Massachusetts: Secretary of State Galvin challenges Chief Justice Roberts’ claim about voting | Boston.com

Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. certainly sounded authoritative when he made a striking, though unflattering, declaration about Massachusetts as the high court heard arguments over the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is ­designed to assure equal access across ­races to polling booths. “Do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout?” Roberts asked Donald Verrilli Jr., solicitor general for the Department of Justice, during Wednesday’s arguments. “I do not know that,” Verrilli answered. “Massachusetts,” Roberts responded, adding that even Mississippi has a narrower gap. Roberts later asked if Verrilli knew which state has the greatest disparity in registration. Again, Roberts said it was Massachusetts. The problem is, Roberts is woefully wrong on those points, according to Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who on Thursday branded Roberts’s assertion a slur and made a declaration of his own. “I’m calling him out,” Galvin said.

Montana: With 2014 Elections Looming, Ninth Circuit Agrees to Hear Native American Voting-Rights Appeal | ICTMN.com

On February 20, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes the nine westernmost states, said it would hear the appeal of a Montana voting-rights lawsuit. The appeal arose when a Montana federal judge, Richard Cebull, denied a 2012 request from Native voters for a preliminary injunction ordering early-voting/late-registration satellite offices on the Northern Cheyenne, Crow and Fort Belknap reservations. The judge made his decision on October 30, 2012, and filed his order on Election Day, November 6. “This lawsuit, filed after months of requests for the satellite offices, could not be more timely,” said Blackfeet tribal member Tom Rodgers, who is working with Four Directions, a voting-rights group. “We see similar issues for tribes nationwide—efforts to impede Native registration, to limit the time for voting and to make it more difficult. All rights in a democracy flow from the right to vote.” For several election cycles, Four Directions has pressed for Native access to early voting, a convenient form of balloting that has increased election participation nationwide.

Editorials: The court’s conservatives seem to believe that the Voting Rights Act has outlived its purpose | Slate Magazine

If you’re trying to cure an illness, and you get better, but not entirely—say you had a high fever, but now you have the sniffles and a sore throat—does it make sense to keep taking the same medicine? What if your doctor insists? Justice Stephen Breyer offered the disease analogy Wednesday morning for racist efforts to block the power of black and Hispanic voters in the South during a sharply polarized argument—5 to 4, conservatives v. liberals—over whether Shelby County, Ala., has taken enough medicine from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Congress first enacted the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to deal with massive and violent suppression of black voters in the South. The problem was so entrenched that when federal courts would strike down a discriminatory measure like a poll tax, Southern states and counties would quickly dance around the ruling, enacting new barriers such as a literacy test. So Congress armed the Voting Rights Act in two ways. The first, Section 2, bans any voting practice that discriminates on the basis of race or ethnicity. It applies uniformly, throughout the country, and it has no expiration date. To enforce it, the government, or a group or person affected by the law, has to sue—and has the burden of proof. The second part of the Voting Rights Act, Section 5, relied on data showing a pattern of discrimination at the time to create a category of “covered jurisdictions.” Congress said that for 25 years the Department of Justice had to “pre-clear” any changes to voting rules in those places, or else the state or county had to go to court for approval before the changes could go into effect. The list of covered jurisdictions included most of the South, along with a smattering of counties and cities in other states.

Mississippi: State Senators refuse funding to defend Voter ID law | The Commercial Appeal

State senators balked Thursday at giving Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann $395,000 to spend on lawyers from former Gov. Haley Barbour’s law firm to defend Mississippi’s Voter ID law. Republicans were caught off guard when they didn’t have enough members in the Senate chamber to pass the $15.3 million budget that included $395,000 for private lawyers in the 2014 fiscal year that begins July 1. The bill failed on a vote of 23-17. The state Constitution requires a majority of elected members — the Senate has 52, but one seat is vacant — must vote for approval before a measure can pass. Supporters plan to try again next week. Hosemann, a Republican, and state Atty. Gen. Jim Hood, a Democrat, signed a contract with the Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens and Cannada law firm in September that authorizes the outside lawyers to represent the state “on all issues related to pre-clearance of that legislation and any related legislation, rules or regulations and all litigation that may arise or be instituted in connection with pre-clearance.

Editorials: The More Things Change … | Linda Greenhouse/NYTimes.com

Despite spending a lot of time reading and thinking about the Voting Rights Act case the Supreme Court will hear next week, there’s a puzzle I’m still trying to crack: How can it be that one of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement, a provision upheld on four previous occasions by the Supreme Court and re-enacted in 2006 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress (98-0 in the Senate, 390-33 in the House), a law that President George W. Bush urged the justices to uphold again four years ago in one of his final acts in office, a law that has demonstrably defeated myriad efforts both flagrant and subtle to suppress or dilute the African-American vote, is now hanging by a thread? Of the hanging-by-a-thread part, there’s little doubt. Four years ago, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, a case commonly referred to as Namudno, the Supreme Court came within a hair’s breadth of declaring the Voting Rights Act’s Section 5 unconstitutional. “Things have changed in the South,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. declared in the court’s opinion, an oft-quoted line of pithy constitutional analysis that took its place with the chief justice’s other profound musings on race in America. (The others, so far, are “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race,” dissenting in 2006 from a decision awarding a rare victory to Latino plaintiffs who had sued to invalidate a Texas congressional district; and “The way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race,” in a 2007 plurality opinion striking down integration-preserving efforts by public school districts in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle.)

Editorials: Voting Rights Act: the 2012 Election Proves Exactly Why We Need It | PolicyMic

This month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that could end key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County vs. Holder will challenge the provision requiring designated jurisdictions to receive “pre-clearance” before changing election laws. If there was any doubt that the Voting Rights Act needs to be retained, those doubts should have been erased by what happened in 2012. The greatest justification was the concerted effort by right-wingers to suppress the vote. Republican state houses throughout the country constructed an elaborate and calculated effort to suppress voter turnout. The widespread effort targeted specific demographics and were designed to make it more difficult for voters to exercise their franchise. It was the type of activity expressly forbidden by the Voting Rights Act. The 2012 elections were a case study in support of retaining the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The right to vote is not articulated in the Constitution; however, constitutional amendments state that you cannot prevent an eligible citizen from voting. The Voting Rights Act outlaws practices that prevent eligible citizens from reaching the polls, and yet, in 2012 elected officials were still trying to find ways to deny the vote.

Illinois: County clerk tells of possible campaign problems in Cicero | chicagotribune.com

Allegations such as voters being offered pizza coupons and campaign workers insisting on handling mail-in ballots for town residents have sprung up in Cicero as the heated race for town president heads into its final week. The Cook County clerk’s office has notified law enforcement officials, including the state’s attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice, of such allegations and other claims of voter intimidation and voter fraud in the western suburb. Incumbent Larry Dominick is seeking his third term as town president. He will face former McPier executive Juan Ochoa and former town senior services director Joe Pontarelli next Tuesday. “The state’s attorney is out there (in Cicero) this week interviewing people about the allegations,” Cook County Clerk David Orr said Monday at a news conference. Orr said his office has gotten several complaints from voters. He said he is disturbed about town employees in uniforms who are allegedly campaigning and knocking on doors.

Mississippi: State submits proposed voter ID rules to Department of Justice | The Clarion-Ledger

Mississippi’s top elections official said Tuesday that he has given the federal government proposed rules for how the state intends to carry out a voter identification law that is in limbo. Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann’s submission to the U.S. Justice Department is part of the state’s process of seeking federal approval of the law that would require every voter to show a driver’s license or other photo ID at the polls. The law can’t take effect without clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court. It’s unclear when, or how, the department will respond. Hosemann started seeking approval several months ago.

Arizona: Lawmakers crafting responses to election concerns | Cronkite News

The large number of provisional ballots cast in November has two lawmakers so far proposing ways to address the issue. Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, the House minority leader, said he is drafting legislation to form a committee to study election problems and recommend legislation. Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, chairwoman of a new Senate Elections Committee, said she is aiming to cut down on problems with permanent early voting lists that led to many provisional ballots being cast. Provisional ballots are given to voters at a polling places when there are questions about their identity or eligibility to vote. About 172,000 were cast in the general election, up from the 107,000 in 2008.

Illinois: State election board sued over late ballots for overseas military in 2nd District race | Chicago Sun-Times

The U.S. Department of Justice is suing the Illinois State Board of Elections, saying it hasn’t allowed enough time for military personnel serving overseas to know who they can vote for in the special election to replace U.S. Rep Jesse Jackson. By law, overseas U.S. voters were supposed to receive by Saturday absentee ballots that include the names of all qualified candidates’ for the Second Congressional District primary, the federal lawsuit filed late Thursday says. But snafus mean they aren’t likely to receive the full printed ballots for at least another two weeks, it’s alleged.

Texas: New Bill Would Repeal Texas Voter ID Law | The Texas Tribune

State Rep. Eric Johnson, D-Dallas, started the 83rd legislative session with one issue in mind: voter identification laws. Johnson filed five bills Thursday, his first legislation of the new session, aiming to both increase voter participation and strike down a bill requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. Senate Bill 14, the voter ID law, passed in 2011, requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID to cast their ballot, but the law has yet to be implemented. It was rejected by both the U.S. Department of Justice and a federal three-judge panel in 2012. The rulings said that Texas did not prove that the measure did not discriminate against minorities.

Editorials: Voting Rights Act: What’s lost if the Supreme Court kills it? | Richard Hasen/Slate Magazine

Odds are, the Supreme Court will strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act after hearing a case from Alabama that will be argued next month. If the part of the law called Section 5 does indeed go down, minority voters in Southern states and elsewhere will lose a key bargaining chip. Section 5 has enabled them to beat back some attempts to make it harder for them to vote, and helped insure that the gains they’ve made in representation and redistricting are not rolled back. As another recent fight over South Carolina’s voter ID law shows, Section 5 still serves a vital role in an era in which partisan legislatures may manipulate election laws for political gain. Like many other states with Republican majority legislatures acting over the last few years, South Carolina adopted a tough photo identification law before the 2012 election. The state’s Republican legislature likely acted out of the belief that such laws would marginally depress Democratic turnout and help Republicans at the polls. Controversy over voter ID laws also motivates the Republican base to turn out to vote. (What voter ID laws don’t do is prevent a lot of real voter fraud, though that’s the rationale their supporters cite.)

Editorials: Casting Votes | Jeffrey Toobin/The New Yorker

Here’s a safe prediction for 2013: few people will pine for the Presidential campaign of 2012. Even Barack Obama’s most ardent supporters acknowledge that his victory provided little of the euphoria of four years ago. Not many Republicans have longed to hear from Mitt Romney since his swift journey to political oblivion. Anyone miss the barrage of Super pac ads? (Those, alas, will probably be back in four years.) The pseudo-candidacy of Donald Trump? (Ditto.) But in last year’s spirited competition for the nadir of our political life the lowest blow may have been the Republicans’ systematic attempts to disenfranchise Democrats. To review: after the 2010 midterm elections, nineteen states passed laws that put up barriers to voting, including new photo-I.D. and proof-of-citizenship requirements, and restrictions on early and absentee voting. In most of those states, Republicans controlled the governorship and the legislature. The purported justification for the changes was to limit in-person voter fraud, but that claim was fraudulent itself, since voter fraud is essentially nonexistent. Mike Turzai, the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, revealed the true intent behind most of the laws last June, when, after the House passed such a measure, he boasted, in a rare moment of candor, “Voter I.D., which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done.” Turzai’s prediction was wrong, but that doesn’t mean that the Pennsylvania law and others like it weren’t pernicious. Obama won in Florida, too, but a recent study by Theodore Allen, an associate professor at Ohio State University, found that, in central Florida alone, long lines, exacerbated by a law that reduced the number of days for early voting, discouraged about fifty thousand people, most of them Democrats, from casting ballots.

New Hampshire: Conservative group trying to block voting lawsuit | Fosters

Does the U.S. Department of Justice have ulterior motives for allowing New Hampshire to be released from a portion of the Voting Rights Act? That’s the theory being advanced by some conservative groups, including The Center for Individual Rights (CIR). Headquartered in Washington, D.C., CIR is questioning the motives behind a decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to release New Hampshire from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. A key piece of civil rights legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1964 guarantees that voters aren’t disenfranchised on account of race or color. It also contains several special provisions that impose stringent federal oversight in certain areas of the country, known as “covered jurisdictions.”

National: Supreme Court will revisit the Voting Rights Act | Voxxi

The New Year is likely to amass a wave of issues that will affect Latinos including a pending case in the Supreme Court that revisits a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In Shelby County vs. Holder, the Supreme Court justices will be deciding whether it makes sense to pursue section 5. The provision requires that lawmakers who want to enact changes to voting laws are obligated to seek permission from the federal government in states with a history of discrimination. Advocates argue that without this key provision, federal judges would not have been able to block voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina. It also voided district maps in Texas and prevented early voting in parts of Florida. Yet, critics claim the provision is outdated.

Editorials: Voting Rights Under Fire: Why We Still Need Section 5 | Caroline Fredrickson/Huffington Post

They were young African-Americans and supporters of equality marching peacefully from Selma, Ala. to the state’s capital to protest the murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson by police and the denial of voting rights when they were attacked by scores of state police and others, spewing tear gas beating the protestors with billy clubs. Those brutal, revolting attacks were aired nationally by major TV networks, like ABC would prove a catalyst for one of the nation’s most compelling civil rights laws, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Quickly after what was to be known as “Bloody Sunday,” President Lyndon B. Johnson went before a joint session of Congress and unveiled the voting rights measure and provided a stirring, impassioned call for an end to oppression and an expansion of freedom.

Mississippi: Hosemann: Study may help win approval for Mississippi voter ID law | The Clarion-Ledger

A study shows more than 98 percent of voters who voted in the November general election have one form of acceptable photo identification that would satisfy the state’s Voter ID law, which is awaiting U.S. Department of Justice approval, says Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann. The study of 5,965 voters from all demographic groups showed 98.3 percent of voters interviewed after exiting polls had at least one of the eight forms of photo ID outlined as acceptable under the Voter ID law. Hosemann said today that he hopes the information will help gain Justice Department approval for the state’s voter ID law.

Virginia: Prince William County board creates independent panel to look into long lines on Election Day | The Washington Post

The Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday to appoint an independent, bipartisan panel to look at why many voters waited hours on Election Day to cast their ballot. The panel would also make recommendations about how the county can avoid such problems in the future. The Nov. 6 lines were the worst at the River Oaks precinct at Potomac Middle School, in a Democratic-leaning, minority district, where voters waited in some cases more than four hours to vote. The last vote there was cast at 10:45 p.m., and election officials acknowledged that the biggest problem was lack of voting machines.

National: Automatic voter registration a top priority for some reformers | Palm Beach Post

The United States’ leading prosecutor on civil rights issues wants the country to join the majority of other democratic nations when it comes to voting, by making the government – instead of the voter – responsible for registering voters. U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, chief of the Department of Justice’s civil rights division, is one among a variety of activists and federal officials and lawmakers who say long lines and other problems encountered by voters throughout the nation this fall need to resolved by the federal government if not the states.

Editorials: Does Obama’s Re-election Doom the Voting Rights Act? | NYTimes.com

Does the re-election of the first black president mean the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unnecessary and perhaps unconstitutional? The Supreme Court’s decision last week to consider a constitutional challenge to a key section of the act suggests that a perverse outcome of the 2012 campaign may be that President Obama’s victory spells doom for the civil rights law most responsible for African-American enfranchisement. The central question in the constitutional debate is whether times have changed enough in the nearly five decades since the act’s passage to suggest that the law has outlived its usefulness. The unprecedented flexing of racial minorities’ political muscle on Nov. 6 does make it clear how much times have changed. But a campaign marred by charges of voter suppression and Election Day mishaps also makes the need for federal protection of voting rights clearer than ever.

National: Battle over ballots averted, but not forever | Reuters

They sued early and often. Voting-rights advocates, along with the U.S. Department of Justice and some political party officials, tackled potential electoral problems early this election year. Judges blocked stringent voter ID laws, lifted registration restrictions and rejected limits on early voting. As a result, Election Day 2012 escaped the legal dramas of the past. While some local skirmishes landed in court, no litigation clouded President Barack Obama’s victory on Tuesday over Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But courtroom wars over the franchise are far from over.

Oregon: Ballot tampering reported in Clackamas County | KATU.com

Authorities said Friday they were investigating suspected ballot tampering by an election worker in one of Oregon’s most populous counties. Clackamas County Clerk Sherry Hall said a criminal violation of election law was uncovered by her office Wednesday and reported to the secretary of state’s Elections Division. Hall declined to identify the worker or describe the specific nature of the violation.

Virginia: Troubling ties in voter fraud case | HamptonRoads.com

The supervisor of a Republican-affiliated voter registration drive has been accused of throwing away completed registration forms. Now authorities are trying to figure out whether the forms were discarded intentionally, and whether there is cause for concern elsewhere in Virginia. Authorities arrested the supervisor this month, after a Rockingham County businessman reported seeing someone dumping a bag into his store’s recycling bin. The businessman discovered the completed voter registration forms when he went to move the bag.

Mississippi: Mississippi Secretary of State Hosemann’s Office Says No Voter ID Needed | Jackson Free Press

Up until recently, a Mississippi citizen looking for voting information on the secretary of state’s website might have been confused. As recently as last week, the site offered voters oodles and oodles of assistance in procuring state-issued photo identification, but didn’t let people know that the IDs are not yet required to vote. However, SOS website users are now advised upon visiting the site: “Mississippi’s Voter ID law will NOT be in effect for the November 6, 2012, General Election.” Previously, a message on the website said, “Need a photo ID? Click here for more information,” which suggested that voter ID was required.

Vermont: State to fight Justice Department lawsuit over late ballots | Burlington Free Press | burlingtonfreepress.com

The state plans to argue it won’t be necessary to extend the deadline to count votes in the upcoming election until Nov. 16 to be sure that ballots from the military and other Vermonters overseas have been returned. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Thursday asking a court to require the state to give military and overseas voters more time because some towns failed to send out ballots 45 days prior to Election Day as required under a 2009 federal law. The lawsuit claims local election officials received 894 requests for ballots from citizens overseas and military stationed both abroad and elsewhere in the United States, but failed to respond to 191 of those requests by Sept. 22, which is 45 days before the Nov. 6 election.

Vermont: Vermont to fight Justice Department lawsuit over late ballots | Burlington Free Press | burlingtonfreepress.com

The state plans to argue it won’t be necessary to extend the deadline to count votes in the upcoming election until Nov. 16 to be sure that ballots from the military and other Vermonters overseas have been returned. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Thursday asking a court to require the state to give military and overseas voters more time because some towns failed to send out ballots 45 days prior to Election Day as required under a 2009 federal law. The lawsuit claims local election officials received 894 requests for ballots from citizens overseas and military stationed both abroad and elsewhere in the United States, but failed to respond to 191 of those requests by Sept. 22, which is 45 days before the Nov. 6 election.

Vermont: State to fight Justice Department lawsuit over late ballots | Burlington Free Press

The state plans to argue it won’t be necessary to extend the deadline to count votes in the upcoming election until Nov. 16 to be sure that ballots from the military and other Vermonters overseas have been returned. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Thursday asking a court to require the state to give military and overseas voters more time because some towns failed to send out ballots 45 days prior to Election Day as required under a 2009 federal law. The lawsuit claims local election officials received 894 requests for ballots from citizens overseas and military stationed both abroad and elsewhere in the United States, but failed to respond to 191 of those requests by Sept. 22, which is 45 days before the Nov. 6 election.

Vermont: to fight Justice Department lawsuit over late ballots | Burlington Free Press

The state plans to argue it won’t be necessary to extend the deadline to count votes in the upcoming election until Nov. 16 to be sure that ballots from the military and other Vermonters overseas have been returned. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Thursday asking a court to require the state to give military and overseas voters more time because some towns failed to send out ballots 45 days prior to Election Day as required under a 2009 federal law. The lawsuit claims local election officials received 894 requests for ballots from citizens overseas and military stationed both abroad and elsewhere in the United States, but failed to respond to 191 of those requests by Sept. 22, which is 45 days before the Nov. 6 election.

Oregon: Automated calls generate concern among recipients in Oregon | Statesman Journal

Automated telephone calls questioning the registration status of voters, including several received in the Mid-Valley, apparently will not trigger legal action by Secretary of State Kate Brown. Based on inquiries by the state Elections Division, “there’s really not a lot we can do” because no violation of election law turned up, said Andrea Cantu-Schomus, Brown’s spokeswoman. However, she said Wednesday, the Oregon Department of Justice is looking at whether the calls violated do-not-call lists that people can sign up for. The do-not-call law has an exception for some political purposes.

Virginia: Voters to show gun permits as voter ID, no photo required | Examiner

Based on the chatter on gun blogs and Internet forums, it looks like a groundswell is underway in Virginia to borrow a page from Napoléon’s playbook and vote ‘to the sound of the guns.’ Thanks to a new law passed by the Virginia General Assembly and signed by Governor Bob McDonnell (R), all that it will take to vote in Virginia this year is a concealed handgun permit. This means no photo is required to vote, a far different story that the recent Pennsylvania photo-voter statute struck down by a Pennsylvania judge. A key objection to the Pennsylvania photo-voter scheme was the difficulty in obtaining photo ID by people without driver’s licenses.