Kansas: Kobach proposes rule change on proof-of-citizenship requirement to register to vote | Kansas City Kansan

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is proposing a change to the law he pushed through the Legislature that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote. The Kansas proof-of-citizenship law requires people who register to vote in the state for the first time to provide a birth certificate, passport or other document. But since it went into effect Jan. 1, more than 11,000 people who have attempted to register to vote are in “suspense,” meaning they are not yet qualified to vote because of lack of proof of citizenship.

Florida: State asks federal court to dismiss voting rights suit | Bradenton Herald

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act last month, it cleared the way for Gov. Rick Scott’s administration to resume its controversial effort to remove potential noncitizens from voter rolls. The high court June 25 invalidated a formula used for decades by federal officials to approve changes to voting laws in states and counties to protect minorities from discrimination, a review known as preclearance. The federal scrutiny no longer applies to Monroe and four other Florida counties: Hillsborough, Collier, Hardee and Hendry. A Hispanic advocacy group, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, sued last year on behalf of two Tampa voters, calling the state’s list of suspected non-U.S. citizen voters unreliable with a potential to disenfranchise voters, especially Hispanics and African-Americans such as Murat Limage, 45, of Tampa. He received a letter from the county elections office that questioned his citizenship, even though he was a naturalized U.S. citizen, the suit alleges. Some county election supervisors also questioned the accuracy of the state data. Removal efforts stalled a few weeks before the 2012 general election.

Oregon: Senate rejects universal voter registration proposal | Oregon Live

Legislation aimed at adding hundreds of thousands of registered voters in Oregon failed by a single vote in the state Senate on Sunday. Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, joined with all 14 Republicans to defeat a bill that would automatically register eligible voters when they received new or updated driver licenses in Oregon. Secretary of State Kate Brown had promoted House Bill 3521 as an ambitious way to remove barriers to voting and greatly increase voting participation in the state.  But critics, particularly from the Republican Party, said they feared the bill would lead to greater voter fraud in Oregon and that anyone who cared enough to vote should take personal responsibility for registering.

Colorado: Suspect voters sent to Colorado DAs mostly Democrats | The Denver Post

Democrats make up more than half of the 155 suspected noncitizen voters that Secretary of State Scott Gessler is referring to prosecutors, according to figures released by his office Friday. The party affiliation breakdown shows that 88 of the voters are Democrats, 49 are unaffiliated, and 13 are Republicans. Five others are from minor parties, according to numbers provided by Gessler’s office to The Associated Press. No charges have been filed yet against the voters, which Gessler said Monday are being referred to prosecutors. It’s the latest chapter in a heated debate that Gessler, a Republican, has helped drive since taking office in 2011, repeatedly saying noncitizens on voter rolls are vulnerability in the system. He said this week that officials “can no longer turn a blind eye” to it.

Editorials: Time to provide a right to vote | Frank Askin/NJ.com

So, American citizen, you think you have a right to vote for your federal representatives? Think again. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia just disabused you of that notion — although in a backhanded sort of way. In his majority opinion earlier this month striking down the Arizona law requiring voters to produce documentary evidence of citizenship in order to cast a ballot, Scalia stated in no uncertain terms that the Constitution allows Congress to “regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them.” Notably, not one of the liberal members of the court challenged his assertion. The actual language of the Constitution gives Congress the power to override state laws governing the “time, place and manner” of conducting federal elections. Many scholars believed that the term “manner” was broad enough to encompass the qualifications of voters. But the Scalia opinion took pains to disavow the one Supreme Court opinion which seemed to suggest just that. In 1970, in the case of Oregon vs. Mitchell, the court upheld a congressional enactment requiring states to allow 18-year-olds to vote in federal elections.

Texas: New Voter ID, Unavailable in Seventy Counties in State, Opens With Wealth of Issues Remaining | Houston Press

Between Sen. Wendy Davis’s filibuster and the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, this week has been a strangely successful one for progressives in Texas. However, there was a ruling before either of these realities that girded conservatives and tea partiers in the state. On Tuesday, the SCOTUS ruled in a 5-4 decision that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act should be excised, and that Congress “may draft another formula based on current conditions.” This section, which contained a formula forcing nine states and assorted counties to pre-clear electoral changes with the federal government, was one of the main pillars of the VRA, providing federal oversight to areas that had used traditionally discriminatory practices to prevent minorities from voting.

National: Eliminating problems at polls goal of presidential commission | The Clarion-Ledger

A presidential commission set up to address long lines and other problems at the polls will turn to voters, local officials and researchers in crafting a plan to improve election systems. The Presidential Commission on Election Administration, created by President Barack Obama early this year, will hold a public hearing Friday in Miami followed by hearings in Denver on Aug. 8, Philadelphia, Pa., on Sept. 4 and an unspecified city in Ohio on Sept. 20. The commission held its first public meeting Friday in Washington. “Our goal… is to keep attention very active on this issue,” said Robert Bauer, co-chairman of the commission and general counsel to Obama’s 2012 campaign. “Please help us ferret out the information that we need.” The hearings come as public attention turns to major voting issues.

Kansas: One-third of Kansas voter registration applications held up | Kansas City Star

Roughly one-third of all voter registration applications submitted in Kansas since Jan. 1 are in “suspense” because applicants could not provide proof of citizenship, but some say a flawed computer upgrade is responsible for most of the problem. Six months after the state started requiring new voters to prove their citizenship, 11,101 people who attempted to register were considered unqualified to vote because of lack of proof of citizenship, the Lawrence Journal-World reported. During that period, 20,780 have been added to the voter rolls, according to figures provided by the Kansas secretary of state’s office. When people show proof of U.S. citizenship to get a driver’s license in Kansas, the documentation is not making it to election officials for voter registration purposes, said Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew. “There are quite a few in suspense across the state, and we (in Douglas County) are no different than that,” Shew said.

National: Court’s voter ID ruling could help shape political landscape | UPI.com

The U.S. Supreme Court last week stepped into the national fight over voter identification requirements, and the result won’t please those pushing such requirements in at least 30 states. The justices ruled 7-2 Arizona’s requirement of proof of citizenship before voter registration is pre-empted by federal law. The Dallas Morning News, which praised the ruling editorially, said after the decision the high court was bucking a national trend. The newspaper said a number of states have restricted early voting and voter registration drives, while in Florida, “the League of Women Voters was forced to suspend its voter registration efforts after 72 years because a new law greatly impedes its efforts.” The newspaper noted more than 30 states introduced such legislation in 2011 and the ID cards permitted vary widely.

National: Presidential commission begins task of improving voting process | Hattiesburg American

A presidential commission set up to address long lines and other problems at the polls will turn to voters, local officials and researchers in crafting a plan to improve election systems. The Presidential Commission on Election Administration, created by President Barack Obama early this year, will hold a public hearing Friday in Miami followed by hearings in Denver on Aug. 8, Philadelphia on Sept. 4 and an unspecified city in Ohio on Sept. 20. The commission held its first public meeting Friday in Washington. “Our goal … is to keep attention very active on this issue,” said Robert Bauer, co-chairman of the commission and general counsel to Obama’s 2012 campaign. “Please help us ferret out the information that we need.” The hearings come as public attention turns to major voting issues.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID law likely not affected by Arizona case | Associated Press

A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court Monday striking down an Arizona voter identification law will likely have little consequence in another legal case — that of the Pennsylvania voter identification law, legal experts said. By a 7-2 ruling, the nation’s high court on Monday ruled that in the case of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, Arizona had violated constitutional law and could not demand proof of citizenship as a voter registration requisite. Under the National Voter Registration Act, voters are required to swear they are citizens on the application form. The Arizona law would have demanded documentary proof at time of registration. By contrast, the Pennsylvania legislation would require all voters to show a valid photo ID at the polls. The law is scheduled for a July trial in Commonwealth Court.

National: Arizona’s Proof-of-Citizenship Requirement for Voters Struck Down | Governing.com

In a ruling that raises more questions that it resolves, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal voter registration forms. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., a 7-2 majority determined that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 preempts the state requirement. In the short term, this means that those who register to vote through a federal form only need to sign the form, swearing to be U.S. citizens. Georgia, Kansas and Alabama have proof-of-citizenship requirements identical to Arizona’s, which also seem to be negated now. But in reacting to the court’s decision, detractors of the nullified state requirement said they were still concerned about a back-door option created by the ruling. “What the Supreme Court gave the federal government with one hand, it suggested could soon be taken away with the other,” wrote Richard Hasen, a political science professor from the University of California, Irvine School of Law, in a Daily Beast column.* That’s because the ruling allows Arizona to ask the federal Election Assistance Commission to add proof-of-citizenship as part of the federal registration form; if the commission — which currently has no appointed commissioners — rejected the request, then the state could take that request to court.

Editorials: Could Supreme Court’s Arizona Ruling Lead to Voting Messes Down the Road? | Garrett Epps/The Atlantic

On Monday, I wrote that the Court’s 7-2 decision in Arizona v. Arizona Inter Tribal Council “gave a strong affirmation to Congress’s power to regulate state voter-registration processes” and “refused to narrow the scope of Congress’s power to supervise federal election procedures in the states.” That remains the general view. (See coverage here, here, and here.) Some commentators I respect find the decision more mixed as an affirmation of federal power over state voting procedures. At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denistonconcluded that the opinion “assured states that they retain the ultimate power to decide who gets to vote. The apparent bottom line: states cannot now require voters to show proof that they are U.S. citizens, but the Court has given them a plan that could gain them that power.” Also in SCOTUSblog, Georgetown Law Professor Martin Lederman argues that “what appears at first to be a significant victory for the federal government might in fact be something much less than that — indeed, might establish important restrictions on Congress’s authority to determine eligibility for voting in federal elections, in a way that implicates current and potential future federal legislation.” And at the Daily Beast, election-law guru Richard Hasen warns that the decision “may give states new powers to resist federal government control over elections.” It’s hard to think of three smarter people. I continue to think that the decision is a big win for Congress’s power. The storm clouds these commentators discern may be threatening, but also may pass over easily.

Colorado: Voter citizenship checks yield few responses | Associated Press

The latest round of letters questioning the citizenship of some Colorado registered voters has 63 out of 298 people affirming their right to vote, and most recipients are ignoring the May letters altogether. The letters are part of an ongoing effort by Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler to address what he says is a risk for voter fraud. Gessler’s office provided the latest numbers to The Associated Press this week. Another 15 people who received letters last month said they weren’t U.S. citizens and asked to be removed from voter rolls.

Georgia: Georgia voter I.D. law blocked | Atlanta Journal-Constitution

This week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling partly blocks Georgia from enforcing a law requiring would-be voters to prove U.S. citizenship, Secretary of State Brian Kemp said Wednesday. In a 7-2 decision Monday, the court ruled a similar statute in Arizona is pre-empted by federal law. Passed in 2009, Georgia’s law requires voter registration applicants to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, such as copies of passports or birth certificates. Kemp, however, said Georgia has never been able to enforce that statute because it has not been given access to a federal immigration database it could use to confirm the U.S. citizenship of those seeking to vote. He said he is now considering asking the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to add new instructions on federal voter registration forms so Georgia can require proof of U.S. citizenship. In its ruling, the court indicated that is a possible pathway forward for Arizona. “We will put all options on the table — whether we need to talk to the governor or Legislature or the Attorney General’s Office,” Kemp said.

National: Cruz to introduce voter ID amendment to counteract Supreme Court ruling | The Hill

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Monday said he would offer an amendment to the Senate immigration bill to counteract a Supreme Court decision striking down state laws requiring voters to prove their citizenship. Cruz’s amendment, which he plans to attach to the bipartisan Gang of Eight bill being debated this week in the Senate, would allow states to require IDs before voters register under the federal “Motor Vehicle” voter registration law. The high court on Monday overturned an Arizona law requiring people to prove their citizenship if they wanted to register through that law. In a 7-2 vote, the court ruled in the case of Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. that state law was trumped by federal law and Arizona could not require voters to provide additional information.

Editorials: Gift or Gotcha: What to Make of Scalia’s Arizona Opinion | Janai S. Nelson/Huffington Post

On Monday — just over twenty years to the day that President Bill Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act (affectionately known as “Motor Voter Law”) into law — the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona’s attempt to tack a proof-of-citizenship requirement onto the federal voter registration form was in violation of the Act. Given Arizona’s racial and ethnic demographics, the burden of this requirement fell heavily upon the state’s Latino and Native American voters. However, Arizona residents were given a reprieve — at least for now — by Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Court’s staunchest conservatives, who authored the opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

Voting Blogs: Arizona: Voter Registration and the Road Ahead | Justin Levitt/Election Law@Moritz

June arrived with two election law cases at the Supreme Court. One is still pending: a highly anticipated decision on section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The other, more frequently overlooked, was decided yesterday. And there are some quirks of the opinion that seem to depart from the swiftly congealing conventional wisdom that the states might actually have “won,” and now need only run out the clock. The case is called Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., but it has bounced through the courts under various names for seven years. In 2004, Arizona voters passed Prop 200, increasing identification requirements at the polls (one valid photo ID or two non-photo documents with name and current address) and requiring new voters to submit documentary proof of citizenship with a voter registration form.

Arizona: Bennett vows to push for voter proof of citizenship, despite court ruling | Cronkite News

Voting and civil rights groups cheered a decision by the Supreme Court Monday that struck down an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voting. The court’s 7-2 ruling said Arizona’s voter-approved Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship for voter registration, was trumped by the federal “motor voter” law that only requires a potential voter to swear to their citizenship. Justice Samuel Alito, in one of two dissenting opinions, said the court’s ruling “seriously undermines” the state’s interest in preserving the integrity of elections. And Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said late Monday that the state is not about to give up the fight, saying the state would pursue appeals with the Election Assistance Commission and the courts. But Proposition 200 opponents think it is too late for the state, now that the Supreme Court has ruled on the case.

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.

National: Voting Rights Groups Get High Court Win As Bigger Case Looms | NPR

Advocates of tougher voter registration standards have racked up wins in recent years — voter ID laws have taken hold across the nation, for example. But those who believe that government should make voting as easy as possible just gained a significant victory with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision slapping down an Arizona law that required potential voters to prove their citizenship. In its 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, the so-called motor voter law, trumped an Arizona law passed in 2004. The state law demanded that voters produce documentation of their citizenship at the time they registered to vote. The federal law requires those registering in federal elections only to attest to their citizenship. The process is simple enough that people can register by postcard. The high court’s decision on the Arizona law put an extra bounce in the step of officials at civil and voting-rights organizations.

National: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote | NBC

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona law that requires people to submit proof of citizenship when they register to vote. The vote was 7-2, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two members of the court’s conservative wing, dissented. Only a handful of states have similar laws, which the states say are meant to reduce voter fraud, but civil rights groups worried that more states would have followed if the Supreme Court had upheld the Arizona law. Those groups say the Arizona law was an effort to discourage voting by legal immigrants. Groups opposed to the Arizona law said that the court had blocked an attempt at voter suppression. “Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Editorials: The Supreme Court Gives States New Weapons in the Voting Wars | Rick Hasen/The Daily Beast

Supreme Court watchers have been waiting each day to see if the Supreme Court is going to strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in a case called Shelby County v. Holder. The court did not issue that opinion Monday, but it did issue another important ruling in an Arizona voting case that could lead to new struggles between states and the federal government—and between Democrats and Republicans—over the rules for running our federal elections. While the opinion is a short-term victory for the federal government, it raises more questions than answers and ultimately could shift some power in elections back to the states. In 2004, Arizona voters passed a law requiring people registering to vote in the state to provide documentary proof of citizenship. At issue in today’s case, Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council, was a very technical question: must Arizona accept a simple federal form, required by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (commonly known as “motor voter”), for voter registration even though the form does not require registrants to include documentary proof of citizenship?

Editorials: Pyrrhic victory for federal government in Arizona voter registration case? | Marty Lederman/SCOTUSblog

The Court, by a seven-to-two vote, today held that federal law preempts — that is to say, renders invalid — an Arizona law requiring voter registration officials to reject a voter’s application for registration if it is not accompanied by evidence of U.S. citizenship above and beyond the attestation of citizenship the applicant has made on the federal “Motor Voter” form. Lyle is almost certainly correct, however, that what appears at first to be a significant victory for the federal government might in fact be something much less than that — indeed, might establish important restrictions on Congress’s authority to determine eligibility for voting in federal elections, in a way that implicates current and potential future federal legislation.

National: Arizona voter ID case about more than driver’s licenses | Constitution Daily

It is about 2,300 miles from Phoenix, the capital of the state of Arizona, to Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. That’s a long way. But beyond physical distance, the philosophical divide between Phoenix and D.C. may be even bigger. The Supreme Court is poised to decide the case known as Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., which could have implications much broader than the matter of whether extra identification must be presented if a person without a driver’s license is trying to register to vote in Arizona. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), sometimes called the “Motor Voter” law, was passed in Washington, D.C., by the federal government back in 1993. It established uniform procedures for all states to follow in federal elections. Under the NVRA, someone who is registering to vote has to check a box affirming under penalty of perjury that he or she is a U.S. citizen.

Philippines: President Aquino signs amendments to overseas absentee voting law | Sun.Star

President Benigno Aquino III has signed into law a consolidated bill amending the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, allowing more overseas Filipinos worldwide to cast their votes in Philippine elections. The Chief Executive signed last May 27 the Republic Act 10590 (An Act Amending Republic Act 9189, Entitled “An Act Providing for a System of Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes.”) The Act otherwise known as “The Overseas Voting Act of 2013” is a consolidation of Senate Bill 3312 and House Bill 6542. The Senate and the House of Representatives passed the consolidated measure on February 5, 2013 and February 6, 2013, respectively.

Voting Blogs: Election Administration Issues and New York City’s Non-Citizen Voting Proposal | Election Academy

New York City is currently considering, and could pass, a bill that would allow non-citizens to vote in local contests. While the bill is gathering steam in the City Council – and opposition, from Mayor Bloomberg and others – it does raise some fascinating issues with regard to implementation should it become law:

Domicile. Fights about student voting across the nation often turn on the issue of domicile, which in turn links voting eligibility to presence in a community as well as “intent to remain”. These disputes are already fierce when the voters involved are already citizens; I can only imagine how heated the arguments will be about non-citizens, who would be eligible to vote in City elections after six months under the proposed bill.

National: U.S. Supreme Court Examines Voting Rights in Two Cases | NY Law Journal

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently said that she has second thoughts about Bush v. Gore. Whatever feelings she now expresses, the U.S. Supreme Court’s involvement at that time obviously had implications for election law, and, of course, the direction of our nation. Since then, the court has ruled on a variety of important voting rights cases, and in a matter of weeks the court is expected to hand down decisions in two additional ones, also having far-reaching consequences. One involves an Alabama county that opposes federal oversight of its election procedures, and the other concerns the scope of Arizona’s law requiring voters to submit documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Both cases, Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder and Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, consider the authority of Congress to protect voters against state and local ordinances that impinge upon fundamental voting rights.

New York: New York City Council Considering Law Allowing Non-Citizens To Vote | TPM

New York City could soon become the first major city in the country to give non-citizens the right to vote. The proposal, which would allow certain non-citizens to vote in local elections, appears to have a veto-proof majority in the New York City Council — enough to overcome opposition by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. As hearings on the proposal get underway Thursday, supporters are optimistic it will become law by the end of the year and believe it will have an impact beyond the five boroughs. “It’s going to be huge and just imagine the implications that are involved here,” Councilman Daniel Dromm, one of the co-sponsors of the legislation along with Councilwoman Gale Brewer, told TPM Wednesday.

Kansas: Secretary of State close to expanded power on election fraud | Wichita Eagle

Kansas lawmakers are close to giving Secretary of State Kris Kobach new power he’s sought for his office to investigate and prosecute potential election fraud cases. The Republican secretary of state said Friday that he anticipates a bill expanding his office’s authority passing the GOP-dominated Legislature after its members reconvene next week to wrap up their business for the year. Kobach has sought the power since taking office in January 2011 but has met resistance in the past from Democrats and moderate Republicans. The House and Senate have approved different versions of a bill containing Kobach’s proposal, setting up negotiations over the final version. Legislators end their annual spring break Wednesday. “I’m optimistic that it will get done,” Kobach said.