voting rights

(Repost) A challenge to voting rights organizations for a package of ballot measures

by

Voting-RightsIn light of Stan Greenberg’s research into the Democratic Party’s challenge to recapture some of what has been called the “White Working-Class Voter,” The Average Joe’s Proviso: “Surprising numbers of white working-class voters will support the Democratic agenda—if Democrats promise to reform the government that would carry it out,” and Hillary Clinton’s speech on voting rights on Thursday, I want to repost what I have previously posted on this subject.

Earlier this year I posted A challenge to voting rights organizations for a package of ballot measures:

I am issuing a challenge to these organizations to form a Grand Coalition to work together to enact a package of four voting rights ballot measures that will (1) increase voter registration, (2) increase voter turnout, and (3) prevent voter suppression efforts in the future.

Here are the four ballot measures that I have previously posted about over the years that I challenge these voting rights organizations to file and to qualify for the 2016 ballot:

Universal (Automatic) Voter Registration

On Monday, the state of Oregon became the first in the nation to enact universal (automatic) voter registration. It’s official: New Oregon law will automatically register people to vote:

The so-called “New Motor Voter Bill,” House Bill 2177, “will automatically register voters using information collected at the DMV.

Anyone eligible will be given an opportunity to opt out — but otherwise they become registered voters. The administration estimates that about 300,000 people will be added to the rolls, increasing the number of registered voters from 2.2 million to 2.5 million.

“I challenge every other state in this nation to examine their policies and find ways to ensure that there are as few barriers as possible in the way of a citizen’s right to vote,” Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) said at the signing ceremony on Monday.

Read more

Hillary Clinton goes big and bold for voting rights

by

Earlier this year I posted that Hillary Clinton supports the Move to Amend movement:

A major theme of the Hillary Clinton campaign is the Move to Amend movement for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC and its progeny?  “Mrs. Robinson, you’re trying to seduce me. Aren’t you?”

Apparently so. Hillary Clinton says she would support a constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform:

Hillary Rodham Clinton is calling for changes to the nation’s campaign finance system, saying here Tuesday that she would support a constitutional amendment if that’s what it takes to fix what she called a “dysfunctional” system.

Yesterday Hillary Clinton went to Southern University in Houston, Texas, to accept an award in the honor of the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, and to deliver a major speech on voting rights. Clinton made several proposals for which I have been advocating for years. “Oh, Mrs. Robinson, you ARE trying to seduce me!”

Screenshot from 2015-06-05 12:49:52

The full video of the speech is available on C-SPAN and can be accessed by CLICKING HERE. Hillary for America also released a fact sheet about voting rights.

Read more

The public wants the influence of money out of politics, but is cynical that anything can be done about it

by

The New York Times this week reports a new Poll Shows Americans Favor an Overhaul of Campaign Financing:

MoneySpeechAmericans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections made possible by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent by “super PACs” and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in elections without disclosing the names of their donors.

And by a significant margin, they reject the argument that underpins close to four decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence on campaign finance: that political money is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Even self-identified Republicans are evenly split on the question.

Read more

SCOTUS to define ‘one person, one vote’

by

SupremeCourtThe U.S. Supreme Court did not issue any controversial opinions today.

Instead, the Court agreed to hear a controversial appeal from the state of Texas — where else — in its next term. The Court will define the “one-person, one-vote” mandate that originated in the case of Reynolds v. Sims (1964). Does it require equal “total population,” or does it require equal “voter population”?

The “one-person, one-vote” standard has long been understood to mean equal total population for congressional districts. Article I, §2, of the United States Constitution requires that Members of the House of Representatives “be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers” (population) and “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” This clause makes no reference to “voter population.” Large numbers of Americans did not vote at the time the Constitution was enacted nor, sadly, even today.

During the slavery period, the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution) declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state (population). Slaves most definitely were not counted among the “voter population.”

Read more

Congressional Democrats introduce bill to end gerrymandering

by

Tea-Publicans in the Arizona legislature currently have pending before the U.S. Supreme Court an appeal, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, that seeks to overturn the will of the voters of this state in enacting the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by a citizens initiative, Prop. 106 (2000).

The_Gerry-Mander_EditThe argument is that only the legislature can redistrict congressional district lines under the U.S. Constitution, and that the citizens of Arizona do not have the authority to divest the legislature of this power and to assign it to an independent redistricting commission that largely cuts the legislature out of the congressional redistricting process.

Attorneys for the state of Arizona effectively conceded at oral argument that the citizens of Arizona do have the authority under the Arizona Constitution to divest the legislature of the power to redistrict state legislative districts, and to assign it to an independent redistricting commission that largely cuts the legislature out of the state legislative redistricting process.

This case was argued on March 2, 2015, and a decision is expected before the end of June.

Democrats in Congress last week took an opposite tack, introducing a bill to end gerrymandering of congressional districts that largely relies on the creation of independent redistricting commissions, like the one  we have here in Arizona. Democrats introduce bill to end gerrymandering:

A group of Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to overhaul and streamline the way the nation’s 435 U.S. House districts are redrawn every decade to reflect population shifts determined by the U.S. Census. The Redistricting Reform Act of 2015 (.pdf).

“What we see now is too often a troubling reality in which politicians choose their voters instead of voters picking their elected officials,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., a lead sponsor of legislation she says would create “a more transparent electoral process.”

Read more