Wisconsin: Trial in Wisconsin voter ID lawsuit begins | Channel3000

A trial began Monday in a case challenging Wisconsin’s law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls. Also on Monday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that it won’t be taking up two cases pertaining to the state’s controversial voter ID law. That means the trial starting Monday in one of the two lawsuits is proceeding. The news came as lawyers made opening arguments in connection to a lawsuit brought by the Milwaukee chapter of the NAACP and Voces de la Frontera, an immigrants’ rights group. Both groups argue the law disenfranchises voters. NAACP attorney Richard Saks said testimony will show there are hundreds of thousands of voters who don’t have the required ID necessary to vote. “As such, this law needlessly imposes an onerous and unreasonable burden on otherwise qualified voters from participating in elections in the state of Wisconsin,” Saks said.

Editorials: How Gender Identity May Determine the Right to Vote in 2012 | Colorlines

American companies are born as private commercial entities, but thanks to the Citizens UnitedSupreme Court decision, suddenly they can transition to human status for the purpose of influencing an election with millions of dollars. Meanwhile, thousands of actual human citizens, who’ve only transitioned gender identity, may have less influence over elections—or no influence at all—because they’ll now face heavy burdens under strict photo voter ID laws. It’s an obscene paradox. Over 25,000 transgendered American citizens may face stiff barriers to voting in the November 2012 election according to the report “The Potential Impact of Voter Identification Laws on Transgender Voters,” released last week by the Williams Institute at UCLA’s law school. This is, by any measure, the portion of the electorate that is among the most marginalized and stigmatized, and hence probably most in need of the right to have a say in who governs their lives. But discussions on both sides of voter ID laws tend to leave out transgendered citizens in discussions about who would be most adversely impacted. I’m including myself in that critique. I briefly mentioned that transgendered citizens would be impacted in my first Voting Rights Watch blog, but have failed to consistently talk about their burdens in subsequent blogs. We often talk about black and Latino voters, elderly and student voters, women and those with low incomes as having trouble satisfying new photo voter ID mandates, but many transgendered voters will have an incredibly tough set of challenges before them if they are to have their vote counted in November. The cost of getting the appropriate ID to vote in some jurisdictions will be as high as getting surgery.

Minnesota: Secretary of State Ritchie uses election official role to move headfirst into voter ID battle | StarTribune.com

Thrust into the partisan hothouse of back-to-back statewide recounts, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie went out of his way to take on a referee persona despite the “D” after his name. But on the voter ID constitutional amendment now headed to the November ballot, he’s openly taken a side. Ritchie has steadily increased his opposition as the proposal advanced, to the point of arguing it will deprive voters of their rights. In the process, he has drawn blowback from Republicans and other supporters of the voting-law change, who accuse the state’s top elections officer of going too far. Ritchie acknowledged that he’s stepped outside of his default “stay out” approach to politics. “I’ve taken a very strong position in general that my job is to run the elections and be a partner with local election officials, and I stay out of other people’s lives and campaigns and their work,” Ritchie said. “But when something is about elections and about our basic election system, then I always take a more active role.”

Minnesota: Photo ID proponents, opponents readying for ballot battle | MinnPost

The political battle is already gearing up over Minnesota’s proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment, which was approved last week by the Legislature. At least three Ballot Question Committees have filed with the state board that tracks political organizations, and more groups are poised for the fight. Some groups are focusing on legal issues, preparing litigation opposing the amendment, which would require voters to show an ID and affect same-day registration and absentee balloting procedures. Others will focus on the political campaign, with both proponents and opponents trying to persuade voters about the Republican-backed initiative that will be on the November general- election ballot.

Pennsylvania: Primary Election to Test Pennsylvania Voter ID Law | GantDaily.com

In March, Gov. Tom Corbett signed into law House Bill 934, also known as the Photo Voter ID bill, which will require Pennsylvanians to show photo identification at their polling place when they vote. “I am signing this bill because it protects a sacred principle, one shared by every citizen of this nation. That principle is: one person, one vote,” Corbett said in a press release last month. “It sets a simple and clear standard to protect the integrity of our elections.” The law went into effect immediately, but a photo ID will not be required for the primary election April 24. However, voters will be reminded at that time that a photo ID will be required for November’s general election.

National: Corporations under pressure on political spending | USAToday.com

American companies are discovering the perils of politics as activists and public pension fund officials apply new pressure on corporations to disclose their political spending — or cease it entirely. Companies holding their annual meetings this spring will face a record number of shareholder resolutions demanding companies reveal whether corporate funds have been spent on politics. A coalition that includes Public Citizen, Common Cause and other groups that favor campaign limits has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to require publicly traded companies to disclose campaign spending on their filings to regulators. And in recent days, Wendy’s and several of the nation’s most recognizable companies have dropped their affiliation with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group linked to the spread of Stand Your Ground laws and state efforts to toughen voter identification rules. The companies’ actions came after a civil rights group, ColorOfChange, spotlighted the firms’ ties to ALEC.

Ohio: Election-law changes opposed by League of Women Voters, Common Cause and others | Youngstown News

Election advocates urged lawmakers Thursday to refrain from passing any more changes to the state’s election laws, saying their actions to date already have caused too much confusion among voters. The League of Women Voters of Ohio, Common Cause Ohio and other groups want the Republicans who control the Ohio Senate and House to stop a pre-emptive repeal effort on House Bill 194, the controversial GOP-backed election-reform package that is the subject of a November referendum. And they want the Legislature to leave laws as-is until after the presidential election. “Enough already,” said Carrie Davis, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio. “In the last 12 months, the Legislature has considered but not passed a bill on voter ID. They passed a comprehensive voting bill, HB 194. Two weeks later, they went back and fixed things that they missed and mistakes they had made. … There was then a referendum effort on HB 194 to stop it from going into effect. And now, they are planning to pass a repeal of HB 194. … We’ve been told … that they plan to introduce and pass yet another election bill before they adjourn for the summer. All of this in 12 months. It’s too much.”

Voting Blogs: Cost of Voter ID: What we know, and what we don’t | electionlineWeekly

Last year, electionline ran an article entitled, “Debate Over Photo ID at the Polls Shifts to Costs.” Since then, voter ID — the issue of how voters are identified at the polls — has only gotten hotter. Recently, Pennsylvania enacted photo ID legislation, Minnesota’s legislature put aconstitutional amendment about photo ID on the November ballot, and Virginiasent a bill to the governor, which he proposed changes to. See the National Conference of State Legislature’s Voter ID: State Requirements webpage or last week’s Electionline Weekly for the status of voter ID legislation around the country. This year, cost concerns seem to be buried beneath the partisan debate. And yet money always matters, so the question remains: how much does it cost to implement a photo voter ID requirement? No one knows for sure. There are before-the-fact estimates, and after-the-fact “actuals,” but none are cut and dried. The truth is that the cost of voter ID — like the cost of virtually everything election-related — is hard to estimate, or to measure.   For now, we can offer a look at legislative estimates and “boots on the ground” details from states that are in the process of implementing last year’s new photo ID laws, and perhaps explain why these numbers are so difficult to pin down.

Texas: Justice Department Blasts Voter ID Law | NPR

The U.S. Department of Justice says a Texas law requiring most people to show ID before they can vote will discriminate against minorities. In court documents filed today, the department says there is substantial evidence that minorities will be affected the most: Among other evidence, records produced by the State of Texas indicate that S.B. 14 will disenfranchise at least 600,000 voters who currently lack necessary photo identification and that minority registered voters will be disproportionately affected by the law, based on both a greater likelihood of lacking a required form of photo identification and a lesser ability to obtain a necessary identification.

Editorials: McDonnell’s wise move on Virginia’s voter ID bill | The Washington Post

Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell has moved to gut an obnoxious bill, championed by Republican lawmakers, that would have needlessly stiffened voting requirements for Virginians. The governor’s level-headed move has annoyed his fellow Republicans, but it has also reaffirmed his reputation as a conservative who has governed mainly as a pragmatist — a reputation that propels him to the short list of Mitt Romney’s putative running mates. Although he didn’t veto the bill, Mr. McDonnell offered a series of amendments whose effect will be to render the legislation all but moot. That’s a good thing, because the voter ID bill is a gratuitously divisive measure whose only effect would have been to invalidate ballots cast by thousands of poor, young, elderly and minority voters. Under a state law that has worked well for decades, Virginia voters who lack identification may cast ballots anyway, providing they sign an affidavit attesting to their identity. Falsifying the affidavit is a felony under state law.

District of Columbia: D.C. elections officials condemn O’Keefe voting ploy | The Washington Post

Elections officials in the District are condemning conservative activist James O’Keefe as a “prankster” for his latest hidden-camera ploy, in which he sent an associate inside a D.C. polling place to demonstrate the need for “voter ID” laws by showing he could vote as the U.S. attorney general. In a statement, the Board of Elections and Ethics said the O’Keefe associate was “misrepresenting his identity” by walking into Spring Valley’s Precinct 9 on Tuesday and asking a poll worker if Eric Holder appeared on the rolls. But a representative of O’Keefe’s Project Veritas said no laws were broken in the incident. The attorney general is indeed registered to vote in the precinct, and the poll worker invited the man to sign the poll book and proceed to vote. At that point, the man inquired about providing ID and was told it was not necessary before he left. The board said that the Holder incident is one of “multiple incidents” that took place last Tuesday that it continues to investigate. O’Keefe teased other hidden-camera episodes in the Holder video.

Minnesota: Voter ID battles often land in court | Politics in Minnesota

Even as Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature were advancing a voter ID constitutional amendment on to the November ballot last week, DFLers were predicting court challenges. In 2011 Republicans passed a statutory photo ID requirement in both chambers, but their bill was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. This year the GOP-controlled House and Senate regrouped to pass the measure as a ballot question shortly before the Easter/Passover recess. The constitutional route, if successful, carries the twin benefits of bypassing Dayton and codifying the policy in a way that’s very difficult to reverse. Legal challenges are nothing new in states that have advanced voter ID proposals. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a photo ID law in Indiana. In other states — most recently, Wisconsin and Missouri — voter ID has stumbled in the courts for different reasons.

New Hampshire: Voter ID bill draws criticism | NEWS06

Supporters of a bill requiring photo identification at the ballot box called it a balancing act between a person’s right to vote and a prohibition on those not qualified. Senate Bill 289 would require voters to present a photo identification to vote after Jan. 1, 2013, but no one would be denied the right to vote, officials said at a public hearing Tuesday before the House Election Law Committee. Qualified voters have the value of their votes diminished when unqualified voters caste ballots, said bill co-sponsor Rep. Daniel Itse, R-Fremont. “Rights come with obligations,” he said. However, opponents far outweighed supporters at the hearing. They said far more people will be discouraged from voting or disenfranchised than any amount of voter fraud the bill seeks to stop. “This is a solution in search of a program,” said former Rep. Joel Winter of Manchester. “This will disenfranchise far more people than the cases of voter fraud to be prevented.”

Pennsylvania: Voter ID law creates hurdles, panel hears | The Times Leader

Democrats who conducted a policy committee hearing Wednesday questioned the necessity of the voter identification law enacted last month and the struggles it could present to Pennsylvania voters, as did many of those who testified about the law at the Waverly Community House. State Rep. Sid Michaels Kavulich, D-Taylor, requested the hearing in his home district and served as co-chairman. The law “slams the brakes” on progress made to provide greater access to persons with disabilities, said Keith Williams, Clarks Green Borough Council president, and a community organizer for the Northeast Pennsylvania Center for Independent Living.

Virginia: Governor proposes changes controversial voter ID bill | WTVR.com

Governor Bob McDonnell has made a some changes to that controversial voter ID legislation passed by the General Assembly. Some had feared the changes might keep the elderly and minorities from casting their ballots. In fact, voter Rhonda Acholes said she has was worried the changes could affect elderly folks in her community. For example, the measure states that a voter who shows up with no ID at the polls would have to cast a provisional ballot — and then show up later with an ID to prove their identity. Acholes feared some people would view the changes as a hassle and, in turn, be deterred from going to the polls.

Minnesota: Governor Dayton vetoes Voter ID bill, but it goes on November ballot anyway | MinnPost

It was a ceremonial gesture only, but this morning Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed the Voter ID bill approved last week by the Republican-led Legislature. The bill calls for a statewide vote in November on a proposed constitutional amendment that, if approved, will require all voters to show state-approved photo IDs. But the measure will be on the November ballot anyway. The governor’s veto can’t keep amendments passed by the Legislature off the ballot, which is why the Republican majority went that route.

Minnesota: Lawsuits likely before and after Voter ID balloting | MPRN

Only days after the Legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment that will ask voters this November to require that Minnesotans show photo identification at the polls, groups that oppose the measure vowed to fight it in court. “This question is deceptive and misleading to voters and the court should strike it down and reject it,” Mike Dean, executive director of Minnesota Common Cause, said Monday. Dean said his group and the Minnesota chapter of the America Civil Liberties Union are preparing a lawsuit to stop the amendment from getting on the ballot.

Mississippi: After fiery debate, Voter ID bill clears Mississippi Senate | The Clarion-Ledger

A bill to implement Mississippi’s Voter Identification Law passed in the Senate 34-14 today, but not without a lengthy and sometimes fierce debate. House Bill 921 would require voter identification for all elections. The measure heads back to the House for more work. Mississippi voters passed a voter ID initiative by a 62-38 percent margin last November. Justice Department officials have said they are waiting for enabling legislation before determining whether the law complies with the Voting Rights Act. Sens. David Jordan, D-Greenwood, Kenneth Wayne Jones, D-Canton and Derrick Simmons, D-Greenville, members of the Legislative Black Caucus, spoke against the bill, saying the measure echoes the Jim Crow era. “Jim Crow laws are coming back again dressed up pretty. I don’t understand how we can do something to suppress some Mississippians,” Jordan said. “All of you are my friends, and I don’t understand how anyone can trust God and do wrongful things to their own brothers.”

South Carolina: Justice Department: South Carolina voter ID law violates Voting Rights Act | USAToday.com

South Carolina’s voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and discriminates against minorities despite the state’s assertions to the contrary, the Obama administration says in new court papers. The U.S. Justice Department’s comments came in a 12-page document filed Monday with a District of Columbia court in response to South Carolina’s Feb. 7 voter ID lawsuit. Justice lawyers urged the judges to reject the state’s request for a declaratory judgment, which is a speedy decision by judges without a trial. The administration rejects South Carolina’s claim that the voter ID law “will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in their legal brief. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office provided a copy of the brief Tuesday.

Minnesota: Debate ramps up over potential effects of voter ID measure on students | The Minnesota Daily

With the state Legislature’s recent passage of the voter ID constitutional amendment, the future voting process for college students rests on many factors. And while both sides agree it’s too early to tell what the implications of the law would be if it passes on the November ballot, some worry about its affect on students. If the majority of Minnesota voters vote to mandate valid photo identification at the polls, details of how the amendment will work will be left up to the next Legislature. How it will work will also be dependent upon the makeup of the new Legislature — all 201 state legislators are up for re-election in November. On Wednesday, the Senate re-passed the bill to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. All DFLers voted against the amendment, and all but one Republican voted in favor. Sen. Kari Dziedzic, DFL-Minneapolis, who represents the University of Minnesota’s district, said she worries about the potential impact on students and same-day registration. Although proponents of the amendment say that same-day registration will remain, Dziedzic said it’s unclear how it will work for students and may make voting more of a hassle.

Pennsylvania: ACLU, NAACP will sue over voter-ID law | philly.com

Critics of the month-old voter-identification law are poised to challenge it in the courts and General Assembly. The American Civil Liberties Union says it will file suit over the law’s constitutionality by the end of April, and two Philadelphia Democrats are set to introduce a bill Tuesday that would repeal the controversial measure. “There is no basis for the law in the first place. No clear fraud across the state was ever demonstrated,” said Rep. Dwight Evans, who is to appear with Rep. John Myers at a news conference Tuesday at the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation office at 7121 Ogontz Ave. in West Oak Lane.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID bill causes concern among Bucks County’s senior citizens | Bucks News

“We never should have to fight for our right to vote,” said Martha Miller of Bristol. Miller was among a group of concerned residents who addressed the board of county commissioners on April 4. Miller told the commissioners that fighting for their right to vote is precisely what many elder and low-income Bucks County residents will have to do now that the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed the Voter ID Bill in March. When the bill becomes the law in time for November election all voters will be required to present photo identification at the polls. Those who do not produce identification will be allowed to cast provisional ballots and will be required to send in an identification document within six days after the Election Day.

Minnesota: Voter ID: The devil may be in the details | Mankato Free Press

A party-line debate and party-line vote in the Legislature is likely to result in a major change in Minnesota voting rules, but the actual consequences remain in dispute. Democrats predict dire consequences — high costs, new restrictions that will discourage voting by certain groups, an end to Minnesota’s tradition of same-day registration — if voters approve the amendment as expected on Nov. 6. Republicans, who control the Legislature and put the issue on the general election ballot, say Democratic warnings are wildly overblown. The new requirement that voters show a government-issued ID before casting a ballot will boost confidence in elections while not substantially curtailing the right to vote, supporters of the law say. For the people who run local elections, though, the issue goes much beyond the standard partisan debate.

Pennsylvania: Religious questions for Pennsylvania voter ID law draw fire | PennLive.com

Nothing is sacred about your religion when it comes to getting a state identification card without a photo. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation offers ID cards for those with religious objections to being photographed. The Amish and certain sects of the Mennonite community are among those who object to having their photos taken because of their faith. To get a nonphoto ID for religious reasons, applicants must answer a series of 18 questions that delve deeply into their faiths and other personal information. Now that Pennsylvania has passed one of the nation’s toughest voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud, the scope of the questions is drawing criticism.

Wisconsin: Voter ID requirement: The face of voter suppression and discrimination | allvoices.com

Meet Ruthelle Frank an 84 year old woman living in Wisconsin. She is one of millions of people who are at risk of losing their right to vote in November as result of wide-ranging state by state efforts to deny people the access to vote. The good news is that after ten months of advocacy by the American Civil Liberties Union, she was able to vote last Tuesday in Wisconsin, but her fight isn’t over yet. A Wisconsin judge declared a state law requiring people to show photo ID in order to be allowed to vote unconstitutional before the primary, issuing a permanent injunction blocking the state from implementing the measure. “Without question, where it exists, voter fraud corrupts elections and undermines our form of government,” wrote Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess in his decision. “The legislature and governor may certainly take aggressive action to prevent its occurrence. But voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression. Indeed, they are two heads on the monster.”

National: Voter ID laws spark heated debate before U.S. election | Reuters

Liberal activists on Wednesday criticized new voter registration requirements in dozens of states, saying millions of people could be deterred from voting in the November U.S. presidential election – a claim their opponents disputed. The Center for American Progress issued a report that said new barriers to voting have been enacted by conservative state legislatures with the aim of disenfranchising voters from among certain groups such as low-income voters, minorities and college students. Those constituencies have tended to favor Democrats. “The right to vote is under attack all across our country,” the group said in a report that launched the latest salvo in the growing war of racially tinged rhetoric over new voter ID requirements.

Editorials: Why Isn’t Voter Suppression A Protest Cause? | The New Republic

This week brought another major report on all the efforts in state capitals, almost all Republican-led, to restrict voting rights via new limits on voter registration, early voting, proof of residency and voter identification, all in the name of countering the phantom menace of voter fraud. In a conference call to announce the report, which was produced by the Center for American Progress, Rep. James Clyburn, the South Carolina Democrat, noted that the new rules had led several groups to stop registering voters in that most crucial of swing states, Florida, for fear of running afoul of the law: “To see the League of Women Voters walking away from voter registration activities in the state of Florida because to do so makes it almost inevitable that they will be brought before a court of law and charged with crimes — that is not the America so many of us started, back in our pre-teenaged years, working to make possible.” This prompted me to wonder again, as I did when I first heard about the decision by the registration groups to abandon Florida, why there hasn’t been more visible pushback against the new restrictions. Back in the 1950s and ’60s, after all, people risked imprisonment and worse to protest on behalf of voting rights and civil rights. Why is the threat of penalties under an obviously unjust law now enough to discourage groups from challenging them outright?

Colorado: Photo ID at the polls nixed by Colorado lawmakers | necn.com

Senate Democrats nixed a proposal to ask voters whether people should provide photo identification at the polls amid concerns Wednesday that the measure would create barriers for people least likely to have IDs — minorities, the elderly and the homeless. The hearing became so intense at one point that the chair of the committee considering the bill threatened to cancel the hearing after an outburst from people during testimony. The Republican-sponsored bill would ask voters in November whether people should show a government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or passport, before being able to vote. The proposal would also remove utility bills, bank statements, and naturalization documents as valid forms of identification during elections. Colorado’s proposal failed on a party-line vote on the same day Minnesota lawmakers passed a measure asking voters in November whether people should present photo identification for voting. Similar requirements have faced legal challenges in Texas and Wisconsin. However, Indiana’s photo ID law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Minnesota: Voter ID amendment is now up to voters | StarTribune.com

Minnesota’s historic battle over photo ID and the future of the state’s voting system moved from the Capitol to the voters themselves on Wednesday. The House and Senate, with Republicans supplying all the “yes” votes, gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would require voters to show a photo ID, create a new system of “provisional” balloting and end election day “vouching” for voters without proof of residence. It passed the House on a 72-57 vote shortly after midnight and was approved by the Senate Wednesday afternoon on a 35-29 vote. The decision puts Minnesota squarely in the center of a national debate over election security vs. ballot access. Five states have strict photo ID requirements in law. Wisconsin and several other states are battling the issue in court or in their legislatures. Minnesota now joins Mississippi and Missouri as states that have sought to impose the changes via constitutional amendments. Minnesota’s amendment will likely face court challenges of its own before it goes to voters.

Minnesota: Other states offer clues on how voter ID would work in Minnesota | MPRN

It’s nearly certain that Minnesotans will decide this November whether they want to change the state’s Constitution to require voters to show photo identification at the polls. The Legislature is nearing final approval of the proposed voter ID amendment, which would place the question on the November ballot. What’s less certain is how a voter ID law would play out in future elections in Minnesota. By design, the wording of the constitutional amendment is sparse on details; if approved by the voters, lawmakers wouldn’t lay out exactly how the new system would work until the 2013 legislative session. In the meantime, election officials, voters and advocates on both sides of the issue are scratching their heads over what the proposed voter ID requirement will mean for Minnesota’s future elections.