National: After Ruling, States Rush to Enact Voting Laws | New York Times

State officials across the South are aggressively moving ahead with new laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls after the Supreme Court decision striking down a portion of the Voting Rights Act. The Republicans who control state legislatures throughout the region say such laws are needed to prevent voter fraud. But such fraud is extremely rare, and Democrats are concerned that the proposed changes will make it harder for many poor voters and members of minorities — who tend to vote Democratic — to cast their ballots in states that once discriminated against black voters with poll taxes and literacy tests. The Supreme Court ruling last month freed a number of states with a history of discrimination, mostly in the South, of the requirement to get advance federal permission in order to make changes to their election laws.

National: Senate committee moving forward on Voting Rights Act | MSNBC

The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin holding hearings next week on the future of the Voting Rights Act after the heart of the landmark legislation was gutted by the Supreme Court last month, Chairman Patrick Leahy said Wednesday. During the hearing, titled “From Selma to Shelby County: Working Together to Restore the Protections of the Voting Rights Act,” senators will hear testimony on the way forward in the wake of the recent Court ruling that functionally weakened the Justice Department in its ability to block discriminatory laws before they went into effect in certain states and jurisdictions. Civil rights icon and Congressman John Lewis will testify at the hearing, Leahy said, along with Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican who has already signaled his willingness to move forward on new legislation designed to restore the gap left in the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court’s recent decision.

Editorials: Why voter ID won’t save the GOP | Zachary Roth/MSNBC

Last month’s Supreme Court ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act has left voting-rights advocates and Democrats fearing that a potential new wave of suppression tactics could keep poor and minority voters from the polls. Voter ID laws have topped the list of concerns, with several southern states vowing to push forward with such measures now that it’ll be harder for the federal government to stop them. But a close look at the research on how voter ID laws affect elections suggests that, from a purely political point of view, the anxiety may be misplaced: The picture is murky, but there’s no clear evidence that requiring voter ID significantly reduces turnout. And some experts say that other voting restrictions—especially those that make it harder to register and to vote early—are likely to have a bigger effect.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID law to be debated in court | Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal

Pennsylvania’s much-debated and long-sidelined voter-identification law is getting its day in court. The legislation, requiring people to show a valid form of identification to vote, will head to Commonwealth Court on Monday, where the justices will explore its constitutional legitimacy. Supporters of the law say they are trying to protect the sanctity of the electoral process. Opponents say the law seeks to suppress the votes of the poor and members of minority groups, who are less likely to have the needed ID. “This law is discriminatory. It’s time for the court to throw it out and be done with it, once and for all,” says John Jordan, director of civic engagement for the Pennsylvania NAACP.

Iowa: State will rewrite new voter registration form after complaint from ACLU | Des Moines Register Staff Blogs

A new voter registration form will be thrown out and rewritten after the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa warned it could confuse and potentially disenfranchise eligible voters. Iowa Secretary of State’s Office Legal Counsel Charlie Smithson said Tuesday his office had reviewed the ACLU’s arguments and agreed with its concerns. The Voter Registration Commission will rescind the rules enacting the new form, which is set to become the state’s official voter registration document on Aug. 1. In a petition presented to the Iowa Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee, the ACLU said the new form gives the mistaken impression that registrants must provide a state driver’s license or ID card number and their social security number in order to register. The law actually requires would-be voters to provide their social security number only if the registrant doesn’t have a state-issued ID.

Minnesota: Voter ID debate could resurface with task force study | Minnesota Public Radio News

A photo identification requirement to vote in Minnesota is a contentious issue that could again surface as a newly-formed state task force launches a study of electronic poll book technology. Part of the research will look at the use of photographs as a way to verify voter eligibility. Last fall, Minnesota voters turned down a Republican-backed proposed constitutional amendment to require photo identification at election polls. The task force meets for the first time Tuesday. Electronic poll books are a computer-based alternative to the paper rosters that voters currently sign their name to at polling places on Election Day. Instead of signing in, a voter’s driver’s license or some other identification is swiped by a card reader, and their pre-loaded information is displayed on a computer monitor. The city of Minnetonka tested such technology in recent elections and City Clerk David Maeda said he was pleased with the results.

New Hampshire: Voter ID law sees big changes | Eagle Tribune

There were so many recent revisions to New Hampshire’s voter ID law, even state officials couldn’t keep up with the changes. As a legislative conference committee considered potential changes before passing a final version of the law three weeks ago, many people who weren’t sure what happened to the controversial measure. So they called The League of Women Voters of New Hampshire to find out the latest changes, according to league election law specialist Joan Flood Ashwell. The league is well known for its efforts to educate the public about voting.

South Carolina: Nikki Haley Takes Heat After Report Blows Up ‘Bogus’ Voter Fraud Claims | Huffington Post

For years, South Carolina Republicans have complained about the names of dead voters being used to cast ballots in a broad voter fraud scheme. Now that a recent report by the State Law Enforcement Division has blown up those claims, unable to find a single example of a “zombie voter” committing fraud, one Democrat is demanding that Gov. Nikki Haley (R) apologize for her party’s “bogus” crusade. In a statement released Monday, House Democratic Leader Todd Rutherford accused Haley and other Republicans of deliberately and deceptively pushing false claims for political gain. “Now we have the proof that shows that the accusations of voter fraud were completely without merit,” said Rutherford. “And once again, South Carolina’s taxpayers have to foot the bill for the millions of dollars unnecessarily spent as a result of Governor Haley and her colleagues’ incompetence and blind-ideology.”

Editorials: Texas’ redistricting fight is far from over | Enrique Rangel/Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Think the Texas redistricting fight is over? Think again. Last week, after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, State Attorney General Greg Abbott said the voter ID law and the redistricting plan the Texas Legislature approved were good to go. “With today’s decision, the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott said in a statement. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.” But — as opponents of the voter ID law and the redistricting plan predicted after the high court ruled that Texas and other (mostly Southern) states no longer require federal approval of voting laws or redrawn maps — on Monday a federal court in San Antonio basically told Abbott: “Not so fast.”

National: GOP has tough choices on Voting Rights Act | Associated Press

When the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights act last week, it handed Republicans tough questions with no easy answers over how, and where, to attract voters even GOP leaders say the party needs to stay nationally competitive. The decision caught Republicans between newfound state autonomy that conservatives covet and the law’s popularity among minority, young and poor voters who tend to align with Democrats. It’s those voters that Republicans are eyeing to expand and invigorate the GOP’s core of older, white Americans. National GOP Chairman Reince Priebus began that effort well before the court’s decision by promising, among other initiatives, to hire non-white party activists to engage directly with black and Latino voters. Yet state and national Republicans reacted to the Voting Rights Act decision with a flurry of activity and comments that may not fit neatly into the national party’s vision.

South Carolina: No widespread voter fraud found in South Carolina elections | The Augusta Chronicle

No one intentionally cast a ballot in South Carolina using the names of dead people in recent elections, despite allegations to the contrary, according to a State Law Enforce­ment Division report. Attorney General Alan Wil­son asked the agency to investigate last year after the Department of Motor Vehi­cles determined in early 2012 that more than 900 people listed as deceased had voted in recent years. Wilson called the number “alarming” and said it “clearly necessitates an investigation into criminal activity.” State Election Commis­sion Director Marci Andino had her staff look at questionable votes from the Novem­ber 2010 general election, or about 200 of the more than 900 votes total – information that was also ultimately analyzed by SLED. Nearly half of the issues could be attributed to clerical errors, while several dozen resulted from DMV officials running Social Secur­ity numbers of voters against dead people but not seeing whether the names matched.

National: Let the lawsuits begin: Advocates pivot strategy following Voting Rights Act ruling | NBC

One side effect of the Supreme Court’s decision to stop enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is clear: a flood of new lawsuits that have already begun. The ruling all but guarantees that voting rights advocates will pivot toward filing lawsuits relying on a separate piece of the law, Section 2, to challenge procedures which might impede voters. Nine states, mostly in the South, and other jurisdictions in places from Brooklyn, N.Y., to Shannon County, S.D., had been covered by Section 5 of the law which required election officials to get either the Justice Department or a federal judge to pre-approve changes in voting procedures. Section 2, on the other hand, bans voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups — such as speakers of Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, or Navajo — identified in the VRA. In its decision Tuesday in a case involving Shelby County, Ala., the high court essentially made Section 5 unenforceable for now. It found that the formula to determine which jurisdictions were covered under the VRA was flawed, and Congress seems unlikely to write a new formula before the 2014 elections. Texas Secretary of State John Steen immediately announced that his state’s voter photo identification law — which had been passed by the Texas legislature in 2011, but then barred by a federal judge using section 5 of the Voting Rights Act — will now be in effect.

National: U.S. States Tighten Voter Restrictions | Independent European Daily Express

Advocacy groups here are reacting with frustration as several southern U.S. states have moved to enact stricter voting requirements in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision that rolled back key legislation that had safeguarded minority voters for decades. Following last week’s five-to-four Supreme Court decision overturning a key part of the Voting Rights Act, nine southern states with a history of discriminatory voting requirements are now able to change their election laws without approval from the federal government. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, stating: “Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation is passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” Yet just 48 hours after the decision, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina announced plans to push through together voting restrictions that critics are warning could disenfranchise minority voters.

National: Voting Rights Act Hands GOP Tough Questions | Fox News

Republicans face tough questions with no easy answers over how, and where, to attract voters even GOP leaders say the party needs to stay nationally competitive when the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights act last week. The decision caught Republicans between newfound state autonomy that conservatives covet and the law’s popularity among minority, young and poor voters who tend to align with Democrats. It’s those voters that Republicans are eyeing to expand and invigorate the GOP’s core of older, white Americans. National GOP Chairman Reince Priebus began that effort well before the court’s decision by promising, among other initiatives, to hire non-white party activists to engage directly with black and Latino voters. Yet state and national Republicans reacted to the Voting Rights Act decision with a flurry of activity and comments that may not fit neatly into the national party’s vision. In Washington, Republicans like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia embraced the nuances of the ruling. The court didn’t actually strike down preclearance, instead tossing rules that determined which jurisdictions got oversight. Congress is free to rewrite those parameters and revive advance review.

Arizona: Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Decision Contradicts Arizona Ruling | Highbrow Magazine

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Voting Rights Act last week, only two weeks after ruling that an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote is unconstitutional. The Court’s decision last Tuesday and the idea underpinning it – that voter suppression of ethnic minority and poor voters is no longer an issue that warrants the same federal protections as it once did – sits at odds with their ruling on the Arizona voter ID law, which was a clear acknowledgment that state laws can, at times, be discriminatory. “Arizona is the poster child of the need for federal oversight,” said Democratic Senator Steve Gallardo. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court did away with Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that required Arizona and other states to get pre-approval from the federal government before implementing changes to their state voter laws.

North Carolina: GOP eyes changes in state voter ID laws | Washington Times

The GOP majority in North Carolina is moving to pass a series of laws in response to a recent Supreme Court ruling striking down part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, sparking outrage from civil rights activists. The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that North Carolina Republicans plan to adopt stricter voter identification laws. The report also said the GOP is pushing to end the state’s early voting laws, Sunday voting and same-day voter registration. The Supreme Court ruled a week ago that states no longer can be judged by voting discrimination that went on decades ago. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said the Voting Rights Act’s requirement that mainly Southern states undergo special scrutiny before changing their voting laws is based on a 40-year-old formula that is no longer relevant to changing racial circumstances.

Texas: New Texas voting disputes | SCOTUSblog

For more than 40 years, the state of Texas has had to ask official permission in Washington before it could put into effect any change in the way its citizens vote.  A week ago, state officials — relying on the Supreme Court’s new ruling on federal voting rights law — said they would no longer have to do that.  Now, however, efforts have begun in two federal courts, 1,600 miles apart, to keep that obligation intact. Those efforts — in Washington, D.C., and San Antonio — are quick sequels to the Court’s decision last week in Shelby County v. Holder (docket 12-96), striking down one key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but leaving other parts of the law on the books and presumably functioning.   One of those other parts, the 1965 law’s Section 3, could provide a method for keeping in force Washington’s legal supervision of Texas voting laws and procedures under another, still-standing provision, Section 5.

National: Rep. James Clyburn urges national standards in revised Voting Rights Act | theGrio

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C,), the man House Democrats have tapped to lead their push for revising the Voting Rights Act after last week’s Supreme Court decision gutted the law’s Section 4, urged the creation of national voting standards that would likely replace the special restrictions for a bloc of Southern states under the current law. While not ruling out a new kind of “pre-clearance” system, which had required parts or all of 15 states to get federal approval for changing their voting provisions, Clyburn said Democrats were mostly debating a new provision that would mandate every state abide by certain “minimum standards.” Clyburn said such a law, for example, might require every state have at least nine days of early voting. States could chose to have many more days, but could not have fewer than nine, he said. Similar federal standards would apply to redistricting and ballot access concerns, such as voter ID laws, although he did not provide details.

Editorials: Wisconsin high court should see voter ID violates constitution | The Cap Times

The May 30 ruling of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District 4, which found Wisconsin’s voter ID law to be constitutional, was ill thought out and inconsistent in its arguments. Yet there are many Wisconsinites who suggest that the state Supreme Court will uphold the ruling because the court is so politicized that it will simply take the side of Gov. Scott Walker and his legislative allies. The governor and irresponsible legislators have advanced a number of voter suppression initiatives and the theory is that the court is so biased in favor of Walker’s political project that the justices will simply rubber-stamp the restrictive voter ID scheme. But we refuse to accept that the majority of justices on the high court have rejected the rule of law.

Alabama: Secretary of State announces new photo id requirements for voting | WBRC

Friday, Secretary of State Beth Chapman announced plans for voter photo identification for the 2014 elections. The law, which passed in 2011, calls for voters to present a photo identification in future elections. Under the law voter can choose between several forms of identification including a valid driver’s license, non-driver photo id, photo employee cards issued by the state of Alabama and the United States, military id’s and passports. Friday, Probate Judge Alan King was reviewing the law’s requirements. King said he hopes voters don’t wait for election day to get identification if they don’t have one. “Certain number of people who haven’t been presenting their driver’s license ID, they need to know about this,” King said.

Pennsylvania: Constitutional showdown looms at voter ID trial | The Mercury

Pennsylvania’s long-sidelined voter identification law is about to go on trial. Civil libertarians who contend that the statute violates voters’ rights persuaded a state judge to bar enforcement of the photo ID requirement during the 2012 presidential election and the May primary. But those were temporary orders based on a narrower context; the trial set to begin July 15 in Commonwealth Court will explore the more complicated constitutional questions. It could be the beginning of a long process. Lawyers in the case say a panel of Commonwealth Court judges may weigh in following the trial, before what both sides expect will be an appeal by the loser to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Texas: MALDEF: End Of Voting Rights Act Leaves Minorities Exposed | Texas Public Radio

The chief legal counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is applauding Gov. Rick Perry for signing into law the interim voting maps, but said not having a Voting Rights Act leaves minority communities vulnerable. This week the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Nina Perales is the chief legal counsel for the MALDEF and said the supreme court has taken away a tool for fair and equitable state voting maps. “While the supreme court didn’t strike down all of the Voting Rights Act, it invalidated the most important tool, which allowed us to fight discrimination and which had been recently re-authorized by Congress in 2006 by a wide bipartisan margin,” Perales said.

National: Democrats Set Wheels In Motion On Revising Voting Rights Act | TPM

The unusual nature of the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act has created a kind of limbo for conservatives in southern states who want to flood their legislatures with voter ID laws and other disenfranchising policies, and thrown into Congress’ lap an unexpected issue that will have enormous ramifications for the 2014 elections and beyond. Where this all ends, nobody knows, but we’re beginning to see how it starts. Congressional Democrats are already setting wheels in motion to fix the damage the Court did to the Voting Rights Act, but they’re prepared for a long and complex haul. Because Democrats only control one chamber of Congress, they’re effectively confined to beginning the process in the Senate, which is why early statements from Senate Dems refer to action they plan to take, while House Dems are stuck pressing Republicans to take the issue seriously. But that’s enough to sketch out a roadmap by which they might successfully re-establish pre-clearance standards under Voting Rights Act.

Texas: The Supreme Court’s Other Voting Rights Decisions This Week | PBS

On its last day of the term, the Supreme Court delivered two more blows to the Voting Rights Act. Two days ago, the court ruled that the law’s key provision, which requires several states to pre-clear voting changes with the government, was invalid. Then on Thursday, it vacated two voter discrimination cases in Texas that could have long-term repercussions in the battle for voting rights. Here’s what happened: Texas had appealed two rulings by the D.C. federal court — one blocking a set of 2011 redistricting maps, and another blocking its voter ID law — that found both policies were discriminatory under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. On Thursday, the Supreme Court sent both cases back to the federal court for “further consideration” in light of its decision to strike down the VRA’s pre-clearance formula. That means the federal court will most likely have to reverse both decisions, given that pre-clearance no longer exists.

Alabama: Officials say voter ID law can take effect | Associated Press

Top Alabama officials say voters apparently will have to present photo identification at the polls in the next election. Gov. Robert Bentley, Secretary of State Beth Chapman and Attorney General Luther Strange said the Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday throwing out part of the federal Voting Rights Act means the state does not have to submit for preclearance a new law requiring voters to show photo identification. Strange said the voter identification law will be implemented immediately. Democratic state Rep. Alvin Holmes of Montgomery said fears the photo ID law will be used to intimidate blacks and keep some elderly people from being able to vote. He said it’s the kind of thing that should be reviewed by the Justice Department. “This is a perfect example of why we need pre-clearance,” Holmes said. “The civil rights community had a bad day yesterday.” The governor, however, said he believes pre-clearance is no longer needed.

Kansas: Lawsuit challenges state photo ID election law | Topeka Courier-Journal

A lawsuit challenging Kansas’ law requiring voters to present a picture identification when casting ballots Wednesday was submitted to Shawnee County District Court on behalf of two Osage County men who were blocked last year from having their votes counted. Wichita attorney Jim Lawing filed the case for retirees Arthur Spry and Charles Hamner, both of Overbrook, to contest constitutionality of the voting mandate included in the Secure and Fair Elections Act of 2011, which was written by Secretary of State Kris Kobach. The suit names Kobach as the lone defendant. Hamner and Spry, who didn’t have a government-issued identity card with a photograph proving they were Kansans in good standing, voted with provisional ballots in November 2012. Their ballots weren’t counted because neither subsequently provided sufficient proof of their identity.

New Hampshire: Legislature okays changes to voter ID law despite opposition from conservatives | Concord Monitor

Compromise legislation to reform New Hampshire’s year-old voter ID law passed the Republican-led Senate and the Democratic-led House yesterday, as a last-ditch effort by conservative Republicans to block the bill fell short. The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, who indicated she will sign it into law. “The governor continues to believe that the voter identification law enacted by the previous Legislature was misguided and should be fully repealed, but she appreciates that the compromise reached by the Legislature will save local communities the burden of costs for cameras, prevent long lines at the polls and alleviate confusion about permissible forms of identification,” said spokesman Marc Goldberg in a statement.

New Hampshire: Voter ID Compromise Approved in New Hampshire | Valley News

Compromise legislation to reform New Hampshire’s year-old voter ID law passed the Republican-led Senate and the Democratic-led House yesterday, as a last-ditch effort by conservative Republicans to block the bill fell short. The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, who indicated she will sign it into law. “The governor continues to believe that the voter identification law enacted by the previous Legislature was misguided and should be fully repealed, but she appreciates that the compromise reached by the Legislature will save local communities the burden of costs for cameras, prevent long lines at the polls and alleviate confusion about permissible forms of identification,” said spokesman Marc Goldberg in a statement.  The voter ID law enacted in 2012 included several changes that were to effect this September, including a shorter list of acceptable forms of ID and a requirement that voters without an ID, who already must fill out an affidavit, be photographed by election workers as well. But under a compromise worked out last week by negotiators from the House and Senate, student IDs will remain valid forms of identification at the polls, voters 65 and over will be able to use expired driver’s licenses to vote and the photo-taking requirement will be delayed until 2015.

North Carolina: State expected to move forward on voter ID bill following Supreme Court ruling | Fay Observer

Voter identification legislation in North Carolina will pick up steam again now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, a General Assembly leader said Tuesday. A bill requiring voters to present one of several forms of state-issued photo ID starting in 2016 cleared the House two months ago, but it has been sitting since in the Senate Rules Committee to wait for a ruling by the justices in an Alabama case, according to Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson, the committee chairman. He said a bill will be rolled out in the Senate next week. The ruling essentially means that voter ID or other election legislation approved in this year’s session probably will not have to receive advance approval by U.S. Justice Department lawyers or a federal court before such measures can be carried out.

Rhode Island: House Speaker: No changes to voter ID law this session | The Providence Journal

Revising the state’s voter identification law will have to wait another year, after House Speaker Gordon D. Fox called off a scheduled House vote on proposed legislation Wednesday. The bill that had been before the House proposed eliminating a new requirement set to take effect for the 2014 election: showing a valid picture identification before voting. Currently, Rhode Islanders must show an ID at the polls, but, starting next year, that ID must have a picture on it.