voting rights

West Virginia is third state to enact universal (automatic) voter registration

by

Voting-RightsIn news that does not get reported in Arizona — I’ll leave it to you to speculate as to the reasons why — the West Virginia legislature has passed a bipartisan bill to become the third state to enact universal (automatic) voter registration.

This is a significant development because (1) the bill was bipartisan, and (2) West Virginia does not have the reputation of being a progressive state. There is hope for Arizona yet.

The Observer-Reporter editorializes, West Virginia becomes a pioneer in voter registration:

West Virginia doesn’t have a whole lot in common with Oregon or California.

The Mountain State is nestled in Appalachia, while the Beaver and the Golden states are on the Pacific coast, and would take about 35 hours to reach if you drove nonstop from Charleston, W.Va. They have different industries, vastly different heritages and wildly different demographic makeups – California is one of the most diverse states in the country, while West Virginia is one of the least. They also diverge politically: President Obama only took 35 percent of the vote in West Virginia during his successful 2012 re-election bid, while comfortably winning California and Oregon by 60 percent and 54 percent, respectively. West Virginia will almost certainly remain red in this year’s presidential contest, while it would take a seismic shift of epic proportions for either Oregon or California to take on a reddish hue.

And yet, last week, West Virginia found some common ground with Oregon and California – it followed in the footsteps of those two states by approving a measure that would automatically register its citizens to vote once they interact with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles.

Read more

SCOTUS unanimously rejects challenge to ‘one person, one vote,’ but fails to adopt a standard

by

This morning the Court released a unanimous opinion in Evenwel v. Abbott, holding that a state or locality may draw its legislative districts based on total population — the method used by the states and the vast majority of local jurisdictions — rejecting the efforts by Edward Blum, who directs the Project on Fair Representation, who spearheaded the challenge to the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, and is also behind the affirmative action case from Texas pending before the Court.

As a practical matter, if the plaintiffs had won this appeal, power would shift markedly from urban voters to rural voters and to white and Republican districts over minority and Democratic ones.

Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog has the Opinion analysis: Leaving a constitutional ideal still undefined:

For more than a half-century, the Supreme Court has spoken often of its commitment to the constitutional ideal that every citizen’s vote should count as much as every other’s, but it only now has tried to say just how that equality should be measured.  On Monday, it announced the result of that initial effort to define “one person, one vote”: the states mostly get to choose, but they don’t have to switch to a system that few of them have ever tried.

notorious_rbg_tank_topJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the main opinion  in the much-anticipated case of Evenwel v. Abbott, and a hasty reading of it might suggest that the states must use one formula in drawing election maps:  take the total number of people in a state, and then divide up that total by the number of seats in the legislature or local governing bodies, with the answer dictating how many people (give or take a few) should be in each district. But that is not where the Court wound up.

While virtually every argument used by the Ginsburg opinion in favor of basing representation on total population (because elected officials supposedly represent everybody and not just the voters) points toward a constitutional mandate, it turns out that the states actually are not bound by the Constitution to craft new election districts by starting with total population.   The only thing settled constitutionally now is that the states also are not required to divide up districts by using the voting population to be assigned to each, making them equal.  Should a state do it that way, the opinion seems to say, the Court will then face that issue.

Read more

The Arizona Republic is indifferent to the constitutional freedom of association

by

The media villagers are a forceful defender of their own freedoms under the First Amendment, i.e., freedom of the press and free speech. Infringe on their freedoms, and they will howl like a scalded dog.

But when it comes to the First Amendment freedom of association of political parties, the media villagers are all “Meh, who cares? We hate political parties.”

Constitution

Thus after Arizona’s election debacle last Tuesday, the usual suspects at The Arizona Republic used the fiasco to argue in favor of open primaries, and even Paul Johnson’s damn fool idea of the Top Two Primary (entirely unrelated to the Presidential Preference Election). Exemplary of this was E.J. Montini. Arizona – Where registered voters..CAN’T VOTE!

Arizona law already effectively disenfranchises 36 percent of registered voters.

These would be voters who are unaffiliated with any political party.

Independent. The only way those individuals can vote in a presidential primary is to re-register with a political party. And they have to do so 29 days before the election.

It’s ridiculous to think that 36 percent of Arizona voters — can’t vote.

They represent a constituency that is larger than the state’s Democrats.

They represent a constituency that is larger than the state’s Republicans.

How is such exclusion possible?

Read more

What went wrong in Arizona’s election

by

Arizona — OK, the state of Maricopa — was a national disgrace last week with an epic failure on election day for the Presidential Preference Election.  Some voters stood in line for over five hours to vote (which reminds me of the determined souls who stood in the cold for over ten hours in Ohio in 2004, No One Should Have to Stand in Line for 10 Hours to Vote, and the voters who stood in line for over seven hours in Florida in 2012. No One in America Should Have to Wait 7 Hours to Vote; Florida Voting Lines Discouraged 201,000 Voters Statewide).

Screenshot from 2016-03-28 13:33:22

A special Arizona House Elections Committee hearing today will take testimony from Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell, and Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan will announce the results of her preliminary review before the hearing. Arizona House panel to review election foul-ups. You can bet that the Secretary of State will not name everyone responsible for this epic failure.

John Roberts and the Conservative Activist Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court

Chief Justice John Roberts spent his entire legal career seeking to undermine the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He achieved his life’s goal in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder. The Election in Arizona Was a Mess:

Arizona has a long history of problems at the ballot box. Until 2013, the Grand Canyon State was one of 16 states required to clear all changes to voting law and procedures with the U.S. Department of Justice, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because of its history of discriminatory and racist election practices.

Read more

Evil GOP bastards make voter assistance a felony crime

by

latinosvoteTea-Publicans in Arizona really hate Latino voting rights organizations helping voters to get their ballots in on time before the polls close.

Political parties have been doing ballot collection and drop off for voters  for years. It only became an issue after Latino voting rights organizations were instrumental in the recall of disgraced former Senate president and anti-immigrant nativist Russell Pearce. This is political payback.

Voter assistance (“ballot harvesting” to right-wing conspiracy theorists) was made a felony crime in the 2013 omnibus election law bill co-authored by Arizona’s queen of voter suppression, then Senator Michele Reagan, who is now unfortunately Secretary of State, and Senator Michelle Ugenti.

There was a citizen uprising against the GOP Voter Suppression Act, and a citizens referendum to reject the GOP Voter Suppression Act was qualified for the 2014 ballot. Our lawless Tea-Publican legislature then repealed the GOP Voter Suppression Act so that the citizens referendum would not appear on the 2014 ballot and cost Tea-Publicans some seats.

Read more