voting rights

Voter ID trial opens in North Carolina

by

WillimaBarberA two-week trial of North Carolina’s election law — one of the most sweeping changes in voting practices in the country since the U.S. Supreme Court dealt what critics consider a blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — came to a close at the end of July last year, and a decision on whether the law discriminates against racial minorities was left to U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder. Closing arguments in North Carolina Voting Rights Act trial.

Most court observers believed that Judge Schroeder would issue a ruling before the end of the year, which did not happen.

A separate voter ID trial is scheduled to begin today. NC voter ID trial set for Jan. 25:

On the eve of [the Voting Rights Act] trial, the legislature amended the voter ID portion of the overhaul to allow voters to cast provisional ballots without one of six specified photo identification cards. Because the change came so close to the start of the summer trial, the judge told the parties he would wait to hear arguments on that portion of the case.

It now appears that the Court may join these two cases into one opinion. North Carolina’s primary election is in March 15, so time is of the essence.NC voter ID trial opens in Winston-Salem:

The trial over North Carolina’s voter ID law is set to begin Monday in front of U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder, a federal judge who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2008.

The legal battle is one of several being watched across the nation as courts address questions of the fairness and lasting impacts ID laws have on voting rights.

Read more

Kansas’ dual election system ruled unlawful; whither Arizona’s dual election system?

by

NoVoteIn September of Last year I posted an update on the status of Belenky v. Kobach (2013-CV-001331), the lawsuit in Kansas state court challenging the “dual election system” imposed by Secretary of State Kris Kobach after he lost his legal challenge to the federal voter registration form. Arizona Secretary of State Ken “Birther” Bennett imposed the same “dual election system” here in Arizona, which has been continued by Arizona’s queen of voter suppression, Secretary of State Michele Reagan. Update on ‘dual election system’ lawsuit in Kansas.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas filed a motion for summary judgment in state court to end the two-tiered voter registration system that Secretary of State Kris Kobach created.

The Kansas state court recently ruled on that motion, granting the ACLU’s motion for summary judgment. Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog reported In Loss to Kobach, Kansas Court Strikes Down Two-Tier Voter Registration in Kansas:

A state court in Kansas today issued a 30 page opinion granting summary judgment to two Kansas voters who registered to vote in Kansas using a federal form but who had been denied the right to vote in state elections by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Read more

Two things to increase voter participation – and it ain’t that damn fool Top Two Primary!

by

StopTop2Donna Gratehouse has done an admirable job of pointing out the fraud behind the
Top Two Primary ballot measure.  I have posted several posts over the past year or so on the political science research which demonstrates that the Top Two Primary (jungle primary) fails to deliver what its proponents promise: higher voter turnout and more moderate (centrist) candidates.

Only certain media villagers and pundits in Arizona — (cough!) The Republic! — love this damn fool idea because they are dumber than dirt when it comes to political science.

If you really want to increase voter participation there are two things Arizona could do today that would immediately increase voter participation: universal (automatic) voter registration, and universal balloting by mail (vote by mail). Of course, our Tea-Publican overlords at the Capitol oppose these common sense solutions because higher voter turnout and voter participation means more voters opposed to their far-right views. Their opposition to these common sense measures is a form of voter suppression.

Read more

(Update) SCOTUS: the defining issue in the 2016 election

by

Last year I posted SCOTUS: the defining issue in the 2016 election, a quick glance at attorney Rick Hasen’s  longread for TPM, which is well worth your time to read.  It begins:

The future composition of the Supreme Court is the most important civil rights cause of our time. It is more important than racial justice, marriage equality, voting rights, money in politics, abortion rights, gun rights, or managing climate change. It matters more because the ability to move forward in these other civil rights struggles depends first and foremost upon control of the Court. And control for the next generation is about to be up for grabs, likely in the next presidential election, a point many on the right but few on the left seem to have recognized.

Justices600x480

Today Hillary Clinton  has a new op-ed in the Boston Globe emphasizing the importance of the high court in this year’s election:

There’s a lot at stake in this election. Nowhere is this clearer than in the US Supreme Court.

The court’s decisions have a profound impact on American families. In the past two decades alone, it effectively declared George W. Bush president, significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act, and opened the door to a flood of unaccountable money in our politics. It also made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, preserved the Affordable Care Act not once but twice, and ensured equal access to education for women.

Read more

Tucson appeals decision striking down its election system

by

Update to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down Tucson’s electoral system, appeal to follow. In November, the Tucson City Council voted 5-0 to file an appeal for an en banc review by the 9th Circuit.

That appeal has now been filed, and is being joined by other interested parties in amicus briefs. Washington counties and cities join Tucson court appeal:

TucsonTucson’s unusual election system may not be unique after all.

Tucson’s unusual election system may not be unique after all.

The state of Washington is joining the city’s appeal of a recent opinion from a three-judge panel on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 2-1 split opinion said Tucson’s election system, which uses a ward-specific primary election and a citywide general election, is unconstitutional because it excludes some voters from the primary election based on the ward in which they live. That’s a violation of the 14th Amendment, the “one-person, one-vote” protection, the majority opinion said.

Judge Alex Kozinski described Tucson’s election system as “unusual” and “odd.”

The city is appealing the decision and asking for a review by an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit.

Read more