voting rights

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

Arizona is among nine ‘red’ states being sued for voter disenfranchisement

by

Of the 17 states with new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election this year, nine also have major ongoing lawsuits that could impact voting access before November. Here is the Brennan Center for Justice roundup:

Voting-RightsNorth Carolina’s law, passed shortly after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, reduced the early voting period, cut pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, eliminated same day registration, and implemented a voter ID requirement. At trial, the court heard testimony from dozens of witnesses burdened by the strict new requirements, which caused confusion and long lines in the state’s March primary. Lawyers for the plaintiffs made a motion to appeal the decision, which the appeals court quickly granted, and a hearing could come as early as July.

Battles continue in other states as well. In Texas, a hearing is scheduled for May 24 before the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the state’s strict photo ID law. Last August, a three-judge panel upheld a prior ruling striking down the requirement, which found more than 600,000 registered voters do not have the kind of ID now needed. (The Brennan Center represents the Texas NAACP and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus in the case, along with other co-counsel).

Read more

SCOTUS gives 5th Circuit Court of Appeals a deadline to decide Texas voter ID case

by

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to stop Texas from enforcing its strict photo ID requirement for voters in the state in an upcoming run-off election, but left open the possibility that it might change its mind later. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Texas voter ID law left in effect — for now:

SupremeCourtThe order in essence gave a federal appeals court until July 20 to decide a case about that law’s validity under the federal Voting Rights Act.  After that date, the Court might step in, it said.

 * * *

The new order does these things: first, it denied the request to block enforcement immediately; second, it noted that it was aware of the pressure of time before the November election; third, it told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that if it has not acted in any way on the pending en banc review of the controversy “on or before July 20,” any “aggrieved party” disappointed by that inaction could ask the Justices for temporary legal protection; and, fourth, it also said that any “aggrieved party” could ask the Court to step in before the July date if there were a change in circumstances that would bear upon the enforcement issue.

Read more

North Carolina Judge upholds that states’ ‘most restrictive voting law in the nation’

by

A North Carolina Judge has upheld that states’ “most restrictive voting law in the nation” as not being overly burdensome on black voters. Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog has an  Analysis: Federal District Court Upholds Restrictive NC Voting Law in 485-Page Opinion:

VotersFederal district court judge Thomas Schroeder has issued this 485-page opinion considering constitutional and Voting Rights Act challenges to North Carolina’s 2013 restrictive voting law . . .

This is a careful, erudite, yet controversial opinion which will almost certainly be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which could well reverse parts of it, and then potentially to the United States Supreme Court, where the Court could well deadlock 4-4 (leaving any 4th Circuit ruling in place). And all of these appeals will have to happen in short order for it to affect how the 2016 elections take place under the Purcell principle. 

Read more