Pennsylvania: Judge strikes down restrictive voter eligibility law |The Guardian

A judge in Pennsylvania struck down one of the most restrictive voter identification laws in the country on Friday, in a victory for civil rights campaigners who are seeking to block voter eligibility rules they claim are discriminatory. Commonwealth court judge Bernard McGinley concluded the state’s voter ID law, introduced by Republican-controlled state legislature in 2012, disenfranchised “hundreds of thousands” of voters who could not easily meet the requirements set by the state. “Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the voter ID law does not further this goal,” the judge said, adding: “Disenfranchising voters through no fault of the voter himself is plainly unconstitutional.” The new law required voters to present photo identification proving their eligibility to vote, replacing other proof-of-address documents such as paychecks or bills. Photo identification had proven difficult for many voters to obtain, despite the state’s promises to the contrary. In one particularly damning section of his ruling, Judge McGinley found there was no evidence the legislation was even intended to stamp out voter fraud, which was the justification given by state lawmakers when they passed the law.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Law Struck Down as Judge Cites Burden on Citizens | New York Times

In a strongly worded decision, a state judge on Friday struck down Pennsylvania’s 2012 law requiring voters to produce a state-approved photo ID at the polls, setting up a potential Supreme Court confrontation that could have implications for other such laws across the country. The judge, Bernard L. McGinley of Commonwealth Court, ruled that the law hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly, disabled and low-income residents, and that the state’s reason for the law — that it was needed to combat voter fraud — was not supported by the facts. “Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election,” the judge wrote in his 103-page decision. “The voter ID law does not further this goal.”

United Kingdom: Voter ID proposals could put elderly off going to polls | This Is Wiltshire

Linda Petherick, South West regional organiser of the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners, said that proposals from The Electoral Commission, which would require voters to show some sort of ID at polling stations before voting, could stop the older generation from using their vote. NFOP is concerned that these proposals could create a number of potential problems, especially for older people. Mrs Petherick said: “There needs to be some clarification on how this is going to work, including what sort of ID will be accepted, as many older people do not have a photo driver ID or even a relevant passport.

North Carolina: Controversial Voting Laws Attract Protests, Support | Huffington Post

One of the longstanding arguments against voter ID laws has been that there is no history of significant elections fraud. But advocates of North Carolina’s new elections law have been making their way across the state to county elections boards to try to make the case that fraud has existed but has been inadequately investigated. Such allegations have been lodged in Pembroke, a Robeson County town, where the state Board of Elections recently found so many “irregularities” in the November municipal elections that a new vote was ordered and a probe called for by the local district attorney. There also is an effort underway by the Republican-led board in Forsyth County to push out the elections director, an endeavor being fought by the director and one board member. A ruling from the state elections director could come any day.

North Carolina: NAACP Expands Election Law Challenge | Carolina Journal

The head of the state’s NAACP said the civil rights organization is broadening its lawsuit against North Carolina’s new voter ID law and election law changes. The Rev. William Barber, North Carolina NAACP president, said the organization was making it clear in the lawsuit that the new law would have a disparate impact on Hispanics as well as African Americans. He also said that the state would add the elimination of pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds to the lawsuit. Meantime, a former member of the Federal Elections Commission said the expanded lawsuit still fails to prove that aspects of the state’s election reform laws are unconstitutional. “We will take on the issue of Latinos, and how this bill is impacting the Latino community,” Barber said Thursday during a telephone press conference. He said Maria Palmer, a newly elected member of the Chapel Hill Town Council and the first Hispanic elected to that post, was being added to the lawsuit as a plaintiff.

North Carolina: New voting laws attract protests, support | News Observer

One of the longstanding arguments against voter ID laws has been that there is no history of significant elections fraud. But advocates of North Carolina’s new elections law have been making their way across the state to county elections boards to try to make the case that fraud has existed but has been inadequately investigated. Such allegations have been lodged in Pembroke, a Robeson County town, where the state Board of Elections recently found so many “irregularities” in the November municipal elections that a new vote was ordered and a probe called for by the local district attorney. There also is an effort underway by the Republican-led board in Forsyth County to push out the elections director, an endeavor being fought by the director and one board member. A ruling from the state elections director could come any day.

Editorials: It’s Bigger Than Voter ID | Policy Shop

During his Senate hearing yesterday, Debo Adegbile, President Obama’s pick for Justice Department Civil Rights Division chief, was asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley if he would block state voter ID laws if confirmed. In his previous capacity, Adegible served as attorney and one-time acting president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which has been in litigation with Texas over its voter ID law for the past three years. Adegbile also twice argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of the Voting Rights Act. Sen. Grassley’s question mistakenly assumed that the assistant attorney general could unilaterally veto a state’s law, through dictatorship or executive order or something. The role of the Assistant Attorney General is not “to determine in the first instance how states run their voting systems,” said Adegbile in response to Grassley. “It’s only in the context of a particular law that is passed that [it] then occasionally becomes subject to review either because of the way in which it was passed or because of its impact.”

Texas: Election Passes, But Litigation Continues | State of Elections

Election Day on November 5 marked the first time Texas’ controversial voter ID laws were affected in the state. And the results were mixed. There is little evidence that the law suppressed voter turnout. Out of the state’s 13.4 million registered voters, only 1.1 million cast ballots in the 2013 election, about 8.5 percent of the electorate. Compare this to 2011 and 2009, other election “off years.” In  2011 when only 5.4 percent of voters showed up. In 2009, about 1 million people cast ballots, about 8.1 percent of the electorate. So as far as the numbers go, voting seemed on par. However, the law lost some PR points with some high publicity hiccups, including several prominent politicians initially being told they couldn’t get a new voter identification card vote because they lacked proper identification. State Senator Wendy Davis, the front-running Democratic candidate for governor next year, had to sign an affidavit because her married name did not match her driver’s license . State Attorney General Greg Abbott, a champion of the law was also flagged because his license listed his name as “Gregory Wayne Abbott” while his voter registration record simply calls him “Greg Abbott.” And former U.S. Speaker of the House Jim Wright couldn’t get his new voter ID at first because his driver’s license had expired.

Editorials: Eyes On The Courts: 2014 Will Be Pivotal For Voting Rights | Rick Hasen/TPM

Fights over the laws governing voting rights are nothing new – but 2014 is shaping up to be a big year for court decisions that will determine whether millions of Americans will face new and unnecessary barriers at the polls. Since the disputed 2000 elections, states have increasingly moved to change voting rules, and litigation on these issues has more than doubled. In June 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided in Shelby County v. Holder to strike down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that had long required states with a history of discrimination to “pre-clear” proposed voting rule changes with the U.S. Department of Justice. Republican-led states have since redoubled efforts to restrict voting – and civil rights groups and the Justice Department have responded by filing new challenges. In 2014, the courts will weigh in, revealing what role, if any, U.S. judges will play in checking moves to make voting harder.

Editorials: Voter ID cards will not solve UK electoral fraud | Telegraph

At first sight, the suggestion from the Electoral Commission that voters should be required to show photographic ID at polling stations appears sensible. On closer examination, it is not so straightforward. The rationale for the move is to reduce the incidence of electoral fraud. Yet the latter is, as Jenny Watson, chairman of the commission, pointed out, fairly unusual. So before the entire population is required to provide such ID, there should surely be a greater effort to clamp down on fraud where it is known to exist. The commission identifies 16 “suspect” areas and makes the point that some communities, “specifically those with roots in parts of Pakistan or Bangladesh”, are particularly vulnerable to the practice. Yet politicians are reluctant to say so, not least because when they do, the roof caves in – as Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, found a few weeks ago when he raised the issue in an interview with this newspaper.

Virginia: Elections board approves voter ID plan | Richmond Times-Dispatch

The Virginia State Board of Elections this morning approved the final phases of the implementation plan for the new voter ID law that will take effect July 1. In the coming months, election officials will work with vendors to create a photo ID card that will meet requirements under the new legislation and that will be provided to voters for free. They will also train staff at local registrars’ offices of the state’s 133 localities and launch a statewide campaign to inform voters of the changes in law. “I think we’ve received enough input from stakeholders and the board has reviewed the plan several times,” said Don Palmer, secretary of the elections board. … Under the new law, documents that do not contain a photograph of the voter are no longer acceptable forms of identification when a person is voting in person. However, the new law allows voters without photo ID to cast a provisional ballot on Election Day. The voter then has four days to present identification to their local electoral board for their vote to be counted.

Editorials: Why voter ID will disenfranchise minorities | politics.co.uk

Another day, another group trying to pass legislation on the basis of perception. The Electoral Commission is generous enough to preface its demand for voter identification at polling stations with the admission that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. But, in a now traditional refrain, it adds that something must anyway be done because “the public remain concerned that it is taking place”. That is not in itself problematic. Where confidence in the electoral system can be enhanced, one should be open to doing so. Unfortunately, the Commission’s proposal would further disenfranchise young people, women, the poor and minorities. Sometime before the 2019 European and English local elections the Commission will publish details of a proof of identity scheme and enact it. Its report makes frequent reference to Northern Ireland, where such a scheme is already in place. The most thorough data on the effect of voter ID comes from the US, where cynical Republicans have been deploying it to counter demographic changes which are not to their advantage. A particularly brutal example was recently introduced in Texas.

North Carolina: Few in apply for free voter ID card | The Asheville Citizen-Times

Twenty-two people in North Carolina had applied for a free voter identification card as of midday Friday, the second day the card was offered in the state. Voters will need government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot in 2016 under a state law set last year by the Republican-controlled General Assembly. The law that requires the voter identification has other provisions that include ending same-day voter registration, trimming the period for early voting from 17 days to 10 and eliminating a program that encourages high school students to register to vote in advance of their 18th birthdays. The political parties said they would work with their members to make sure those who need the free IDs would get them in time.

North Carolina: The right to vote cannot be voted on | Technician Online

North Carolina’s state government functioned in a state of confusion last summer. Each Monday, Raleigh hosted hundreds of protestors, ranging from those who challenged the proposed, heavily restrictive anti-abortion laws and cuts to teacher salaries as waves of conservative influence exerted itself on the floor of the North Carolina House. While the aforementioned proposals drew attention from major news sources, the legislation that most propelled North Carolina into the national spotlight and the center of heavy media debate was its reintroduction of a new set of regulations relating to voting rights. Suddenly, North Carolina was facing the passage of a bill that, at its surface, seemed to be an attempt to bolster a strong image of voter security. In actuality, voter fraud rarely happens. A study by the U.S. Department of Justice found that between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud. North Carolina’s voter ID bill represents the failings of a conservative state legislation in regards to not only the right to vote but also the interests of those in minority status.

Editorials: ‘If I Need ID to Buy Cough Syrup, Why Shouldn’t I Need ID to Vote?’ | Andrew Cohen/The Atlantic

I spent hundreds of hours talking about the law on the radio this year but one question, one exchange, especially sticks out. It was this summer, a few weeks after the five conservative justices of the United States Supreme Courtextinguished the heart of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. The station’s host had with him a local lawmaker who supported voter identification efforts underway in her state. “If I need to show identification at a pharmacy to get cold medicine” she asked me on the air, “why shouldn’t I have to show identification to vote?” It’s a question loaded with import as we begin what promises to be yet another year of voter suppression in America. For it’s a question that Republican officials and other supporters of voting restrictions have been asking all over the country over the past few years, in countless iterations, as they relentlessly push ahead with measures that purport to ensure “fairness” and “accuracy” in voting but that are designed instead to disenfranchise the poor and the elderly, the ill and the young, and, most of all, people of color. They ask that question in Florida and in Texas and in North Carolina and in Virginia, in virtually every state that was, until last June, encumbered by Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. And they ask that question in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Ohio. They ask that question wherever partisan efforts are underway to further cleave the electorate into haves and have-nots. It’s a question as simple as it is flawed, one that polls well even though it is based upon a series of self-perpetuating myths.

Arkansas: New voter ID requirement takes effect | Associated Press

Three special elections in January will test Arkansas’ new voter ID law that took effect Wednesday. On Jan. 14, voters in Craighead County will elect a state senator to replace Sen. Paul Bookout, who resigned in August after he was cited by the Arkansas Ethics Commission. Poll workers will be trained about the law before the election, Craighead County Election Commissioner Scott McDaniel told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. “Anytime a change happens, you can anticipate problems, but you just make it as smooth as you can with good, intensive training and a backup plan,” he said. “The provisional ballot process has been in place for a while. And we will err on the side of caution and making sure our goal of making every legitimate vote count.”

Mississippi: Lawmaker pushing online voter registration | The Clarion-Ledger

A state senator wants to allow online voter registration and believes there will be bipartisan support for the legislation. Sen. David Blount, D-Jackson, said he is crafting a bill for the 2014 Legislature, which begins Tuesday, to allow online voter registration. Blount said he doesn’t believe there will be widespread opposition because mail-in voter registration is allowed now. Also, he said the new law requiring people to show a photo ID to vote should allay any concerns over online registration. But Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann’s spokeswoman Pamela Weaver said Hosemann has serious concerns regarding the security of online voter registration.

Wisconsin: Legal filings hone arguments over voter ID law | Journal Sentinel

The federal judge deciding the legality of Wisconsin’s voter ID law received an early Christmas present last week in some reading for over the holidays: more than 200 pages of post-trial briefs. Don’t blame the parties. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who presided over eight days of testimony in November, invited the briefs and set the pre-holidays deadline. He hasn’t indicated when he will rule. Despite their length, the briefs are meant to sharpen the points both sides tried to make at trial. The plaintiffs, individual voters and groups representing minorities, contend Act 23 violates the federal Voting Rights Act because it has a disproportionate negative impact on members of those groups, regardless of the law’s intent. The state contends the law furthers a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the electoral process and stopping fraud, and that it allows enough alternative forms of photo ID to accommodate anyone who truly wants to vote.

National: Did 17 illegal voters in Ohio steal the 2012 election? | Slate

The headline from Fox News is chilling, especially at this moment when most Americans regret putting Barack Obama back in the Oval Office. “Non-citizens caught voting in 2012 presidential election in key swing state,” reports Eric Shawn. What are the gruesome details? Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Wednesday that his office found 17 non-citizens illegally cast ballots in the 2012 presidential election — and has referred the case for possible prosecution… Husted also found that 274 non-citizens remain on the voting rolls. President Obama beat Mitt Romney in Ohio by just 2 percentage points in November 2012. Did you catch that, how Shawn pivoted from the number of total votes to the percentage of votes? Why would he do that? Without reading his mind, I’d guess it’s because the actual Ohio margin between Obama and Romney last year was 166,272 votes, and Shawn wants to keep his readers as ignorant as posssible. Seventeen votes represents 0.0003 percent of the total of ballots cast for either Obama or Romney in the state, and 0.01 percent of the margin.

Texas: True the Vote denied entry into Texas voter ID trial | Facing South

Months before the conservative vote-monitoring group Judicial Watch filed to intervene in the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against North Carolina’s restrictive new voting law, which includes a photo ID requirement, its counterparts at the Houston-based poll-monitoring nonprofit True the Vote filed the same for the Texas voter ID trial, which also involves the Justice Department. True the Vote filed its intervention plea back in September, arguing that a ruling striking down Texas’ voter ID law would “frustrate and hamper” the organization’s anti-voter fraud efforts. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the U.S. District Court of Southern Texas didn’t buy it and last week denied True the Vote’s motion. “The Court finds that True the Vote’s intended contribution to this case may be accomplished without the necessity of, or burden incident to, making it a party,” wrote Judge Ramos.

Texas: Keystone Election Kops | Fort Worth Weekly

The new Texas voter ID law had one effect with which neither side can quibble. It got Fort Worth in the national news for something besides our weather or being forever and famously known as the place where former Baptist Sunday school teacher Willie Nelson lit up his first joint. Before the Nov. 5election, Fort Worth was ground zero for Voter ID law news. Gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis’ signing of an affidavit when she voted early and former Speaker of the U.S. House Jim Wright’s problems in getting a state-issued personal identification card both made national news. But what hasn’t been covered nationally or even locally is how the law’s implementation, at least in Tarrant County, wasn’t quite ready for prime time.

North Carolina: Judicial Watch wants to join fray over voter ID law | News Observer

Judicial Watch, a conservative-leaning organization that uses litigation to make its political points, wants in on the legal fray over North Carolina’s elections law changes. The Washington-based organization filed a motion on Friday to intervene on behalf of North Carolina officials defending the new rules. “We think it’s a case of national importance,” said Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. In the court documents seeking status in the four-month-old lawsuit, Judicial Watch highlights an unsuccessful 2012 candidate for Buncombe County commissioner as the basis for the organization’s interest. Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill, a Republican who lost her bid for county office by 13 votes, contends that same-day registration during the early-voting period could have played a role in her loss.

India: Electronic Voting Machines were tampered with, alleges Rajasthan Congress | The Hindu

Days after the Congress suffered a humiliating defeat in the Rajasthan Assembly election, the party demanded an enquiry into Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) programmed in Ahmedabad that were used during the polls. The Congress’s Legal and Election management committee filed a complaint with the Election Commission on Thursday, casting aspersions on the functionality of the EVMs, and seeking a probe by high-level technical experts into their programming. “There have been complaints from several party workers and candidates belonging to different Assembly constituencies that the programming for these machines had been tampered with,” Sushil Sharma, president of the Congress’s legal and election management committee.

Voting Blogs: In Arkansas, Face Off Over New Voter ID Law | State of Elections

Controversy surrounding voter identification laws has now reached the Natural State. On April 1, 2013, the Arkansas state legislature completed a bicameral majority vote overriding Gov. Mike Beebe’s (D) veto of a law requiring voters to show photo ID. The law, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2014, provides for the state to issue a free photo ID to voters who lack one. The law also allows a voter without photo identification to cast a provisional ballot on election day. The provisional ballot will be counted if the voter reports to the county clerk or county board of election commissioners by noon of the Monday following the election, with proof of identity or an affidavit showing the voter is either indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed. Voter identification laws have proven contentious throughout the country, and the new Arkansas law is no exception. When questioned about the impetus behind the new legislation, State Senator Bryan King (R), primary sponsor of the bill, stated, “The purpose of the law is to ensure electoral integrity.”

Liberia: Liberia’s Elections Commission Launches 2014 Voter Roll | allAfrica.com

Liberia’s National election Commission Tuesday launched the National Voter Roll updated in preparations for the 2014 special Senatorial election. The voter roll update according to the NEC is the process of listing all those registered to vote in a Particular areas. The list will be compiled and kept by the NEC. The process is also expected to provide uniform and legitimate voter identification cards to all eligible (18 yrs) citizens of Liberia. Speaking at the official launch, NEC Chairman Cllr. Jerome Kokoya said, the process will capture Liberians who have or will be turning 18 years before the date of the Special Senatorial Election and also those who have lost their voter cards or change location. Said Kokoya: “Eligible voters who for one reason or the other could not register during last voter’s registration exercise in 2011, and those who have changed locations within the country, please visit the nearest voter roll update so that you could be included on the voter roll in order to participate in the 2014 special senatorial election.”

Texas: Voter identification: Mischief at the polls – How Texas’s new voter-identity law works in practice | The Economist

When Texas passed its new voter-identification law, in 2011, the Republicans who dominate state politics rejoiced. This, they said, would help guarantee “the integrity of state elections”. Nonsense, said Democrats, who accuse Republicans of using voter-ID laws to make it harder for poor people and minorities to vote. Republicans retort that electoral fraud is real. In 2012 Texas’s attorney-general, Greg Abbott, boasted that his office had caught more than 50 cheats between 2002 and 2012. That is not a big number, among the more than 13m registered voters in Texas. But it is not nothing. In November Texans (at least, those with a state-issued photo ID) had their first chance to vote since the law was implemented. The delay was caused by the usual legal wrangling round voter-ID laws. In 2012 a federal court blocked Texas’s law from taking effect. Similarly strict regulations were already in place elsewhere, but under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Texas was subject to federal “preclearance” on any new voting rules. “Preclearance” is a sort of naughty step for states that, in the past, have hindered voting by minorities. The Texan law was therefore in limbo until June, when the Supreme Court addressed the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v Holder, a dispute between an Alabama county and the attorney-general of the United States, Eric Holder.

Voting Blogs: In Arkansas, Face Off Over New Voter ID Law | State of Elections

Controversy surrounding voter identification laws has now reached the Natural State. On April 1, 2013, the Arkansas state legislature completed abicameral majority vote overriding Gov. Mike Beebe’s (D) veto of a law requiring voters to show photo ID. The law, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2014, provides for the state to issue a free photo ID to voters who lack one. The law also allows a voter without photo identification to cast a provisional ballot on election day. The provisional ballot will be counted if the voter reports to the county clerk or county board of election commissioners by noon of the Monday following the election, with proof of identity or an affidavit showing the voter is either indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed.  Voter identification laws have proven contentious throughout the country, and the new Arkansas law is no exception. When questioned about the impetus behind the new legislation, State Senator Bryan King (R), primary sponsor of the bill, stated, “The purpose of the law is to ensure electoral integrity.”

Mississippi: Voter ID First Tested in GOP Primary | Jackson Free Press

Despite opposition from Democratic-leaning groups who say laws requiring voter ID could keep minorities, young people and college students away from polls, Mississippi’s voter ID law will first be tested in a hot Republican primary for one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats. Mississippi Secretary of State of Delbert Hosemann’s office is launching a publicity blitz to bring attention to the state’s voter-identification law that’s scheduled to be used for the first time for the June 2014 primaries. The most highly anticipated in the state, that election will pit incumbent U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran, who announced plans to seek reelection last week, against state Sen. Chris McDaniel in a proxy between the GOP’s mainstream and more radical Tea Party factions. Hosemann and several other Republicans had been eyeing the seat had Cochran opted for retirement. Of the voter ID awareness campaign, Hosemann told reporters Monday that his office is airing two 30-second TV commercials—one that started Monday and one that starts in January.

North Carolina: Round one in the battle over voting rights in North Carolina | The Herald-Sun

Parties in the three federal lawsuits challenging voting law changes signed into law here in August will appear before U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder on December 12 to map out a schedule for proceedings moving forward. And while they’ve reached agreement on some preliminary litigation matters, the parties are not budging on one critical date: when the case should be tried. Those challenging the voting changes, including the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, say in papers filed with the court yesterday that all preliminary proceedings can be completed in time for a trial in the summer of 2014. That timing would ensure that changes set to take effect in January are reviewed by the court before the 2014 midterm elections. But the state defendants claim that such a schedule is unrealistic and are asking for a trial in the summer of 2015.

Voting Blogs: State of Texas files final brief on effort to dismiss voter ID suits | Texas Redistricting

The State of Texas filed a reply brief today defending Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s position that the voter ID suits filed by the Justice Department and by African-American and Hispanic voters should be dismissed without need for a trial. In addition to challenging the standing of some of the individual and organizational plaintiffs, the brief reiterated the state’s contention that the claims should be dismissed because the Texas voter ID law was “no more difficult than ‘the usual burdens of voting’” and argued that the plaintiffs had failed to “produce or allege the existence of any person, of any race, who could not get a free EIC because of anything other than what may be fairly characterized as that person’s choice.”