Arkansas: GOP can intervene in voter ID lawsuit, judge rules | Arkansas News

The state Republican Party can intervene in a lawsuit over how absentee ballots should be handled under the state’s new voter ID law, a Pulaski County circuit judge ruled Monday. The party had asked Judge Tim Fox to allow it to intervene in a lawsuit the Pulaski County Election Commission filed against the state Board of Election Commissioners. The suit alleges that the board exceeded its authority when it adopted rules on how absentee ballots should be handled when voters submit them without the proof of identity required under Act 595 of 2013. The attorney general’s office is representing the Board of Election Commissioners in the case. George Ritter, attorney for the state GOP, argued in a hearing Monday that the party should be allowed to intervene because Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, a Democrat, cannot provide vigorous and effective representation in the case.

Delaware: Pew report praises Delaware voter registration, questions voting machines | Delaware Public Media

The Pew Charitable Trust’s examination of 17 areas such as polling station wait times placed Delaware in the top twenty-five percent of states overall when it comes to “election performance” – so says Pew’s manager of election initiatives Zachary Markovitz. “Delaware really is a pioneer leading the states, especially in improving their voter registration system,” said Markovitz. That improvement comes in the form of the “e-signature” program, which the First State implemented in 2009. The initiative lets Delaware residents complete the entire voter registration process at the DMV, instead of having to fill out paperwork, send it in by mail, wait for a response…. and very possibly, and understandably, have something get messed up along the way. The e-signature program was even praised by a task force commissioned by President Obama after the 2012 elections to find ways to improve election performance around the country. Still, Pew’s report found room for improvement in Delaware. Markovitz points to Delaware’s “residual vote rate” — basically, the number of votes cast in an election versus those actually counted. And when those numbers don’t match up, it could imply that some people’s votes are slipping through the cracks. …

Iowa: Officials: Iowa law may void some absentee ballots | Associated Press

Lawmakers have been unable to change a state law on postmarked absentee ballots that may accidentally void some valid ballots. Election officials say some valid ballots over the years could have been invalidated because the Postal Service doesn’t always postmark business reply mail envelopes, The Des Moines Register reported (http://dmreg.co/Q6Vtv7 ). Voters return completed absentee ballots in those envelopes. State law requires that absentee ballots received after Election Day must be stamped with a postmark from the day before Election Day or earlier. The law has been in effect for years. But an accompanying administrative rule that allowed election officials to open ballots received after Election Day without a postmark and check the date on the enclosed voter affidavit was repealed in 2011.

Louisiana: Bill requiring 20 percent voter turnout for tax election survives | Shreveport Times

Strong opposition to requiring at least a 20 percent voter turnout for an election for a property or sales tax to pass wasn’t enough to kill it. With only the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry for it and numerous groups like the Louisiana Municipal Association and Louisiana School Boards Association against it, SB200 by Sen. Bret Allain, R-Franklin, survived the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee when Chairman Sen. Neil Riser, R-Columbia, voted to create a 5-5 tie. That vote left the bill in committee to be heard later. “I’m talking about a higher standard,” Allain said. “These are tax elections where they’re taking people’s money.”

North Carolina: State joined controversial voter cross-check program as other states were leaving | Facing South

On April 2, 2014, leaders of North Carolina’s state election board announced they had participated in a national program to verify voters run by Kansas’ controversial secretary of state, Kris Kobach. The results ignited a firestorm: Media outlets and Republican lawmakers quickly declared that plugging North Carolina’s voter data into Kobach’s Interstate Crosscheck program had revealed proof of “widespread voter fraud” and justified a host of voter restrictions passed in 2013. But Interstate Crosscheck has been hounded by controversy since it launched in Kobach’s office in 2005. Despite initial hysteria about alleged fraud — as happened this month in North Carolina — few actual cases of fraud have been referred for prosecution, as presumed cases of double voting in multiple states turn out to be clerical and other errors. Amidst the controversy, at least two states have dropped out of the program, just as North Carolina was joining it.

North Carolina: Voting rights groups turn to education in fight against voter ID law | Al Jazeera

Even before it passed, opponents had taken to calling it the Monster Law. But the 56-page bill that ultimately cleared the GOP-controlled General Assembly here last summer and was signed into law by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory in August was, if possible, worse than what they had imagined. Freed from having to clear election law changes with the Justice Department after the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, North Carolina lawmakers enacted what is considered by many the toughest voting restrictions in the United States. “That was the opening for the Senate to then say, ‘OK, we can do anything. We can make this in our view the best’ — or in Common Cause’s view … the worst — ‘proposal in the land,’” said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause, a nonpartisan citizens’ advocacy group. “We have the worst overall elections laws in the country and the most onerous voter ID in the land.”

Europe: A Clash between National and European in the European Elections | EU Inside

For the first time in the EU, you will hear, we have a broad choice. We can vote for a specific candidate for the post of the European Commission president, not only for members of the European Parliament. The candidates of the biggest political families in Europe were selected in the American style – some more democratically (via primaries), others via the ordinary party procedure. Whatever the manner, they are already touring European cities and capitals competing for our vote. They even call their campaign with the same term as in the US – campaign trail. The culmination will be on May 15th when the five candidates will appear together in a debate which will be broadcast live within the Eurovision network and online. To sum up, European democracy in action. There is no doubt that it is more than exciting that, finally, the EU will come to us instead of us constantly going to the EU. The European political parties will fight for our vote, they will present us their ideas, plans, visions about the future of the Union not from the distant Brussels, but they will come in our capitals and cities. They will try to balance between nationalists, austerians, spenders, Germans, Greeks, the north and the south, the east and the west, between Euro-Atlanticists and pro-Russian forces. But there is a problem. In these elections, for the first time, the clash between the national and European political interest will be especially strong because the national parties make calculations of their own for these elections, while the candidates at EU level threaten to mess them up. And this is especially evident in the fact that there are two parallel elections for the post of European Commission president going on. One is the democratic one that I mentioned above and the other is the well known behind-the-scenes way in which the highest European posts are always bargained.

Algeria: Discontent Swells as President of Algeria Seeks a Fourth Term | New York Times

With a presidential election on Thursday, most Algerians see a fourth term for the incumbent, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, as a foregone conclusion. Mr. Bouteflika has already been in power 15 years. In the last election in 2009, he was returned to office with an improbable 90 percent of the vote. So tightly controlled is this North African country that, virtually alone in the region, it passed on the Arab Spring. Yet even as the re-election of Mr. Bouteflika, 77, appears inevitable, his insistence on running again, despite his apparent frail health, has increased popular exasperation, revealed unusual signs of division within the ruling elite and provoked an unlikely show of solidarity among opposition parties, both secular and Islamic, which have united in a call to boycott the election. Exceptionally, a nascent urban middle-class youth movement, Barakat! (“Enough!” in Arabic), styled along the lines of the protests organized through social media during the Arab Spring, has begun campaigning against another term for Mr. Bouteflika. In recent weeks, it broke a taboo by holding small political protests here on the streets of the capital.

Canada: Senators recommend nine major changes to controversial elections bill | Vancouver Sun

The Harper government is getting some serious push-back from Conservative senators on its controversial overhaul of elections laws, with a Senate committee unanimously recommending nine major changes to the legislation. In an interim report to be tabled Tuesday, the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee recommends that the government drop provisions to muzzle the chief electoral officer and the elections commissioner, The Canadian Press has learned. It also recommends removing another provision which electoral experts have said would give an unfair, potentially huge, financial advantage to established parties — particularly the ruling Conservatives — during election campaigns.

Editorials: Compulsory voting is counter-productive | David Moscrop/Ottawa Citizen

Sometimes I catch hell from friends or colleagues for my occasional but deliberate choice to abstain from voting. Their admonitions take the form of a variation on the theme of it being my civic duty to vote: as a political theorist I should know better; men and women fought and died so that I could; those who don’t vote shouldn’t complain, and I complain a lot, so I should show up or clam up. These arguments are easily enough dismissed. When I choose not to vote I have reasons. Often the candidates are weak, but there’s no option to decline my ballot. Sometimes the parties are senseless and none deserves my vote. Other times the outcome of the race has been pre-determined by demographic facts well beyond my control. Always the atrocious and severely-dated first-past-the-post system does a poor job of translating votes into seats. Every few years the idea of compulsory voting — a system in which electors are required by law to cast their ballot and in which those who do not are, strictly speaking, subject to fines or criminal charges or even jail time — creeps into our political discourse. Nearly two-dozen countries have mandatory voting laws on the books, although not all of them enforce the law.

Guinea-Bissau: Observers give Guinea-Bissau vote clean bill of health | Reuters

Observers from the West African regional bloc ECOWAS on Monday said Guinea-Bissau’s weekend election was free and fair, and called on international donors to restart cooperation suspended in the wake of a 2012 coup. Bissau-Guineans flocked to the polls in large numbers on Sunday to vote in long-delayed legislative and presidential polls meant to bring stability to the former Portuguese colony after years of putsches and political infighting. No elected president has completed a five-year term in Guinea-Bissau, which has become a major transit point for smugglers ferrying Latin American cocaine to Europe. “The election was conducted according to international standards and the election was peaceful, free, fair and transparent,” the ECOWAS observer mission said in a statement.

Hungary: The 2014 Hungarian parliamentary elections, or how to craft a constitutional majority | Washington Post

Last weekend’s parliamentary elections in Hungary should have been a major event, at least within the European Union and the United States. Over the past four years the E.U. and the United States have criticized the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán for its authoritarian, conservative and nationalist tendencies. These were institutionalized in the new constitution, which the government rammed through the toothless Hungarian parliament, in which the national-conservative Fidesz-KDNP party coalition held a constitutional majority. Scores of domestic and foreign observers have highlighted the many problematic parts of the constitution, although very little has been changed as a consequence of these critiques. But these are not ordinary times. The United States is preoccupied with the situation in Ukraine, while the E.U. is crippled by the lingering economic crisis and fears of an anti-European backlash in European elections next month. As a consequence, the Hungarian elections received little special attention from the E.U. and U.S. elite, despite widespread fears that another victory for Orbán, dubbed the “Viktator” by domestic critics, could lead to permanent damage to Hungary’s still-young liberal democracy.

Macedonia: Presidential runoff vote to be held April 27 | Reuters

Macedonian President Gjorge Ivanov will seek his second term in office in a runoff ballot against an opposition contender on April 27 after the first round on Sunday produced no outright winner. The second-round vote for the largely ceremonial post will be held together with a snap parliamentary election, called after the ruling multiethnic coalition in the small Balkan country failed to agree on a single presidential candidate. Ivanov, nominated by the VMRO-DPMNE party of conservative Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, captured 52 percent of the votes cast, according to preliminary results by the state electoral commission after counting almost 90 percent of the ballots. For an outright victory, a candidate must win votes of more than 50 percent of the 1.7 million registered voters, rather than of those who actually cast ballots. The runoff should be held two weeks after an inconclusive presidential election, according to the constitution.

Ukraine: Leaked UN report claims Russia “rigged” Crimea referendum | The Voice of Russia

A draft UN report on human rights in Ukraine reportedly acquired by US-based political magazine Foreign Policy claims Russia “rigged” the referendum in Crimea, the news outlet said on its website. The draft report, written by UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ivan Simonovic, alleges the Russian government actively repressed the possibility of dissent or anti-Russian sentiment in the run-up to the referendum. “The delegation met with sources who claimed that there had been alleged cases of non-Ukrainian citizens participating in the referendum as well as individuals voting numerous times in different locations,” said an excerpt of the draft report published by Foreign Policy last Thursday, referring to allegations of Russia’s multiple efforts to “rig” the vote results in Crimea.

National: Supreme Court ruling sets off race for bigger donations | USAToday

Political parties, election lawyers and some donors are racing to capitalize on the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down the overall limits on what wealthy contributors can give to candidates, parties and political action committees. National Republican officials recently launched the Republican Victory Fund, a new campaign vehicle that will allow a single donor to contribute nearly $100,000 to be split among the Republican National Committee and the two GOP campaign committees working on House and Senate races. The goal of the joint fundraising plan is to “maximize our donations to help candidates win in November,” Kirsten Kukowski, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. The Supreme Court’s decision maintained limits on how much an individual can give to one party or candidate but tossed out the aggregate caps that barred a single donor from giving more than $48,600 to all federal candidates and $74,600 to political parties and PACs in the current election cycle.

Editorials: Democrats finally make voting rights a top priority | Zachary Roth/MSNBC

For years, voting-rights advocates have been quietly urging Democrats and the Obama administration to fully embrace the fight over access to the ballot as a defining civil-rights issue of our day. This was the week when it finally happened. The heightened rhetoric, which came from President Obama and other heavyweights in his party, is the latest sign that voting rights are likely to be a front-burner issue when Americans go to the polls this fall—at least  if Democrats have their way. In a speech at the National Action Network convention in New York City Friday afternoon, Obama used his most forceful language yet on the subject to condemn Republican efforts to make voting harder. “The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago,” the president said. “Across the country, Republicans have led efforts to pass laws making it harder, not easier, for people to vote.”

Editorials: Has Roberts court placed landmark 1964 civil rights law on a hit list? | CNN

It took the assassination of a president, a ferocious legislative battle and a bloodied army of protesters filling the streets of America to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed.
A half-century later, defenders of the landmark law say it faces a new threat: Five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court and an indifferent public. As the nation celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, it’s tempting to believe the battle over the law is over. But people are still clashing over it — what it means, how long should it last and whether it discriminates against whites. Now some supporters of the law fear the battle has shifted to new terrain. They warn that the conservative majority on the court, headed by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., will do to the law what it did last year to the Voting Rights Act — gut the parts that make it work while leaving its façade still standing. “I think Roberts is very smart and takes the long view,” says Kent Greenfield, a columnist and professor at Boston College Law School. “The Roberts court won’t say this law cannot stand.”

Colorado: Scott Gessler’s emergency election rule shot down by Colorado Supreme Court | Denver Westword

Secretary of State Scott Gessler overstepped his bounds when he issued an emergency rule on election night in November 2013 declaring that votes cast for ineligible candidates are invalid and shouldn’t be counted, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled this week. In a legal challenge brought by eight voters in the Adams 12 Five Star School District, the high court sided with the voters, finding that Gessler’s rule conflicts with a state law that says such votes “are to be counted and recorded.” The story behind the legal fight begins with Amy Speers, a nurse who decided to run for the school board against incumbent Rico Figueroa. Both wanted to represent District 4, which includes parts of Northglenn and Thornton. Speers’s campaign was going well, but a week before the election, Adams 12 officials discovered that she lives outside District 4. The boundaries for school board members had been redrawn in 2012, though Speers didn’t realize it when she signed up to run.

Iowa: State finds 12 votes were wrongly rejected in 2012 | Associated Press

At least 12 Iowa residents wrongly had their ballots rejected in the 2012 presidential election because of inaccuracies in the state’s list of ineligible felons, a review found Friday. Secretary of State Matt Schultz announced that nine additional cases of improper disenfranchisement were found during a review launched after it was reported in January that three voters were disenfranchised because of bureaucratic mistakes. The new cases include people who weren’t felons but were wrongly included on the list and former offenders who had their voting rights restored and should have been removed.

Massachusetts: GOP, Fisher spar in court over ballot access | Worcester Telegram & Gazette

A lawyer for the Massachusetts Republican Party argued in Superior Court Friday morning that a judge should not get involved with GOP delegates’ disputed vote for governor because doing so would invite an open-door policy for every losing candidate. Rather than protecting the rights of a disappointed candidate to run, he argued, the judge should consider the rights of the delegates who voted at the convention and whose constitutional rights could be overruled by judicial interference. “There are strict rules that are in place and there are obligations to comply with those rules,” said MassGOP lawyer Louis M. Ciavarra. “The rough and tumble world of conventions and backroom politics and how it really happens in the real world is not the place for judicial interference,” Mr. Ciavarra added. But Suffolk Superior Court Judge Douglas Wilkins questioned Ciavarra’s interpretation, noting, “This case is framed as an alleged violation of the party’s own rules.”

Missouri: Competing voting plans could appear on Missouri ballot | Associated Press

An early voting initiative petition is prompting a Missouri lawmaker to propose another version that could lead to voters deciding between competing plans. A House committee last week endorsed a constitutional amendment and companion legislation that would establish an early voting period. That comes as the Missouri Early Voting Fund is using professional petition circulators and volunteers to gather thousands of required signatures from registered voters in hopes of getting its proposal on this year’s ballot. The campaign treasurer for the initiative campaign is a former chief of staff for Attorney General Chris Koster. The initiative petition would allow early voting for six weeks and require that officials accommodate early voting on Saturday and Sunday for the final 21 days before federal or state elections. The proposal in the legislature calls for nine days of early voting and depends upon lawmakers to approve funding.

Wyoming: Committee studies restoring voting rights to felons | Star-Tribune

Wyoming lawmakers are going to study between now and the next legislative session the Wyoming Parole Board’s duties to restore convicted felons’ voting rights. On Wednesday, the Management Council, a committee of Wyoming House and Senate leadership, asked the Judiciary Interim Committee to study the issue. That followed an April 3 letter from the Parole Board sent to Senate President Tony Ross, R-Cheyenne, asking for an interim study. Parole Board member Douglas Chamberlain, a former House speaker and Torrington resident, doesn’t think restoring voting rights to felons has anything to do with the board’s duties. “I suggested we have that issue revisited by the Legislature if they would because I think it’s a contradiction within the law,” he said.

Afghanistan: Early Results Suggest Abdullah-Ghani Runoff for President | Bloomberg

With 10 percent of votes counted in the April 5 election, Abdullah leads with 42 percent, compared with 38 percent for Ghani, according to the Independent Election Commission of Afghanistan in Kabul. A runoff will take place between the two top candidates if no single candidate obtains more than 50 percent of the vote. “The results will change,” Ahmad Yusuf Nuristani, the election commission chairman, told reporters in Kabul yesterday. “It is possible that one candidate is the front-runner in today’s press conference, and there will be another front-runner in the next press conference.” The Afghan government said voter turnout doubled from the previous presidential election in a show of defiance against Taliban insurgents who have sought to disrupt the poll. The vote paves the way for the first democratic transfer of power since the U.S. ousted the group in 2001.

Canada: Senate panel sets up confrontation with Harper on Elections Act | The Globe and Mail

In a rare exercise of power, a Senate committee is pushing back against Stephen Harper’s Conservative government by unanimously recommending changes to the Fair Elections Act, an overhaul of electoral law that is fiercely opposed by other parties. The Senate report, which will be made public this week, amounts to a warning shot from the embattled Senate. The move is not binding, but it raises the threat of the Senate changing the bill itself if the House of Commons ignores its recommendations before passing Bill C-23. The Senate committee, two-thirds of whose members are Conservatives appointed by Mr. Harper, heard from a broad range of experts last week, the vast majority of whom called for substantial changes to the deeply divisive bill. Now the senators are set to recommend, unanimously, specific amendments.

Guinea-Bissau: Guinea-Bissau counts votes after big turnout in crucial poll | Reuters

Vote counting began in Guinea-Bissau after a heavy turnout in Sunday’s legislative and presidential elections meant to bring stability to the West African state after years of coups and political infighting. No major incidents were reported by the close of polls and monitors said they expected a record turnout. The electoral commission said turnout had reached 60 percent by 1430 GMT (10.30 a.m. EDT) but did not give more detailed numbers. At sunset, officials in Pefine, a neighborhood in the crumbling capital Bissau, sat under a mango tree tallying ballots under the watchful eyes of residents and election observers. Results are due by Friday. If no candidate wins an outright majority, a second round will be held between the top two.

Hungary: Legal But Not Fair | New York Times

Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party coasted to a clear victory in last weekend’s Hungarian election, as expected. The governing party got 45% of the vote, but the new “rules of the game” turned this plurality vote into two thirds of the seats in the parliament. A continuing two-thirds parliamentary majority allows Orbán to govern without constraint because he can change the constitution at will. But this constitution-making majority hangs by a thread. Orbán’s mandate to govern is clear because his party got more votes than any other single political bloc. What is not legitimate, however, is his two-thirds supermajority. Orbán was certainly not supported by two-thirds of Hungarians – nowhere close. In fact, a majority gave their votes to other parties. Orbán’s two-thirds victory was achieved through legal smoke and mirrors. Legal. But smoke and mirrors.

Macedonia: Presidential election set for second vote | GlobalPost

Macedonia’s presidential election looks set for a run-off vote later this month after preliminary results from Sunday’s first round seemed to show the incumbent falling short of outright victory. President Gjorge Ivanov, candidate for the ruling conservative VMRO-DPMNE party, heads the race with 51.8 percent of the votes cast, electoral officials said. His main rival, Social Democrat Stevo Pendarovski, won 36.3 percent, unofficial results showed, based on just over 70 percent of the vote counted so far. However, a president can only be elected on the first round of votes in Macedonia if a candidate gathers the support of more than 50 percent of all 1.7 million registered voters, around 870,000 votes. But with turnout at just over 50 percent, according to figures from the country’s electoral commission, Ivanov has secured the backing of around 450,000 voters, taking the race between with Pendarovski to a run-off on April 27, along with early general elections in the country.

The Voting News Weekly: The Voting News Weekly April 7-13 2014

afghanistan260Appearing at the annual convention of the National Action Network in Manhattan, President Obama accused Republicans of trying to rig the elections by making it harder for older people, women, minorities and the impoverished to cast ballots in swing states that could determine control of the Senate. Pew released its 2012 Elections Performance Index that uses standardized data from the U.S. Census, the Elections Assistance Commission, and a major survey to assess states on 17 different variables and judge just how well they are running their elections. Rather than finding new voting sites to replace polling places without accessible restrooms, the Miami-Dade elections department has decided to prohibit all voters from using restrooms to avoid charges of discrimination. A federal judge agreed Tuesday with the American Civil Liberties Union that a state court should decide a lawsuit challenging Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s enforcement of the state’s voter-citizenship rule. In spite of claims of massive potential voter fraud, the North Carolina election board’s data has offered little proof of rampant fraud. The Department of Justice may investigate a new law passed by the GOP-controlled state legislature prohibiting local election officials from sending out absentee ballot applications. Voters in Afghanistan defied threats of violence from the Taliban to cast votes and in one of the most logistically challenging elections, Indonesians elected a new legislature.

National: Military Voting Bill Advances | KTRH

The U.S. Senate Rules Committee has passed a bill aimed at strengthening voting protections for military members.  The Safeguarding Elections for our Nation’s Troops through Reforms and Improvements (SENTRI) Act is co-sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY).  Upon its passage out of committee this week, Senator Cornyn released a statement urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to “immediately” bring the bill before the full Senate.  “The 2012 election made clear that there are still too many barriers to military service members and their families having their votes counted,” Cornyn wrote in his statement.  “These brave men and women put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe, and the least we can do is ensure that everything possible is being done to safeguard their voting rights.”

Editorials: Why voting rights is the Democrats’ most important project in 2014 | Washington Post

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the main muse of the Civil Rights Summit taking place at the LBJ Presidential Library this week, legislation passed the following year, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, has brought forth many words from the Obama administration this week, many of which can be linked neatly to the 2014 midterms and where the Democratic Party sees itself in the future. His discussion of voting rights is framed by the civil rights movement and the once overwhelming and bipartisan support for expanding voter franchise. He mentions that Strom Thurmond voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in the ’80s, and that the Senate vote to reauthorize the law in 2006 was 98-0. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said before that vote, “As we reflect on the true wrongs that existed in the 1950s and 1960s and where those wrongs may have taken place, we owe it to history . . . to pay tribute to those who took the law and made it a reality.” Last year, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which means states with a history of discrimination that once needed preclearance for redistricting no longer require special attention from the Justice Department, unless Congress passes an amended Section 4, an unlikely prospect given the current congressional class. Many state legislatures reacted by passing legislation that often makes it harder to vote. There are new voter-ID laws, and early voting and same-day registration have been sanded away in many states. The conservative argument for these laws is that they help prevent voter fraud. Democrats respond that it also prevents their base from voting.