Saying he is not willing to maintain a dual registration system, Secretary of State Ken Bennett is asking the court to order the federal Election Assistance Commission to modify its voter registration forms to demand proof of citizenship. In legal filings Wednesday, Bennett said he needs an immediate order to ensure that Arizona and Kansas — which is seeking the same relief — are not denied “their sovereign and constitutional right to establish and enforce voter qualifications.” Without the order, Bennett said the state will forced to register unqualified voters. The U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled that Arizona is required to accept the federally designed form, even though it does not require the proof of citizenship that Arizona voters mandated in 2004. The justices, in a 7-2 ruling, said Congress was legally entitled to impose that mandate when it comes to federal elections.
A stunning reversal by the judge who wrote the key opinion upholding voter ID laws has given new ammunition to opponents of the laws passed or strengthened by Republican governors and legislatures in more than a dozen states, including Texas. Judge Richard Posner, a veteran member of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, made the reversal in a single sentence of his new book, Reflections on Judging, declaring such laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression, rather than fraud protection. I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion, (affirmed by the Supreme Court) upholding Indiana’s requirement that prospective voters prove their identity with a photo ID,” wrote Posner, a Reagan appointee on the Chicago-based appeals court, who said last year, “I’ve become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy.” Subsequently, in a video interview with the Huffington Post, he said his majority opinion in the court’s 2-1 decision was “absolutely” wrong. Seemingly blaming lawyers opposing the law, he said, in 2007, “we weren’t really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disenfranchise people entitled to vote.”
Election Day is less than a week away and city leaders in New Haven have concerns over a suspicious amount of absentee ballots submitted for the race. “I’ve gotten a complaint from an individual that the person has been receiving these ballots in their hands and taking them to the mailbox, to the post office, you can’t do that. That’s against the law,” said Ron Smith, City Clerk, New Haven. New Haven’s City Clerk Ron Smith says there’s been a drastic increase in the number of absentee ballot requests and returns for Ward 8, more than ever before. He says that number is alarming and the common denominators are the ballots were mailed out the same day in blocks from the same address. “We know ballots when they come in, and sometimes they come in a little late but they don’t come in all at one time from one street,” said Smith.
Minneapolis’ crowded mayoral race has turned into the Battle to Be Nice, and just about everybody credits the use of ranked-choice voting for the absence of anything resembling negative campaigning. The reason: If you call your opponent a dummy, there is a very good chance the dummy’s supporters will scratch you off their list as a possible second or third choice. And the key to winning appears certain to depend on those second and third choices. “We don’t have the negative ads to say, ‘This person is horrible, so vote for my guy,’ ” said Lynne Bolton, campaign manager for Jackie Cherryhomes. “We’re used to the system where you have two choices, and one is bad and the other is good.”
Editorials: North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper must declare election law unconstitutional | Bob Geary/Indy Week
Richard Hasen is the nation’s leading scholar on elections law as political weapons and constitutional fights. A University of California-Irvine political scientist and law professor, Hasen was in Raleigh last week speaking at N.C. State University. His topic: “Race, Party and Politics: North Carolina’s New Front in the Voting Wars.” Naturally, I thought of our Attorney General Roy Cooper, who wants to be governor. Cooper has a constitutional problem. I’ll get to it shortly. But first, as Hasen did, consider the case of a political party that—under the guise of “reform”—passes election laws designed to cripple the rival party by disenfranchising African-American voters. North Carolina, 2013? Not yet: Hasen started with North Carolina in 1898, when the all-white Democratic Party ousted the fusionist Republicans (blacks and some whites) who’d governed after the Civil War. “Reforms” then prevented most blacks from voting, and the Republican Party ceased to be a force. In 2013, the parties have flipped, but the situation is familiar. The Republican Party, virtually all-white, is in charge. This year’s Republican “reforms”—the infamous House Bill 589, which critics term a voter-suppression law and which, Hasen said, is the most restrictive set of voting requirements passed by any state since the civil rights era—will hurt the Democrats, now the party supported by almost every African-American voter. So, Hasen asked: Was 1898 about race? Or party? And is 2013 about party? Or race?
Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 40 counties in North Carolina were covered by Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. A new report from the UNC Center for Civil Rights that looks at representation of people of color on county boards of commissioners shows that the act was working to increase political engagement in North Carolina and demonstrates the continuing need for legislation that protects and enhances equitable political representation. The State of Exclusion report covers all North Carolina communities where over 75 percent of the residents are people of color and examines a variety of factors affecting the quality of life for residents of those communities, including housing, the location of unwanted land uses, access to infrastructure and educational opportunities. As to political representation, the results were stark albeit unsurprising and serve as a reminder of the need for enhancing, not withdrawing, measures designed to minimize the continuing legacy of discrimination in elections.
Efforts to fast-track controversial legislation that would change ballot-access rules for the state’s minor political parties were derailed Wednesday evening thanks to an apparent mistake in the bill’s wording. The Ohio Senate held off on approving Senate Bill 193 after language about petition requirements for parties such as the Libertarians and Greens was somehow omitted from the version passed by the Ohio House of Representatives earlier in the day. The House narrowly passed the measure after lengthy negotiations resulted in softened requirements for parties such as the Libertarians and the Greens to win and keep official recognition.
Wendy Davis could have been barred from voting by Texas’ strict voter ID law—along with her likely Republican opponent in next year’s governor’s race, too. That both will be able to cast ballots is thanks to a change in the law that Davis herself pushed. Davis, the Democratic candidate for governor next year, showed up Monday to vote early in her hometown of Fort Worth. Several constitutional amendments and other proposals are on the ballot in Texas this year. It’s the first election to be held under the state’s controversial voter ID law, which the U.S. Justice Department has challenged as racially discriminatory. But when the state senator got to her polling place, poll workers noted that the name on her driver’s license, Wendy Russell Davis, didn’t match that on her voter rolls, Wendy Davis. That meant that under the law, she was required to sign an affidavit swearing that she was who she said she was. “It was a simple procedure,” Davis told reporters afterward. “I signed the affidavit and was able to vote with no problem.” But it was thanks to Davis’ own efforts that she even had that option.
Australia: Western Australia Senate recount in turmoil as 1375 votes go missing | Sydney Morning Herald
An inquiry has been called and a byelection for the entire state of Western Australia could be on the cards after the Australian Electoral Commission revealed 1375 ballot papers are missing from the WA Senate recount. Electoral Commissioner Ed Killesteyn has apologised for the missing papers, which he said could not be found despite “exhaustive efforts” to locate them. Former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty has been called in to conduct an independent inquiry. Special Minister of State Michael Ronaldson has moved quickly to criticise the AEC for the missing papers. “I have personally expressed to the Electoral Commissioner my strong view that this situation is totally unsatisfactory and that I, as the responsible Minister, view this matter very dimly,” Senator Ronaldson said.
The constitution of the Falkland Islands requires that a general election be held every four years to choose the eleven members of the Islands’ Legislative Assembly or lower house of government. The next General Election is due to be held on November 7th this year. Once elected, members will choose three of their number to become members of the Executive Council, which is the upper house of the Falkland Islands. While the Executive Council is presided over by a Governor appointed by the British Government and includes a small number of other members such as the Attorney General of the Falkland Islands, the three elected members of the Executive Council drawn from among the elected members of the Legislative Assembly are the only members to have voting rights. Out of a resident population estimated at 2,931 on the occasion of the last census in April of 2012, there are nearly 2,000 people eligible to vote by reason of their being over the age of 18 and possessing the necessary status.