voting rights

IOKIYAR: Secretary of State Michele Reagan not accountable for violating the law

by

When Congress uses the word “shall,” it intends to create a mandatory obligation. That was the unanimous conclusion of the U.S. Supreme Court this week in the case of Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. U.S. (opinion). “Shall,” the Court emphasized, was meant as “a command.”

This is one of the cardinal rules of statutory interpretation. It applies not only to acts of Congress, but to state legislative acts as well.

A couple of weeks ago I posted New complaint filed against Secretary of State Michele Reagan – will the AG Act this time?

This week we learned “Oops! … I did it again.” Reagan’s office skips election manual:

MicheleReaganSecretary of State Michele Reagan did not compile a new election procedures manual for the 2016 cycle, perhaps the first time in decades, if not longer, that the office did not release the biennial publication that instructs county and local officials on the conduct of elections.

* * *

State law requires the secretary of state to submit the manual for review to the attorney general and governor “not fewer than ninety days before each election,” a deadline that has already passed for the 2016 primary election. The manual must be issued no less than 30 days before each election, which some county election officials say is no longer feasible.

* * *

[T]he law says: “Such rules shall be prescribed in an official instructions and procedures manual to be issued not later than thirty days prior to each election. Prior to its issuance, the manual shall be approved by the governor and the attorney general. The secretary of state shall submit the manual to the governor and the attorney general not fewer than ninety days before each election.”

Not this time.

Reagan’s office has decided it’s not necessary. To her, state law is more of a recommendation than a requirement.

Read more

California’s ‘Top Two Primary’ (Jungle Primary) on Tuesday is a warning for Arizona

by

Jonathan Bernstein writes at Bloomberg View about California’s “Top Two Primary” on Tuesday. California’s Election Calamity:

StopTop2California voters are set to vote in their primary on Tuesday, and will suffer the consequences of a serious self-imposed mistake in how they run their state. No, it has nothing to do with the presidential race. The disaster is its “top two” system, in which the candidates for state offices — regardless of party — go on to compete in the general election in November if they finish first and second in the primaries.

The likely perverse result? Voters in November will probably have a choice between two Democrats for an open U.S. Senate seat.

The motivation for the California system was to elevate more moderate politicians than the parties were producing on their own. In practice, at least in the first two election cycles since the change was carried out, the results have not matched reformers’ hopes. Candidates have not been more moderate.

Read more

Federal District Court in Ohio strikes down cuts to early voting and ‘golden week’

by

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in a 120-page opinion has held that the deep cuts to Ohio’s early voting days signed into law by Gov. John Kasich (R) are “unconstitutional and…accordingly unenforceable.” Think Progress reports, BREAKING: Major Court Ruling Restores Early Voting Days In Ohio:

VotersJudge Michael Watson sided with the Ohio Democratic Party, which had sued the state for sharply curtailing the number of early voting days. Since President Obama won reelection in 2012, Ohio’s Republican lawmakers and Secretary of State have voted to eliminate the days and times of early voting that were most convenient for those working full time: the weekend before election day, weekday evenings, and what’s known as “Golden Week,” the time about a month before election day when the registration period and the early voting period overlap.

These cuts, the judge wrote, “results in less opportunity for African Americans to participate in the political process than other voters.”

The court ordered the Republican governor and Secretary of State to once again allow voters to begin casting ballots 35 days before November’s presidential election. Republicans may appeal Tuesday’s ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

But of course … the Columbus Dispatch reports “A DeWine spokesman said the decision — which sided with the state on many issues — will be appealed.”

Read more

En Banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral argument in Texas Voter ID case

by

Lawyers for the state of Texas today defended that state’s discriminatory voter ID law before an en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Veasey v. Abbott. Link to Oral Argument.

The Texas Tribune reports, In High-Profile Case, Texas Defends Its Voter ID Law:

VotersStanding before all 15 members of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller argued that judges were wrong to conclude in two previous rulings that the Texas Legislature discriminated against minority and low-income voters in passing a 2011 law that stipulates which types of photo identification election officials can and cannot accept at the polls.

* * *

Lawyers representing the U.S. Department of Justice, minority groups and other plaintiffs disagreed, asking the judges to affirm what a lower court — and a three-judge panel in this same courthouse — previously concluded: that Senate Bill 14 has a “discriminatory effect” on Hispanic, African-American and other would-be voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Only a handful of judges asked questions at length on Tuesday, making it difficult to know where the majority stands. But the 5th Circuit is considered among the nation’s most conservative, with 1o of its members having been appointed by Republican presidents.

Read more

California MVD repeats Arizona’s MVD voter registration errors

by

VotersThe media villagers love to cite the factoid that the largest bloc of voters in Arizona is now  “party not designated,” or the misnomer  of “independent.”

They use this factoid to assert their media narrative/media bias that people are fed up with the two party system.

But Arizona’s election debacle with the Presidential Preference Election back in March disclosed another possible reason for this surge in “party not designated” registered voters: motor-voter registration errors at the MVD. Elections MVD error might have kicked Arizona voters:

Voters across Arizona might have lost their party affiliation and been forced to cast provisional ballots in Tuesday’s presidential preference election because of errors at the state Motor Vehicle Division, according to election officials.

A widespread complaint during Tuesday’s voting debacle came from voters who learned records showed they were not registered with a party and therefore were ineligible to vote in the closed primary. Many of these voters, from both the Democratic and Republican parties, claimed decades of party participation.

Read more