voting rights

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

GOP war on voting rights: Trump election observers and voter intimidation

by

VotersI have been an election observer for many years, working with The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law or the Democratic Party. There are very strict guidelines on what observers can and cannot do.

The goal of election observers is to assist in resolving any problems that might arise, e.g., helping voters find the right polling location, and making sure that poll workers are assisting voters in resolving any issues to allow them to cast a ballot.

In all the years I have been a poll observer, it has never been my role to challenge a voter on his or her eligibility to cast a vote.

This is something that the Republican Party, however, has engaged in, as well as Republican Party affiliated organizations such as the notorious True the Vote with a “horrendous record of filing inaccurate voter registration challenges.” A Reading Guide to True the Vote, the Controversial Voter Fraud Watchdog.

Donald Trump, who has sought to delegitimize this election by asserting that “the only way he can lose” is if the “system is rigged” and there is “voter fraud,” Trump urges Pennsylvania backers: Don’t just vote, watch for signs of ‘cheating’ on election day, is now rolling out his own “election observers,” who are likely to follow the True the Vote model.

Read more

Democratic Party asks federal court to block AZ ballot collection law

by

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:

BallotDropOffLawyers 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

GOP war on voting rights suffers another defeat in North Dakota

by

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

NativeVoteA 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

GOP war on voting rights suffers another major defeat

by

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:

NC-VotingA 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