Wisconsin: State’s low-key educational effort on new voter ID requirement irks critics | Wisconsin State Journal

The state’s low-profile effort to educate voters about Wisconsin’s new voter ID requirement has critics fearing some voters will be caught off-guard when they head to the polls. The voter ID requirement takes effect this year, starting with the spring primary election on Feb. 16 and followed by the spring election and presidential primary on April 5. The voter ID law was enacted in 2011 and briefly took effect for the 2012 spring primary election until court challenges halted its implementation. Wisconsin’s voter ID requirement is among the most restrictive of any state. Voters must come to the polls with one of a list of approved photo IDs that include their signature, such as a Wisconsin driver’s license, U.S. passport or U.S. military ID. Some student and tribal IDs qualify if they’re not expired. Student IDs also must be accompanied by a separate document that proves enrollment, such as a tuition statement.

Editorials: Could the 2016 Election Settle the Voter ID Debate? | Sarah Childress/Frontline

As the 2016 election season officially kicks off next week, beginning with the Iowa caucus on Monday, voters in several states are preparing to cast ballots under stricter laws for the first time. Over the past five years, more than 18 states have passed laws to impose restrictions on voters’ access to the ballot, according to a FRONTLINE analysis of voting laws nationwide. Even as at least six states have expanded access to the ballot, introducing automatic voter registration and online voting, these states have cut early-voting hours, limited felons’ ability to vote and imposed strict voter ID laws. That includes several key swing states, such as North Carolina, which passed a comprehensive voting bill in 2013, and Ohio, which passed a law to reduce early-voting days one year later. The most controversial of these laws are those requiring identification at the polls — usually a photo ID. That’s largely because support is split along partisan lines. Republicans tend to favor them, arguing the laws guard against voter fraud. Democrats, meanwhile, have pointed out that new restrictions are more likely to prevent some voters, in particular African-Americans and Latinos, from casting ballots.

North Carolina: Federal trial on voter ID expected to wrap up Monday | Winston-Salem Journal

Closing arguments in a closely watched federal trial on North Carolina’s photo ID requirement for voting will be Monday. Friday marked the first full day of evidence from attorneys defending state elections officials, state Republican legislators and Gov. Pat McCrory over the voter ID requirement that went into effect this year. The requirement is part of the state’s Voter Information Verification Act that legislators passed and McCrory signed into law in 2013. The North Carolina chapter of the NAACP, the U.S. Department of Justice and others filed a federal lawsuit over the provisions of the law, alleging that they are unconstitutional and violate the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. The plaintiffs allege two things: that the law — including the photo ID requirement — puts undue burdens on black and Hispanic voters, and that state Republican legislators had discriminatory intent in passing the legislation.

North Carolina: Closing arguments set in voter ID trial | News & Observer

For the past week, attorneys arguing for and against North Carolina’s new voter ID law at the federal trial in Winston-Salem have raised and knocked down the specter of voter fraud. The rule – that North Carolina voters show one of six photo identification cards before casting a ballot – was adopted in 2013. Republicans who had won control that year of both General Assembly chambers and the governor’s office touted the elections law overhaul as a way to preserve the integrity of one person, one vote.

Editorials: North Carolina’s voter ID shenanigans | The Washington Post

As a legal proposition, it’s difficult to prove that a government policy was devised with the deliberate intent of racial discrimination. But make no mistake: North Carolina’s highly restrictive voting rights law, enacted in 2013, is meant to suppress votes, in particular votes cast by minorities for Democrats. Even the federal judge who refused to suspend implementation of the law’s obnoxious voter ID rules acknowledged it was “highly suspect” that the GOP-dominated legislature had excluded public-assistance IDs from among acceptable forms of identification at the polls; they are disproportionately held by African Americans, who vote heavily for Democrats. U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder has not yet ruled on the merits of the overall law or the voter ID part of it, which is being separately challenged by the NAACP and other groups. Nonetheless, in refusing to immediately suspend the voter ID requirements, he cited the state’s own estimate that roughly 5 percent of registered voters in North Carolina, about 218,000 people, appeared to lack suitable photo IDs when they voted in 2014, before the law was fully implemented.

National: New state voting laws face first presidential election test | USA Today

Battles are being waged across the country over new voter ID laws and other election changes that have never before been tested in a presidential election. National and local civil rights groups also have launched grass-roots efforts to fight state laws that they say could suppress voting by minorities and the elderly. President Obama joined the cause in pledging during his Jan. 12 State of the Union Address to travel the country lobbying for steps to make voting easier. “You’re going to see some ramping up of activism,’’ said the Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP. “The president is right, but everybody should be joining in that (effort).’’ Barber’s group will lead a voting rights rally Feb. 13 in Raleigh. … Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Election Project, said voters in some of those states, “are going to be voting in a presidential election with fewer federal protections than they’ve had in the last 50 years.”

North Carolina: Is North Carolina’s Strict Voter-ID Law Constitutional? | The Atlantic

Lawyers and advocates were back in a courtroom in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, on Monday, for a second challenge to the state’s strict new voting laws. A group of plaintiffs, led by the NAACP and the Department of Justice, is seeking to overturn a new rule, which is set to take effect in March’s primaries, requiring voters to present a photo ID before voting. The voter-ID law was one of several major changes made by Republicans who control the Old North State’s government, in a 2013 law passed shortly after the Supreme Court struck down a clause in the Voting Rights Act that required some states to seek approval of changes to voting laws from the Justice Department. In addition to requiring a photo ID to vote, the new rules reduced early voting; ended same-day voter registration; banned the practice of casting ballots out of precinct; and ended pre-registration for teens. Proponents said the laws were essential to guarantee the integrity of the state’s elections. A group of plaintiffs sued the state, alleging that the changes would suppress minority votes and that they represented the return of Jim Crow to the South. In July, federal district-court Judge Thomas Schroeder heard a challenge to some of those provisions, but not to the voter-ID law.

National: Voting Rights Act: After Supreme Court Ruling, 2016 Election Could Endanger Black, Latino Rights | International Business Times

Decades after many Americans fought, bled and died for the right to vote, millions of voters could be once again be turned away from the polls this year because of a regime of voting laws that disproportionately burden minorities, the elderly, immigrants and the poor. With both presidential and congressional elections in November, advocates warn that the stakes are high. “Basically, all hell is breaking loose,” said Katherine Culliton-González, director of the voter protection program at the Washington, D.C.-based Advancement Project, who spent five years working on voter issues at the U.S. Department of Justice. “Unless you are in the elite — and that doesn’t even mean in the middle class — voter restrictions are going to impact you, one way or another.” This year’s presidential election will be the first one held after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the historic Voting Rights Act in 2013, which required federal pre-clearance of voting law changes for states with a history of voter discrimination. Without those protections in place, pending legal battles over the fairness and constitutionality of recently enacted voting laws will get unprecedented scrutiny this year, advocates on both sides have said. If the courts uphold, for example, a voter ID requirement in North Carolina or allow Texas to redraw districts and reduce political power in heavily immigrant communities, they’d potentially be denying millions the right to vote and be equally represented by their state lawmakers. “Voting laws seem to be changing every day, and that in and of itself is disenfranchising to so many Americans,” González said.

North Carolina: NAACP lawyers grill elections director in trial over photo IDs | Winston-Salem Journal

After four days of testimony, the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP and the U.S. Department of Justice rested their case Thursday in a federal trial challenging North Carolina’s photo ID requirement for voting. Their last witness was Kim Strach, the state’s elections director. It was through sharp questioning of Strach that plaintiffs argued that state elections officials had failed to educate the public about a recent amendment to the photo ID requirement that state Republican legislators passed last June. The amendment allows voters who don’t have photo ID to fill out and sign a “reasonable impediment” declaration form. That form has examples of reasons why voters weren’t able to get one of six acceptable photo IDs, including lack of transportation, work schedule or not having the necessary underlying documents, such as a birth certificate. After filling out the form, voters will get to cast a provisional ballot that will be counted later after their reasons are verified.

Wisconsin: IDs from Wisconsin towns, counties could not be used for voting under Republican bill | Cap Times

Towns and counties wouldn’t be allowed to issue photo ID cards to their residents under a bill discussed by a Senate committee on Tuesday. Any IDs previously issued by towns or counties could not be used to vote, register to vote or obtain public benefits like food stamps or Medicaid, under the bill. Towns and counties would still be able to issue employee ID cards, cards for vendors or contractors and cards required to use services and facilities like transit systems or golf courses. Cities and villages could still issue photo IDs, but those IDs also could not be used for proof of residence or to receive public assistance. IDs issued by a city or village would be required to state clearly, “Not authorized for voting purposes.”

National: As Voter ID Laws Expand, Fewer People Are Getting Drivers Licenses | CityLab

A North Carolina law requiring people to have certain kinds of photo identification in order to vote is on trial this week, in a federal courthouse in Winston-Salem. The state passed a voting law in 2013 that even some conservatives have called one of the most restrictive in the nation in terms of the potential burdening effect it could have on women and people of color. The voter ID provision is one part of a broader set of measures included in that law that, among other things, shortens the early voting period and eliminates Election Day voter registration. Those other measures were taken up in a separate federal trial last summer, with a decision currently pending. This week, the voter ID provision is on trial, with the North Carolina state chapter of the NAACP arguing that it will make it harder for African Americans and Latinos to vote, especially when combined with the law’s other restrictions. African-American registered voters are far less likely to have driver’s licenses than white voters.

North Carolina: Voter ID law on trial | MSNBC

Does North Carolina’s voter ID law illegally discriminate against African-Americans and Latinos? That question is at the center of a trial over the law held this week in a federal courtroom in Winston-Salem. If the law is upheld, it could make voting harder this fall in the Tar Heel State, which figures to be pivotal in the presidential race. And it could give a green light to other states considering similarly restrictive voting laws. During the first two days of the trial Monday and Tuesday, the law’s challengers aimed to show that racial minorities are more likely than whites to lack acceptable ID; that there’s no significant voter fraud of the kind that could stopped by the ID requirement; and that the state hasn’t done enough to educate voters about the law.

North Carolina: Witness: Cultural differences cause voter ID headaches | Winston-Salem Journal

In 2007, Maria del Carmen Sanchez was told she couldn’t renew her driver’s license because the name didn’t match the one on her U.S. passport. Then state officials offered this solution: Get a divorce, she said in a videotaped deposition played Wednesday during the federal trial on North Carolina’s photo ID requirement. It took a week before Sanchez was finally told she could simply fill out a name change form to get her driver’s license. But based on that experience, Sanchez said she thinks many Hispanics will face similar problems when they try to obtain a photo ID to vote in this year’s election. The photo ID requirement, which became law in 2013, didn’t take effect until this year.

Wisconsin: Madison Hearing on Legislation Banning Local IDs Draws Tons of Opposition | WUWM

Several local governments in Wisconsin are interested in issuing local identification cards to residents. One is Milwaukee County. But some state lawmakers believe the locals are overstepping their authority – so legislators are considering a bill that would prohibit municipalities from issuing local ID cards. More than 50 people showed up to testify at a public hearing in Madison on Tuesday; most oppose the ban. Guadalupe Gallardo has a lot to say about any legislation she feels would restrict immigrants. She’s originally from Mexico but has lived in the U.S. for decades. “We’re going to raise our voice you know to fight for immigrants. They want to be free, they want to work. They are afraid. They’re afraid to go out, they’re afraid to go to doctors or schools because the police are going to stop them,” Gallardo says.

Alabama: Judge sets hearing in suit against Alabama voter ID law | Montgomery Advertiser

n a Jan. 21 order, U.S. District Judge L. Scott Coogler, based in Tuscaloosa, set a Feb. 11 hearing on Greater Birmingham Ministries’ move for a preliminary injunction that would suspend the photo identification rule for the March 1 primaries in Alabama. But Coogler said in his order that he could cancel the hearing if he “determines that Plaintiffs’ motion may be decided on the papers.” Coogler also limited the defendants in the lawsuit to Secretary of State John Merrill. The voter ID law, passed by the Alabama Legislature in 2011, requires those voting to have photo identification, such as a driver’s license, before casting ballots. The state did not immediately enforce the new law. But after a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that was seen as gutting the law, Alabama officials put the law into effect.

Editorials: How North Carolina voter ID law has become a dangerous farce | Bob Hall/News & Observer

In a matter of weeks, thousands of North Carolina voters will head to the polls unaware of what they’ll need to vote – and election officials will be hard-pressed to help them. Ironically, conservative Republicans who promoted voting changes could suffer the most. The excitement of the Republican presidential primary will motivate new voters to show up, but newbies are the most likely not to have followed the twists and turns of election rule changes. Will they be helped or frustrated at the polls? At this point, it’s up to Gov. Pat McCrory. Here’s why. The new law cuts out safety-net provisions for new voters and dumps a load of confusing regulations on poll workers. That combination is making it hard for election officials to do their jobs.

National: North Carolina voter-ID case could have ramifications across U.S. | The Washington Post

The requirement to present photo identification to cast a ballot went on trial Monday in a closely watched case that will have legal ramifications for voting across the country this presidential election year. Inside a federal courthouse here, attorneys for the Justice Department and the NAACP argued that the law passed by the Republican-led North Carolina General Assembly intentionally discriminates against African Americans and Latinos, who disproportionately lack one of the required forms of photo identification. “The state should be making it easier for people to engage in the fundamental right to vote, not harder,” Michael Glick, a Washington lawyer representing the NAACP, said in his opening statement. Because the voter-ID requirement will make it harder for African Americans and Latinos to vote, Glick said, it is unconstitutional and violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

North Carolina: Arguments Over North Carolina Voter ID Law Begin in Federal Court | The New York Times

The bitter dispute about North Carolina’s elections laws returned to a federal courtroom here on Monday as the state’s voter identification requirement went on trial. The week’s proceedings will affect election practices in North Carolina, a state that has been closely contested in recent years and where voting rules could play a part in deciding tight elections, from local races to the 15 electoral votes for president. Court rulings here could also provide an early glimpse at how the federal courts might examine balloting laws in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision that, in 2013, upended a significant component of the Voting Rights Act. “The North Carolina litigation is the leading litigation in the post-Shelby world,” said Edward B. Foley, an elections law expert at Ohio State University, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County, Alabama, v. Holder. “It’s the test case, the battleground case more than any other.” The trial about North Carolina’s identification standard, which requires voters to produce one of six accepted credentials or to submit a provisional ballot, is included in a broader challenge of the election law changes that the state’s Republican-dominated legislature first approved in 2013. Then, as now, supporters of the alterations to voting procedures described them as safeguards against potential fraud, but critics condemned them as thinly veiled efforts to throw up barriers, particularly to black and Hispanic voters.

North Carolina: Professor questions legislators’ claims that Voter ID law aimed to prevent fraud | News & Observer

A Wisconsin political science professor told a federal judge Monday that if North Carolina legislators were worried about voter fraud, he thought they would have focused more attention on the process for casting absentee ballots. Gov. Pat McCrory and the Republican-led legislature that shepherded the state’s new voter ID requirement into law have touted the measure as one necessary to prevent voter fraud and preserve the integrity of elections. Barry Burden, from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, testified as a witness for voters and organizations challenging the voter ID law. His research focuses on election administration, voting behavior and civic engagement. The director of the Wisconsin university’s newly created Elections Research Center, offered his opinions on the first day of a federal trial about whether it is lawful to require N.C. voters to present photo identification to cast a ballot in local, state and national elections.

Missouri: Senate won’t delay on voter ID issue | Fulton Sun

A Missouri Senate committee already has taken testimony on Sen. Will Kraus’ proposal to require voters to show a photo ID when they go to vote at the polls. This week’s House passage of a similar constitutional amendment and enabling legislation bill put those two measures in the Senate as well. And Senate floor leader Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, told reporters Thursday the Senate won’t delay the bills. “Voter ID was one of those things we thought was important to have an early discussion about,” he explained. “It’s something that, I would think, early on we’ll have quite a bit of time for discussion.”

New Hampshire: Clerks expect smooth sailing in first national election under fully-implemented voter ID law | The Keene Sentinel

City and town clerks expect smooth sailing — with maybe a rip current or two — Feb. 9 at the first national election since the full implementation of New Hampshire’s voter ID law. Larger municipalities, including Keene, are looking for volunteers to greet people at the polls to ensure they’re at the right ward and in the correct line — which is based on whether they have a legal form of photo ID and are registered to vote. The goal is efficiency, officials say. For towns, the national primary will mark the first time residents without an ID will have to fill out a voter affidavit and have their picture taken with a Polaroid camera. New Hampshire’s cities, including Keene, were primed during the municipal elections in November about the picture-taking component of the voter ID law enacted in 2012.

North Carolina: Controversial voter ID law goes on trial; nation watches | Winston-Salem Journal

Rosanell Eaton, 94, has been a registered voter for more than 70 years. As a black woman growing up in the Jim Crow South, she had to read the preamble of the U.S. Constitution in order to register to vote. Last year, she was forced to make 10 trips to the N.C. Department of Motor Vehicles and other state offices so she could vote in this year’s elections. That’s because of North Carolina’s new photo ID requirement, which goes into effect this election cycle. According to attorneys with the N.C. NAACP, the new requirement forced Eaton to spend more than 20 hours to obtain a photo ID. Her name was spelled differently on the other forms of identification that she needed for a photo ID. Eaton’s experience will be included in the evidence that attorneys for the state NAACP, the U.S. Department of Justice and others will present during a weeklong trial starting Monday in U.S. District Court in Winston-Salem. The trial is the second one in less than a year that challenges North Carolina’s state elections law that was passed in 2013. The first trial was in July and centered on other provisions of the law, including the reduction of days for early voting from 17 to 10 and the elimination of same-day voter registration.

North Carolina: Battle over voting rights restrictions moves to North Carolina | The Guardian

The latest round in the nationwide battle to defend the historic gains of the civil rights movement opens in a federal courtroom in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, on Monday where Republican politicians will be accused of blatantly attempting to discourage African Americans from voting. The local chapter of the NAACP is taking the Republican state governor, Pat McCrory, to court over a new rule that requires citizens who turn up at polling stations either to produce a photo-ID card or give a “reasonable” excuse for lacking one before they can cast a ballot. The NAACP argues that the new law places a burden on voters that is unconstitutional as it overtly discriminates against black citizens who are less likely to have access to such photo identification. “We see this as a fundamental attack on our democracy which we are fighting with everything we have,” said the Rev William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP. “Extremists in the North Carolina legislature have been working feverishly to keep African Americans, Latino families, students and seniors from the ballot box.” Voting rights promises to be a running cause of friction in the 2016 presidential election cycle. Republican-led states have rushed to introduce restrictions in the wake of the US supreme court’s 2013 decision, Shelby County v Holder, that dramatically weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

National: Voting rights advocates observe somber King holiday | USA Today

While most of the country will spend the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday remembering the peaceful nature and civil rights successes lodged by the late leader, voting rights advocates say this is a dark time for them. Many might spend Monday reflecting on King’s 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march to push for voting equality for black Americans, but voting rights advocates note that there has been a major setback in their world. In 2013, a Supreme Court ruling struck down the part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that indicates which parts of the country must have changes to voting rights laws cleared by the federal government or by a federal court. Preclearance was a requirement for states and communities that had a history of discrimination against black voters. Advocates viewed it as a necessary safeguard against discrimination at the ballot. Also, 33 states now have Voter ID laws in place with increased identification requirements for people seeking to cast ballots. The issue has been a controversial one for civil rights advocates, who maintain that some groups of Americans, including older people and minorities, are less likely to have the sort of identification that would be required.

North Carolina: Voter-ID Law Goes on Trial in Federal Court | Wall Street Journal

The legality of a 2013 North Carolina law requiring identification to vote will be challenged in a trial set to begin in federal court Monday ahead of March U.S. presidential primaries in the state. The trial in Winston-Salem, the second to stem from the law, is one of several closely watched voting-rights lawsuits unfolding as the election season gets under way. In 2013, Republican Gov. Patrick McCrory signed a law barring people without photo identification from voting. The move sparked a number of lawsuits by the U.S. Justice Department, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others that were eventually consolidated into one suit claiming that the law disproportionately affected black and other minority voters who are less likely to have access to birth certificates and other documents needed to obtain photo identification.

North Carolina: Voter ID Laws Back in Spotlight in North Carolina Case | VoA News

A federal court is scheduled to hear a legal challenge to North Carolina’s Voter ID law on Monday. The law, H.B. 589, enacted in August 2013 shortens the early voting period by one week, eliminates same day registration, requires specific forms of identification to vote, and cancels a pre-registration program for 16 and 17-year-olds. … Restrictive voter laws have been a controversial issue for the last two presidential elections. More than 32 states have voter ID laws or restrictive measures of some form. North Carolina is scheduled to join them in 2016. All of the new measures have been introduced and implemented by Republican-led state legislatures and governors. Supporters say the laws are necessary to battle fraud and build confidence in the electoral process. Critics argue the laws disproportionately discourage minorities, the poor, senior citizens and young people – those who are more likely to vote Democratic – from voting.

Editorials: Democracy under attack | Eliza Webb/The Hill

Near the end of his final State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama lambasted the countrywide attack on voting rights, and called for Americans to stand up and fight back. He spoke of the need to make “voting easier, not harder,” and criticized “the influence of money in our politics” and the practice of redistricting “so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around.” He outlined his intention “to travel the country to push for reforms,” while adding that he “can’t do these things on my own.” He invoked the concept of “a government of, by, and for the people” to ask Americans to act, saying that change “depend[s] on you,” and the future rests “on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen.”

Missouri: Photo voter ID bill heard in Senate | Missouri Times

After last week’s House Elections Committee heard overwhelmingly negative testimony against a piece of photo voter ID legislation offered by Rep. Justin Alferman, the Senate had their turn to hear from opponents of the measure. While Sen. Will Kraus’, R-Lee’s Summitt, bill did receive some support from those who sought to prevent voter fraud, those who testified in opposition expressed their fears that this measure could unintentionally disenfranchise people of their fundamental right to vote. … “We can’t support any legislation that would disenfranchise a single eligible Missouri voter,” said John Scott of Secretary of State Jason Kander’s office. “The way that the legislation tries to accommodate for some of the folks that wouldn’t have that ID or have access to that ID doesn’t fully or adequately protect their right to vote.”

Editorials: Voter ID laws advance in Missouri, but what about the state’s need to comply with federal ID standards so residents can board flights? | Lewis Diuguid/The Kansas City Star

Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday took action on the wrong photo identification issue. People statewide are more interested in whether their driver’s license will be accepted in the next few months as a credible identification for them to be able to board commercial flights. U.S. Department of Homeland Security last year notified state officials that Missouri’s exemption from federal Real ID requirements will come to an end Jan. 10. That deadline passed last week. Missourians no longer will be allowed to flash their driver’s license to get into federal facilities or a nuclear power plant. State driver’s licenses — for now — still enable people to get through airport security. But that’s not expected to last unless some corrective action is taken by state officials. So what does the Missouri House do instead? It approved two bills that will force state voters to show a photo ID to cast ballots in elections. One voter restriction bill would amend the state Constitution — with voter approval — to require a photo ID in polling places on Election Days. The Missouri Supreme Court in 2006 ruled that an earlier voter ID law was unconstitutional.