Read Blog for Arizona | Politics from a Liberal Viewpoint for more about voting rights

5th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down Texas voter ID law

July 20, 2016 by AZ BlueMeanie

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.

9th Circuit oral argument challenging the City of Tucson’s election system

June 22, 2016 by AZ BlueMeanie

Back in April I posted that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to hear en banc appeal of Tucson elections case.

On Tuesday, the en banc panel of the 9th Circuit heard oral argument. You can Watch the Argument for Public Integrity Alliance, Inc v. City of Tucson, No. 15-16142. (I do not currently find a written transcript.)

The en banc panel included Judges Thomas, W. Fletcher, Gould, Paez, Berzon, Clifton, Callahan, Christen, Nguyen, Owens, and Friedland.

The video above bears no resemblance to the reporting in the Arizona Daily Star this morning, which reads like a press release from Kory Langhofer, the GOP attorney representing Public Integrity Alliance, Inc. Challenge to Tucson’s election system heard in 9th Circuit. That reporting is entirely misleading.

Update on Democratic Party lawsuit against Arizona for voter suppression

June 22, 2016 by AZ BlueMeanie

Back in April following the fiasco of the Presidential Preference Election (PPE) in Maricopa County, The Democratic Party sued Arizona for voter suppression in U.S. District Court for Arizona. The short title of the case is Feldman v. Arizona Secretary of State, Case No. 2:16-cv-01065, assigned to Judge Douglas L Rayes. Here is an accessible link to the most recent docket entries in the case. Feldman et al v. Arizona Secretary of State’s Office et al (2:16-cv-01065). (There is a telephonic conference scheduled for Thursday re: Joint Motion to Expedite Case Management Conference set for 6/23/2016 at 1:30 PM.)

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Judge may rule on claims of Arizona voter suppression:

A U.S. district court judge may decide two critical issues in Arizona before the November presidential election: whether to stop the state’s new so-called “ballot harvesting” law from taking effect and whether to force elections officials to count out-of-precinct provisional ballots.

The Democratic National Committee and a group of voters have filed a lawsuit accusing officials of voter suppression after people in Maricopa County – the state’s largest county – waited for hours to cast their ballots in the March 22 presidential preference election. They also claim that making ballot harvesting a felony could disenfranchise thousands of minority voters.

The case, Feldman v. Arizona Secretary of State, addresses several other issues. But the plaintiffs filed two motions on June 10 asking the court to grant preliminary injunctions against the state.

4th Circuit Court of Appeals panel is skeptical of North Carolina’s ‘most restrictive voting law in the nation’

June 21, 2016 by AZ BlueMeanie

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.

Ari Berman: No, the Democratic primaries were not ‘rigged’

June 19, 2016 by AZ BlueMeanie

Ari Berman of The Nation is one of the premiere election reporters in the nation. Berman has a lengthy analysis at The Nation debunking the silly conspiracy theory that the Democratic primaries were “rigged.” I would encourage you to read the entire piece. Here are the highlights. The Democratic Primary Wasn’t Rigged | The Nation:

Hillary Clinton won the Democratic presidential primary by 387 pledged delegates and 3.7 million votes.

Despite this large margin, some of Bernie Sanders’s most strident supporters have attributed Clinton’s lead to foul play, alleging that the Democratic Party’s nominating rules cost Sanders the nomination and the Clinton campaign deliberately suppressed pro-Bernie votes. These claims, which have circulated widely online, are false. My colleague Joshua Holland, who supports Sanders, has extensively debunked many of these conspiracy theories, but I want to add more detail now that the primary is over. (I’ve been neutral throughout the race and do not endorse candidates.)