Egypt: Debates in Egypt as top court allows security members right to vote | Global Times

The recent declaration of Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) to allow police and military personnel to vote in elections has drawn controversy among legal and political experts in the country. The courts ruling on Saturday deemed a ban against security members from voting “unconstitutional,” citing the new constitution approved in December 2012. For decades, security members have been prevented from voting based on a law dating back to 1976. The ban was justified as a move to keep the military and the security apparatuses off politics. The SCC, however, said that such a ban violated the country’s new constitution that states that “all” citizens have the right to vote.

Japan: Revised election law allows wards to vote by proxy | The Japan Times

The House of Councilors enacted a law Monday that gives wards the right to vote, meaning that about 136,000 adults under legal guardianship will be able to cast ballots in the Upper House poll this summer. The Upper House of the Diet unanimously approved a bill to amend the Public Offices Election Law by removing Article 11, which prevents wards from exercising their right to vote. The bill passed the Lower House earlier. Under the revision, adults who are under guardianship will be able to exercise their voting rights via proxies. Proxy voting will also be allowed in national referendums on constitutional amendments.

California: Assembly passes several election-related bills | Associated Press

Immigrants who are not U.S. citizens could serve as poll workers in California under one of several election-related bills that passed the state Assembly on Thursday. As many as five noncitizens could volunteer in a precinct under AB817 from Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda. Those poll workers must be legal permanent U.S. residents. Bonta said allowing immigrants to serve as poll workers would increase the number of bilingual volunteers who could assist voters.

Egypt: Court says police and army should vote | Times-Standard

Egyptian Islamists and former members of the nation’s military voiced concern Sunday about the potential pitfalls stemming from a decision by the country’s top constitutional court that would allow members of the armed forces and police to vote in the nation’s elections. For decades, a long-running legal tradition in Egypt’s army and police barred soldiers, conscripts and members of the security from voting while in the service. The ban, which was written into law in 1976, was widely seen as a move designed to keep both the military and the security agencies out of politics—despite the fact that the country was run by former generals. The Supreme Constitutional Court said Saturday the ban violated the country’s new constitution, which stipulates that all citizens have the right to vote. The court also shot down 12 other articles of the election laws drafted by Egypt’s Islamist-led legislature, saying they too went against the charter.

National: Iraq's new constitution has something America's doesn't: The right to vote | Salon

Is it time, at long last, for the citizens of the United States to enjoy the constitutional right to vote for the people who govern them? Phrased in that way, the question may come as a shock. The U.S. has waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified, at least in rhetoric, by the claim that people deserve the right to vote for their leaders. Most of us assume that the right to vote has long been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Not according to the Supreme Court. In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Court ruled that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.” That’s right. Under federal law, according to the Supreme Court, if you are a citizen of the United States, you have a right to own a firearm that might conceivably be used in overthrowing the government. But you have no right to wield a vote that might be used to change the government by peaceful means.

Kentucky: North Kentuckians debate restoring felons’ right to vote | Cinncinnati.com

Restoring the voting rights to felons ranked among the reforms some Northern Kentuckians would like to see Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes advocate for. Dozens of Northern Kentuckians Wednesday night at Dixie Heights High School told Grimes what they like and dislike about Kentucky’s voting laws. Grimes vistied Northern Kentucky as part of five town halls she will conduct around the state this year to get input on voting laws. Many wore stickers made by advocacy organization Kentuckians for the Commonwealth that read “I voted but 243,842 Kentuckians could not. Restore voting rights to former felons.” A majority of the the 121 people polled online by the Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement at Northern Kentucky University–56 percent–”strongly” agreed with restoring voting rights to felons, while another 24 percent “somewhat” agreed. But Kentucky remains one of four states that requires a gubernatorial pardon to restore voting rights.

Florida: No. 1 in barring ex-prisoners from voting | Action News

Florida leads the nation by a wide margin in the number of felons who have served their sentences but cannot vote. One of only 11 states in the U.S. that does not automatically return civil rights to former inmates, Florida had not restored the rights of 1.3 million former inmates as of 2010, according to the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based nonprofit that favors alternatives to incarceration. The next closest state was Virginia at 351,943. A policy introduced by Gov. Rick Scott and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi makes most former convicts wait years before they can apply to restore their rights, which include serving on a jury and holding public office. Critics say the policy disproportionately affects minorities — 60 percent of Florida’s prison population — and cost thousands the ability to vote in 2012. But Scott and Bondi say felons must demonstrate a crime-free life after prison before regaining their civil rights.

National: Congressmen Seek Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Vote | The Nation

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a point of emphasizing during the Bush v. Gore arguments in December 2000 that there is no federal constitutional guarantee of a right to vote for president. Scalia was right. Indeed, as the reform group FairVote reminds us, “Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.” Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison want to do something about that. The two congressmen, both former state legislators with long histories of engagement with voting-rights issues, on Monday unveiled a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution.

New York: Non-Citizens May Soon Be Permitted to Vote | Jewish Voice

New York City could soon be the first in the country to allow immigrants the right to vote in local elections. So far the proposal appears to have a veto-proof majority in the New York City Council and supporters are optimistic it will become law by the end of the year. The motion would enfranchise hundreds of thousands of NY immigrants provided they meet all the current requirements for voter registration in New York State. Specifically, this means they must “not be in prison or on parole for a felony conviction” and “not be declared mentally incompetent by a court.”

United Kingdom: British expat loses court case over voting rights | Expat Forum

A British expat who took a test case to the European Court of Human Rights to try to secure the right to vote in UK general elections has lost the case. Harry Shindler, 93, has lived in Italy since he retired from the army in 1982 argued that he should be allowed to vote in UK elections as he still has strong ties to the country. Currently anyone who has lived abroad for more than 15 years cannot vote in a general election in the UK but Shindler claimed that this breached his human rights. However, the court rules that it is entirely appropriate for the UK to have such conditions and said that there should always be ‘room for manoeuvre’ over eligibility for voting rights. It is an issue that is estimated to affect around a million British expats. The rules mean that expats can vote only in for general elections for a certain time but they can vote if they move back to the UK.

National: Joe Biden: ‘Immoral’ to restrict voting | Politico

Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday bashed voting rights requirements – calling them “immoral, callous” – and warned of political consequences for those who try to impose barriers to casting a ballot. “To me it is the most immoral, callous thing that can be done, the idea of making it more difficult to vote,” Biden said at the annual gala dinner of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a minority-focused public policy organization. The vice president pointed to data indicating that in 2011 and 2012 at least 180 bills in 41 states were introduced that aimed to stiffen requirements for voting — voter identification measures, for example.

National: Rep. Jim Cooper’s ’28th Amendment’ speech | The Tennessean

After he delivered his memorable speech last week on racism, discrimination and voting rights – which culminated with a call for a “right to vote” amendment to the U.S. Constitution – I asked Rep. Jim Cooper what had gotten into him. After all, Cooper is known foremost as the Blue Dog budget hawk, and his public speeches typically follow that cue. But at the Nashville Bar Association’s “Law Day” luncheon, he showed a new passion. “They asked for a real speech,” Cooper told reporters. “It takes time to do this. Even this slimmed down version has 46 footnotes.” Thanks to his congressional staff, I recently obtained a full transcript of the speech,  which he called “The 28th Amendment.” It is worth a read. You can find it here.

National: Rep. Jim Cooper to propose ‘right to vote’ amendment to U.S. Constitution | The Tennessean

Convinced that the right to vote for all citizens isn’t fully protected under law, U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Nashville, is planning a long-shot proposal to add a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. “What it would do is grant for the first time in American history a constitutional right to vote,” Cooper said Wednesday after announcing the proposal at a Nashville Bar Association luncheon during a strikingly personal speech that evoked race, discrimination and equality. “Many people think we have this already,” he said. “We do not. Some states have a right to vote. But we do not have it nationwide.”

North Carolina: State senator proposes 5-year waiting period for ex-felons seeking to vote | Charlotte Observer

People convicted of felonies who have paid their debts to society in North Carolina would no longer automatically get back the right to vote under the Senate’s version of the voter ID bill. The bill would require people convicted of felony crimes to wait five years upon completing their sentence, probation or parole before they could attempt to re-register to vote. First, though, they would have to get affidavits from two registered voters attesting to their “upstanding moral character” and get the unanimous approval of their local board of elections.

Editorials: North Carolina – Voting delayed is justice denied | News Observer

North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers are now exploring a new way to take the state backward: Impose a five-year waiting period before felons who have served their time can get back their right to vote. And there’s more. After waiting five years, they would need to present affidavits from two registered voters attesting to their “upstanding moral character” and get the unanimous approval of their local board of elections. This is another pound-the-marginalized bill that reflects a meaness common to many bills offered by Republicans flexing their newfound legislative muscle. This one has the additional negatives of being politically self-aggrandizing and un-American.

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.

Editorials: How voter ID laws violate the North Carolina Constitution | News Observer

The General Assembly is considering a bill to require voters to present photo identification in order to be allowed to vote. Proponents of the bill say the ID requirement is necessary to protect the integrity of elections and stamp out voter fraud. Opponents claim that there is no significant evidence of in-person voter fraud and that the bill is simply an attempt to make it harder to vote for persons without ID who tend to be older, poorer and more minority than those with ID. Putting aside the public policy debates, the voter ID bill has one significant problem: It violates the N.C. Constitution, which deliberately puts the issue of voter qualifications beyond the reach of the General Assembly. To understand how and why requires some knowledge of the history of North Carolina, including the crucial role of voting rights in North Carolina.

Indonesia: Election Commission Vows to Ensure Voting Rights for Disabled People in 2014 | The Jakarta Globe

The General Election Commission (KPU) said on Monday it would guarantee that disabled people in Indonesia would be able to exercise their right to vote in the upcoming election. “This is not about increasing the participatory rate in the election — we are hoping there will be no discrimination against the disabled community,” KPU head Husni Kamil Manik said on Monday. Husni said the KPU was drafting a special regulation for disabled people to ensure the opportunity to use their voting rights and have convenient access to voting centers. The commission also signed a memorandum of understanding with several nongovernmental organizations focusing on increasing the participation of disabled people in Indonesian elections. “We must have an honest and fair election, accessible and nondiscriminatory. We hope this cooperation between the KPU and civil societies will pave a better way for Indonesian disabled to use their voting rights,” said Ariani Soekanwo, the chairwoman of the Center for Election Access for Citizens with Disabilities (PPUA Penca).

National: Constitution Check: Is the right to vote an “entitlement”? | Yahoo! News

Lyle Denniston looks at a provocative comment from Associate Justice Antonin Scalia about racial entitlements, and what it means in the broader scope of constitutional and congressional history. The statements at issue:

There is “a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. … Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. … I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act.”  – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, comment from the bench on February 27, discussing the history of Congress’ repeated renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“Entitlement: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges).”  – Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary, in the second-listed definition of “entitlement.”

“We are talking about the enforcement power that the Constitution gives to Congress to make these judgments to ensure protection of fundamental rights. This is a situation in which Congress is given a power which is expressly given to it to act upon the states in their sovereign capacity.”  – U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., responding to Justice Scalia at that hearing before the court last week.

“All men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  – The opening line of the Declaration of Independence.

Maine: Bill would strip right to vote from Maine prisoners convicted of Class A crimes | Bangor Daily News

The family members of two murder victims called on state lawmakers Monday to allow an amendment to the state constitution that would take away the voting rights of those serving prison sentences for some of the most severe crimes under Maine law. But civil liberties advocates and Secretary of State Matt Dunlap warned lawmakers that removing voting rights from prisoners convicted of Class A crimes under Maine law could undermine prisoner rehabilitation and create an administrative burden for election officials. Maine is one of two states — Vermont is the other — that allow convicted felons to vote while incarcerated. Some states also bar felons from voting after they’ve served their prison sentences. A bill sponsored by Rep. Gary Knight, R-Livermore Falls, proposes a constitutional amendment that would take those rights away from inmates serving sentences for Class A crimes, which include murder, gross sexual assault and aggravated drug trafficking. Maine law allows up to 30 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for such offenses.

New Mexico: House OKs bill for 17-year-old voters | NM Capitol Report

Deaths of young soldiers in Vietnam helped give 18-year-olds the right to vote in America. Now, more than 40 years later, state Rep. Jeff Steinborn has momentum for his bill that would reduce the minimum age to vote in New Mexico primary elections. The state House of Representatives on Monday approved his bill allowing 17-year-olds to cast primary ballots if they will turn 18 by the general election. Steinborn, right, D-Las Cruces, has the bill a third of the way toward becoming law. It still has to get through the state Senate in the final three weeks of the legislative session, and then it would have to receive the signature of Gov. Susana Martinez. The House approved the measure 44-24, but one member who opposed it said the bill was on a path toward a veto by Martinez.

Editorials: The partisan politics of election laws | Guy-Uriel E. Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer/The Great Debate (Reuters)

Many commentators assume that the conservative Supreme Court justices will strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Like Abigail Thernstrom, however, we are not so sure. Congress clearly has the authority to continue to maintain Section 5. If the court does strike it down, though, it will give Congress an opportunity to update the act for the 21st century.  In 2012, state legislatures passed many partisan initiatives designed to constrain the right to vote ‑ ranging from efforts to end same-day registration to adding voter identification laws. In Virginia, state senators used one colleague’s absence to pass a new, arguably discriminatory redistricting plan. In Indiana and North Carolina, new proposals would make it harder for some students to vote. Some states are considering tinkering with the way they choose electors to the Electoral College.

Some of these initiatives may have a disparate racial impact — and might be actionable under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Some may even have been motivated by an intent to discriminate. But many of the actions that affect racial minorities seem to do so for partisan political purposes, not racial reasons.

Unless Congress can stop these partisan initiatives, the parties will increasingly target the other side’s voters for political gain. The American public, meanwhile, ends up as collateral damage.

Malta: Should prisoners in Malta be allowed election vote? | The Times of Malta

As the voting documents are being distributed, one part of Maltese society will not be expecting any deliveries. Based on the UK tradition, Malta bars people serving a prison term longer than one year from voting. Those given a suspended sentence retain the right. The matter was a controversial battlefield in the UK in 2001 when convicted killer John Hirst challenged the blanket ban on prisoners voting. He lost the case in the English High Court but subsequently won it in the European Court of Human Rights. None of the main political parties was happy about the ruling; the last British Labour government put off doing anything in response. In March 2011, the UK Government set up a Commission to look into the possibility of drafting a Bill of Rights and providing advice on reforming the European Court of Human Rights. In Malta, no such debate is taking place but according to criminal lawyer Joe Giglio, the fact that a person has committed an offence should not have much to do with his right to vote.

Voting Blogs: Will the Bauer-Ginsberg Election Reform Commission Improve Our Dismal Election System? | Rick Hasen/Election Law Blog

During tonight’s State of the Union speech, the President made the following remarks:

But defending our freedom is not the job of our military alone.  We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home.  That includes our most fundamental right as citizens:  the right to vote.  When any Americans – no matter where they live or what their party – are denied that right simply because they can’t wait for five, six, seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals.  That’s why, tonight, I’m announcing a non-partisan commission to improve the voting experience in America.  And I’m asking two long-time experts in the field, who’ve recently served as the top attorneys for my campaign and for Governor Romney’s campaign, to lead it.  We can fix this, and we will.  The American people demand it.  And so does our democracy.

Here the President has followed up on his “we can fix that” statement about long lines from his victory speech on election night and his reiteration of the point in his inauguration speech. The issue is now officially on the agenda.

Editorials: What of congressional power over voting? | Franita Tolson/The Great Debate (Reuters)

If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, the focus will turn to Congress and the question of what legislation it should enact in place of Section 5. An equally compelling question is what will happen to the scope of congressional authority over elections. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the court identified the Voting Rights Act as the ideal piece of remedial legislation, perfectly tailored to address the harm of voting discrimination and therefore an “appropriate” use of congressional authority. The court made this determination without discussing the combined authority of Congress under the 14th and 15th Amendments to regulate state and federal elections. The decision focused only on authority granted under the 14th Amendment.

Wyoming: Senate committee tables voter ID bill for more work | Star Tribune

Old age and associated complications such as loss of mobility will affect almost all of us. But they shouldn’t block our most basic democratic right – the right to vote — said Lindi Kirkbride of AARP Wyoming. Kirkbride is especially concerned for senior citizens, but all Wyomingites in general, if Senate File 134 become law and residents are forced to show picture identification at polling places. “The scenario is it’s a terribly nasty day,” Kirkbride said. “Someone in a walker wants to go vote. The poll checkers are there and they’re trying to determine, ‘Oh, yours is expired. You can’t vote because your license is expired, sorry.’ It’s going to cause these big lines.” The bill won’t become law this year. But next year could be different.

Canada: Are voter ID laws too onerous? British Columbia court readies to hear arguments | Montreal Gazette

A B.C. court will be asked this coming week to decide whether the right to vote trumps all concerns about voter fraud, or whether protecting the system means turning some people away from the polls. The government has taken note of the case that resurfaced in 2012 following a two-year-hiatus during which the three applicants had to find themselves a new legal team. A summary of the case was contained in a briefing note to Democratic Reform Minister Tim Uppal with departmental officials adding they would keep Uppal apprised of further developments. When the case is finally heard in the first week of February, the onus will be on the three applicants from British Columbia — Rose Henry, Clyde Wright and Helen Eddlestone — to prove that the trial judge erred in his evaluation of the evidence. The three unsuccessfully argued in 2010 that Bill C-31, passed in 2007, places barriers between some Canadians and their constitutional right to vote. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is also asking the court to side with the three applicants.

National: From Arizona to Montana, Native Voters Struggle for Democracy | The Nation

Leonard Gorman is a man of maps. He heads the Navajo Nation’s Human Rights Commission, which among other responsibilities, is charged with protecting and promoting Navajo voters’ rights to choose candidates who will reasonably represent their interests. He and his team all work out of their trailer office in Window Rick, Arizona—the Navajo Nation’s capitol—where they chart data that they’ve collected on the potential impacts of redistricting on the Navajo Nation. The first map Gorman’s team submitted to the Arizona Redistricting Commission resembled the letter J, encompassing the edge of Arizona’s eastern border and curving up towards the west. Although that map included large portions of Arizona’s Native population, the Navajo Nation later opted out of it because Arizona’s hardline anti-immigrants liked it too much. It included large southern border areas, where white conservative ranchers are more likely to vote Republican and would have infringed on Arizona’s growing Latino districts. “We immediately learned that the J map was playing into the extreme right position,” explains Gorman.

Editorials: Making Voting Constitutional: Our governing document creates no right to vote. It’s time it did. | American Prospect

Early last year, when Attorney General Eric Holder took a strong stand against voter-identification laws, he emphasized how much they violate core American ideals. “What we are talking here is a constitutional right,” he said. “This is not a privilege. The right to vote is something that is fundamental to who we are as Americans. We have people who have given their lives—people have sacrificed a great deal in order for people to have the right to vote. It’s what distinguishes the United States from most other countries.” The problem is: Eric Holder is wrong. Unlike citizens in every other advanced democracy—and many other developing ones—Americans don’t have a right to vote. Popular perception notwithstanding, the Constitution provides no explicit guarantee of voting rights. Instead, it outlines a few broad parameters. Article 1, Section 2, stipulates that the House of Representatives “shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,” while Article 1, Section 4, reserves the conduct of elections to the states. The Constitution does, however, detail the ways in which groups of people cannot be denied the vote. The 15th Amendment says you can’t prevent African American men from voting. The 19th Amendment says you can’t keep women from voting. Nor can you keep citizens of Washington, D.C., (23rd Amendment) or 18-year-olds (26th Amendment) from exercising the franchise. If you can vote for the most “numerous” branch of your state legislature, then you can also vote for U.S. Senate (17th Amendment).

Voting Blogs: Thinking Outside the Lines | Election Administration Theories and Praxis

“Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.” ~ President Barak Obama, Inauguration Speech, January 21, 2013

When President Obama repeated his election night remark that the nation needs to solve the problem of long lines at the polls in his inauguration speech today, I could hear the collective rolling of eyeballs by election officials across the country. Every election administrator, at one time or another, has received complaints from voters about the length of time it takes to vote and the frustration engendered by waiting in a line to vote. Old news, right?  Based upon the President’s comments and pundit commentary, lines at the polls have become new news and a likely subject of federal debate and legislation.  I believe that this is unfortunate but not for the reasons one may expect.