Tag Archives: voter id

Civil rights groups are cheeringthe injunction placed on the Pennsylvania voter identification law, but their recent victories against state photo ID measures very likely won’t last beyond Election Day. The Pennsylvania law is the latest to lose a court ruling that keeps it from being implemented for Nov. 6; before that, a federal court ruled against Texas’ strict photo ID statute. In both cases, the judges ruled that voters who lack the allowed IDs would be disenfranchised. The Pennsylvania ruling, in particular, turned on the judge’s opinion that there wasn’t enough time for voters to obtain new IDs before Election Day.

Mississippi: Voter ID law getting federal scrutiny | The Commercial Appeal

Atty. Gen. Jim Hood says the Department of Justice has asked for more information on Mississippi’s voter identification law. Hood said in a statement Tuesday that the bottom line is that the law will not be pre-cleared by the Justice Department in time for it to be enforced for the Nov. 6 election. Mississippi’s law provides for a wide range of photo identifications that could be used at the polling places. Supporters of voter ID say it’s needed to help ensure the integrity of elections by preventing people from voting under others’ names. Opponents say there’s been little proof of people masquerading as others to cast ballots. They also contend the ID requirement could suppress voter turnout among poor, elderly and minority voters. “All the DOJ is saying in this response is that they need more details of the state’s plan in order to make a determination,” Hood said. “What this means is that the voter ID requirement will not be in place before the November election. You will not be required to show ID at the poll until DOJ interposes no objections or pre-clears Mississippi’s voter ID bill.”

South Carolina: Voter ID debate shifts to South Carolina as campaigners challenge restrictions | guardian.co.uk

The battle over voting rights in the November presidential election now swings to South Carolina, following the decision by the Pennsylvania courts on Tuesday to delay implementation of a voter ID requirement in that state. All eyes are now on the legal tussle between the department of justice and South Carolina, where probably the last voter ID law will be decided before election day on 6 November. Last year South Carolina became one of at least 34 states to introduce strict laws that require voters to present photo identification at polling stations – one of a swathe of measures attacking voting rights that swept across the US this election cycle. South Carolina’s law was blocked, however, by the Obama administration last June.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID ruling mirrors trend across U.S. | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

With Pennsylvania’s latest upheaval over what voters must take to the polls next month, the state joins a series of battles across the country where opponents of photo ID laws have seen success for the current election cycle. Challengers have garnered temporary victories against photo ID laws here, as well as in Texas and Wisconsin. Federal officials also halted laws in Mississippi, and likely South Carolina, from going into effect this year. While a weak lawsuit against Tennessee’s tough ID law was tossed aside and a stringent ID card referendum still awaits Minnesota voters, opponents note that the ballot measure in Minnesota only drew support from 52 percent of respondents in a recent poll. “In most cases, the challengers aren’t losing; they’ve generally been successful,” said Keesha Gaskins, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, which has been critical of voter ID laws.

National: Voter ID Rules Fail Court Tests Across Country | NYTimes.com

A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday blocked the key component of a highly contested state law requiring strict photographic identification to vote in next month’s election, saying the authorities had not done enough to ensure that voters had access to the new documents. The result, that Pennsylvanians will not have to present a state-approved ID to vote in November, was the latest and most significant in a series of legal victories for those opposed to laws that they charge would limit access to polls in this presidential election. With only a month left until Election Day, disputes around the country over new voter ID requirements, early voting, provisional ballots and registration drives are looking far less significant. “Every voter restriction that has been challenged this year has been either enjoined, blocked or weakened,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice, which is part of the New York University School of Law and opposes such restrictions. “It has been an extraordinary string of victories for those opposing these laws.”

New Hampshire: State Supreme Court to take up voter registration law dispute | SeacoastOnline.com

The state Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a dispute over New Hampshire’s new voter registration law. The law, passed by the Republican-dominated Legislature over Gov. John Lynch’s veto, requires new voters to sign a statement saying that they declare New Hampshire their domicile and are subject to laws that apply to all residents, including laws requiring drivers to register cars and get a New Hampshire driver’s license. A Strafford County Superior Court judge last week sided with out-of-state college students and civil liberty groups who challenged the law and ordered the secretary of state’s office to remove the paragraph about residency laws from the voter registration form. That prompted the attorney general’s office to ask the state Supreme Court to put the lower court’s ruling on hold and to review the case itself. The high court agreed Monday and set a deadline of the end of the day Thursday for the parties to file responses.

Pennsylvania: Judge Halts Pennsylvania’s Tough New Voter ID Requirement | Associated Press

A judge on Tuesday blocked Pennsylvania’s divisive voter identification requirement from going into effect on Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats who said it was a ploy to defeat President Barack Obama and other opponents who said it would prevent the elderly and minorities from voting. The decision by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson on the law requiring each voter to show a valid photo ID could be appealed to the state Supreme Court. However, Simpson based his decision on guidelines given to him days ago by the high court justices, and it could easily be the final word on the law just five weeks before the Nov. 6 election. Simpson ordered the state not to enforce the photo ID requirement in this year’s presidential election but will allow it to go into full effect next year.

Pennsylvania: Judge Bars Voter-ID Law for 2012 Election | Businessweek

A Pennsylvania judge barred enforcement of the state’s voter photo-identification law until after the November election. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson today said that while election officials can ask for ID on Election Day, voters without ID can still cast ballots and have them counted. Previously the law had given those voters six days after the election to get ID to have their provisional ballots counted. Enacted in March, the law requires voters to present a state-issued ID, or an acceptable alternative such as a military ID, to cast a ballot. Opponents of the law said probable Democratic voters, such as the elderly and the poor, were those least likely to have a valid ID by Election Day.

Pennsylvania: Law professor says state Supreme Court gave judge little wiggle room with Pennsylvania voter ID law | PennLive.com

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson had little choice but to issue a partial injunction on Pennsylvania’s voter ID law.
Michael Dimino, constitutional and election law professor at Widener University, said the directives last week from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were tough and clear. “It didn’t give Judge Simpson much room to exercise discretion,” Dimino said. “I don’t think he had very much in the way of options. He could have found that everyone wanting an ID was getting one, but realistically there wasn’t very much for him to do other than enjoin the law from this election.” Last month, the state Supreme Court returned the case to Simpson. Simpson was directed to stop the voter ID law from taking effect in this year’s election if he found that the state had failed to meet the requirement under the law of providing easy access to a photo ID or if he believed it would prevent any registered voter from casting a ballot.

Pennsylvania: Does Judge Simpson’s Pennsylvania Injunction Inadertently Violate Federal Law? | Free and Equal PA

Does the injunction that Judge Simpson issued today inadvertently violate the first-time voter identification requirement in the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”)? HAVA, in Section 303(b), requires voters who register by mail and are voting for the first-time to present identification at the polls. Pennsylvania implemented this requirement of HAVA in the law that preexisted the current Photo ID Law. … Because the new requirement in the Photo ID Law that everyone show photo ID at every election made the requirement that first-time voters show ID unnecessary, Act 18 amended this section to do away with the distinction between first-time voters and all other voters. The Act also limited the acceptable forms of identification to photo ID.

South Carolina: Justice Department clears South Carolina’s online voter registration law | The Augusta Chronicle

South Carolina’s online voter registration law has won federal approval, allowing just a few days for people to use the easier option to sign up to vote Nov. 6. The U.S. Justice Department waited until its deadline to act on the state law signed in June. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, South Carolina must receive the federal agency’s approval for any election law change. The law, passed unanimously by the Legislature, removes several steps from the paper registration process. Supporters say the online option will help voters, improve the accuracy of voter rolls and save money. South Carolina is the 13th state to implement online voter registration. The system was available by Tuesday afternoon through a link on the state Election Commission Web site. People who want to vote Nov. 6 can register through Saturday. State law requires registration at least 31 days before an election.

Texas: Voter fraud? Charlie Gonzalez, Texas Democrats say it’s Republicans guilty of ‘abuses’ | Houston Chronicle

Apparently dead people love to vote. Just weeks after Texas counties tried to purge their voter rolls by eliminating supposedly deceased voters (many of whom beg to disagree), it turns out that a firm hired by the Republican National Committee may have been registering truly deceased Republicans to vote in Florida. In ironic turn of events, the Republicans who have been strong proponents of the Voter ID laws, insisting that voter fraud does in fact exist, are now smack dab in the middle of a voter fraud investigation. A real, live criminal investigation.

Pennsylvania: Judge Halts Pennsylvania’s Tough New Voter ID Requirement | Associated Press

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Judge Bars Voter-ID Law for 2012 Election | Businessweek

New Hampshire: New Hampshire Supreme Court to take up voter registration law dispute | SeacoastOnline.com

Indiana: Early balloting joins strict ID laws among Indiana’s top voting issues | Indianapolis Star

More than a month ahead of the Nov. 6 local, state and federal elections, voting already is under way. Absentee voting by mail quietly began nearly two weeks ago. And early in-person voting — which played a huge rule four years ago during Indiana’s rare moment in the sun as a presidential swing state — will start in many counties, including Marion, on Oct. 8. But early balloting isn’t the only factor surrounding voting that’s capturing public attention. A debate rages nationally over whether Indiana — an early pioneer of voter ID laws — and other states take enough pains to make voting secure and prevent voter fraud. At the same time, local officials are expanding voting options aimed at making it easier to participate. With the election fast approaching, here is a look at voting issues.

Minnesota: Voter ID opponents call it costly, unnecessary | Duluth News Tribune

Most of the argument about whether Minnesota should require separate photo ID cards for people to vote has focused on how much voter fraud occurs in the state. Supporters of voter ID cards say the cards will stop widespread fraud. Opponents say the evidence that shows fraud is almost nonexistent and that the card requirement might keep some people from voting. But Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a DFLer, and some county auditors say there are several other problems with the amendment that most people have never heard of — most notably the cost to taxpayers. Ritchie said the state is in for some major election headaches trying to account for absentee, overseas military and even rural voters who now vote by mail. And he said it virtually will eliminate same-day registration, which has been credited with pushing Minnesota voter participation to among the highest in the nation.

Pennsylvania: Deadline nears on judge’s Pennsylvania voter ID law ruling | Associated Press

A court-imposed Tuesday deadline is looming for a judge to decide whether Pennsylvania’s tough new law requiring voters to show photo identification can remain intact, a ruling that could swing election momentum to Republican candidates now trailing in polls on the state’s top-of-the-ticket races. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson is under a state Supreme Court order to rule no later than Tuesday, just five weeks before voters decide whether to re-elect President Barack Obama, a Democrat, or replace him with Mitt Romney, a Republican. Simpson heard two days of testimony last week and said he was considering invalidating a narrow portion of the law for the Nov. 6 election. An appeal to the state Supreme Court is possible.

National: As Election Day looms, voter ID law critics seek out the unregistered | The Sun Herald

As legal challenges to voter identification laws slowly wind their way through the courts, opponents of the controversial measures aren’t just sitting around waiting for judicial relief. They’re hitting the streets in a grassroots effort to make sure affected voters have the documents they’ll need to cast their ballots in November. “When you put Americans’ backs against the wall, we tend to rise and we tend to fight a little harder,” said John Jordan, an NAACP elections consultant in Philadelphia, where a new state law requires voters to have government-issued photo identification documents.

National: Republican Voter Laws Face Scrutiny As Obama Wins Mount | Bloomberg

With 39 days left before the U.S. presidential election, time is running out for judges to resolve voter access lawsuits in states including Ohio and Florida where a few thousand votes may be the margin of victory between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati is considering Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine’s bid to overturn rulings blocking Republican-sponsored restrictions on early voting and provisional ballots. In Pennsylvania, voters are waiting to hear whether courts will enforce laws requiring them to show photo identification at the polls. “The sooner these matters can be resolved the better,” Matt McClellan, spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican, said in a telephone interview. “They’re in an expedited process and we hope they will be resolved well in advance of the election.”

Pennsylvania: Judge crafting a way to keep Pennsylvania voter ID law and allow people to vote | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The state appellate judge overseeing a new hearing on the voter ID law suggested as arguments closed this afternoon that he is considering halting a narrow section of that controversial law. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson interrogated attorneys from both sides as to how he could alter the photo identification requirement to prevent voter disenfranchisement. He focused largely on the section stating that anyone without a photo ID would be able to vote by provisional ballot, and that the ballot would be counted if they can show photo ID within six days of the election. “Provisional ballots seem to be the sticking point,” Judge Simpson said. “It’s not the smoothest part of [the law].”

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Photo ID May Be Headed Back to Supreme Court | Brad Blog

On Friday, Sept. 28, attorneys representing the petitioners in a lawsuitchallenging the legality of Pennsylvania’s draconian polling place Photo ID law filed a 26-page Post Hearing Brief [PDF] in which they counseled Commonwealth Judge Robert E. Simpson not to defy the state Supreme Court by issuing alimited injunction that could force a minimum of 90,000, but perhaps as many as 1.6 million voters, who lack the requisite Photo IDs, to cast provisional ballots during the Nov. 6, 2012 election. The brief was filed one day after Judge Simpson informed the parties that, despite evidence that there was no conceivable means by which the Commonwealth could supply all of the otherwise eligible voters with the requisite Photo IDs before the Nov. 6 election, he was inclined to enjoin only that portion of the Photo ID law’s provisional ballot section that contains disenfranchising language.

South Carolina: Proof of fraud scarce in two voter ID cases | CBS News

In September 2004, Terrence Hines appeared to register voters in the city of Florence, S.C., at a fast pace. Paid for each completed card by the South Carolina Progressive Network, Hines submitted 1,800 registrations. But it turned out that the signatures were forged. One easy clue for election officials was that Hines had signed up Frank Willis, who was then the town’s mayor. “He wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer,” said Florence County Solicitor Ed Clements, who referred Hines’s case to state investigators. Hines pleaded guilty to voter fraud charges in 2006. His is one of only three documented cases of voter fraud convictions in South Carolina going back to 2000, according to a CBS News review of the public record and interviews with election officials.

Tennessee: Judge tosses challenge to state voter ID law | chicagotribune.com

A civil rights lawyer said on Thursday he may appeal a Tennessee judge’s ruling that rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the state’s voter identification law. Two Memphis women who had sought to use library cards that include photographs during early voting for an August election, were not harmed and do not have the standing to challenge the law, Davidson County Judge Carol McCoy ruled on Wednesday. The women and the city of Memphis were seeking a temporary injunction that would allow voters to cast ballots in the November 6 election without presenting state or federal photo identification. George Barrett, a Nashville-based civil rights attorney who represented the women and the city, said his clients had not decided whether to pursue the matter farther.

Nigeria: Nigeria Electoral Commission to Issue ‘Permanent’ Voter Cards | VoA News

Nigeria’s Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) will soon issue millions of permanent voter cards in time for the next general election, according to Nick Dazang, the INEC deputy director public affairs. “INEC has given out a contract for the production of the first batch of 40 million permanent voter cards to be distributed before the 2015 general elections,” said Dazang. The electoral commission, which registered over 73 million new voters for the 2011 general elections, at the time, issued temporary cards to voters. But, Dazang said INEC has signed contracts for the production of permanent cards with special electronic security features.

National: Voter Harassment, Circa 2012 | NYTimes.com

This is how voter intimidation worked in 1966: White teenagers in Americus, Ga., harassed black citizens in line to vote, and the police refused to intervene. Black plantation workers in Mississippi had to vote in plantation stores, overseen by their bosses. Black voters in Choctaw County, Ala., had to hand their ballots directly to white election officials for inspection. This is how it works today: In an ostensible hunt for voter fraud, a Tea Party group, True the Vote, descends on a largely minority precinct and combs the registration records for the slightest misspelling or address error. It uses this information to challenge voters at the polls, and though almost every challenge is baseless, the arguments and delays frustrate those in line and reduce turnout. The thing that’s different from the days of overt discrimination is the phony pretext of combating voter fraud. Voter identity fraud is all but nonexistent, but the assertion that it might exist is used as an excuse to reduce the political rights of minorities, the poor, students, older Americans and other groups that tend to vote Democratic.

Editorials: Protecting the right to vote – history demonstrates that any effort to deny citizens the ability to vote can’t be ignored | latimes.com

Since their historic victories in the 2010 midterm elections,Republicans across the country have passed an array of voting laws — to require photo identification, to make it more difficult to register, to reduce periods of early voting or to purge voter rolls — and they are considering others. The Justice Department, the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, theAmerican Civil Liberties Union and other groups have challenged many of these laws in court. A federal court recently rejected Texas’ voter ID law, and similar cases from Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wisconsin await final judicial action. Sound-bite analogies between these new laws and the fully mature Jim Crow system have been properly condemned as simplistic and misleading. But more careful study of the experience of a century ago may offer a cautionary lesson about today’s changes in election laws. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Southern Democrats used statutory and state constitutional restrictions — as well as violence, intimidation and ballot-box stuffing — to discourage and, ultimately, to disfranchise many poor whites and the vast majority of African Americans. Several popular misunderstandings about that “first disfranchisement” cloud the public’s view of recent legislation.

Pennsylvania: Voters Battle Bureaucracy Ahead Of ID Law Ruling | NPR

The first sign that getting a new ID isn’t going to be easy for Beverly Mitchell and Kathleen Herbert comes before the pair have even left their downtown Philadelphia senior center. As they wait for a ride to a nearby Department of Motor Vehicles office, they get the news: The van that was supposed to take them is broken. Herbert and Mitchell are going to the DMV because they want to make sure they will be able to vote this fall. Depending on how a Pennsylvania judge rules on the state’s controversial new voter ID law, they might need to show a valid photo ID before they can punch a ballot. The court is hearing new testimony this week, and the judge has until next Tuesday to decide whether to block the law, which the state’s Supreme Court has ordered him to do if he thinks any voters will be disenfranchised.

Pennsylvania: Witnesses recall hurdles to get Pennsylvania voter ID | Reuters

A dozen witnesses testified on Thursday about the hours-long waits, multiple trips and misinformation they experienced in getting the voter ID cards required under a Pennsylvania law that a judge will soon decide whether to block. On the second day of hearings called by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson, a parade of witnesses, including one in a wheelchair and another who walks with a cane, spoke about the hurdles they faced to get the cards before the November 6 presidential election. Simpson set a deadline of Friday for lawyers to submit documents, including their suggestions on what kind of injunction to issue should he find voters have less than “liberal access” to the IDs required under the battleground state’s new law. Simpson is expected to rule ahead of the October 2 deadline set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court when it ordered him to reconsider the law he upheld in August.

Pennsylvania: Chief State election official confident voter ID law will stand | CentreDaily.com