North Carolina: Civil Rights Groups Vow to Overturn Voting Reform Law | ABC

North Carolina’s sweeping and restrictive new voting law is facing multiple legal challenges from civil rights groups that argue it discriminates against black and young voters. Republican Governor Pat McCrory signed the bill Monday, which goes into effect in 2016. Among other things, the law requires voters to bring state-issued photo IDs to the polls, cuts down early voting time by one week, eliminates same-day voter registration, and bans pre-registration for youth voters who will turn 18 on Election Day. The American Civil Liberties Union, along with two other groups, immediately filed a legal challenge that argues the law attempts to suppress minority voters, thereby violating the Constitution and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The NAACP has filed a similar suit.

Iowa: State gains federal access to investigate voter fraud | The Des Moines Register

After months of negotiations and paperwork, Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz said Wednesday his office will gain access to a federal immigration database it can use to investigate potential voter fraud. Schultz, a Republican, released a signed memorandum of understanding between his office and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that will allow him to tap the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, Program, which tracks the legal status of immigrants. “While there are still many logistics to work out in this process that may take some time, I want to thank the Federal government for finally granting my office access to the federal SAVE program,” Schultz said in a statement. “Ensuring election integrity without voter suppression has been our goal throughout this process. This is a step in the right direction for all Iowans that care about integrity in the election process.”

Kansas: ACLU notifies Kobach of intention to file voting rights lawsuit | LJWorld.com

The American Civil Liberties Union today notified Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach that it will file a lawsuit in 90 days if the state doesn’t address the issue of approximately 14,000 voter registration applications that are in limbo. “Kansans are simply trying to exercise their constitutional right to vote,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “This is the most fundamental freedom we have as Americans, yet Secretary of State Kobach is blocking thousands upon thousands of Kansans from their rightful participation in the political process. This is un-American, unconstitutional and must end immediately.” The dispute is over thousands of voter registration applications in Kansas since January when a new state law took effect that requires new registrations to include proof of U.S. citizenship with a document such as a birth certificate or passport.

CLU letter to Kobach ( .PDF )

North Carolina: Race at Center of North Carolina Voting Law Battle | ABC

North Carolina’s sweeping new voting law is facing multiple legal challenges from civil rights groups that argue it discriminates against black and young voters. Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill — one of the toughest voting measures in the country — into law on Monday. It requires voters to bring photo ID to the polls, cuts down early voting time by one week, eliminates same-day voter registration and bans pre-registration for youth voters who will turn 18 on Election Day. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with two other groups, filed a legal challenge that argues the law attempts to suppress minority voters, thereby violating the Constitution and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The NAACP has filed a similar suit. “Today’s lawsuit is about ensuring that all voters are able to participate in the political process,” Allison Riggs, a staff attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said in a statement. “Taken together, the new restrictions in this law will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, depriving many of our most vulnerable citizens from being able to easily exercise a constitutional right.”

North Carolina: North Carolina's sweeping voter ID law faces legal challenge | Fox News

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory on Monday signed into law changes in how residents can vote that includes requiring them to show a photo ID at polling stations, a move that triggered threats of legal action from the NAACP and other groups. The American Civil Liberties Union joined two other groups in announcing that they were filing suit against key parts of the package. This came hours after McCrory said in a statement that he had signed the measure, without a ceremony. “Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID, and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote,” the Republican governor said in a statement.

Pennsylvania: State ends testimony in voter ID case | Philadelphia Inquirer

The battle over Pennsylvania’s voter identification law touched on familiar themes Tuesday as the state concluded its case after almost three weeks of testimony. Witnesses for the Department of State testified for several hours detailing the extent to which they worked to make information about the law widely known – including reaching out to the elderly, veterans groups, the homeless, and immigrant communities – to ensure residents without ID would understand the steps needed to get it. Attorneys for the plaintiffs questioned the same officials about the wide range of difficulties voters encountered and the disparity in estimates on how many remain without proper ID. Closing arguments are expected Wednesday.

Pennsylvania: Balancing voter ID law against voters’ rights | Associated Press

Two weeks into the trial on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s voter-identification law, both sides profess confidence that they will prevail. That’s probably a good indication that neither is really sure. After nine days of testimony by state government bureaucrats, nationally known experts on statistics and communications and individual voters frustrated by the new photo ID requirement, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley put the trial on hold for a four-day weekend as lawyers prepare to sum up their cases in closing arguments anticipated next week. The issue is where the line should be drawn between Pennsylvanians’ right to vote and the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of elections. So far, the debate has been largely hypothetical _ the court has blocked enforcement of the March 2012 law since before the presidential election _ but the trial verdict will be a major step toward deciding whether it is allowed to take effect. The law would require all voters to show a Pennsylvania driver’s license or another acceptable photo ID with a current expiration date before they may cast ballots in an election. Voters who go to the polls without proper ID could only cast provisional ballots, which would be counted only if they provide local officials with an acceptable ID within six days after the election.

National: Justice Department to take on states over voting rights | McClatchy

The Obama administration announced Thursday that it will legally contest a series of laws around the country as part of an aggressive campaign to fight a recent Supreme Court ruling that it says could reduce minority voting. The Justice Department filed its first challenge Thursday, asking a judge to require Texas to seek permission from the federal government before making voting changes because of the state’s history of discrimination. Several states in the South and Southwest could face similar lawsuits. “This is the department’s first action to protect voting rights following the (Supreme Court) decision, but it will not be our last,” Attorney General Eric Holder said at a National Urban League conference in Philadelphia on Thursday. “My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against discrimination wherever it is found.” Civil rights groups and African-American lawmakers welcomed the decision, as did the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP.

Pennsylvania: AFL-CIO analysis finds state’s voter ID law disenfranchised thousands of voters | PennLive.com

While the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by the state’s voter ID law is an area of dispute in the ongoing Commonwealth Court case seeking to overturn that law, a statewide union says it can say with 99 percent certainty there were in the November 2012 election. The trial of the state’s voter ID law continues on Thursday, but meanwhile, a labor union offers up its own analysis that claims the law that has yet to be enforced has already disenfranchised voters. The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO released its analysis that indicates between 35,239 and 36,613 people were so confused about whether or not they had to produce an acceptable photo ID to vote in the last presidential election that they just stayed home. Nils Hagen-Frederikson, a spokesman for the governor’s Office of General Counsel, dismissed the analysis’ findings. “We are focused on the facts and evidence being discussed in court, not press releases or questionable claims from outside groups.” he said.

Florida: More fallout from voting rights act ruling: court dismisses challenge to Florida’s voter purge | Miami Herald

A federal court in Tampa dismissed the claim by civil rights activists Wednesday challenging the controversial 2012 voter purge enacted by Gov. Rick Scott and the state’s Division of Elections to rid the rolls of what they believed were scores of fraudulent voter registrations. The action was challenged by the the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law on behalf of Mi Familia Vota and two U.S. citizens and alleged it unconstitutionally targeted minority voters.

Pennsylvania: State Defends Law on ID for Voters | New York Times

Pennsylvania’s voter identification law, one of the strictest in the nation, was back before a court on Monday in a case that opponents hope will end once and for all requirements that were suspended by a judge a few weeks before last year’s presidential election. Lawyers representing a group of voters without proper ID made the case in opening arguments that by requiring people to present photo identification to obtain a ballot, Pennsylvania was taking away the right to vote from hundreds of thousands of registered voters who could not obtain the right document. In rebuttal, lawyers for the state said the United States Supreme Court had ruled that laws requiring voters to present identification were not inherently a burden. Pennsylvania’s voting procedures have drawn intense national scrutiny because Pennsylvania is a swing state whose 20 electoral votes are sharply contested in national elections.

Pennsylvania: Statistician claims hundreds of thousands lack ID to vote | PennLive.com

This morning’s session of the trial on the state’s controversial voter ID law concluded after hearing nearly three hours of testimony from a statistician who concluded hundreds of thousands of registered voters lack identification required to vote. Bernard Siskin, a Philadelphia statistical consultant, spent the morning on the witness stand in the Commonwealth Court dissecting his analysis that compared the state’s voter registration database with the state Department of Transportation database. Siskin told Judge Bernard McGinley that his comparison of the databases found 511,415 registered voters in Pennsylvania who had either no valid PennDOT or Department of State ID or one that would be expired by the upcoming November election, the first election when the law is to take effect. He said allowing for margins of error and data issues, the number of registered voters lacking ID to vote come November would still be in the hundreds of thousands.

Pennsylvania: Corbett administration officials had concerns about disenfranchising voters, memo suggests | PennLive.com

Officials from the state Departments of State and Aging recognized early on the problem that the voter ID legislation might pose to Pennsylvanians who are older, ill or disabled, according to attorneys challenging the state’s voter ID law. Those officials sent a memo to Gov. Tom Corbett’s office in November 2011, when the law was still being debated, about allowing voters in those circumstances who couldn’t get to a PennDOT center to get a photo ID to vote by absentee ballot. The governor’s office denied the request, said Michael Rubin, a Washington, D.C. attorney representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania-led coalition that is seeking to permanently overturn the law. In his opening arguments in the trial that began Monday in Commonwealth Court on the state’s voter ID law, Rubin noted that the memo would be introduced as new evidence to show that even members of Corbett’s administration recognized the potential it presented in disenfranchising voters.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Law Being Argued Anew to State Court Judge | Businessweek

Opponents of Pennsylvania’s voter identification law are asking a judge to overturn the Republican-backed legislation, which requires voters to show photo ID to cast a ballot. Judge Bernard McGinley of Commonwealth Court in Harrisburg will hear opening statements from attorneys for organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union on whether the law is unconstitutional and disenfranchises groups of voters including the poor and elderly. State officials were temporarily barred from enforcing the law in the November and May elections. This lawsuit is really about a bad law that is badly written,” Michael Rubin, an attorney for the plaintiffs with the firm Arnold & Porter LLP, told reporters July 11 on a media call. As many as 410,000 people, or 5 percent of Pennsylvania’s eligible electorate, might be barred from voting under the statute, according to the ACLU.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Law Faces Lawsuit From ACLU | Stateline

The fierce battle over Pennsylvania’s voter ID law goes to trial on Monday in a state courtroom in Harrisburg. The legal fight began with a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and other groups in May 2012. A state judge temporarily blocked the voter ID law from affecting Election Day 2012, but only after the state Supreme Court intervened. The Pennsylvania ACLU argues the voter ID law is unconstitutional because it infringes on the right to vote and could disenfranchise voters.

Pennsylvania: Protesters clamor in Harrisburg on eve of trial for voter ID law | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Calling the state’s yet-to-be implemented voter ID law a thinly veiled attempt at voter suppression, more than 100 people rallied in the state Capitol Thursday, just days before a trial on the controversial law is set to begin. “Harrisburg is ground zero in the fight for voting rights in the North,” said Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP, speaking to the crowd in the Capitol Rotunda. Gov. Tom Corbett signed a bill in March 2012 requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls. The law was quickly challenged; a lawsuit was filed later that month by seven voters and the American Civil Liberties Union. Critics of the law have said it would leave many people disenfranchised, and particularly targets low-income people, seniors, minorities and those in urban areas.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID law to be debated in court | Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal

Pennsylvania’s much-debated and long-sidelined voter-identification law is getting its day in court. The legislation, requiring people to show a valid form of identification to vote, will head to Commonwealth Court on Monday, where the justices will explore its constitutional legitimacy. Supporters of the law say they are trying to protect the sanctity of the electoral process. Opponents say the law seeks to suppress the votes of the poor and members of minority groups, who are less likely to have the needed ID. “This law is discriminatory. It’s time for the court to throw it out and be done with it, once and for all,” says John Jordan, director of civic engagement for the Pennsylvania NAACP.

Iowa: State will rewrite new voter registration form after complaint from ACLU | Des Moines Register Staff Blogs

A new voter registration form will be thrown out and rewritten after the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa warned it could confuse and potentially disenfranchise eligible voters. Iowa Secretary of State’s Office Legal Counsel Charlie Smithson said Tuesday his office had reviewed the ACLU’s arguments and agreed with its concerns. The Voter Registration Commission will rescind the rules enacting the new form, which is set to become the state’s official voter registration document on Aug. 1. In a petition presented to the Iowa Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee, the ACLU said the new form gives the mistaken impression that registrants must provide a state driver’s license or ID card number and their social security number in order to register. The law actually requires would-be voters to provide their social security number only if the registrant doesn’t have a state-issued ID.

New Hampshire: Trial scheduled for 2014 on voter registration forms | Fosters

A trial is tentatively set for February 2014 to decide whether New Hampshire will be allowed to use controversial language on its voter registration forms that was previously blocked by a judge. With last year’s general election approaching, Strafford County Superior Court Judge John Lewis issued a temporary injunction preventing the state from using new voter registration forms that included a paragraph discussing motor vehicle and residency requirements. Under state law, voters aren’t required to be permanent residents of New Hampshire to cast ballots here. Anyone who maintains a “domicile” in the state is eligible to vote in New Hampshire, including college students. However, Republican lawmakers enacted changes in 2012 that were intended to require anyone who chooses to vote in New Hampshire to also become a resident, falling under the purview of motor vehicle laws.

Pennsylvania: Constitutional showdown looms at voter ID trial | The Mercury

Pennsylvania’s long-sidelined voter identification law is about to go on trial. Civil libertarians who contend that the statute violates voters’ rights persuaded a state judge to bar enforcement of the photo ID requirement during the 2012 presidential election and the May primary. But those were temporary orders based on a narrower context; the trial set to begin July 15 in Commonwealth Court will explore the more complicated constitutional questions. It could be the beginning of a long process. Lawyers in the case say a panel of Commonwealth Court judges may weigh in following the trial, before what both sides expect will be an appeal by the loser to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Rhode Island: House Speaker: No changes to voter ID law this session | The Providence Journal

Revising the state’s voter identification law will have to wait another year, after House Speaker Gordon D. Fox called off a scheduled House vote on proposed legislation Wednesday. The bill that had been before the House proposed eliminating a new requirement set to take effect for the 2014 election: showing a valid picture identification before voting. Currently, Rhode Islanders must show an ID at the polls, but, starting next year, that ID must have a picture on it.

Pennsylvania: Battle looms at voter ID trial | Associated Press

Pennsylvania’s long-sidelined voter identification law is about to go on trial. Civil libertarians who contend that the statute violates voters’ rights persuaded a state judge to bar enforcement of the photo ID requirement during the 2012 presidential election and the May primary. But those were temporary orders based on a narrower context; the trial set to begin July 15 in Commonwealth Court will explore the more complicated constitutional questions. It could be the beginning of a long process. Lawyers in the case say a panel of Commonwealth Court judges may weigh in following the trial, before what both sides expect will be an appeal by the loser to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Pennsylvania: Constitutional issues at the center of approaching trial on voter ID law | Associated Press

Pennsylvania’s long-sidelined voter identification law is about to go on trial. Civil libertarians who contend that the statute violates voters’ rights persuaded a state judge to bar enforcement of the photo ID requirement during the 2012 presidential election and the May primary. But those were temporary orders based on a narrower context; the trial set to begin July 15 in Commonwealth Court will explore the more complicated constitutional questions. It could be the beginning of a long process. Lawyers in the case say a panel of Commonwealth Court judges may weigh in following the trial, before what both sides expect will be an appeal by the loser to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

National: Liberals brace for Supreme Court decision on voting rights | NBC

Bracing for an impending Supreme Court decision that could limit the reach of the Voting Rights Act, liberal legal experts and advocates are assessing what to do if the court strikes down a central part of the law. Addressing the annual convention of the liberal lawyers’ group the American Constitution Society, Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a pioneer of the civil rights movement, told an audience of more than 1,000 lawyers and law students in Washington, D.C., that as a young activist in the 1960s, he’d chosen to “get in trouble – good trouble, necessary trouble” using civil disobedience and street protests to win the right to vote. Now, Lewis said, “I think it’s time for all of us once again to get in trouble.” Referring to the high court’s imminent decision on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Lewis said, “We’re at a crossroads. Something’s going to happen, maybe next Monday, maybe next Thursday, the court is going to say something.” Arguing that voting rights were in jeopardy, Lewis said “I think it’s time for all of us once again to get in trouble.”

Kansas: Supreme Court ruling on voter I.D. could affect Kansas law | KansasCity.com

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona cannot require voters to document their citizenship before allowing them to cast ballots in federal elections. Arizona voters in 2004 approved Proposition 200, which requires voters to document their citizenship before allowing them to cast ballots in federal elections. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down the law. Rather, the high court said that a 1993 federal law takes precedence. That statute says people may register to vote using a federal form that asks, under penalty of perjury, whether they are U.S. citizens.

Kentucky: Beshear says he will decide soon when to schedule legislative redistricting | Kentucky.com

Gov. Steve Beshear hopes to determine within about a week when to call a special legislative session to redraw the boundaries of state House and Senate districts. Beshear, after meeting for about an hour Monday behind closed doors in his Capitol office with Senate President Robert Stivers and House Speaker Greg Stumbo, said they were “working on a set of ground rules” for a special session and “are already looking at their calendars for a date.” Only the governor may call a special session and set its agenda. The legislature determines how long one will last. Beshear and the legislative leaders want a special session to run for only five days. That’s the minimum needed to make a law. The session will cost taxpayers about $65,000 a day.

National: Voting rights in the balance as Supreme Court about to issue decision | NBC

The Supreme Court is expected to soon announce its decision on a case which many Latino organizations are closely watching – whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act will be struck down.  Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires covered states and counties to obtain “preclearance” from the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing any voting changes.  NBC News Justice correspondent Pete Williams says this is “the most potent part of a law widely considered the most important piece of civil rights legislation ever passed by Congress.” National civil rights organizations like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), National Council of la Raza, the Brennan Center for Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union, among others, argue that Section 5 has kept some counties and states from establishing voting laws or guidelines that make it more difficult for Latinos and other minorities to vote.  Last year civil rights groups took issue with proposed voting laws in Texas and Florida which would have required stricter voter ID or would have limited early voting days, for example.  Civil rights groups said these laws would have made it more difficult for Latinos and African Americans to vote.

Wisconsin: Appeals court ruling doesn’t enact voter ID law | The Cap Times

A state appeals court overturned a Dane County Circuit Court ruling Thursday morning, handing proponents of the state’s controversial voter ID law a minor legal victory. The ruling from the 4th District Court of Appeals came in a case brought by the Wisconsin League of Women Voters. The league argued the law passed in 2011 violated a provision of the Wisconsin Constitution that guarantees every person the right to vote. Thursday’s ruling, however, will not result in the voter ID law being enacted. Three other lawsuits are still pending that challenge the legality of the law. In the other case brought in state courts, Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant rights group, and the Milwaukee branch of the NAACP won a permanent injunction against the voter ID law in Dane County Circuit Court. The state Department of Justice has asked for an appeals court review of the ruling.

Hawaii: No Agreement on Election-Day Registration | Big Island Now

They tried during six different meetings, but state lawmakers last month could not reach an agreement on a bill that would have allowed Hawaii residents to register to vote on election day. House Bill 321 was introduced to increase access to voting. Current state law requires that a voter register 30 days before an election. In testimony submitted on the bill, the American Civil Liberties Union said in the 2012 election, 62% of Hawaii’s registered voters went to the polls – the lowest voter turnout in the nation.

Florida: Voting rights watchdogs give thumbs down to Florida elections bill | Palm Beach Post

Several Florida organizations that watchdog voting rights issues are giving a thumbs down to the elections bill currently awaiting a vote in the Florida legislature. In a letter delivered to House Speaker Will Weatherford, the organizations argue that the bill has a disproportionately harmful impact on minorities and they offer several recommendations for strengthening the measure. HB 7013 gives supervisors of elections discretion to decide if their county should have early voting between eight and 14 days. Before the GOP-controlled legislature rewrote elections law in 2011, 14 days of early voting was mandatory. The change contributed to long lines in the 2012 election, the groups say in their letter, and they ask that those 14 days be restored.