North Carolina: Justice Department Is Challenging North Carolina’s Extreme Voter Suppression Law | The Nation

The Justice Department filed suit against key provisions of North Carolina’s worst-in-the-nation voter suppression law in federal court today. The lawsuit alleges that North Carolina’s harsh voter ID law, cutbacks to early voting, elimination of same-day registration during the early voting period and ban on counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Department also argues that these voting changes were enacted with intentional discrimination and thus North Carolina should have to approve all of its voting changes with the federal government for a period of time. “By restricting access and ease of voter participation, this new law would shrink, rather than expand, access to the franchise,” Attorney General Eric Holder said at a press conference today. Days after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, “the state legislature took aggressive steps to curtail the voting rights of African-Americans,” said Holder. “This is an intentional attempt to break a system that was working.”

Colorado: Final election results show Morse lost by 319 votes | Colorado Springs Independent

The final results are in for the recall election of Senate President John Morse — and it was a squeaker. With additional ballots counted, it turns out that Morse lost by just 319 votes. With the deadline for receiving military and overseas ballots passed, all possible remaining legal votes in the Senate District 11 Recall Election have been collected and tabulated. The El Paso County Clerk and Recorder’s Office announces the official final result of the election as follows: The final results include an additional 76 ballots from military and overseas voters and 22 polling place provisional ballots that were counted after signatures were verified.

Arkansas: Panel approves rules for voter ID law | Associated Press

Arkansas’ top elections panel on Wednesday approved guidelines for how poll workers should enforce the state’s new voter ID law when it takes effect next year, after it removed a proposal that one member warned could lead to political favoritism. The state Board of Election Commissioners unanimously approved the rules, which closely mirror those outlined in the law passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature in April despite Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto. Before approving the new guidelines, the panel voted to remove a provision that would have allowed poll supervisors to settle disputes when voters don’t resemble their ID photos. Board member Stu Soffer, who called for the provision’s removal, said the voter ID law didn’t give them the authority to include that step in the rules. He said the voter could cast a provisional ballot even if their identity is challenged, and the final decision could be made by the county election commission.

Texas: Voter ID law a headache for officials | San Antonio Express-News

Chances are the name on your voter registration card doesn’t match that on your driver’s license, and that could create some headaches come Election Day. A preliminary comparison of the 13.8 million names on the state’s voter registration rolls against Texas Department of Public Safety records resulted in a match of only 7 million of those names. The variation between the two documents could be as simple as the addition or dropping of a middle name or initial, but according to the state voter ID law that comes into play for the Nov. 5 election, the name on the voter card has to match exactly with that on the ID card. If a voting official deems the names “substantially similar” a voter is off the hook, sort of. He or she will still be required to sign an affidavit stating he/she is the person named in the two documents. However, if the voting official cannot readily make a connection between names, the voter will have to cast a provisional ballot, which takes longer to fill out and process. The state had recommended local election administrators send out letters to voters advising them their voter cards and IDs need to match, but the postage cost has made that prohibitive. With about 890,000 registered voters in Bexar County, that mailout would have cost more than $400,000.

Editorials: Was 2012 the Worst Year Ever for Voting Rights? | The Daily Beast

This past election day, a 50-year-old African-American voter in Mississippi, whose name has not been released, showed up to her local polling station to cast her vote in the general election. She had voted in the same county since she was 18 but was told her name was not on the rolls and that she would have to vote via a provisional ballot. As the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington approaches, civil rights activists say one of the most powerful barometers of progress for African-Americans—easy access to the ballot box—is under attack. The 2012 election cycle represented “the largest legislative effort to rollback voting rights since the post-reconstruction era,” says Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization that released a report along with Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Thursday arguing that voting changes in 2012 disproportionately affected African-American voters. The last two years have been a particularly tumultuous time for voting rights. According to the Advancement Project’s report, 180 bills they dubbed “restrictive” were introduced in 41 states between January 2011 and October 2012. Laws requiring voters to show ID at the polls—perhaps the most controversial piece of new voting legislation—were proposed in 38 states. On Thursday, the Justice Department announced that it plans to sue Texas on its new voter ID law.

Arkansas: Panel approves rules for voter ID law | Associated Press

Arkansas’ top elections panel on Wednesday approved guidelines for how poll workers should enforce the state’s new voter ID law when it takes effect next year, after it removed a proposal that one member warned could lead to political favoritism. The state Board of Election Commissioners unanimously approved the rules, which closely mirror those outlined in the law passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature in April despite Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto. Before approving the new guidelines, the panel voted to remove a provision that would have allowed poll supervisors to settle disputes when voters don’t resemble their ID photos. Board member Stu Soffer, who called for the provision’s removal, said the voter ID law didn’t give them the authority to include that step in the rules. He said the voter could cast a provisional ballot even if their identity is challenged, and the final decision could be made by t! he county election commission.

North Carolina: New law cancels ballots cast in wrong precinct | Associated Press

For a decade, registered North Carolina voters who didn’t go to their home precincts on Election Day – by error or on purpose – could still ensure their top choices would count. They’d fill out a conditional ballot from the incorrect precinct. If officials confirmed soon after that they were legally able to vote in the county, their votes for elections not specific to their home precinct would be tabulated. But Republicans at the legislature say people should be responsible to know where they’re supposed to vote, rather than force election workers to crosscheck their ballots and figure out their lawful choices. So they inserted in their elections overhaul bill passed last month a new law barring those out-of-precinct ballots- usually thousands combined annually in primary and general elections – from being counted at all. “If you do cast you ballot, you should know which precinct you belong in,” said Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg, who shepherded the election law through the Senate, calling the change a “small part of the overall streamlining of the election process.”

North Carolina: Lawsuits expected over major North Carolina voting changes | Charlotte Observer

When Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signs North Carolina’s sweeping new elections bill as expected this month, critics will be ready to act, too – in court. The bill not only contains one of the nation’s strictest photo ID laws but compresses the time for early voting and ends straight-ticket balloting. It would no longer count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The bill that emerged in the final days of this year’s legislative session goes beyond voting changes. It limits disclosure of outside campaign spending, ends public financing for judicial races and no longer makes candidates take responsibility for their ads. “I have never seen a single law that is more anti-voter,” says Penda Hair, a lawyer with the Advancement Project, a civil rights group in Washington. “North Carolina now joins a very short list of (states) that seem … motivated to stop people from voting.”

Ohio: Provisional ballots, ID voting rules extended | The Columbus Dispatch

A federal judge extended a 2010 court decree that governs Ohio’s provisional ballots and voter identification requirements, which voter advocates say has kept elections from becoming the “Wild West.” The agreement ensures that election officials count votes cast provisionally when voters use the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley today. He extended the order until the end of 2016, after the next presidential election in the battleground state. Marbley said that without the decree, “there is nothing to prevent boards of election from returning to those haphazard and, in some cases, illegal practices, which previously resulted in the invalidation of validly cast ballots from registered voters.”

Editorials: Obama and Eric Holder take on Texas and other states on voting | New Republic

Pro-tip: When you win a big court case giving you the go-ahead to suppress voter turnout for your political opponents, don’t gloat about it. That is surely one of the lessons in the remarkable news that the U.S. Department of Justice is challenging new voting-rights laws in Texas and elsewhere even after the Supreme Court ruling that eviscerated the part of the Voting Rights Act that the feds had relied on for decades to challenge voting restrictions. What made the ruling especially galling was the celebration that followed from Republicans in states, including Texas, who immediately vowed to proceed with voting restrictions that had been challenged under the now-undermined part of the VRA. The alacrity with which Texas, North Carolina and other states have rushed to take advantage of the ruling seriously weakened the sober conservative argument, from Chief Justice John Roberts and others, that Southern states no longer needed to be singled out for special scrutiny because they had long since left their discriminatory ways behind. And it all but invited Attorney General Eric Holder to take this new step, to announce that his department would still do everything in its power to ensure fairness at the polls.

Editorials: North Carolina voter ID, other changes unnecessary | Charlotte Observer

We’ve said all along that GOP lawmakers’ push for voter ID in North Carolina was more about suppressing the votes of Democrats than tackling fraud. The restrictive N.C. Senate bill unveiled last week that some legislators are trying to ram through in the waning days of the legislative session this week proves the point. The bill reduces by half the types of photo identification that were allowed under the House version, and makes it particularly onerous for college students to vote. Under the Senate bill, no college ID card would be acceptable. The House bill does allow student IDs, but only from N.C. schools. The Senate limits acceptable IDs to those issued by the government – driver’s license, passports, non-driver IDs and military or veteran cards. The bill also eliminates measures designed to educate voters about vote law changes.

North Carolina: Senate’s voter ID proposal tougher than House version | Salisbury Post

The North Carolina Senate on Thursday rolled out its voter identification bill, scaling back the number of acceptable photo IDs to cast a ballot in person starting in 2016 and could make it more difficult for young people to vote. The bill sets out seven qualifying forms of photo ID. But they do not include university-issued IDs, like the House allowed for University of North Carolina system and community college students when it passed a bill three months ago. The Senate also removed from its list those cards issued by local governments, for police, firefighters and other first responders, and for people receiving government assistance. Someone who doesn’t present an approved ID could cast a provisional ballot, but would have to return to an elections office with an ID for the vote to count. “We have tweaked it, tightened (it) up some with the particular IDs that will be accepted,” said Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson and chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which neither debated nor voted on the measure Thursday.

Ohio: Court makes permanent order that Ohio count provisional ballots cast in right polling station but wrong precinct | cleveland.com

A federal judge has made permanent his earlier order that Ohio must count provisional ballots cast in the right polling place but wrong precinct — so-called right church, wrong pew ballots. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley last week addresses voting errors at polling locations where more than one precinct conducts voting and a poll worker directed the voter to the wrong precinct. It makes permanent rules used in the 2012 election. The decision drew praise from voting advocates who said to do otherwise would punish voters when poll workers mistakenly sent them to the wrong place to vote. Misdirected voters could cast provisional ballots, but prior to the injunction their ballots could be rejected for being cast at the wrong precinct.

Ohio: Federal judge hears case on Ohio ballot, ID rules | Dayton Daily News

Voter advocates asked a federal judge Friday to extend a court order that they say ensures that broad definitions of voter identification requirements would remain in place in the perennial presidential battleground of Ohio. Attorneys for the state’s top election official said he’s committed to the more lenient voter ID definitions, unless the Legislature changes the law. At issue is whether a 2010 expiring court agreement that governs provisional ballots and forms of voter ID in Ohio should continue. An attorney representing homeless voters told the federal court in Columbus that without the decree, the state would return to a “Wild West” system in which county election boards could apply vague standards unequally and unfairly to legitimate voters.

Ohio: Advocates ask to extend voter-ID order | The Columbus Dispatch

Voter advocates asked a federal judge yesterday to extend a court order that they say ensures that broad definitions of voter-identification requirements would remain in place in Ohio. Attorneys for the state’s top election official, Secretary of State Jon Husted, said he’s committed to the more-lenient voter-ID definitions, unless the legislature changes the law so the decree isn’t needed. At issue is whether an expiring 2010 court agreement that governs provisional ballots and forms of voter ID in Ohio should continue.

Editorials: One more vote for fixing Philadelphia’s election machinery | Philadelphia Inquirer

As the city kicks off its annual Independence Day celebration, it’s important to remember that there is little freedom without participation. And freedom was threatened last year not only by voter-ID laws, which set up barriers to legitimate democratic participation, but also by confusion at the polls in Philadelphia, where thoughtful revolutionaries once gathered to write the Declaration of Independence. Seven months after the Nov. 6 election, three separate investigations – by Mayor Nutter, City Controller Alan Butkovitz, and the City Commissioners – have examined why more than 27,000 city voters had to use provisional paper ballots instead of voting machines. A little more than half of them weren’t properly registered or had shown up at the wrong polling place, in which case provisional ballots were appropriate. But far too many problems were caused by official incompetence.

Ohio: Group ‘deeply disturbed’ over possible voter prosecution | Cincinnati.com

The League of Women Voters of Ohio is “deeply disturbed” by the possible prosecution of 39 Hamilton County voters. In an open letter sent to election officials, LWVO President Nancy Brown said the citizens involved in 39 cases of possible voter fraud acted in line with Ohio’s election law. The cases addressed in the letter involve voters who voted via provisional ballot after voting early. After reviewing the cases, the Hamilton County Board of Elections voted 2-2 along party lines last month to send the cases to the prosecutor’s office for further review. Later in May Ohio Secretary of State John Husted a Republican, made the tie-breaking decision, siding with the two Republican on the board to send the cases to the prosecutor’s office for further review. “The only ‘wrong’ committed by these voters was requesting an absentee ballot and then casting a provisional ballot at the polls on Election Day,” Brown wrote. “This activity is perfectly legal, and referring these cases to the prosecutor sends a dangerous and chilling message not only to Ohio voters but also to poll workers.”

Ohio: Democrats dispute Husted’s report of no voter suppression | The Columbus Dispatch

None? None! NONE!? A new report released yesterday by two Statehouse Democrats suggests there was all sorts of voter “suppression” in Ohio in 2012, an obvious contrast with a report from May 23 released by Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted. That one said there wasn’t any. “Zero? That should’ve triggered a bell, and it did for us too. Zero? Something is wrong with that,” said state Sen. Nina Turner, one of the Democrats behind yesterday’s report. Turner will likely challenge Husted for his office in 2014. The report released by Turner and Democratic state Rep. Kathleen Clyde of Kent cites tens of thousands of instances of voter “suppression,” counting all 34,299 provisional ballots rejected, all 13,190 absentee ballots rejected, 2,188 complaints from Ohio Democratic volunteer attorneys on Election Day, and the 122 votes rejected in the Ohio House 98th District race won narrowly by a Republican.

Ohio: Some used P.O. box as address: Is that vote fraud? | Cincinnati.com

A group of citizens has uncovered almost 100 people in Hamilton County who are allegedly registered to vote someplace other than where they live – which is illegal. Election records showtwo-thirds of them actually voted from those addresses, meaning they could have cast a vote in a local election in which they weren’t entitled to have a say. Did they commit a crime? Ohio law says people must reside at the address where they’re registered. That’s because people vote on local issues – councils, commissioners, levies. The Hamilton County Board of Elections today will discuss what to do about these cases. It could send those cases to the prosecutor for further investigation and even possible felony charges.

Georgia: Uncounted votes | wsbtv.com

More than 10,000 Georgia voters in the last presidential election were forced to vote on paper instead of electronically. A Channel 2 Action News investigation found that thousands of votes didn’t count, though many should have. State investigators still don’t even know how many people actually voted. “Having looked forward to voting for a long time and following the election, I was very excited to go there and to cast my vote,” said 18-year-old Bailey Sumner. But when she arrived at her Sandy Springs precinct, the poll workers refused to give her a ballot. “They told me that I wasn’t on the list, and that I couldn’t vote,” Sumner told Channel 2 investigative reporter Jodie Fleischer.

Ohio: Voter fraud, or just errors? | Cincinnati.com

Yamiah Davis was excited to vote in her first presidential election last fall. The 21-year-old Avondale woman mailed in her early ballot in October, but then realized she had forgotten to include a form. “I was excited to have my voice count,” Davis said. “When I realized what I did I thought, ‘Crap, my vote didn’t count.’ ” So, she said, she went to her polling location on Election Day and explained what happened. They told her to cast a provisional ballot, she said. Now, she could face prosecution and wonders: “Am I going to jail?” She and dozens of others – people who voted early by mail or in person at the Board of Elections, then cast a provisional ballot on Election Day – could face felony prosecution.

Connecticut: Secretary Merrill Praises House Passage of Provisional Ballot Bill | Stamford Plus

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill on Tuesday praised the Connecticut State House of Representatives passage of House Bill No. 5599 “An Act Concerning Provisional Ballots for State and Municipal Offices” that would allow voters to use provisional ballots for state and municipal elections instead of only federal elections, as current statutes provide. The House vote today was 105-37 in favor of sending the bill to the State Senate. Provisional ballots are cast by voters who appear at their polling place on Election Day and claim they are indeed registered to vote, but their names do not appear on the voter list. Provisional ballots are counted in the election only if the voter is later verified as being legitimately registered in that town by the local Registrar of Voters. Currently, provisional ballots can only be used to vote for federal candidates for office. Those voters whose registration status is uncertain at their polling place on Election Day are currently permitted to vote by challenge ballot for candidates for municipal and state candidates.

Arizona: Maricopa analysis: Early-voting plan would ax 20K voters from permanent absentee list | KTAR.com

Maricopa County officials said that about 20,000 registered voters would be removed from the permanent early-voting list under proposed legislation aimed at reducing the number of provisional ballots. No particular demographic group would be hit harder than another, according to an analysis by the Maricopa County Elections Department. Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, developed SB 1261 with input from county election officials. As approved by the Senate, it would remove people from permanent early- voting lists if they fail to vote in four consecutive federal elections and fail to respond to notice from the county elections office. “No other other state that I found who has a permanent early voting list has no ability to clean up their list,” Reagan said.

Ohio: Elections bill in Ohio Senate gets caught in partisan crossfire | The Columbus Dispatch

The Ohio Senate moved what was thought to be a fairly noncontroversial election bill yesterday, but it drew Democratic opposition for what some argued was a failure to fully address an issue that leads to some votes being tossed out. The bill was described as general clean-up provisions that include increasing flexibility for county elections boards, notifying candidates who have identical names, and allowing county elections boards to send certain documents to the secretary of state electronically. Senate Bill 109 also makes it clear that if a person casting an absentee or provisional ballot double votes by filling in the name of the candidate and also writing in the same candidate, the vote will be counted.

Arizona: Bill may ease state voting process | Yuma Sun

Arizona county recorders like Yuma’s Robyn Stallworth Pouquette want to be able to keep their early voter lists as clean and accurate as possible, reducing the use of time-chewing provisional ballots that delayed official statewide results of the 2012 general election by days. A bill working its way through the Arizona Legislature aims to do that. SB1261 gives the keepers of Arizona’s voter rolls the ability to remove voters from the permanent early voting list, or PEVL, if they haven’t used their early ballot in four years and don’t respond to a follow-up postcard query. Right now, the only way off the list is for a voter to make a request in writing.

North Carolina: Voter ID bill passes North Carolina House along party lines | Associated Press

A Republican bill requiring voters to present photo identification passed the North Carolina House Wednesday in a vote that split mostly along party lines. The Republican-controlled House approved the bill 81-36 following nearly three hours of amendments and partisan-charged debate. The bill now heads to the Senate, where Republicans also hold a substantial majority. Most Democratic amendments to ease restrictions failed, but one from Rep. Charles Graham, D-Robeson, restored state tribal ID to the forms of ID accepted under the bill. He later crossed party lines to vote in favor of the bill.

Florida: Elections reform bill: Senate poised to pass elections reform bill | Orlando Sentinel

The Florida Senate is poised to pass an election reform inspired by last year’s criticized elections, but will likely do so without the votes of minority-party Democrats who object the fix doesn’t completely solve all the problems that led to long lines and late vote counts. Though there are some difference between the House and Senate bills (SB 600/HB 7013), both would give elections supervisors discretion to hold between eight and 14 days or early voting, and allow early voting on the Sunday before a general election.

Editorials: We Can Fix That | Penda D. Hair/Huffington Post

In the 2012 elections, we saw a glimpse of a more robust and inclusive democracy. Hispanic and youth voters turned out in record numbers, and African Americans may have voted at a higher rate than whites for the first time in U.S. history. But this turnout happened in spite of the most widespread assault on voting rights that we’ve seen since the Reconstruction era. Thankfully, courts blocked many of the recent state laws that make it harder to vote. Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of citizens — disproportionately African Americans and Latinos — had to wait in outrageously long lines and many were improperly forced to cast provisional ballots. While the resolve of voters who stood in line for up to eight hours was inspiring, it showed that election reform is needed. As President Obama said on election night, “We have to fix that.”

North Carolina: Voting changes may lengthen lines, wait times | The Davidson Dispatch

Republican-led legislation could prompt major changes for elections in North Carolina, including shorter early voting periods, elimination of same-day registration and ID requirements at the polls. While bill sponsors believe the changes will save money and prevent voter fraud, elections officials across the state say the measures could lead to longer lines and wait times at the polls. Most discussion has surrounded a proposed voter ID law, introduced by House Republicans last week. The law, which would take effect in 2016, would require voters to show one of eight state-issued forms of photo identification or a tribal ID card. Provisional ballots for those without photo ID on Election Day are allowed but would only be counted if the voter returns to a local election board before results are official, according to the bill. The legislation also includes a provision waiving fees for state-issued IDs for those who sign a statement swearing they don’t have a birth certificate or the means to pay.