The Voting News Weekly: The Voting News Weekly February 25 – March 3 2013

The Voting News was dominated this week by the oral arguments in the Supreme Court in Shelby County Alabama’s challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Comments from conservative members of the court, particularly those of Justice Scalia prompted several editorial responses. All the articles related to the Voting Rights Act can be read here. Lawmakers in California and Kentucky grappled with security concerns surrounding internet voting. A different sort of cyber attack resulted in phantom absentee ballots in Florida and Maryland’s proposed online ballot marking system was demonstrated to be vulnerable. Ohio’s Secretary of State Jon Husted promoted online registration while making clear that the concept of internet voting was “far off in the future.” Italy’s inconclusive election left the country deadlocked with ramifications felt throughout Europe and tension is building ahead of Kenya’s elections.

National: The Supreme Court could strike down part of the Voting Rights Act – Here’s what that would mean | Washington Post

In heated oral arguments Wednesday, the Supreme Court justices gave the impression that they’re ready to get rid of a key section of the Voting Rights Act. At issue is section 5, which requires the Department of Justice to issue a “preclearance” of any changes to districting or other voting laws in a number of set jurisdictions, covering most of the South but also Manhattan, Brooklyn, some counties in California and South Dakota, and towns in Michigan and New Hampshire. Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the laws had the effect of requiring racially motivated gerrymandering, amounting to the “perpetuation of a racial entitlement” on the part of black legislators and constituents benefiting from the districting. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed, asking Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, “Is it the government’s submission that the citizens of the South are more racist than the citizens of the North?”

National: Court decision on Voting Rights Act could spur election changes, but not turn back the clock | NBC

If Wednesday’s argument before the Supreme Court is any indication, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to strike down or curtail key sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  Even if the court does move in that direction, election officials in some states will have more leeway to change some procedures, but voters in 2014 won’t suddenly wake up in 1964. Hearing a challenge brought by Shelby County, Ala., several justices voiced skepticism about the formula the law uses to decide which states and other jurisdictions are required to get permission, or “preclearance,” from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington for any change in voting procedures that they seek to make. In 2006 Congress reauthorized Section 5 of the law for another 25 years. The current formula uses election data from 1972 and earlier to determine which places section 5 applies to. Critics of the law say the formula is archaic and ought to be scrapped.

Editorials: The threat from within — the ironic challenge to the Voting Rights Act | Rep. Terri A. Sewell/al.com

After almost 50 years of expanding and protecting voting rights, a new threat comes from an unlikely place – the U.S. Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the justices heard oral arguments in Shelby County, AL v. Holder, a case that will decide the survival of preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that require federal oversight of voting practices in 16 covered states including Alabama. The Voting Rights Act, which was passed as result of the Selma to Montgomery march, provides legal protections for individuals, primarily minorities, in states with histories of discriminatory voting practices. Since its passage in 1965, the act has been critical in ensuring that millions of our nation’s minority citizens are guaranteed the right to vote. I feel compelled to write this essay because I am deeply concerned about the erosion of voting rights that sadly still exist in our state and in this nation. Perhaps the biggest irony is that the current threat to this legislation comes from the very state (Alabama) that was the impetus for its passage almost 50 years ago.

Voting Blogs: Not Yet Section 5’s Time To Die | Andrew Cohen/Brennan Center for Justice

The need for the Voting Rights Act will die, and it should die, on the day when Americans can say to one another with a straight face that racial discrimination in voting no longer exists there. Sadly, that day has not come. Before the United States Supreme Court’s oral argument this week in Shelby County v. Holder,Professor Garrett Epps cut to the core of the conflict over Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. “On the one hand,” he wrote Sunday in The Atlantic, “there is the right to vote… the cornerstone of a democratic system.” On the other hand, he added, there is the “sovereign dignity” of the states, words and a principle that “are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.” As we begin to contemplate a world without this vital provision of this venerable law, a world in which federal officials are deprived of one of the most successful tools they have ever had to root out racial discrimination in voting practices, it is worth noting today the relative values of these conflicting interests as they impact the everyday lives of the American people. There is simply no comparison– despite the tone and tenor of some of the questions posed Wednesday by some of the justices.

Voting Blogs: Why the Predictions Could be Wrong in Shelby County | Myrna Pérez/Brennan Center for Justice

If you listen to the court watchers reacting to Wednesday’s oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, you might be bracing yourself for a roll back of voting rights. They are largely predicting the formula used to determine which states and localities are subject to or “covered” by the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) will be struck down by the Supreme Court. This isn’t the first time we’ve heard these prognostications. In 2009, similar predictions abounded in a similar case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (NAMUDNO), involving this key provision, called Section 5, of the VRA. They were wrong in NAMUDNO, and while only time will tell, I think they will be wrong in Shelby County.

Florida: Lawmakers may restore two weeks of early voting | ABC

Florida’s election troubles last November are prompting state lawmakers to consider changing the state’s election laws this spring, but critics say the current proposals don’t go far enough. On Thursday, a group of African-American leaders accused Republican state leaders of enacting election changes in 2011 that deliberately tried to keep certain voters from casting ballots. They said the reforms caused long lines at polling places and made it harder for people to vote. Now the Legislature is moving to undo some of those changes. The main election reform bills currently under consideration would restore 14 days of early voting, limit ballot summaries from the Legislature and allow counties to open more early voting sites.

Indiana: Charlie White must file court documents in voter fraud trial by March 15 | Indianapolis Star

Former Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White has until March 15 to file court documents explaining why he thinks he should get a new trial on voter fraud and theft charges. During a telephone conference with attorneys on the case Wednesday afternoon, Hamilton Superior Court Judge Steven Nation asked White’s attorney, Andrea Ciobanu, to file White’s post-conviction relief petition by March 15. He also scheduled a June 4 hearing on the petition. However, Nation did not rule on special prosecutors’ motion for White to begin serving his one-year home-detention sentence, special prosecutor Dan Sigler said today.

Iowa: House panel OKs requiring voter ID at polling sites | Omaha.com

House Republicans moved forward Thursday with a proposal that would require Iowa voters to show photo identification at polling places. Lawmakers in the House State Government Committee approved the legislation in a 12-8 vote split along party lines. The measure is backed by Secretary of State Matt Schultz, who has filed identical bills in the House and Senate. Schultz, a Republican, has made voter ID one of his key issues. GOP lawmakers largely support him, saying identification is needed to prevent fraud. Democrats say there is little fraud and say Republicans want to discourage voting by minorities and the elderly, who may not have the required documents.

Kansas: Senate passes bill giving secretary of state extra power but barring him from having PAC | The Republic

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach would get the power he’s sought for his office to prosecute election fraud cases, but he’d also have to shut down his political action committee under legislation approved Thursday by the state Senate. The Senate approved the bill on a 31-9 vote, sending it to the House, where its future is less certain. Kobach, a former constitutional law professor, said he doubts a law prohibiting the secretary of state from having a PAC would be constitutional. But he also said he’s optimistic legislators ultimately will junk the anti-PAC proposal while expanding his office’s authority. “I’m pleased that the Senate intends to get serious about the prosecution of election crimes,” Kobach said during an interview.

Massachusetts: Secretary of State Galvin challenges Chief Justice Roberts’ claim about voting | Boston.com

Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. certainly sounded authoritative when he made a striking, though unflattering, declaration about Massachusetts as the high court heard arguments over the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is ­designed to assure equal access across ­races to polling booths. “Do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout?” Roberts asked Donald Verrilli Jr., solicitor general for the Department of Justice, during Wednesday’s arguments. “I do not know that,” Verrilli answered. “Massachusetts,” Roberts responded, adding that even Mississippi has a narrower gap. Roberts later asked if Verrilli knew which state has the greatest disparity in registration. Again, Roberts said it was Massachusetts. The problem is, Roberts is woefully wrong on those points, according to Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who on Thursday branded Roberts’s assertion a slur and made a declaration of his own. “I’m calling him out,” Galvin said.

Missouri: Panel says Missouri should adopt early voting | KansasCity.com

A special panel created by Secretary of State Jason Kander is recommending that Missouri allow early voting and expand absentee voting by mail. The bipartisan commission on Thursday released its recommendations for overhauling Missouri’s voting laws. Missouri now allows people to vote by mail only if they meet certain conditions, such as a disability or absence from their district on Election Day. The commission says voters should be allowed to mail their ballots without such restrictions.

Mississippi: A Divide on Voting Rights Where Blood Spilled | NYTimes.com

In the refined air of the United States Supreme Court, the questions posed by justices on Wednesday seemed so big as to be unanswerable: Are parts of the Voting Rights Act an unfair infringement on state sovereignty? How different is the South these days from other regions, and from itself in bloody years past? Here in southwest Mississippi, those questions are as real and solid as the longleaf pines. A run-down brick house on this street was bombed by segregationists in the summer of 1964; a few blocks away is a boarded-up supermarket that was bombed the same summer. Down the road is the town where a Mississippi state representative shot a black voting-rights activist. A black man who was witness to that shooting was killed soon after, and the men sitting in the back of the local drugstore still debate what the witness, whom they knew, was planning to say. The McComb project, as it was called by civil rights workers in 1961, was one of the early battles in a long and bloody war for voting rights in the South, a crucible for future leaders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee who drilled black residents to pass the constitutional literacy tests and in return for their civic engagement were shot at, jailed and beaten.

Montana: With 2014 Elections Looming, Ninth Circuit Agrees to Hear Native American Voting-Rights Appeal | ICTMN.com

On February 20, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes the nine westernmost states, said it would hear the appeal of a Montana voting-rights lawsuit. The appeal arose when a Montana federal judge, Richard Cebull, denied a 2012 request from Native voters for a preliminary injunction ordering early-voting/late-registration satellite offices on the Northern Cheyenne, Crow and Fort Belknap reservations. The judge made his decision on October 30, 2012, and filed his order on Election Day, November 6. “This lawsuit, filed after months of requests for the satellite offices, could not be more timely,” said Blackfeet tribal member Tom Rodgers, who is working with Four Directions, a voting-rights group. “We see similar issues for tribes nationwide—efforts to impede Native registration, to limit the time for voting and to make it more difficult. All rights in a democracy flow from the right to vote.” For several election cycles, Four Directions has pressed for Native access to early voting, a convenient form of balloting that has increased election participation nationwide.

Rhode Island: Voter ID law might not stand the test of time | 630WPRO

With a new Senate bill on the table and the House Oversight Committee looking to make changes to election procedures in Rhode Island, it may be possible that the state’s newly implemented voter ID law will soon be yesterday’s news. Rhode Island passed the voter identification law in 2011, and 2012 marked the first election year when non-photo ID’s were required of all voters. Come 2014, photo ID’s will be required for Rhode Islanders to cast their votes, an issue that’s been a point of contention for voters and legislators alike. Thirty states currently have some sort of voter ID law, though most do not require photo identification; though for some states, like Rhode Island, that could change in the next few years. But freshman Senator Gayle Goldin (D-Providence) is hopeful a bill she’s introduced will erase the voter ID law from the books altogether. Goldin takes over long-time representative Rhoda Perry’s seat in District 3 and represents a chunk of the East Side of Providence. Goldin said she many constituent complaints about the voter ID law during her campaign in the fall. “My district [is] people who really believe in creating an equitable society and making sure the decisions we make statewide continue to respect and create that equitable society,” said Goldin.

Ghana: Illiteracy rate in Ghana will not impede e-voting- PPP | GhanaWeb

The Progressive People’s Party (PPP) has called on the Electoral Commission not to use high illiteracy rate as an excuse not to implement the e-voting system, but immediately begin a nationwide education on possible use of the system. The party had written to the Electoral Commission after the last election requesting the nation uses the electronic voting system. The Electoral Commission (E.C) Chairman, Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan yesterday announced that the nation is not ready to go electronic voting considering the high illiteracy rate which persists. But speaking to Citi News, PPP General Secretary, Kofi Asamoah said the EC’s excuse is a poor one.

Italy: President Napolitano rejects new polls | BBC

The prospect of an early repeat vote in Italy to break the February election gridlock has receded after the outgoing head of state rejected the idea. Giorgio Napolitano, who as president holds the power to dissolve parliament, said he doubted his successor in the post would favour the idea either. Mr Napolitano must stand down as president in mid-May. The three main political forces are sharply divided after none managed to win an outright majority. Uncertainty over the future management of the eurozone’s third-biggest economy has caused concern among Italy’s partners and investor confidence has been shaken. A protest movement led by a former comedian, Beppe Grillo, surged virtually from nowhere to take a quarter of the vote, handicapping the traditional alliances on the right and left. The centre-left bloc led by Pier Luigi Bersani won a majority in the lower house but not in the equally important upper chamber. It is expected to attempt to form a government after the new parliament meets, some time within the next fortnight.

Italy: Bersani dismisses Italy Senate coalition with Berlusconi | Deutsche Welle

Seeking a solution to stalemate in the Senate, Italy’s upper house of parliament, election-winner Pier Luigi Bersani has said his center-left alliance will not ally with former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s bloc. Pier Luigi Bersani said in a newspaper interview published on Friday that his center-left bloc was not prepared to ally with the rival group led by Silvio Berlusconi, even with Berlusconi holding the upper hand in the Senate. “I want to spell it out clearly: the idea of a grand coalition does not exist and will never exist,” Bersani told La Repubblica. As the most popular party in the vote for the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house, Bersani’s bloc is guaranteed 54 percent of the seats under Italian electoral law. The Senate, however, has roughly equal legislative powers, meaning that this lower house majority might not suffice for Bersani to push policies through as premier. “Call it what you want,” Bersani said when asked whether he would seek a minority government in the Senate instead. “Minority government, government of purpose, that doesn’t interest me. For me it is a government of change.”

Russia: New election bill to restrict foreign influence | Russia Beyond The Headlines

A new bill on the State Duma elections is expected to impose further restrictions to the work of international observers during Russian parliamentary campaigns. The bill would also prohibit Russian parties from forming electoral blocs and, at the same time, reduce the threshold for parties running in the elections from 7 to 5 percent. Russian President Vladimir Putin submitted a new version of a bill on parliamentary elections to the State Duma on Friday, a spokesman for the chamber’s executive office told Interfax. The bill, drafted by the Central Elections Committee, was widely debated and discussed, including by parliamentarians and members of political parties not represented in the State Duma. The bill on the State Duma elections prohibits foreign citizens and international organizations from influencing the election outcome in Russia in any form. “Activities by foreign citizens, stateless persons, foreign organizations, international organizations and international public movements promoting or impeding the organization of State Duma elections, the nomination or registration of specific candidates, federal lists of candidates, and the election of candidates to the State Duma are prohibited,” the draft law submitted by the Russian president to the State Duma on Friday says.

National: Voting Law Decision Could Sharply Limit Scrutiny of Rules | NYTimes.com

If the Supreme Court strikes down or otherwise guts a centerpiece of the Voting Rights Act, there will be far less scrutiny of thousands of decisions each year about redrawing district lines, moving or closing polling places, changing voting hours or imposing voter identification requirements in areas that have a history of disenfranchising minority voters, voting law experts say. A close look at the law demonstrates how a series of seemingly technical details amount to what is essentially a safeguard against violations in those states and regions covered by the law — most of which are in the South. It also shows how that very bulwark comes at the cost of sharply tilting the playing field against those areas in ways that several conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices expressed alarm about during arguments on Wednesday. The legal issue turns on two main parts of the act: Section Five, which covers jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, and Section Two, which covers the entire country. Both sections outlaw rules that intentionally discriminate against or otherwise disproportionately harm minority voters. Section Two would remain in effect even if the court strikes down Section Five. But reliance only on Section Two would mean a crucial difference in how hard it may be to block a change in voting rules in an area that is currently covered by Section Five. Those jurisdictions, because of their history of discrimination, must prove that any proposed change would not make minority voters worse off.

National: In Voting Rights, Scalia Sees a “Racial Entitlement” | The New Yorker

Justice Antonin Scalia, during oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, said that the Court had to rescue Congress from the trap of being afraid to vote against a “racial entitlement”—the “entitlement” in question being the Voting Rights Act. (“Even the name of it is wonderful: the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”) Scalia said that not alone but, it appears, with four other votes for overturning a key part of the act: Section Five, which relies on a combination of history and recent bad behavior to designate certain states and jurisdictions as having to get “pre-clearance” from the Department of Justice or from a federal court before they, say, abruptly change voting hours or redraw districts or change their voter-I.D. requirements. Most of them are in the South, but not all of them are. The Court’s conservatives seem to think this is terribly unfair. “Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked. “But if — if Alabama wants to have monuments to the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote, asked, would it be “better off doing that if it’s an own independent sovereign or if it’s under the trusteeship of the United States Government?” Is the idea that statues are only going up now because people are looking, or that the Voting Rights Act is nothing but a monument?

National: In voting-rights case, liberal justices pitch to Kennedy | Reuters

Barely a minute into a U.S. Supreme Court hearing, liberal justices began a strategic barrage of questions that came down to this: Why should a time-honored plank of the 1965 Voting Rights Act be invalidated in a case from Alabama with its history of racial discrimination? What followed constituted a classic example of how justices can try to use oral arguments to dramatic effect and influence a swing vote justice. Key players were Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, appointees of President Barack Obama and the newest members of the bench. The likely target of their remarks: Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who is often the decisive fifth vote on racial dilemmas. “Think about this state that you’re representing,” Elena Kagan told the lawyer arguing against the law on Wednesday. “It’s about a quarter black, but Alabama has no black statewide elected officials.” Focusing on Shelby County, Alabama, the southern locale that brought the case, Sotomayor asked, “Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?”

National: 5 takeaways from the Voting Rights Act arguments | Politico.com

For backers of the Voting Rights Act, Wednesday was a gloomy day at the Supreme Court. The court’s five Republican-appointed justices seemed to be leaning strongly toward a ruling striking down a provision in the 1965 law that has been a key tool for the federal government to block redistricting plans and changes to voting procedures that could interfere with or dilute minority voting. The pre-clearance process that was the subject of oral arguments before the justices applies in most or all of nine states and portions of seven others. The fact that provision applies to some parts of the country and not others was the focus of much of the jousting in court. The best many supporters of the law could muster to retain hope about the court’s ruling was that just four years ago the law defied expectations and survived intact when the justices used a kind of end-run to avoid upending the landmark civil rights statute.

Editorials: The “Law” of Perpetuating Racial Entitlement | Spencer Overton/Huffington Post

I attended the oral argument in the Voting Rights Act case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and I came away even more convinced that the Court should uphold the contested parts of the law. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires that covered states “preclear” their proposed election law changes with federal officials. Nine states plus parts of seven others are “covered,” and many of these areas are in the South. Conservatives often complain about “activist judges legislating from the bench.” But some of the more conservative Justices’ comments reveal that the fate of the Voting Rights Act should be a decision for Congress, not for the Court. Justice Scalia said he thinks Congress’s decision in 2006 to renew Section 5 was motivated by a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” It was the kind of political screed you might hear from Rush Limbaugh. Scalia’s baseless platitude could just as easily be made in the opposite direction–someone could claim Scalia wants to strike down voting protections to “perpetuate racial entitlement” whites have enjoyed for centuries. Neither assertion is appropriate in a court of law.

Editorials: The court’s conservatives seem to believe that the Voting Rights Act has outlived its purpose | Slate Magazine

If you’re trying to cure an illness, and you get better, but not entirely—say you had a high fever, but now you have the sniffles and a sore throat—does it make sense to keep taking the same medicine? What if your doctor insists? Justice Stephen Breyer offered the disease analogy Wednesday morning for racist efforts to block the power of black and Hispanic voters in the South during a sharply polarized argument—5 to 4, conservatives v. liberals—over whether Shelby County, Ala., has taken enough medicine from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Congress first enacted the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to deal with massive and violent suppression of black voters in the South. The problem was so entrenched that when federal courts would strike down a discriminatory measure like a poll tax, Southern states and counties would quickly dance around the ruling, enacting new barriers such as a literacy test. So Congress armed the Voting Rights Act in two ways. The first, Section 2, bans any voting practice that discriminates on the basis of race or ethnicity. It applies uniformly, throughout the country, and it has no expiration date. To enforce it, the government, or a group or person affected by the law, has to sue—and has the burden of proof. The second part of the Voting Rights Act, Section 5, relied on data showing a pattern of discrimination at the time to create a category of “covered jurisdictions.” Congress said that for 25 years the Department of Justice had to “pre-clear” any changes to voting rules in those places, or else the state or county had to go to court for approval before the changes could go into effect. The list of covered jurisdictions included most of the South, along with a smattering of counties and cities in other states.

Editorials: Congress’s Power to Protect the Vote | NYTimes.com

The voter ID laws and other tactics that sprang up in several states last year to prevent minorities from casting their ballots offer incontestable proof of the need for strict voting rights laws. Yet at the argument on Wednesday in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices left the ominous impression that they were willing to deny this reality and repudiate Congress’s power to enforce the right to vote by striking down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires nine states (seven of them in the South) and parts of seven others with records of extreme discrimination against minority voters to get approval from the Justice Department or a special court in Washington before they can make any changes in how they hold elections. Without this provision, there would be no way to prevent new and devious efforts by local officials to block blacks and Hispanics from voting or to reduce their electoral power. In 2006, Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the statute. It found that these places should remain “covered” by this “preclearance” requirement because voting discrimination remained both tangible and more concentrated and persistent in them than in other parts of the country. House members from those places strongly supported the renewal: of 110 members from covered jurisdictions, 90 voted for reauthorization.

Voting Blogs: Should I Stay or Should I Go? States Weigh Future of Federal Voting System Certification | Election Academy

Day 2 of the EAC/NIST Future of Voting Systems Symposium was a deep, deep dive into the policies, procedures and process behind standard-setting at the federal level. The morning was devoted to a discussion about how federal standards are developed and how market players (especially vendors and consumers) conform to them. It was truly fascinating to hear how different standards work in practice, especially since the speakers were so enthusiastic and detailed about the subject. [My highlight of the morning was the discovery that low-flush toilets are tested using Japanese bean paste.] But it was in the afternoon, when the talk turned to voting system standards in particular, that things got interesting.

Voting Blogs: True The Vote Fudges the Numbers in New Turnout Study | FairVote.org

True the Vote, an organization dedicated to eradicating voter fraud through controversial methods, issued a report on February 27 concluding that voter ID laws and other election changes allegedly meant to reduce voter fraud not only did not have an adverse impact on turnout in the 2012 elections, but may have helped to increased turnout. Its findings have been trumpeted by many news outlets who do not believe such laws suppress voter turnout. But it turns out the report’s authors made a huge methodological mistake. They compared turnout of eligible voters in 2008 to turnout of registered voters in 2012. Correcting this error reverses their findings. All but one of the states with these new laws experienced a decline in voter turnout, and most experienced a decline greater than the national turnout decline from 2008 to 2012.

Arkansas: Questions over Money Hold Up Voter ID Bill | Arkansas Matters

Photo identification when you go to vote sailed through the Arkansas senate, but it was a much different story on Wednesday as a House of Representatives panel slammed the brakes on the idea. The issue that’s holding it up: money. Legislators want to know how much photo voter i-d will cost the state, and until they get that amount, they won’t vote on the idea. Bill sponsor Bryan King has repeatedly told fellow legislators it would cost around $300,000 to place photo ID machines in 87 county clerks’ offices around the state, but, others believe it will cost much more.

Kentucky: Law banning Election Day alcohol sales could soon be history | Kentucky.com

The Kentucky General Assembly appears poised to lift the state’s Election Day booze-buying ban, which would leave South Carolina as the only remaining state that enforces the Prohibition-era rule. A state House committee approved a bill Wednesday that would lift the ban on the sales of alcoholic beverages in wet areas on election days in Kentucky. Senate Bill 13, sponsored by Sen. John Schickel, R-Union, now goes to the full House for consideration. After no member of the House Licensing and Occupations Committee voted against the proposal, Schickel said he is optimistic about its chances in the House. “I’ve talked to leadership in the House, and I think they are committed to getting it passed,” he said.