Tennessee: Nashville election commission could rescind vote seeking foreign-born voter review | The Tennessean

The Davidson County Election Commission is expected to reconsider a controversial vote that one member said would call for “profiling” foreign-born voters. The commission voted 3-2 on Feb. 21 to ask the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security to review the citizenship status of recently registered voters who were born outside the United States. But Metro attorneys later said doing so would violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act — also known as the “motor voter law” — by creating two different classes of voters and scrutinizing one class more than the other. Steve Abernathy, the Republican election commissioner who proposed the move, said he wanted to see whether non-citizens, while living here legally, have been improperly registering to vote during the process of applying for driver’s licenses. “The process at the Department of Safety is not set up to prevent them from completing a voter registration card,” Abernathy said. “And then (state officials) send that information to the election commission, but all we get is the completed card. We don’t get the backup information. There’s no way to verify a person’s citizenship at the Davidson County Election Commission.”

Editorials: Let Kentucky voters decide voting rights for former felons | The Courier-Journal

Kentucky lawmakers in the state Senate should take a cue from Thomas Vance, a retired Air Force master sergeant from Campbell County. Vance called it correctly after participating in the latest Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll on a proposed constitutional amendment that would restore some felons voting rights after they served their full sentences. “It’s just not fair. If I did my time, that should be the end of it,” said Vance, whose views were in the majority, according to the poll conducted Feb. 19-21 by SurveyUSA. The poll found that 51 percent of 616 registered voters favored the potential amendment, while 38 percent were opposed and 11 percent were unsure. It was even close among Republicans, which split 45-45, with only those who identified themselves as “conservative” opposing it, though narrowly, 47-44. Yet Kentucky remains one of only five states that bar all felons from voting unless their rights are restored through a pardon by the governor or another agency.

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

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

Editorials: New York Should Hate the Voting Rights Act | Slate Magazine

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the highly anticipated case Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder. At stake is the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the provision that requires jurisdictions with histories of voter suppression and disenfranchisement to “preclear” any proposed change in electoral procedures with federal authorities before implementation, in order to ensure that they have no discriminatory effects. Unsurprisingly, many of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 have lined up with Shelby County, urging the court to strike down a provision they believe punishes them for the sins of their grandfathers. Pro-Shelby County amicus briefs, which allow interested third parties to weigh in on the constitutional issues at hand, have been filed by the Republican attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas. But a handful of covered jurisdictions have weighed in on the other side. Most notable among them is New York City, which asserts that Congress is within its constitutional authority to subject the city to special procedures on account of discrimination dating back nearly a century. The reasons why Southern states like Alabama and Georgia are covered by Section 5 are well known. At the close of Reconstruction, the resurgent white elite in these states relied on dastardly legal strategies and violence, up to and including outright murder, to keep African-Americans from voting, especially in the majority-black counties that blanket the Deep South. In other historically majority-minority sections of the country, native-born whites used similar albeit generally less violent voter suppression schemes to keep Latinos from voting, in states like Arizona and Texas, and Native Americans from casting ballots, in places like Alaska and South Dakota.

National: Rep. Miller opposes voting reforms | The Detroit News

President Barack Obama called Tuesday for a national commission to study ways to make it easier for Americans to vote, but one former Michigan secretary of state didn’t like the idea. Voting issues have been debated in Michigan with confusion over a citizenship checkoff on ballot applications and Gov. Rick Snyder and Secretary of State Ruth Johnson calling for changes to make it easier to register and cast absentee votes. “We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected. That includes our most fundamental right as citizens: the right to vote,” Obama said in the State of the Union. Obama said he’s appointing top members of his re-election campaign and the campaign of GOP nominee Mitt Romney to head up the commission.

Editorials: Shelby County v. Holder: Bad behavior by DOJ contributes to the fall of Section 5 | Christian Adams/SCOTUSblog

There are three main reasons why I think Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act – which outlines the formula that is used to determine whether a jurisdiction is “covered” by the preclearance requirement created by Section 5 – will be struck down in Shelby County v. Holder, scheduled for argument at the Court on February 27. Remember, of course, that Section 4 triggers are at issue, not the substantive provisions of Section 5. Even if Section 4 triggers survive Shelby County, two new challenges will then follow.  First, depending on how the opinion is written, the states brought into Section 4 coverage through the 1975 amendments may still have a challenge.  The statutory triggers for Alabama are not precisely the same as the triggers for Arizona or Alaska, two states which must also seek Section 5 preclearance. Even if the plaintiffs in Shelby County lose, Arizona and Alaska wait in the wings.  These states were brought into Section 4 coverage based in large part on minority language issues, and nowhere in the Fifteenth Amendment is language discussed.  Race is.  Of course, the Court may wipe out this claim depending on how the opinion is written, or, it may invite the next wave even while upholding triggers for Alabama.

Iowa: Voter registration form legality questioned | SFGate

The attorney for one of a handful of Iowa residents charged for allegedly registering to vote when they weren’t U.S. citizens is focusing on a small technicality. Something too small, he argues. David Richter said Thursday that under state law, Iowa’s voter registration form must have the same size and color of font throughout. But he argues that the text is smaller in the section of the form where residents are asked to sign their names to certify their U.S. citizenship. “I had a font expert measure it and certify that they violated that section of the Iowa code,” the lawyer explained. “I believe the judge will find the form on its face is illegal.” Richter is representing 51-year-old Albert Harte-Maxwell, who along with his wife, Linda, and another Pottawattamie County resident were charged in September with election misconduct and fraudulent practice.

Editorials: If the court strikes Section 5 of Voting Rights Act | Richard Hasen/The Great Debate (Reuters)

We celebrated Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday last week in the shadow of a fight over the constitutionality of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, raising the question whether Section 5 of the act, which requires that states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting get permission from the federal government before making any changes in election procedures, is now unconstitutional. The smart money is on the court striking down the law as an improper exercise of congressional power, although Justice Anthony Kennedy or another justice could still surprise. If the court strikes Section 5, the big question is: What comes next? Reuters has invited a number of leading academics, who focus on voting rights and election law, to contribute to a forum on this question. In this introductory piece, I sketch out what may happen and what’s at stake. One possibility is that nothing happens after Section 5 falls and minority voters in covered jurisdictions lose their important bargaining chip. Then, expect to see more brazen partisan gerrymanders, cutbacks in early voting and imposition of tougher voting and registration rules in the formerly covered jurisdictions.

National: From Arizona to Montana, Native Voters Struggle for Democracy | The Nation

Leonard Gorman is a man of maps. He heads the Navajo Nation’s Human Rights Commission, which among other responsibilities, is charged with protecting and promoting Navajo voters’ rights to choose candidates who will reasonably represent their interests. He and his team all work out of their trailer office in Window Rick, Arizona—the Navajo Nation’s capitol—where they chart data that they’ve collected on the potential impacts of redistricting on the Navajo Nation. The first map Gorman’s team submitted to the Arizona Redistricting Commission resembled the letter J, encompassing the edge of Arizona’s eastern border and curving up towards the west. Although that map included large portions of Arizona’s Native population, the Navajo Nation later opted out of it because Arizona’s hardline anti-immigrants liked it too much. It included large southern border areas, where white conservative ranchers are more likely to vote Republican and would have infringed on Arizona’s growing Latino districts. “We immediately learned that the J map was playing into the extreme right position,” explains Gorman.

Colorado: Bill to cancel suspected noncitizen voters fails | FOX21News

Democrats rejected a GOP proposal to cancel voter registrations of people believed not to be U.S. citizens. The bill would have required election officials to check voter rolls against national and state immigration databases to verify citizenship. Election officials would then have hearings for people to show proof of citizenship, or have their registration canceled. Democrats say eligible voters could be disenfranchised because the databases are not reliable.

National: States, GOP Lawmakers Eye Tougher Voter ID Laws | Stateline

The run-up to the 2012 elections was one of court battles and legislative jockeying over Republican-backed voter ID and elections laws that critics called bald-faced attempts to suppress turnout and disenfranchise Democratic voters. Now with 2013 legislative sessions getting under way, those fights show no signs of slowing. Lawmakers in as many as a dozen states are considering new or tougher voter ID laws this year, many of which are expected to become law despite criticism similar moves received in 2012. Indeed, it already seems likely more states will have stricter elections administration schemes come 2014 than there were just last year.

Virginia: Critics blast GOP for attempting to suppress voting rights | Fairfax Times

Augustine Carter spent six years working to get a Virginia identification card so she could vote. Carter had no birth certificate; the only evidence she had of her birth was a certificate of baptism. “I went to get my state ID renewed, and I carried this church document, and I was turned down completely. They say the law had changed, and I could not use that. Now what am I going to do? I didn’t know what to do,” Carter said. Carter said she has voted her whole life; she has worked, paid taxes and owns a home in Virginia. “They told me at Motor Vehicles that morning, ‘You could be a terrorist.’ Those were the words that they said to me,” she said. To prove her citizenship, Carter needed the 1940 census from when she was 12. She provided her home address and all the names of the people who lived in her home and their relation to her. Because the information checked out, she was able to use it as a birth certificate.

Iowa: Schultz plans to proceed with voter registration rule changes | Quad City Times

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz said Wednesday he expects to move forward in March with new rules intended to protect voting rights and prevent unauthorized people from casting election ballots. “I feel pretty confident where we stand. We really have been very measured in the way we’ve approached this issue,” said Schultz, who noted that rule changes he has proposed to take effect as early as March 13 have the backing of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.

Arizona: March Supreme Court hearing for voter-registration case | Arizona Republic

The U.S. Supreme Court on March 18 will hear arguments surrounding Arizona’s 2004 voter-approved requirement that residents show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. In the case surrounding Proposition 200, state attorneys will ask the high court to overturn a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the state cannot require Arizona voters to provide documents when registering with the federal form, but it can require voters registering with the state form to do so. Among its provisions, the National Voter Registration Act creates a standard federal registration form that all states must accept. It requires applicants to sign a statement that they are citizens, but it does not require them to show any proof.

Arizona: Attorney General to pitch Supreme Court on voter proof of citizenship | East Valley Tribune

Attorney General Tom Horne will argue to the nation’s high court on March 18 that Arizona should be allowed to enforce a 2004 voter-approved law requiring people to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. The justices are reviewing a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said Arizona cannot refuse to register voters who do not provide proof of citizenship if they instead fill out a special registration form prepared by the federal Election Assistance Commission. That form requires only that the person avows, under oath and penalty of perjury, that he or she is eligible to vote. A 2004 voter-approved measure requires both proof of citizenship to register and identification to cast a ballot at the polls. Foes challenged both. The courts sided with the state on the ID at polling places requirement. While that remains a legal issue in some states, opponents of the Arizona law never appealed that decision and it will not be an issue when the U.S. Supreme Court looks at the law in March. But the appellate court had a different view on the citizenship-proof requirement.

Kansas: Voting rights takes center stage at legislative forum | Wichita Eagle

The state’s voter identification law came under fire Tuesday night at a legislative forum where ordinary citizens got a chance to tell lawmakers what they want from the session that begins next week. The open-mike session drew a crowd of about 100, about 40 of whom chose to speak on a variety of issues ranging from abortion to fluoridated water to police brutality. But the 25 lawmakers who attended the forum heard the most about dissatisfaction with the voting law they passed in 2011 at the request of Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Kobach contends that photo ID and proof of citizenship are necessary to prevent voter fraud by immigrants legal and illegal. But resident Bryan Mann told the lawmakers that the real purpose of the voter ID law is to suppress Democratic-leaning voter groups – especially minorities and the elderly – to cement Republican domination of state government.

Iowa: Criticisms of proposed voter fraud rules aired at hearing | The Des Moines Register

Rules proposed by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz to guide a new process for verifying voter eligibility weathered nearly two hours of near-universal criticism during a public hearing on Thursday. More than 40 people weighed in, variously accusing Schultz, the state-level elections administrator, of overreaching his authority, wasting state dollars pursuing non-existent voter fraud and intimidating immigrants who have a legal right to vote. The rules concern a months-long effort by Schultz, a Republican, to gain access to a federal immigration database to check the citizenship status of thousands of registered voters in Iowa that his office has tagged as potentially ineligible to vote.

Michigan: Voters must affirm citizenship on ballot application under bill signed by Snyder | Detroit Free Press

Voters won’t have to check a box affirming that they’re U.S. citizens when they go to vote in the future. But there will be a sentence on ballot applications affirming U.S. citizenship that every voter will have to sign before they get a ballot. After vetoing similar legislation in July, Gov. Rick Snyder signed a bill late Friday that requires the citizenship affirmation to be included on ballot applications. The amendment was included in a separate bill at about 2:30 a.m. on Dec. 14 in the final hours of legislature’s lame duck session.

Michigan: New law requires Michigan voters to affirm U.S. citizenship | wzzm13.com

Voters must declare they are qualified to vote before getting a ballot under a bill signed into law by Gov. Rick Snyder. The Republican governor signed legislation Friday containing that requirement and other election law changes. Representatives for Snyder and Secretary of State Ruth Johnson say the leaders worked out concerns that led to his veto of similar legislation this summer.

Wisconsin: State would need to spend $1.2M to check for illegal voters, report says | Wisconsin State Journal

Wisconsin would need to spend $1.2 million to begin checking federal databases for names of non-citizens who should be removed from voter registration lists, says a report from the state’s election agency. Two other states have found relatively few illegal voters on the lists, and there’s no reason to suspect more would be detected in Wisconsin, an agency spokesman said Monday. The Government Accountability Board is to decide Tuesday on sending the staff report to the state Legislature, which would need to enact new laws before the agency could use the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program.

Editorials: The Election Is Over, but the Voting Rights Fight Is in Full Swing | The Nation

One of the most popular post-election narratives remains that voter suppression efforts were soundly defeated. While the concept is essentially true, it says very little about how voting rights will fare in the near future—or how activists are continuing the work they began to preserve voting rights. Many voter ID measures, cut-offs to early voting and excessive voter purges were blocked or weakened at the state level in 2012, but lawmakers are aiming to propose new measures in 2013. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has announced that it will hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 next year. That’s in addition to Arizona v. InterTribal Council of Arizona, which stems from a rule that demands voters demonstrate proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The two cases, which hinge on the Court’s interpretation of federal legislation that bars discrimination and its interpretation of what’s known as the Motor Voter Act, could make sweeping changes to the ways voting rights are—or are not—protected. Those stakes aren’t lost on community groups around the nation that hope to continue their voting rights work, even without the spotlight of a presidential election.

Iowa: Secretary of State eases two rules on voting | The Des Moines Register

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz on Wednesday relaxed two administrative rules he’s seeking to enact regarding complaints about noncitizens registered to vote in the state. The changes do away with a written complaint form that had drawn criticism from civil libertarians and immigrants rights groups and extend the period in which voters whose eligibility has been challenged may contest the complaints against them. Schultz cast the changes as the results of a robust public debate over the last few months.

Editorials: Voting Rights Haven’t Gotten Such Attention Since 1965. What Did We Learn? | The Nation

A little over a week after the presidential election has ended, many voting rights watchers are reflecting on all that we learned through this year’s campaigns: what went right, what went wrong, and the unresolved challenges that remain ahead. As for the overall takeaway, Advancement Project director Judith Browne-Dianis wraps it up nicely, saying, “The national conversation around voting rights was amplified like we haven’t seen since 1965.” This year, more Americans arguably learned more about the voting process than any year in recent memory. Civil rights and election protection campaigns made people aware of things like the difference between a poll watcher and a poll observer; how people use data to purge voters; and what voters’ general rights are while standing in poll lines. On a more nuanced level, the discussion around voter ID laws gave Americans a greater understanding of not only how many people don’t have government-issued ID, but also the reasons why.

Editorials: Four Observations and Four Questions from the Georgian Election | EurasiaNet.org

The recent parliamentary election in Georgia saw the ruling United National Movement (UNM) party defeated by the opposition Georgian Dream (GD) coalition led by new Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili. This election has been variously described as evidence of the strength of Georgian democracy, a turn toward Russia by Georgia, a victory which Ivanishvili bought by spending lavishly in the United States, Europe and Georgia, the end of UNM domination, and more or less everything in between. It is still too early to know the real meaning of this election, but it is possible to make some observations, and raise some questions.

Editorials: The Fraud of Voter Fraud | The Atlantic

Jane Mayer’s article on the invention of the voter-fraud myth is required reading as we go into the last day’s of the election. Mayer zeroes in on Hans von Spakovsky, a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has been instrumental in turning gossamer, rumor and myth into state-level election law: Von Spakovsky offered me the names of two experts who, he said, would confirm that voter-impersonation fraud posed a significant peril: Robert Pastor, the director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management, at American University, and Larry Sabato, a political-science professor at the University of Virginia. Pastor, von Spakovsky noted, had spoken to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about being a victim of election fraud: voting in Georgia, he discovered that someone else had already voted under his name. When I reached Pastor, he clarified what had happened to him. “I think they just mistakenly checked my name when my son voted — it was just a mistake.”

New Mexico: Voter turned away in possible ID mixup | krqe.com

Ralph Perdomo wasn’t given his right to vote; he had to earn it. The 63-year old Belize native came to the United States in the 1960s and didn’t become a citizen until decades later. “I had to go through a lot of hoops to get my citizenship,” Perdomo said. “It wasn’t easy.” Perdomo’s been an enthusiastic voter and was excited to cast his ballot with his girlfriend on day one of expanded early voting. But when the two got to a voting center at Paseo del Norte NW and Golf Course Road, Perdomo got a rude surprise. “When they pulled up my name, it showed I had already voted, and I definitely, no way, no how did I vote,” Perdomo said.

Michigan: Michigan Secretary of State urges clerks to replace forms that have U.S. citizenship question | Detroit Free Press

The Michigan Secretary of State’s Office is recommending that municipalities use applications to vote that don’t contain the U.S. citizenship question for the Nov. 6 election. The state is encouraging clerks to use older versions of the small forms — on which voters fill out their name, address and date of birth — without the question or obtain an adequate number of new forms without it, according to a Wednesday bulletin sent to clerks. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Paul Borman in Detroit granted a permanent injunction ordering Secretary of State Ruth Johnson to keep the question off the forms. But ordering new forms could cost clerks. New forms cost about $600 in Rochester Hills, City Clerk Jane Leslie said. She said her office personnel and election aides started to obscure the question on the forms but said new forms were ordered to avoid any problems. She said the question was blackened out on all applications for absentee ballots. “It’s much simpler to replace those forms,” she said. “We want to make it as simple as possible and limit disputes.”

National: Supreme Court Arizona voter ID case may shape the future | UPI.com

The fight over whether states can demand some sort of identification before allowing voters to cast ballots has finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices agreed to hear argument on Arizona’s law requiring voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship. In the heat of the final days of the U.S. presidential election the case is not drawing much attention. Any argument and decision in the case won’t come until long after Election Day. And the arguments advanced by both sides in the case may seem as dry as unbuttered toast to the average American. The battle probably appeals mainly to political activists or Supreme Court wonks. But an eventual Supreme Court decision will help shape the voting landscape of the future.

National: Voter Intimidation Fears Renewed As Election Day Nears | ABC News

A series of billboards placed in poor, minority neighborhoods in Cleveland telling people that voter fraud is a felony have reignited concerns over voter intimidation and suppression tactics in key battleground states. Efforts to restrict or suppress the voting rights of certain groups are not new. Since 2011, several state governments have proposed or passed legislation either requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, or requiring photo identification in order to vote. Many voter rights groups view this as an intentional effort to disenfranchise minority voters. That’s because these acts tend to impact African Americans and Hispanics who live in low-income neighborhoods and are less likely to have government issued photo ID.

National: Supreme Court to rule on voter proof of citizenship | latimes.com

The Supreme Court will weigh in on the controversy over voter fraud and decide whether Arizona can require residents to show proof of their citizenship before they register to vote. The justices voted to hear Arizona’s appeal of an anti-fraud provision that was struck down by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The high court will not hear the case until early next year, with a ruling expected in the spring. Although many states seek to require more proof of a voter’s identity when they cast a ballot, Arizona wants to require more documentation from those who seek to register to vote.  Arizona’s voters in 2004 adopted Proposition 200, which included new provisions designed to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. Those wanting to register to vote were told they must submit proof of their citizenship. They could show an Arizona’s driver’s license, a U.S. passport, a birth certificate or naturalization documents. But this provision was challenged in court and blocked from taking effect. The 9th Circuit said the requirement for extra documents clashed with the federal “motor voter” legislation of 1993, which was designed to make it easier for people to register to vote by filling out a federal form and sending it through the mail. The form requires applicants to certify they are citizens entitled to vote.