Pennsylvania: Voter ID Law Will Prevent College Students from Voting | PolicyMic

This November should be an exciting time on Pennsylvania college campuses. Students across the state, many for the first time, will cast a vote in the presidential election. Unfortunately, many Pennsylvania students will be kept out of our political process. Some will not bother to go to the polls because they lack any of the recently specified forms of required photo identification; others will be turned away because they are unaware of the state’s new law. This is because of Pennsylvania’s new, complex voter ID law that puts strict requirements on which student IDs are acceptable for voting. Several student IDs issued by Pennsylvania colleges and universities currently do not comply with the new voter ID law. The few types of identification cards that will be acceptable in Pennsylvania for the November election include U.S. military IDs; employee photo IDs issued by federal or Pennsylvania state, county or municipal governments; photo ID cards issued by a Pennsylvania care facility; photo IDs issued by the U.S. Federal Government or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or photo ID cards from an accredited Pennsylvania public or private institution of higher learning.

Wisconsin: Voter ID Cases Unlikely to be Decided by Election Day | WUWM

A judge is expected to rule next month on a challenge to Wisconsin’s photo ID law. The decision would come weeks before this fall’s primary elections. Yet, as WUWM’s Ann-Elise Henzl reports, it is unlikely the state’s policy will be set in stone, by the time voters go to the polls.
Groups have filed four lawsuits seeking to overturn Wisconsin’s new photo ID requirement. Two are in state court. Until they’re resolved, the mandate that voters present an acceptable identification card is on hold. One challenge is before a court of appeals, with no decision date in sight. The ruling expected in July is in Dane County Circuit Court. The decision will most certainly be appealed, according to Kevin Kennedy, director of the Government Accountability Board. “Realistically, the courts are probably not going to be acting this summer. I think for August we’re just simply trying to say, ‘don’t expect it, but – again – be prepared,’” Kennedy says.

National: Left girds for voting rights battle | Politico.com

Democrats, labor unions and civil rights groups are convinced Republicans are scheming to steal the election from President Barack Obama by suppressing the liberal vote, and they’re girding for battle. Groups on the left are spending more than they have in any previous election to lawyer up, get voters registered early and flood polling locations with trained poll workers and election watchdogs. “We’re not going to be fooled again,” said Michael Podhorzer, political director of the AFL-CIO, which recently launched a new campaign focused on voter protection and registration in battleground states. For the left, he said, “a potentially naive mistake in 2000 was not understanding the implications of election administration and the extent to which Republican election officials can tilt things their way.”

New Hampshire: Lynch nixes voter ID; override in the works | NEWS06

Gov. John Lynch on Thursday vetoed a bill that would require voters to show a photo ID or sign a qualified voter affidavit, setting up a showdown with legislators next week. Using a qualified voter affidavit shouldn’t be used to establish a voter’s identity to vote and “will cause confusion, slow the voting process and may result in the inability of eligible voters to cast their vote,” Lynch wrote in his veto message for Senate Bill 289. Handicapping next week’s vote to override the governor’s veto, Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, said, “I think it’s entirely up to the Senate at this point.” Sen. Russell Prescott, R-Kingston, said he would push for the Senate next week to pass a corrections bill to satisfy the governor’s concern by substituting the use of the qualified voter affidavit with a simpler challenged voter affidavit, which is now used to challenge a person’s qualifications to vote. A corrections bill, if approved by the Senate, would go to the House for a vote and on to the governor to sign or veto, he said.

Pennsylvania: Colleges scramble to make school IDs voter-acceptable | philly.com

For college students attending one of the 14 schools in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, the opportunity to vote Nov. 6 comes down to a sticker. Efforts to update student identification cards to meet new Pennsylvania voting regulations are under way on campuses, system spokesman Kenn Marshall said Thursday. In April, the legislature passed a bill requiring voters to show photo identification with an expiration date before casting a ballot. The bill has received criticism for its changing definitions of acceptable IDs and for making it more difficult for people to vote.

Editorials: Reject voter ID measure | Walter Mondale & Arne Carlson/StarTribune.com

When we buy a product, we try to make certain we are getting what we want. We like to think of ourselves as smart shoppers. We owe no less diligence when it comes to voting on a constitutional amendment — particularly one that dramatically changes the way we vote. The voting right is the crux of a democracy. Countless Americans gave their lives in order that we may have this remarkable gift. We in Minnesota lead the nation in voter turnout, and our elections are the most honest. We have recently gone through two very close elections and recounts without a single case of fraud. There is a reason why — our insistence that election laws be designed in a bipartisan fashion. That is key. No party should have an election advantage. Unfortunately, the voter ID constitutional amendment was passed by the Legislature on a strict party-line vote. Not one Democrat in either the House or the Senate voted for it. Not one.

New Hampshire: Governor Vetoes Voter ID Bill | Politics365

New Hampshire’s Democratic governor vetoed a voting law passed by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature today, saying it “would put into place a photo identification system that is far more restrictive than necessary.” The law would have allowed various forms of ID to be used in this November’s election, including student ID. However, only driver’s licenses, state-issued non-driver’s identification cards, passports or military IDs would be allowed in later elections. Residents without photo ID would have been able to sign an affidavit and be photographed by an election official. “We need to encourage all New Hampshire citizens to vote and to participate fully in our democracy,” Gov. John Lynch said in a veto statement. “We also need to ensure that our election laws do not unfairly burden those voters that have recently established a domicile in New Hampshire and are qualified to vote in this state.”

New Hampshire: Governor vetoes voter registration bill | Boston.com

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch says a bill intended to strengthen the state’s voter registration process would only lead to confusion and could harm the ability of citizens to participate fully in democracy. Lynch on Wednesday vetoed a bill that would require people registering to vote to sign a statement saying that they declare New Hampshire as their domicile and are subject to state laws, including laws requiring drivers to register their vehicles.

Editorials: Coordinated nationwide effort could prevent as many as 5 million citizens from voting | San Jose Mercury News

Elections have consequences — some of them unintended. How many voters realized that Republican victories in 2010 would mean the disenfranchisement of potentially millions of voters? Since then, state lawmakers nationwide have introduced more than 180 bills to restrict voting rights, a trend that began during the George W. Bush administration. At least 18 states have passed laws that include requiring photo identification to vote, ending election-day registration and reducing access to early and absentee voting. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as many as 5 million Americans could have difficulty voting this fall as a result.
These laws are no coincidence. They are a coordinated effort among Republicans to narrow the voting population in ways that will increase their power. The courts and the federal government are stopping some of these attempts, but it’s like playing Whack-A-Mole. The courts won’t be enough to protect voting rights if people keep electing lawmakers who want to restrict them. Voters need to make this an issue.

Wisconsin: Lawmaker withdraws in Photo ID case | JSOnline

A state lawmaker is pulling his name from an effort to intervene in a lawsuit over the state’s photo ID law. Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer (I-Manitowoc) said he was withdrawing his name from a motion filed in the case after questions were raised about whether he was violating state ethics law by accepting legal help in making the filing. “I’m not trying to get in a big fight over a technicality,” Ziegelbauer said. “It’s more trouble than it’s worth.” Scot Ross, executive director of One Wisconsin Now, filed the complaint against Rep. Robin Vos (R-Burlington) and Ziegelbauer based on a Journal Sentinel report that the two were refusing to say who was funding their legal work.

Minnesota: St. Paul files brief in suit challenging Minnesota Voter ID amendment, wants measure kept off ballot | TwinCities.com

St. Paul has challenged the legality of the constitutional amendment requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls. In a so-called “friend of the court” amicus brief filed to the Minnesota Supreme Court on Monday, June 18, the city questions the accuracy of the language voters will read if the amendment reaches ballots. It also says Gov. Mark Dayton’s veto of the bill in April should force the Republican-led Legislature to rewrite the question and the amendment’s title. “The so-called ‘photo ID’ question is not authorized by law and should not be placed on the ballot,” St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing said in a statement. “The Minnesota Supreme Court should order that this bill be sent back to the Legislature for a veto override or further legislative clarification.” The brief, which is for interested groups other than the litigants, is for a lawsuit to keep the proposed amendment off the November ballot. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments July 17 and expects to rule in time for the ballots to be ready on Nov. 6.

Mississippi: With voter ID awaiting federal scrutiny, Mississippi tries to tally how many people lack photo cards | The Republic

Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said Monday he’s trying to determine how many people in Mississippi lack the type of photo identification that might eventually be needed for voting. In last November’s election, 62 percent of Mississippi voters approved a constitutional amendment that would require voters to show a driver’s license or other form of photo ID at the polls. House Bill 921, passed this spring by the GOP-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Phil Bryant, aims to put the mandate into law. Because of Mississippi’s history of racial discrimination, it is required by the 1965 Voting Rights Act to get federal approval for any changes in election laws or procedures. Such approval is not guaranteed. In recent months, the Justice Department has rejected ID laws from Texas and South Carolina, amid concerns that they would dilute minority voting strength.

Pennsylvania: Councilman: Voter ID Requirement Forces Allegheny County to Break Federal Law | Essential Public Radio

Allegheny County’s Board of Elections will likely vote in favor of a lawsuit against the state’s new voter ID law. The vote is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon. Democrats on the board are hoping to strike down a law that requires photo identification to be presented before Pennsylvanians can vote. However, the board’s lone Republican said the lawsuit is redundant, expensive, and politically motivated. Board of Elections Chairman and County Councilman John DeFazio (D-At Large) said the new law is costly and ill-timed, requiring the county to retrain its elections employees before the November 8 general elections. “There’s nothing concrete [in the bill] about getting paid for all of this extra training and money it’s going to cost us,” said DeFazio. “There’s nothing definite on that yet for the county, if we’re going to get all this money back.”

Editorials: Voter Suppression Returns: Voting rights and partisan practices | Alexandar Keyssar/Harvard Magazine

The 2012 election campaign—for Congress as well as the presidency—promises to be bitterly fought, even nasty. Leaders of both major parties, and their core constituents, believe that the stakes are exceptionally high; neither party has much trust in the goodwill or good intentions of the other; and, thanks in part to the Supreme Court, money will be flowing in torrents, some of it from undisclosed sources and much of it available for negative campaigning. This also promises to be a close election—which is why a great deal of attention is being paid to an array of recently passed, and pending, state laws that could prevent hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of eligible voters from casting ballots. Several states, including Florida (once again, a battleground), have effectively closed down registration drives by organizations like the League of Women Voters, which have traditionally helped to register new voters; some states are shortening early-voting periods or prohibiting voting on the Sunday before election day; several are insisting that registrants provide documentary proof of their citizenship. Most importantly—and most visibly—roughly two dozen states have significantly tightened their identification rules for voting since 2003, and the pace of change has accelerated rapidly in the last two years. Ten states have now passed laws demanding that voters possess a current government-issued photo ID, and several others have enacted measures slightly less strict. A few more may take similar steps before November—although legal challenges could keep some of the laws from taking effect.

Arizona: Voter-ID Law Gets Temporary Pass From U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy | Phoenix News

In April, the U.S. Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a portion of Arizona’s voter-approved voter-ID law, intended to keep non-citizens from voting. Because of that ruling, Arizona was supposed to stop enforcing the law. But a new order by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy permits the law to go into effect — for the time being. Kennedy’s order comes in response to Arizona Solictor General David Cole’s motion on Wednesday that sought a stay to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

Pennsylvania: Lawsuit planned over Pennsylvania’s voter ID law | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Democrats on Allegheny County’s election board plan to challenge the state’s new voter ID law as being too expensive and too difficult to implement in time for the November presidential election. That claim will be at the heart of a lawsuit the election board is expected to bring next week, county Executive Rich Fitzgerald said at a news conference Friday. Rather than challenging the constitutionality of the law itself, as the American Civil Liberties Union and others are doing, local officials say the new law is too complicated and expensive to put in place by Nov. 6. Mr. Fitzgerald is one of three members of the election board. The new law requires voters to show government-approved photo identification before they can cast ballots. Mr. Fitzgerald said it would be prohibitive for the county to train the more than 6,500 poll workers who man the county’s 1,300 polling places. He said there would not be enough time to train them in new procedures required to check identifications and allow voters to use provisional ballots if they don’t have proper ID.

Minnesota: Voter ID fight escalates as Ritchie bows out of case | StarTribune.com

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a DFLer who has campaigned against the photo ID requirement for voting passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature, said Thursday he will not defend the language of the proposed constitutional amendment in a court challenge that names him as the defendant. Ritchie’s decision, announced in a letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea, followed a vote by Republican legislative leaders earlier in the day to hire their own attorney to fight a lawsuit that seeks to derail the amendment before it reaches voters in November. The day’s rapid-fire events escalated what has become a high-stakes summertime preliminary to the full-fledged political campaign over the photo ID plan and related election law changes.

National: AFL-CIO to fight voter ID laws in six battleground states | The Hill

The nation’s largest labor federation plans to mount an aggressive campaign against voter identification laws in a half-dozen battleground states that will be key in the presidential election. AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker told reporters on Tuesday that the labor federation will have boots on the ground registering and helping voters in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in coordination with the group’s political program.  Labor is pushing back against voter ID laws, which they say suppress voting by minorities, the elderly, the poor and students. Supporters of the measures say showing identification to vote is needed to crack down on fraud and protect the integrity of elections.

Michigan: Democrats to GOP on election reforms: ‘You will be held accountable for this vote’ | MLive.com

Democrats say a package of election reform bills clearing the state House on Tuesday is aimed at suppressing the vote in November’s election. And Republican state Rep. Peter Lund said he doesn’t totally disagree. “Yes, we’re suppressing the dead vote. If someone is dead, they should not be voting,” said Lund, of Shelby Township, during heated debate on the floor.

Minnesota: Ramsey County elections official estimates photo ID cost per biennium at $1.7 million | Minnesota Public Radio

Elections officials in Ramsey County may consider an innovative response to a photo identification requirement if voters amend the constitution to require it this fall. Ramsey County elections manager Joe Mansky said the requirement could make voting difficult for thousands each year of county residents who change their addresses. Mansky told the county board Tuesday that they might want to consider providing IDs to voters at the polling places.

South Carolina: Justice Department sued over South Carolina Voter ID records | The Post and Courier

A national conservative watchdog group has added a new wrinkle to the contentious debate over South Carolina’s voter ID law. Judicial Watch announced Tuesday that it has sued the Department of Justice, saying it has not turned over public records related to its decision to block the state’s requirement that voters present government-issued photo IDs in order to vote. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. Judicial Watch said it filed a Feb. 6 Freedom of Information Act request for the records, and the Justice Department acknowledged receipt of the request 10 days later. But the department still has not turned over any records, which were due no later than March 29, the conservative group said Tuesday. Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the department over the matter in U.S. District Court last week.

Minnesota: State Supreme Court weighs wording of Voter ID question | kare11.com

The Minnesota Supreme Court will decide next month whether or not the proposed voter photo ID constitutional amendment stays on the ballot. At issue is whether the question, as worded on the ballot, omits important information voters need to know before voting it up or down. That wording is simple enough, to wit: “Shall the constitution be amended to require all voters to present photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters?” Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, the former Secretary of State who was chief author of the voter ID amendment in the Minnesota House, defends the wording. “This really changes the system from an after-the-fact check-you-out, to a before-you-cast-your-ballot let’s verify,” Rep. Kiffmeyer said. “This is a very modest one section, and the core of the whole constitutional change is requiring photo ID.”

Texas: State bracing for legal battle against feds over voter ID law | Houston Chronicle

Texas is preparing for a legal showdown next month in federal court over a new voter photo ID law passed by the Legislature but blocked by the Justice Department which cited discrimination against minority voters. “We objected to a photo ID requirement in Texas because it would have had a disproportionate impact on Hispanic voters,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told a recent conference of black clergy. Despite legal maneuvering by Texas and Justice Department lawyers, a three-judge U.S. District Court panel has cleared the docket for a July 9 trial. And it remains highly questionable whether the new law could be implemented in Texas by the November general election.

National: Picture proving you are who you say you are at the polling place | UPI.com

Stricter voter identification measures supporters say fight fraud and opponents counter disenfranchise groups of voters are being detoured into the U.S. court system, possibly keeping them from going into effect or being considered before Election Day. Restrictions on early voting, new photo ID requirements and efforts to purge voter lists of non-citizens have been met with opposition from the U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and judges who blocked the provisions. “There has been a real push-back by the courts to these widespread efforts to restrict the vote,” Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, told The Washington Post. “If those seeking to suppress the vote won round 1, round 2 seems to be going to the voters.”

Texas: State prepares for court over voter ID law | San Antonio Express-News

Texas is preparing for a legal showdown next month in federal court over a new voter photo ID law passed by the Legislature. The law was blocked by the Justice Department over claims that it discriminates against minority voters. “We objected to a photo ID requirement in Texas because it would have had a disproportionate impact on Hispanic voters,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder explained to a conference of black clergy in a speech about the continued need of protections under the Voting Rights Act. Despite legal maneuvering by Texas and Justice Department lawyers, a three-judge U.S. District Court panel has cleared the docket for a July 9 trial. And it remains questionable whether the new law can be implemented in Texas by the November general election.

Voting Blogs: Ballot language latest arena for state voter ID disputes | electionlineWeekly

The fight over photo ID requirements for voters is once again finding its way into courts – but this time the issue isn’t about the merits of ID but rather about ballot language putting the question to voters. In Minnesota, voter ID is supposed to be on the November 2012 ballot. After DFL Governor Mark Dayton vetoed ID legislation in 2011, GOP majorities in the Legislature agreed earlier this year to put the question to voters – action that does not require the Governor’s approval. Given that public opinion polls suggest that voters favor ID, supporters are hopeful that voters can provide the energy to push ID past the opposition of the Governor and DFL legislators. As it has in virtually every state, the dispute has sharply – and fiercely – divided the state’s political establishment. Groups across the spectrum have lined up to support and oppose the amendment. There is a chance, however, that voters may not get the chance to have their say. The Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments about whether or not the ballot language describing the amendment is sufficient. As the language currently stands, voters will be asked if the state constitution should be amended “to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters”.

Minnesota: Voter ID supporters seek to intervene in lawsuit trying to stop amendment | TwinCities.com

A group supporting an amendment to the state’s constitution requiring voters to present a photo ID at the polls says it will seek to intervene in a lawsuit on the issue before the Minnesota Supreme Court. Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Majority, said the group plans to file a motion Friday, June 8, to intervene because it lacks confidence that Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie will vigorously defend the proposed amendment against a lawsuit seeking to keep it off the November ballot. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit May 30, arguing the ballot question is misleading. The state Supreme Court has set oral arguments for July 17.

Minnesota: State Supreme Court drawn into newest chapter of ‘voting wars’ | StarTribune.com

The Minnesota Supreme Court plans to move quickly in determining whether to change or quash a constitutional amendment on voter ID before it appears on the November ballot. The court has ordered oral arguments for July 17, an expedited schedule that would allow it to order changes to the ballot question before the November election. Opponents have asked the court to strike the ballot question, which would require voters to obtain government-approved photo identification before voting. They say that as worded, the amendment gives short shrift to broader changes the amendment would make. In its scheduling order, the high court has also asked the state for a deadline by which a decision is needed “in order to modify the ballot, if necessary, before the November” election.

North Carolina: House seeks to soften voter ID bill as Tillis addresses concerns about GOP agenda | NewsObserver.com

Republican lawmakers are renewing a push for a compromise measure that would require voters to show identification at the polls, conceding that voiding a veto of a tougher bill is unlikely. House Speaker Thom Tillis said he is intent on overriding more of Gov. Bev Perdue’s vetoes before adjourning at the end of the month. But he recently acknowledged the one hill too big to climb may be the voter ID legislation vetoed by Perdue that would require voters to show a driver’s license at the polls. A veto override requires a three-fifths majority, meaning a handful of Democrats would need to side with the Republican majority. The compromise measure being negotiated would allow voters to show a broad range of documents to prove identity, including bank statements, utility bills or any government documents with name and address. Voters without such documents would be required to show that their signature matched their voter registration form.