North Carolina: Voting changes to go on trial in 2015 | Reuters

Challenges to North Carolina’s new voter regulations that limit early voting and require voters to show photo identification at the polls will not go to trial until after the 2014 mid-term elections, a federal judge ruled on Thursday. The groups protesting the state’s new law will have a chance, however, to argue for some of its provisions to be blocked before the full case is heard, Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake said at a hearing in Winston-Salem. The law’s opponents had sought a quicker resolution to the legal battle. A trial ahead of next November’s elections would help prevent “irreparable loss” for some voters, said an attorney for the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “It’s going to determine whether people actually have the right to vote,” said NAACP lawyer Daniel Donovan. “The clock is ticking.”

North Carolina: Round one in the battle over voting rights in North Carolina | The Herald-Sun

Parties in the three federal lawsuits challenging voting law changes signed into law here in August will appear before U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder on December 12 to map out a schedule for proceedings moving forward. And while they’ve reached agreement on some preliminary litigation matters, the parties are not budging on one critical date: when the case should be tried. Those challenging the voting changes, including the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, say in papers filed with the court yesterday that all preliminary proceedings can be completed in time for a trial in the summer of 2014. That timing would ensure that changes set to take effect in January are reviewed by the court before the 2014 midterm elections. But the state defendants claim that such a schedule is unrealistic and are asking for a trial in the summer of 2015.

Louisiana: Appeals court examines state’s voter-registration obligations | The Advocate

A federal appeals court is considering whether Louisiana must help its poor citizens on public assistance register to vote when they interact with state agencies online, over the telephone or through the mail. If a lower court ruling from early this year is overturned, an ever-growing share of people who register online won’t be granted the protections guaranteed by the National Voter Registration Act, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued Tuesday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Secretary of State Tom Schedler wants the court to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Jane Triche Milazzo that Louisiana violated federal election law by failing to make registration opportunities available through the Department of Health and Hospitals and the Department of Children and Family Services. The suit was filed in 2011 by Luther Scott Jr. and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

National: Tea party group to make case for donor anonymity | Washington Times

A clash between the public’s right to know and fears of political persecution will play out when the Federal Election Commission on Thursday takes up a request from a leading tea party group that it be exempt from disclosure laws to protect its financial supporters from harassment. The FEC is set to vote on whether to exempt the Tea Party Leadership Fund (TPLF) from campaign disclosure laws in light of the group’s claims that its donors have faced “sustained harassment and severe hostility” and should have the right to give anonymously. The TPLF, which operates both a traditional political action committee and a “super PAC” for independent political expenditures, is arguing that its donors have been subject to harsh criticism from the federal government and the general public and that having to reveal their identity would only open them to further harassment.

Texas: Hispanic group, NAACP join Texas Voter ID lawsuit | Associated Press

The Mexican American Legislative Caucus and the Texas NAACP filed a lawsuit Tuesday to overturn the state’s Voter ID law, joining the Justice Department in fighting the law. The two groups filed their petition with a federal court in Corpus Christi, the same court where other civil rights groups and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder are fighting the requirement that voters must show a government-issued photo ID card to cast a ballot. All of the law’s opponents are arguing the Republican-controlled Legislature created an illegal barrier to voting for poor minorities and people who live in rural areas. Minorities make up the majority of voters who do not have one of the six forms of ID required. Only the Election Identification Certificate is available for free from the Department of Public Safety.

Texas: Lawsuits pile up over Texas voter ID law | Facing South

This week the NAACP Texas State Conference and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of Texas state lawmakers filed a legal challenge to the state’s photo voter ID law. NAACP and MALC join the U.S. Department of Justice, the Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund, the NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, and U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey, a Democrat representing the Fort Worth area, who’ve collectively filed three other suits challenging the Texas law. As with the other challenges, NAACP and MALC claim the law violates Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids denying voting rights to people of color. All of the challenges want Texas “bailed in” under the VRA’s Section Three preclearance provision, which requires states or counties found to have engaged in intentional discrimination to get federal permission for new election laws before they take effect. The NAACP/MALC suit differs from most of the other cases in that it also argues that the photo voter ID law violates the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment equal protection clause banning racial discrimination. In addition, it claims the Texas law violates the 15th Amendment, which prohibits governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on race.

Editorials: Equal voting rights still a dream in North Carolina? | Al Jazeera America

For Noah Read, Mondays have become a day set aside for civil disobedience. For months, the 42-year-old from Burlington, N.C., has rearranged his work schedule as a restoration contractor so he can participate in weekly protests. The Moral Monday rallies, launched by the North Carolina NAACP outside the state’s general assembly in late April, continue to attract thousands to Raleigh to voice opposition to a spate of Republican-led legislation that critics pan as socially regressive. The issues range from an education budget devoid of teacher raises to the state’s decision to end federal unemployment benefits. “There’s one issue that affects all of the constituents that are gathering at Moral Mondays, and that is voting rights and voting access,” Read said. Now, 50 years after Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech at the March on Washington, the state that was the site of the Greensboro sit-ins protesting segregation in 1960 is again a flash point in the debate over voting rights — proving for many that the struggle for racial equality is not over.

National: Voting Rights decision casts shadow over civil rights anniversary | Gainesville Times

As Americans commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, one of the key pieces of legislature accredited with advancing civil rights lingers in limbo. In April, a Supreme Court split along ideological and partisan lines voted 5-4 to strip the government of its most potent tool to stop voting bias: the requirement in the Voting Rights Act that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting, mainly in the South, get Washington’s approval before changing the way they hold elections. “Virtually everyone who has thought of this characterizes the Voting Rights Act as the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted,” said Charles Bullock, political science professor at the University of Georgia. “In Georgia, in 1962, prior to the adoption of the Voting Rights Act, only about 27 percent of adult blacks in Georgia were registered to vote. Now registration rates are pretty much identical to whites, and have been for awhile,” he said. “When that legislation was passed in Georgia there were three black offices holders. Now, there are thousands. It’s had a dramatic impact.” The decision was deplored by voting access activists and largely applauded by the states now free from nearly 50 years of intense federal oversight of their elections.

Texas: State Set To Enforce New Voter ID Law Next Week | CBS Houston

Unless a federal judge intervenes, the South Texas city of Edinburg could be the first to enforce a new voter ID law next week, and lawyers will likely use the special election to gather evidence to strengthen lawsuits to block it in the future. While the U.S. Justice Department and several civil rights groups have filed federal lawsuits to block the requirement that voters produce a state-issued photo ID, no one as of Friday had asked for a restraining order to stop enforcement of the law. That means it will be in effect when early voting in the city’s special election begins Wednesday. Allowing Texas to enforce the law could be part of a larger legal strategy to defeat it in the long run. Texas has been the center of the fight over voting laws after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that Congress must update how it enforces the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Texas is the only state in the last three years where a federal judge has ruled the Legislature intentionally discriminated against minorities.

National: The next round of the battle over voting rights has begun | The Washington Post

Civil rights groups filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a new North Carolina voter ID law in one of the first tests of the legality of new voting restrictions being implemented after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the 1965 Civil Rights Act in June. The Advancement Project and North Carolina NAACP, who filed the suit, charge that the law’s voter requirements will make it harder to vote and that racial minorities will be disproportionately impacted because they are less likely to possess required forms of identification. The lawsuit also argues voter fraud is not a significant problem in North Carolina. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory defended his signing of the law as common sense way to guard the integrity of North Carolina’s election process, insisting that the law is needed to ensure “no one’s vote is disenfranchised by a fraudulent ballot.” In a statement, McCrory also noted that voters won’t be required to present photo identification until the 2016 elections.

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.

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.

North Carolina: The racist history of voter challenge provisions in ‘monster’ election bill | Facing South

There is a lot to be concerned about in North Carolina’s omnibus elections bill, which voting rights advocates have dubbed a “Monster Law.” Indeed, HB 589 — which has been passed by the Republican-controlled legislature and awaits Gov. Pat McCrory’s signature — is a sort of Frankenstein’s monster stitched together from all the worst election laws found across the country. There’s a voter ID provision that invalidates college IDs, as seen in Texas; shrinking early voting periods, which Florida recently apologized for; and dubious “free ID” provisions that haven’t worked in Pennsylvania. Election law experts have found legal problems with many provisions, and the state’s attorney general also warned of its shaky legal standing. Among the most troubling parts of the law are provisions that expand the powers of poll observers and election challengers. We have seen in Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania what happens when states don’t rein in the activities of “voter vigilantes” who comb through voter files looking to have people purged, and who provide false election information to voters under the guise of “observing.” The Texas-based group True the Vote has created a cottage industry out of such vigilantism, and they’ve inspired the North Carolina group Voter Integrity Project (VIP-NC) to do the same. Elections expert Daniel Smith of the University of Florida has called such efforts the “privatization of voter suppression.”

Pennsylvania: Lawyers sum up their cases in voter ID trial | Associated Press

The 12-day trial over Pennsylvania’s tough voter-identification law ended Thursday with the state contending that officials have provided safeguards to ensure any registered voter can easily get the mandatory photo ID and plaintiffs urging the judge to overturn the law because it violates voters’ constitutional rights. “It is time to put an end to this and enjoin the law,” Jennifer Clarke, director of Philadelphia’s Public Interest Law Center and a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team, told Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley. Philadelphia lawyer Alicia Hickok, arguing for the state, said the plaintiffs failed to show that the law is unconstitutional. State officials have done “whatever is possible, whatever is necessary and whatever is legal” to ensure that voters know about the new law and how to apply for a free, voting-only card if they lack any other acceptable forms of ID, Hickok said.

Pennsylvania: Closing arguments postponed in voter ID trial | Associated Press

A judge extended the trial over Pennsylvania’s voter-identification law Wednesday into a 12th day after lawyers called a truce in a behind-the-scenes battle and the state filed a motion seeking to dismiss the lawsuit. Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley scheduled closing arguments, which lawyers on both sides had expected as early as Wednesday, for Thursday. The March 2012 law was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature without any Democratic votes and signed by GOP Gov. Tom Corbett, but court orders have prevented it from being enforced. Democrats charged that it was a cynical attempt in a presidential election year to discourage voting by minorities, young adults and other groups that tend to vote Democratic. Republicans said it bolsters the security of Pennsylvania’s elections, though state officials have conceded that they are not aware of any cases of voter impersonation.

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.

North Carolina: Protesters gather in Raleigh to fight voter ID law | Charlotte Observer

On the eve of a state Senate hearing on a proposed law requiring voters to present photo ID, hundreds of people gathered to protest the bill, saying it would make it harder for students, minorities and elderly voters to cast a ballot. And proposals to further limit voting, such as restrictions on early voting and Sunday voting, are still possible as the legislative session gets set to wrap up. “We are in a battle for the ballot,” North Carolina NAACP President the Rev. William Barber II told the crowd gathered behind the General Assembly building for the 12th “Moral Monday” protest. “If we ever needed the right to vote, we need it now.”

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.

National: Let the lawsuits begin: Advocates pivot strategy following Voting Rights Act ruling | NBC

One side effect of the Supreme Court’s decision to stop enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is clear: a flood of new lawsuits that have already begun. The ruling all but guarantees that voting rights advocates will pivot toward filing lawsuits relying on a separate piece of the law, Section 2, to challenge procedures which might impede voters. Nine states, mostly in the South, and other jurisdictions in places from Brooklyn, N.Y., to Shannon County, S.D., had been covered by Section 5 of the law which required election officials to get either the Justice Department or a federal judge to pre-approve changes in voting procedures. Section 2, on the other hand, bans voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups — such as speakers of Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, or Navajo — identified in the VRA. In its decision Tuesday in a case involving Shelby County, Ala., the high court essentially made Section 5 unenforceable for now. It found that the formula to determine which jurisdictions were covered under the VRA was flawed, and Congress seems unlikely to write a new formula before the 2014 elections. Texas Secretary of State John Steen immediately announced that his state’s voter photo identification law — which had been passed by the Texas legislature in 2011, but then barred by a federal judge using section 5 of the Voting Rights Act — will now be in effect.

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.

National: Republicans vote to end Election Assistance Commission | USAToday

Republicans moved a step forward Tuesday in their continuing effort to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, which was created to help states run elections. A House committee approved legislation Tuesday to shut down the federal commission set up more than 10 years ago to help states improve their election systems. “This agency needs to go,” said Mississippi Republican Rep. Gregg Harper, who introduced the bill to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission. “This agency has outlived its usefulness and to continue to fund it is the definition of irresponsibility.” The House Administration Committee approved the legislation by voice vote. This marks Harper’s third attempt in four years to close the bipartisan independent commission, which he called a “bloated bureaucracy.” It is not clear when the full House will vote on the measure. Harper said he’s working to persuade a senator to introduce a companion measure in that chamber.

Michigan: Flint black leaders say emergency manager law violates African Americans’ voting rights | MLive.com

Flint is one of the majority black cities where citizens’ voting rights are violated under the state’s emergency manager law, according to a lawsuit filed by the Detroit Branch of the NAACP against Gov. Rick Snyder and other top state officials. The president of the Flint Branch of the NAACP agrees with the claims. “We do feel like it’s a violation of the Voting Rights Act, we feel it’s a disenfranchisement of the voters,” said President Frances Gilcreast. The law allows the state to appoint emergency managers who have broad powers to override decisions of local elected officials.

Florida: Groups Object to Restrictions in Elections Bill | South Florida Times

Several groups on Monday criticized language in an elections bill that they say would make it more difficult for some minority, disabled and elderly voters to cast ballots. A provision in the wide-ranging bill wouldn’t allow voters to use assistants to cast ballots if they didn’t previously know them. Also, nobody could assist more than 10 voters per election. That means that people who can’t read English, are blind, have a disability or have trouble voting for any other reason wouldn’t be able to ask for help from trained volunteers at the polls unless they already know them. “This is again not about what’s best for Florida’s elections, but it’s politicians getting in the way of solutions for democracy,” said Gihan Perera, executive director of Florida New Majority, a group that advocates for minorities.

Delaware: Voting rights restored to ex-felons | NewsWorks

Following a 15-6 vote in the Delaware Senate, it looks like the state will amend its constitution and restore voting rights to non-violent offenders who have completed their sentences. The governor is expected to sign the Hazel D. Plant Voter Restoration Act into law, culminating a two-year legislative process requiring passage in two consecutive General Assemblies for any type of constitutional change.

Delaware: Senate approves felon voting rights legislation | Newszap

With a 15-6 vote, Delaware’s Senate passed landmark legislation that would restore voting rights to certain non-violent felons who have completed their sentences. House Bill 10, sponsored by Rep. Helene M. Keeley, D-Wilmington South, a two-year constitutional amendment, would amend the state constitution by eliminating the standard five-year waiting period before felons are restored voting rights. The bill would not apply to individuals who have been convicted of crimes such as murder, felony sex offenses or felony crimes against public administration, such as bribery.

Nevada: Secretary of State Miller battles perceptions in pushing bill for photos in voter rosters | Reno Gazette-Journal | rgj.com

Ross Miller’s goal in his final legislative session as Nevada’s secretary of state is to give Nevada voters, “undeniably the best election system in the country,” he said. And in a state that sees itself at the bottom of key national rankings, Miller adds, “And what’s the matter with Nevada being first?” Miller, however, faces a steep challenge in getting his “Election Modernization” bill through the Legislature. Problems to passage include money, necessity and perhaps the most difficult issue — perception. People easily form a misunderstanding of Miller’s Senate Bill 63. It would replace Nevada’s paper voters rosters with electronic ones. One of the keys of the laptop-friendly system would be the use of driver’s license photos from the Department of Motor Vehicles — as well as the current system of personal signatures — to identify voters. When people hear the word, “photo,” they jump to wrong conclusions, said Miller, a Democrat. Some fear the law means a voter must carry a government photo identification to vote. It doesn’t.

North Carolina: NAACP, other groups oppose limits on early voting in North Carolina | Fay Observer

North Carolina civil rights advocates and clergy said Friday that Republican legislative leaders are intent on denying voting rights to the poor and minorities through legislation to scale back early voting and other efforts to require photo identification to cast ballots. Speakers representing several groups – led by the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People – attended a news conference to condemn bills filed this week by GOP legislators to limit early voting. The bills would reduce 2 1/2week early voting periods before primary and general elections by one week and halt same-day voter registration during those periods. The House bill also would eliminate Sunday voting, end straight-party balloting and make all judicial races partisan.

Delaware: NAACP president pushes for felon voting rights in Delaware | The News Journal

Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and chief executive officer of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, pushed today for an amendment to the state constitution that would allow some convicted felons to register to vote after completing all terms of their sentences. Flanked by Mayor Dennis P. Williams and several state and local elected officials, Jealous called re-instituting voting rights for ex-felons a “bipartisan movement of common sense” and a counter to what he described as recent “voter-suppression” movements. “We are a country that believes in second chances. We are a country that believes that when it comes to justice … it’s good to be tough, but it’s better to be smart,” he said. “If somebody gets out of prison and they want to vote, that’s exactly the type of behavior we should be encouraging, not obstructing.”

Voting Blogs: Federal Court Rules That Louisiana Systemically Violated the NVRA | Project Vote

On January 23, voting rights advocates won a major legal victory on behalf of Louisiana’s public assistance agency clients, the state’s most vulnerable and most marginalized residents. In a 36-page ruling, following a trial in October 2012 in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Jane Triche Milazzo found that the state of Louisiana violated federal law by failing to offer an opportunity to register to vote to all applicants and recipients of food stamps, TANF, Medicaid, and WIC. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires that voter registration be offered to all such individuals, whether they seek benefits in person, or by the internet, telephone, or mail.