Pennsylvania: Voter ID bill heads toward final Senate vote | Cumberlink.com

Republicans pressed ahead Monday with a bill to require voters in the state to show certain photo identifications before their votes can be counted, lengthening the list of acceptable IDs and scheduling the bill for a final floor vote later this week. The bill would make Pennsylvania the 16th state to require a voter to show photo ID, and the concept has support from the Republican-controlled House and Republican Gov. Tom Corbett.
But Democrats intensely oppose it, as do the AARP, labor unions, civil liberties advocates and the NAACP, and accused Republicans of working to suppress the votes of the elderly, minorities, the poor and the disabled ahead of a presidential election. Republicans pointed to the wide use of photo IDs for things like prescription drugs or boarding airplanes and public polls that support such a requirement.

Wisconsin: Judge says Wisconsin voter ID lawsuit should proceed | LaCrosse Tribune

The League of Women Voters’ lawsuit challenging the state voter ID law can go ahead after a Dane County judge ruled Monday that the group is a proper party to bring the lawsuit, and that Gov. Scott Walker is a proper defendant.
Circuit Judge Richard Niess wrote in a 15-page decision that League president Melanie Ramey has legal standing to sue Walker and the state Government Accountability Board, turning aside arguments by lawyers for Walker and the GAB that Ramey is not directly affected by the law that requires voters to show one of several types of photo identification when voting. The state Department of Justice, which is representing Walker and the GAB, was still reviewing the decision, spokeswoman Dana Brueck said.

Minnesota: Voter ID legislation in Minnesota seen widely elsewhere | BrainerdDispatch.com

A proposed constitutional amendment to require a photo ID for Minnesota voters is part of a surge of similar legislation nationwide, much of it springing from a conservative organization that’s well-known to politicians but operates largely out of public view. Six states enacted a strict photo ID requirement last year, and this year lawmakers in 31 other states are considering it. Minnesota’s Republican-controlled Legislature actually passed such a requirement last year but Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed it — prompting its backers to seek an amendment on the November ballot that Dayton cannot block. The dispute over voter ID is Exchange deeply partisan. While Republicans cast it as a common-sense requirement that foils voter fraud, many Democrats say it would make voting more difficult for the poor, minorities, the elderly and disabled — constituencies that often favor them.

Editorials: A powerful argument for blocking Wisconsin’s voter ID law | Cap Times

University of Wisconsin political scientist Ken Mayer is one of the most serious and responsible analysts of the politics of the state. Widely respected as fair player, whose work is well regarded by members of both major political parties, Mayer is someone conservatives and liberals listen to for reasoned comment on the political processes of the state. So when Mayer talks about the challenges raised by Wisconsin’s new voter ID law, we should all take him seriously. In testimony this week before Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Flanagan, Mayer estimated that roughly 220,000 potential voters would be unable to cast ballots in coming elections because of the new voter identification measure.

Voting Blogs: New Federal Lawsuit Provides U.S. DoJ Golden Opportunity to Challenge Polling Place Photo ID Restrictions Under Section 2 of Voting Rights Act | BradBlog

Last September’s hearings before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights established that polling place photo ID restriction laws have nothing to do with eliminating “voter fraud.” They are, instead, part of what Judith Browne Dianis, a civil rights litigator at The Advancement Project, described at the time as the “largest legislative effort to roll back voting rights since the post-Reconstruction era” — part of the partisan, multi-state effort by the billionaire Koch brothers-funded, Paul Weyrich co-founded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-fueled GOP exercise in voter suppression. Her testimony established, yet again, that such laws have a disparate impact upon minorities, the poor, the elderly and students (all of whom happen to have the unfortunate tendency of voting Democratic).

Florida: Voter restrictions challenged | Politico.com

Florida will become the latest battleground in the national fight voter ID on Thursday, when a federal judge will hear a suit brought by Rock the Vote and other civic groups over new restrictions. “In states around the country, we’re witnessing the most significant assault on voting rights in a generation,” said Heather Smith, President of Rock the Vote, which encourages political participation. “It’s incredibly anti-American and undemocratic,” she said on a conference call with reporters Wednesday.

Illinois: Voter ID Bill, Pushed By Republican State Senators, Held Up In Committee | WSOY

A group of nearly 20 Republican state senators in Illinois have quietly thrown their support behind legislation that would require the state’s voters to present a government-issued photo identification card to an election judge upon voting — a requirement that currently only applies to early voters. State Sen. Kyle McCarter (R-Lebanon) last fall filed Senate Bill 2496 and in the months since then, fellow Republican state senators have also signed onto the measure. Earlier this month, the bill was assigned to a subcommittee but has failed to gain much additional traction.

Minnesota: Voter ID sponsor promises answers to come next year | StarTribune.com

As the photo ID constitutional amendment made an emotional passage through another committee Thursday, its Senate sponsor had a simple answer to queries about what will happen to absentee voters, mail-in voters, students voting away from home and provisional voters. Wait till next year, said Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson. Before the Senate Finance Committee approved his bill, Hutchinson recited his mantra: If voters approve the photo ID constitutional amendment in November, it will be up to the 2013 Legislature to decide how to implement the requirement that all voters at polling places “present an approved form of government-issued photo identification.”

New Hampshire: Senate reconsiders voter ID bill | The Portland Press Herald

New Hampshire’s Senate is voting next week on whether voters must show photo identification at the polls before casting ballots, but unlike a bill vetoed last year, the latest measure does not contain a provision that would delay the counting of some votes. The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union says the bill is unnecessary but is not opposing it, and Senate Republican Leader Jeb Bradley expects the Senate to pass it to the House. “There is no need for this bill, but since something is going to pass, this is the most responsible and we believe it is constitutional,” said Claire Ebel of the civil liberties union.

Minnesota: Voter ID issue advances in Minnesota Senate | TwinCities.com

A bill that would ask Minnesotans whether to amend the state constitution to require voters to present a photo ID at the polls cleared its first hurdle at the Capitol on Wednesday. All eight Republicans on the Local Government and Elections Committee voted for the bill; all six Democrats voted against it. The bill heads next to the State Government Innovation and Veterans Committee. Eight other states have such legislation. Proponents say it’s a way to safeguard the integrity of the electoral system and reduce fraud, but critics argue it’s unneeded and will make it harder for the elderly, college students, the disabled and others to vote.

Editorials: All Quiet on the Voter Fraud Front – ACLU Offering Reward for Evidence of Voter Impersonation | Andrew Rosenthal/NYTimes.com

The Minnesota ACLU has offered a $1000 reward for an example of voter impersonation, which a proposed amendment requiring photo ID at the Minnesota polls would have prevented. Anyone looking to compete for the cash should know the following restriction:  the case must have been prosecuted in Minnesota within the last 10 years. I’m eager to see if the ACLU will have to start issuing checks. My guess is they won’t.

The proposed Minnesota amendment, and the ACLU challenge, is part of a larger story, which I’ve written about many times Let’s review this history so far. There is a campaign around the country to impose ID requirements on voters. Opponents of these measures, including me, say they are onerous and unconstitutional since they discriminate against the elderly, minorities, rural populations and poorer, less educated voters. It just so happens that many of these groups vote Democratic.

Minnesota: Voter ID to deter fraud? Prove it, ACLU says | TwinCities.com

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota offered a $1,000 reward Monday to anyone who can prove a case in which someone in the state has been charged or convicted of impersonating a voter. State ACLU Executive Director Charles Samuelson said his organization put up the bounty to show a Republican-proposed constitutional amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls is not needed. Samuelson said ACLU attorneys have not been able to find a single case of voter impersonation in the past 10 years.

Minnesota: Voter ID measure passes first state Minnesota Senate committee | mndaily.com – The Minnesota Daily

A state Senate committee passed legislation Wednesday that would allow voters to decide the voter ID debate. If added to the November ballot and approved by voters, the state constitutional amendment would require voters to show photo identification at the polls. The amendment passed the Local Government and Elections Committee along party lines 8-6 — Republican supporters claimed it would prevent voter fraud, while opponents said it would make it harder for some people to vote. It will move to the Senate State Government Innovation and Veterans Committee.

Editorials: The Strange Career of Voter Suppression | NYTimes.com

The 2012 general election campaign is likely to be a fight for every last vote, which means that it will also be a fight over who gets to cast one. Partisan skirmishing over election procedures has been going on in state legislatures across the country for several years. Republicans have called for cutbacks in early voting, an end to same-day registration, higher hurdles for ex-felons, the presentation of proof-of-citizenship documents and regulations discouraging registration drives. The centerpiece of this effort has been a national campaign to require voters to present particular photo ID documents at the polls. Characterized as innocuous reforms to preserve election integrity, beefed-up ID requirements have passed in more than a dozen states since 2005 and are still being considered in more than 20 others. Opponents of the laws, mostly Democrats, claim that they are intended to reduce the participation of the young, of the poor and of minorities, who are most likely to lack government-issued IDs — and also most likely to vote Democratic.

Minnesota: Two fears drive fight on photo ID | StarTribune.com

A high-stakes political struggle over requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls is erupting in Minnesota, conjuring up emotional precedents from the notorious Jim Crow poll taxes to the old Chicago admonition to “vote early and often.” The determined Republican drive to pass a photo ID constitutional amendment as a needed deterrent to fraud — and the equally strong DFL effort to oppose it as a partisan ploy to suppress votes — has turned the ordinary driver’s license into a symbol of our national divide. “It’s like we’re back in slavery, only it’s all of us this time,” said Antoinette Oloko, an African-American woman at one of several protests against photo ID and news conferences at the Capitol in recent days. “We’ve had cases of ineligible voters, convicted felons, voting when they shouldn’t be,” said Dan McGrath of the pro-ID group Minnesota Majority, who has collected pictures of voters’ given “addresses” that turn out to be empty lots.

Editorials: The Past is not Past – Why We Still Need Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act | Jonathan Brater/Boston Review

Today the state of South Carolina sued the Justice Department for blocking its new law requiring citizens to show government-issued photo identification to vote. This is just the latest broadside in what promises to be a protracted battle over the constitutionality of state voting laws and federal protections against discrimination. For decades, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been a cornerstone of civil rights law. The provision requires certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to get federal “preclearance” before enforcing new voting laws. Today, opponents of the law are trying to dismantle this foundation of our democracy, bringing several court challenges in recent months. They argue that, 50 years after the worst abuses of the Jim Crow era, the law should be struck down as unconstitutional, and that federal protection of minority rights in these jurisdictions is no longer needed. Do they have a point? To paraphrase William Faulkner, the past is not past.

South Carolina: In voter ID case, South Carolina fights back against Obama administration | CSMonitor.com

South Carolina’s attorney general is asking a three-judge panel in Washington to reverse a Justice Department decision blocking the state’s new voter ID law. Obama administration officials said the state law would discriminate against African-American voters. In court papers filed on Wednesday, Washington lawyer Paul Clement and state Attorney General Alan Wilson requested that a three-judge panel be appointed to decide whether South Carolina’s voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The litigation sets up another election-year flashpoint between the Obama administration and state governments over the balance of federal-state power.

Minnesota: State Prepares For Voter ID Battle | CBS

Minnesota’s nearly three million registered voters must sign a registry when they go to their polling place, but they don’t have to produce photo identification. That, however, might change soon. The Republican controlled legislature is currently pushing a measure that would leave the question of voter ID up to voters on the November ballot. Recent contested elections have given rise to concerns about imposter voters and the potential for fraud at the ballot box.

South Carolina: State Sues Feds For Blocked Voter ID Law | Fox News

The U.S. Justice Department was wrong to block South Carolina from requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote, the state’s top prosecutor argued in a lawsuit filed Tuesday. Enforcement of the new law “will not disenfranchise any potential South Carolina voter,” Attorney General Alan Wilson argues in the suit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. “The changes have neither the purpose nor will they have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority.” The Justice Department in December rejected South Carolina’s law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying tens of thousands of the state’s minorities might not be able to cast ballots under the new law because they don’t have the right photo ID. It was the first such law to be refused by the federal agency in nearly 20 years.

Editorials: Keeping Virginians from voting | The Washington Post

For decades Virginia has allowed residents who lack proof of identification or whose IDs have been lost or stolen to vote, provided they are listed in the voting rolls and sign sworn statements attesting to their identities. Now, in response to no known problem, Republicans are backing a change already approved by the House of Delegates that would allow such citizens to cast only provisional ballots, which would be counted only if their identities were subsequently verified with IDs. Given that 11 percent of voting-age citizens nationally lack photo IDs, that would place unmanageable burdens on thousands of would-be voters in the commonwealth. The bill’s chief sponsor is Del. Mark R. Cole (R-Fredericksburg), whose previous claim to fame was a bill in 2010 banning employers from planting microchips in their workers, on the grounds that doing so might enable a surreptitious incursion by the antichrist. Yes, really.

Editorials: Voter ID bill is an unfunded mandate | PennLive.com

It is ironic that in an era when certain elected officials rail against unfunded mandates, government waste and the lack of citizen participation in the civic life of the country, those same officials are spending their taxpayer-funded resources on wasteful, ineffective voter photo ID legislation. Every three or four years, voter photo ID legislation such as Pennsylvania House Bill 934 — introduced by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe — makes its way to the forefront of the legislative agenda, moving to the top of the queue over bills that could help taxpayers save money, create jobs or even improve schools. HB 934 offers to misuse dollars from the federal Help America Vote Act intended to remove barriers to voting for the explicit purpose of making it harder for Pennsylvanians without a photo ID to vote. The bill also calls for the waste of at least $4.3 million from the Motor License Fund.

Kansas: New Kansas voter ID regs hitting voters in nursing home | Kansas Reporter

About 50 residents at Westview Manor, an adult care facility, not only face the challenges of sickness and old age, but they could be sideswiped by strict voter identification requirements. Only nine of the residents at the Peabody center have current identification cards and two have birth certificates that can be used to obtain a state ID cards, said Bonita Robertson-Boydston, executive director at Westview Manor. The chances that the more than 35 registered voters will get sufficient identification soon seem slim, she said. Without proper identification, the residents will not be permitted to vote in the south central Kansas community where they’ve voted for years, she said. The law applies to the Aug. 7 primary and Nov. 6 general elections.

Minnesota: Opponents of Voter ID amendment pack Senate hearing | Minnesota Public Radio

A proposed constitutional amendment to require Minnesotans to show photo identification in order to vote is facing a rough road at the State Capitol. Amendment opponents packed a Senate hearing on the measure Wednesday and dozens took turns to criticize the bill, providing most of the five hours of testimony. Republicans on the Committee on Local Government and Elections appear supportive of the bill, and they have the votes to advance it. The panel recessed without taking action or saying when the debate would resume.

Oregon: Oregon Escapes Notice in Voter Photo ID Battle | Roll Call

More than 200,000 people voted in this week’s special election in Oregon’s 1st district, and none of them had to show photo identification before they cast their ballot. As the voter ID battle rages on in states across the country, the Beaver State hardly registers within the movement, even though it’s possible for an Oregonian to vote without ever having to show a photo ID. “For people arguing about photo IDs, they just haven’t even taken Oregon under consideration,” one GOP strategist said.

Iowa: Voter ID bill back with a twist | Quad-City Times

Secretary of State Matt Schultz jumped into one of the most partisan issues in electoral politics last week when he introduced a new voter photo identification bill, but he did so with a key change. Unique to his proposal is the idea that one voter can vouch for another in place of photo identification, something Schultz hopes will blunt criticism of his plan. Indeed, Schultz used the word “bipartisan” no fewer than 14 times during his Statehouse news conference and in answering questions from the media. When pressed, however, he acknowledged that he had bipartisan input, and not necessarily bipartisan support, for his plan.

Virginia: Voter ID proposal passes Virginia House | The Cavalier Daily

A bill introduced by Del. Mark Cole, R-Fredericksburg, which would require people to show a photo ID in order to vote, passed the House of Delegates yesterday and now awaits approval by the Senate. Cole hopes House Bill 9 will discourage voter fraud by “[improving] the integrity of elections without denying anyone their lawful right to vote,” he said in an email. Voters without a form of identification would still be able to cast a provisional ballot said Justin Riemer, a deputy secretary at the State Board of Elections. Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Albemarle, however, said he opposes the legislation because voter fraud does not significantly impact the election process. “Voter fraud is a boogieman,” Deeds said. “There [are] so few cases of it. This legislation is like killing a gnat with a sledgehammer.”

Tennessee: Bills seek changes to voter ID law | Knoxville News Sentinel

The majority leaders of the state House and Senate have filed bills that could open doors for more people to have a valid photo identification card for voting under a law that was approved in last year’s legislative session. One bill filed Thursday by Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris, R-Colliverville, and House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga, would authorize county election commissions to issue a free photo ID. The bill (SB3707) would apply to registered voters who sign an affidavit stating they currently have no ID that is valid under current law. It is similar to a measure filed by House Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh, D-Ripley, and Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman Lowe Finney of Jackson. (HB2305).

Iowa: Schultz hopes to blunt voter ID plan criticism | Globe Gazette

Secretary of State Matt Schultz jumped into one of the most partisan issues in electoral politics last week when he introduced a new voter photo identification bill, but he did so with a twist. Unique to his proposal is the idea that one voter can vouch for another in place of photo identification, something Schultz hopes will blunt criticism of his plan. He used the word “bipartisan” no fewer than 14 times during his Statehouse news conference and in answering questions from the media. When pressed, however, he acknowledged that he had bipartisan input, but not necessarily bipartisan support for his plan.

South Carolina: Lawsuit over voter ID could cost taxpayers more than $1 million | The Post and Courier

South Carolina taxpayers will be on the hook for a high-powered Washington attorney’s $520-an-hour rate when the state sues the federal government this week to protect its voter ID law. That litigation could cost more than $1 million, according to two South Carolina attorneys who have practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court. Supporters of South Carolna’s voter ID law say it is necessary to prevent voter fraud. Opponents say there is no proof that a voter-fraud problem exists.S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson has more than five dozen staff attorneys to handle the state’s legal affairs, but Wilson hired a former U.S. solicitor general to litigate the voter ID case at a rate of $520 an hour, a contract obtained last week reveals.

National: Can We Have a Democratic Election? | Elizabeth Drew/The New York Review of Books

Beneath the turbulent political spectacle that has captured so much of the nation’s attention lies a more important question than who will get the Republican nomination, or even who will win in November: Will we have a democratic election this year? Will the presidential election reflect the will of the people? Will it be seen as doing so—and if not, what happens? The combination of broadscale, coordinated efforts underway to manipulate the election and the previously banned unlimited amounts of unaccountable money from private or corporate interests involved in those efforts threatens the democratic process for picking a president. The assumptions underlying that process—that there is a right to vote, that the system for nominating and electing a president is essentially fair—are at serious risk.