Tag Archives: voter id

The presidential election is Nov. 6, but it could take days to figure out the winner if the vote is close. New voting laws are likely to increase the number of people who have to cast provisional ballots in key states. Tight races for Congress, governor and local offices also could be stuck in limbo while election officials scrutinize ballots, a scenario that would surely attract legions of campaign lawyers from both parties. “It’s a possibility of a complete meltdown for the election,” said Daniel Smith, a political scientist at the University of Florida. Voters cast provisional ballots for a variety of reasons: They don’t bring proper ID to the polls; they fail to update their voter registration after moving; they try to vote at the wrong precinct; or their right to vote is challenged by someone.

National: Conservative Veterans of Voting Wars Cite Ballot Integrity to Justify Fight | Roll Call

Call them the voter fraud brain trust. A cadre of influential Washington, D.C., election lawyers has mobilized a sophisticated anti-fraud campaign built around lawsuits, white papers, Congressional testimony, speeches and even best-selling books. Less well-known than Indiana election lawyer James Bopp Jr., who’s made a national name for himself challenging the political money laws, conservative veterans of voting wars such as Hans von Spakovsky and J. Christian Adams nonetheless play a role similar to Bopp’s in their behind-the-scenes fight to protect ballot integrity. Both former Justice Department officials, von Spakovsky and Adams have worked alongside such anti-fraud activists as Thomas Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, and Catherine Engelbrecht, president of the tea party group True the Vote.

Pennsylvania: Judge may allow most of voter-ID law | Philadelphia Inquirer

A Commonwealth Court judge said Thursday that he was considering allowing most of the state’s controversial voter-identification law to remain intact for the November election and was contemplating only a very narrow injunction. Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. said at the end of the second and last day of a hearing on whether to halt voter-ID requirements for the Nov. 6 election that he was considering an injunction that would target the portion of the law that deals with provisional ballots. As written, the law says voters who do not bring proper photo ID on Election Day can cast a provisional ballot. They would then have six days to bring in the required photo ID for their votes to count.

Pennsylvania: Judge hints he may block Pennsylvania voter ID | Philadelphia Inquirer

With just six weeks until the presidential election, a judge raised the possibility Tuesday that he would move to block Pennsylvania’s controversial voter ID law. “I’m giving you a heads-up,” Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. told lawyers after a day’s testimony on whether the law is being implemented in ways that ensure no voters will be disenfranchised. “I think it’s a possibility there could be an injunction here.” Simpson then asked lawyers on both sides to be prepared to return to court Thursday to present arguments on what such an injunction should look like. There is no hearing Wednesday because of Yom Kippur. Simpson gave few if any further clues to what he may decide. But his comments provided a dramatic end to a day of testimony in a protracted and widely watched fight over the law, which requires voters to present photo identification at the polls.

Pennsylvania: Why voter ID isn’t needed: For one thing, casting a fraudulent vote isn’t worth the risk of years in prison | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The argument in favor of Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law can be summed up this way: You need photo identification to cash a check, board an airplane, secure health care, buy pharmaceuticals or alcohol, so what’s the big deal about needing one to vote? On its face, the argument is simple, commonsensical, compelling. On closer analysis, its infirmities become apparent, especially when compared with the procedures that long have been in place to prevent in-person voter fraud. One can judge whether a law is good or bad by asking whether the law addresses a critical problem and seeks to solve the problem rationally. The Pennsylvania Legislature has banned texting while driving because of the overwhelming evidence that it causes motor vehicle accidents. Similarly, the Legislature requires motorists to give bicyclists a 4-foot buffer when passing. The ostensible purpose behind Pennsylvania’s voter ID law is to prevent in-person voter fraud, which occurs when someone appears at a polling place pretending to be someone else and attempts to vote as that other person. The public record demonstrates that in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent.

Editorials: Voter ID backpedaling leads to umpteenth change | Philadelphia Inquirer

I have not tested this theory, but I bet officials at the Pennsylvania Department of State have never issued as many news releases touting as many substantive changes to any process as they have while attempting to explain, justify, and implement the voter ID law. It’s not enough that a cynical legislature forced bureaucrats to design, on the fly, an ID-issuing system guaranteed to frustrate and discriminate. Every time well-intentioned officials issue a fix, journalists and advocates unearth more evidence of what remains broken. And the clock ticks on, with Election Day only six weeks away.

National: Challenges to Voting Laws May Play Havoc On and After Election Day | Roll Call

Democratic Rep. Mark Critz’s chances of hanging onto his seat representing Southwestern Pennsylvania could hinge on a lawsuit filed by a 93-year-old great grandmother over the state’s new voter identification law.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is hearing Viviette Applewhite’s appeal today so it can decide whether the recently enacted statute is so burdensome on some citizens that it violates Pennsylvania’s constitution. Like other lawsuits across the country, it pits Republicans concerned about voter fraud against Democrats worried about voter suppression. The outcome could affect turnout on Election Day and spawn legal challenges afterward.

Oklahoma: Law shakes up ID requirements for voters — especially out-of-state students | OUDaily.com

Out-of-state students preparing to vote in the November elections will likely need to dig up their voter registration card or U.S. passport if they plan to cast their ballot in Oklahoma. Because of the state’s voter ID law, Oklahoma voters are required to show some form of identification before receiving a ballot. The catch, however, is driver licenses from out of state do not qualify, said Jim Williams, Cleveland County Election Board secretary. “That is another unique feature of the Oklahoma law; it does have to be an Oklahoma driver license,” Williams said. “So if you have an out-of-state driver license, you’ll need some other form of ID for voting.” Other acceptable IDs include a state-issued ID, a U.S. passport, a military ID — all of which are photo IDs — but there is one exception: voter registration cards, he said.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID requirements change | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The state judge listening to a new round of arguments on the state’s voter identification law concluded the day-long session by directing attorneys to come prepared Thursday to argue what they think a potential injunction should look like. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said it’s his responsibility to consider the possibility of halting the new law — which requires all voters present a photo ID card with an expiration date in order to cast a ballot — and how to tailor such an action so that it addresses why the law isn’t being properly implemented. “I think it’s possible there could be an injunction entered here,” he said. “I need some input from people who have been thinking about this longer than I have.”

Pennsylvania: Weeks before election, Pennsylvania voter ID law back in court | Reuters

A judge who will decide whether Pennsylvania’s new voter-identification law should be blocked heard testimony on Tuesday from one witness who said fears that the measure placed an unfair burden on residents were overblown. The witness, Kurt Myers, a deputy secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, said about 11,000 voters have gotten the mandated ID cards at the center of the controversial law and thousands more were set to get theirs before the November 6 election. “We’re in the business of issuing IDs, not denying IDs,” Myers told Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson.

South Carolina: Judges tough on both sides in South Carolina voter-ID case | TheState.com

Federal judges grilled attorneys Monday over South Carolina’s controversial voter-ID law, which opponents said would disenfranchise thousands of minorities but supporters said would have ample protection against discrimination at the polls. During closing arguments in a six-day federal trial over the law, the three-judge panel challenged attorneys for the state over election officials’ shifting stances on how they’d implement it, and the judges asked opposing attorneys why they’re rejecting clear efforts by those officials to soften possible harmful impact on African-American voters. The South Carolina law, which Attorney General Eric Holder blocked after its May 2011 enactment, has national implications that pit a state’s legal right to prevent electoral fraud against the federal government’s mandate under the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure equal access to the polls for minority Americans.

South Carolina: Closing arguments for South Carolina voter ID law | USAToday.com

South Carolina’s voter ID law doesn’t discriminate against blacks and allows minorities to cast ballots even if they don’t have proper identification, attorneys for the state told a panel of federal judges Monday.
Attorneys for the Justice Department and the League of Women Voters of South Carolina countered that the law is designed to disenfranchise tens of thousands of black state residents by making it harder for them to vote. Monday’s closing arguments followed a week-long trial that will decide if the ID law, which requires a valid government-issued ID to vote, will take effect.

Virginia: Homeless Discuss Difficulty of Getting a Voter ID Card | WHSV

Even if you do not have a roof over your head, you can still cast a vote in the presidential election this November. Homeless people around the community can still register and get the new voter ID cards. For some, it may be the only ID they will have. Frankie Good is a homeless man in the area, and he said why he wants to vote this year. “I’d like to vote because I’d like to see the economy get back on its feet,” said Good. Good lives at the Mercy House in Harrisonburg because he is homeless. He has never voted, but he has always had an ID if he wanted one. Some homeless people, like James McNeil Wilson Jr., are not as lucky. “You have to fill out the applications. I can’t see. I don’t understand half of it anyways,” said McNeil.

Virginia: Officials to spend $2M on voter ID compliance | HamptonRoads.com

State election officials will spend nearly $2 million to prepare citizens for compliance with a new voter identification law intended to tamp down on election fraud in Virginia, where its prevalence is questionable. Much of that money – $1.36 million – is the cost of printing and mailing voter registration cards to millions of registered Virginia voters, as Gov. Bob McDonnell ordered when he signed the law last May. Another $550,000 is for a voter education contract awarded to a vendor selected from five bidders. A mix of state and federal funds are paying for the outreach. That’s a significant outlay for the State Board of Elections, which in 2008 relied on the state Department of General Services for public relations services under a $50,000 annual contract.

National: Voter ID Laws Hinder 10 Million Eligible Latinos | ABC News

Millions of Latinos may have a difficult time voting this year. New laws that require voters show proof of citizenship and photo identification at the polls — as well as recent voter roll purges — could hinder at least 10 million Hispanics in 23 states who try to cast a ballot in November. The number of Latinos eligible to vote who might be blocked from voting this year is equal to the margin of victory in a number of states, according to a new study by the Advancement Project, a civil rights group. Overall, 17 states have enacted laws that would require voters to present photo identification at the polls before casting a ballot. Propoents have said the laws are needed to combat voter fraud, but civil-rights activists have countered that the laws are a political ploy on behalf of Republicans to limit turnout from minority voters who traditionally favor Democrats.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Law In Jeopardy As Next Court Case Opens | Huffington Post

The state of Pennsylvania’s ability to get every would-be voter a government-issued photo ID by Election Day will literally be on trial Tuesday. The hearing before Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson comes after the state Supreme Court last week instructed him to block a new law requiring ID at the polls unless he determines “that there will be no voter disenfranchisement” arising from its implementation. Opponents of the law have said the state can’t possibly prove that case, as the law’s entire reason for existence is precisely to make it harder for the poor, members of minority groups, students, and the elderly to cast their ballots, and in that way suppress the Democratic vote. Republican backers of the law have said it was intended to fight voter fraud. But in-person voter fraud — the only kind voter ID would reduce — is almost nonexistent.

Pennsylvania: Court Reconsiders Voter ID Availability | Businessweek

The Pennsylvania judge who last month upheld a law requiring voters to show photo identification is scheduled today to hear arguments over whether people will be able to comply before the general election in November. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sept. 18 ordered Commonwealth Judge Richard E. Simpson to consider whether all eligible voters will be able to obtain acceptable ID if the law is upheld. Simpson ruled Aug. 15 that plaintiffs including the American Civil Liberties Union hadn’t proved the law would disenfranchise voters. The state high court asked Simpson to submit a supplemental opinion on the availability of alternate IDs by Oct. 2.

South Carolina: States’ voter ID laws are underlying issue in 2012 presidential race | The Washington Post

South Carolina is in federal court arguing that its new law requiring people prove their identity at the polls won’t make voting so tough that it reduces turnout of African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities. A federal panel is to determine whether South Carolina’s voter identification law violates the Voting Rights Act by putting heavy burdens on minorities who don’t have the identification. Last December, the Justice Department refused to allow South Carolina to require the photo IDs, saying doing so would reverse the voting gains of the states’ minorities. Closing arguments in the case — which went to trial in August and included several state officials as witnesses — were scheduled for Monday. South Carolina has said it would implement the law immediately if the three-judge panel upholds it, although a decision either way is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

South Carolina: Laziness Not An Excuse Under South Carolina Voter ID Law | TPM

A lawyer for South Carolia said on Monday there are plenty of reasons voters would be able to sidestep the state’s voter ID law if a panel of federal judges allows it to take effect this year, but laziness is not among them. While defending the state’s voting law during closing arguments in federal court here, attorney H. Christopher Bartolomucci said voters could offer any number of reasons for showing up to the polls without a government-issued photo ID. However, he added, those who simply say they “didn’t feel like” it will be turned away. South Carolina is among the states that must have changes to their voting laws cleared by either the Justice Department or a panel of judges in D.C. under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The state wants its voter ID law to go into effect for the November election.

Editorials: Voting Wrongs | Elizabeth Drew/New York Review of Books

The Republicans’ plan is that if they can’t buy the 2012 election they will steal it. The plan, long in the making and now well into its execution, is to raise great gobs of money—in newly limitless amounts—so that they and their allies could outspend the president’s forces; and they would also place obstacles in the way of large swaths of citizens who traditionally support the Democrats and want to exercise their right to vote. The plan would disproportionately affect blacks, who were guaranteed the right to vote in 1870 by the Fifteenth Amendment; but then that right was negated by southern state legislatures; and after people marched, were beaten, and died in the civil rights movement, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now various state legislatures are coming up with new ways to try once again to nullify that right. In a close election, the Republican plan could call into question the legitimacy of the next president. An election conducted on this basis could lead to turbulence on election day and possibly an extended period of lawsuits contesting the outcome in various states. Bush v. Gore would seem to have been a pleasant summer afternoon. The fact that their party’s nominee is currently stumbling about, his candidacy widely deemed to be in crisis mode, hasn’t lessened their determination to prevent as many Democratic supporters as they can from voting in November.

National: Voter ID Laws Take Aim At College-Student Voters | Huffington Post

In Tennessee, a new law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls explicitly excludes student IDs. In Wisconsin, college students are newly disallowed from using university-provided housing lists or corroboration from other students to verify their residence. Florida’s reduction in early voting days is expected to reduce the number of young and first-time voters there. And Pennsylvania’s voter identification bill, still on the books for now, disallows many student IDs and non-Pennsylvania driver’s licenses, which means out-of-state students may be turned away at the polls. In 2008, youth voter turnout was higher that it had been since Vietnam, and overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. This time around, the GOP isn’t counting solely on disillusionment to keep the student vote down. In the last two years, Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed dozens of bills that erect new barriers to voting, all targeting Democratic-leaning groups, many specifically aimed at students. The GOP’s stated rationale is to fight voter fraud. But voter fraud — and especially in-person fraud which many of these measures address — is essentially nonexistent.

Minnesota: Voter ID: Close elections drive amendment battle in Minnesota | TwinCities.com

A dozen years ago, proving who you were at the polls wasn’t a big issue. But then came the presidential election of 2000, which spotlighted mechanical and other flaws in Florida’s vote-counting system and ended with the U.S. Supreme Court intervening to declare a winner. That high-stakes drama touched off a re-examination of election processes and led several states over the next decade to tighten ID requirements to reduce the possibility of fraud. By 2011, voter ID was “the hottest topic of legislation in the field of elections,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In Minnesota, voters in November will be deciding whether to move from having no voter ID requirement to adopting one of the strictest in the nation.

Pennsylvania: Provisional ballots loom large in Pennsylvania voter id law | mcall.com

Hail the lowly and under-appreciated provisional ballot. If the courts leave Pennsylvania’s voter ID law in place for the November election, this rarely used paper stand-in for the modern electronic voting machine could be all that stands between a voter who shows up at the polls without an acceptable ID and electoral disappointment. But just filling out the ballot on Nov. 6 won’t be enough. Under the law, voters who complete provisional ballots because they failed to bring an ID to the polls must provide proof of ID to their county voter registration office within six days of voting for their votes to count. The ID can be emailed, faxed, mailed or brought to the office in person, and must be accompanied by a signed affirmation that the voter cast a provisional ballot.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Laws ‘Stink,’ Says Republican Community Leader | Huffington Post

Longtime Republican politician Stanley R. Lawson Sr. says he knows a rat when he smells one. And what’s going on politically around recently passed voter ID laws in his home state of Pennsylvania reeks of partisan politics. Lawson, 70, a registered Republican, is currently the head of the Harrisburg chapter of the NAACP, but has served as chair to the Dauphin County Republican Party and as a member of the Harrisburg City Council. “The whole thing stinks,” Lawson told The Huffington Post on Friday afternoon. “They say the reason they did this is because of all the fraud going on. But I happen to be a former Republican chairman of the county, I’ve been on the city council, I’ve been a township commissioner, and I’ve never seen it or heard anyone complain about voter fraud.”

South Carolina: Voter ID case could close with legal fireworks | TheState.com