injunction, Maricopa County represented to the Court that it would be implementing many of those suggestions. In addition, as part of the settlement agreement, Maricopa County agreed to consider further recommendations from line experts to better ensure that voters will not again be subject to unacceptably long lines as a result of unsupported allocation decisions.

“This is a great victory for Arizonans, and for our democracy. The right to vote is our most fundamental right – the right that protects all of our other rights – and Democrats will never waver in ensuring that each and every eligible citizen can be heard at the ballot box. We know that long lines depress turnout. If a mother is forced to choose between waiting in line for hours to vote, or picking up her kids from daycare, the vote is going to lose every time. Stories like that were all too common in last spring’s election. It was wrong then, and it is easily avoidable in the future.

Read more

SCOTUS 4-4 tie works in favor of voting rights in North Carolina

by

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia continues to pay dividends.

The state of North Carolina, which enacted the “most discriminatory election law in the nation,” petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the ruling of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month struck down the state law.

Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog reports, North Carolina comes up one vote short for stay in election law case:

maxwell_smartA closely divided Court today denied North Carolina’s request to allow the state to enforce three provisions of its controversial 2013 election law when voters go to the polls for this fall’s general elections. The state needed five of the eight Justices to agree to halt a lower court’s ruling that blocked the law, but it came up one short – illustrating the impact of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who likely would have joined the Court’s other conservative Justices in voting for the state.

The North Carolina legislature enacted the law in the wake of the Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down the federal formula used to determine which state and local governments must obtain advance approval for any changes to their voting rules. The law would require North Carolina voters to show a government-issued photo ID, reduce the number of days for early voting, and eliminate out-of-precinct voting, same-day voter registration, and preregistration for young voters.

A federal trial court upheld the law against claims that it was racially discriminatory. But in late July of this year, a federal appeals court barred the state from enforcing the law. The court of appeals rejected the state’s explanation that the law was intended to combat voter fraud and “promote public confidence in the election system.” Rather, the court of appeals concluded, the law “hinges explicitly on race—specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to” voting.

Read more

A simple change in the law is needed for citizens initiatives, referendums and recalls

by

Arizona revised its election laws a few years ago to create the E-Qual system which allows a voter to sign a candidate’s petition and to donate Clean Elections $5 contributions online:

With E-Qual, you can show your support for a candidate from the comfort of your home or anywhere internet access is available.

In Arizona, candidates are required to obtain a minimum number of petition signatures to appear on a ballot. Voters interested in assisting Statewide and Legislative candidates can now sign a petition electronically.

Clean Elections candidates are required to obtain $5 qualifying contributions from registered voters to qualify for public funding. Voters may now contribute a $5 qualifying contribution with E-Qual.

Click on a box below to get started now!

e-qual-spotlight

Do you know what E-Qual does not allow a voter to do? Sign petitions for citizens initiatives, referendums and recalls.

“Why” you ask? Because our authoritarian Tea-Publican legislature really does not want the citizens of this state exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to citizens initiatives, referendums and recalls. They want to make it as difficult and costly as possible to deter voters from exercising their constitutional rights, because it is a direct challenge to their legislative authority and control.

Referring measures to the ballot is the exclusive provenance of our Tea-Publican controlled legislature and their right-wing allies, dontcha know?

Read more

The House Democrats’ ‘By The People’ (BTP) election reforms package

by

Michael Golden and Lawrence Lessig have an op-ed at the Chicago Sun Times about an election reform package that the Arizona media ignores and does not report. Opinion: Three ways Congress can muscle-up to your voting rights:

Voting-RightsOver the last year, presidential candidates from both parties have ridden to great success the populist cry of a “rigged system” – in which billions of dollars in campaign cash have destroyed the very idea of a representative democracy. The American electorate has embraced this message.

Donald Trump distilled the charge to a dozen words: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to.” And in differing degrees and with different styles, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have both attacked the tight grip of campaign cash on the politics of our nation.

But with three months to go before ballots get cast, only one of the two frontrunners – and her party – has unequivocally supported specific plans to solve these problems. And though the presidential race now dominates the media conversation, it is in Congress, which currently carries a 14 percent approval rating, where these solutions will matter the most. The polarization and paralysis on Capitol Hill, stemming from our rigged election system, prevents legislators from negotiating and compromising to make meaningful progress on the issues that Americans consistently prioritize.

Fortunately, some in Congress are working toward a solution. Just before the national conventions, the House Democratic leadership announced its “By The People” (BTP) legislative package. These reforms, backed by 187 members of the rank-and-file, are designed to “revitalize our nation’s voting laws, restore sanity to the electoral process, and empower everyday Americans to reclaim their voice in the political process.”

Read more

Status of pending election law challenges

by

Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog just saved me a lot of work. I was preparing to update the election law challenges in court, but Mr. Hasen has already done the heavy lifting. Thank you Mr. Hasen! Election Litigation 2016: Where Things Stand:

NC-VotingWith 77 days to go until Election Day, and early voting starting much sooner in some places, here is the major litigation affecting election procedures and voting that I’m watching the most closely:

Wisconsin: One trial judge required Wisconsin officials to accept an affidavit instead of one of the strict voter ids for voting. A 7th Circuit panel reversed that holding, and we are awaiting the entire 7th Circuit en banc to rule on this question. A second trial judge struck a number of election rollbacks in Wisconsin, including those limited to early voting. The state has petitioned the 7th Circuit to stay that judge’s order pending appeal. I expect we will hear something on this case this week.

North Carolina: The 4th Circuit struck a number of challenged election rollbacks based upon a finding that North Carolina passed the law with racially discriminatory intent. The state will file a cert. petition in the Supreme Court, and in the meantime it has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate some of the laws that the 4th Circuit blocked. Chief Justice Roberts has asked the plaintiffs to file a reply by this Thursday, the 25th. Expect a ruling the following week (and given the slow pace set by the Chief, I do not expect the stay to be granted so close to the election).

Read more