Editorials: 48 years after MLK march, voting rights still vulnerable | Nicolaus Mills/CNN.com

I carry in my mind a picture of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at the beginning of the Selma to Montgomery voting rights march on March 21, 1965. What makes that picture so vivid to me 48 years later, as we prepare to celebrate his 84th birthday this month, is that voting rights issues I once imagined were over have resurfaced on a national scale. The biggest difference between then and now is that today’s voter suppression operations are highly sophisticated, compared with the crude, racist ones conducted by Southern sheriffs and voter registrars through the middle 1960s. Before the 2012 elections, well-funded efforts in state after state tried to curtail the participation of poor and minority voters by introducing burdensome voter ID requirements, despite a record showing individual voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in the United States.
A five-year, nationwide investigation into voter fraud by the George W. Bush administration resulted in just 86 convictions.

Editorials: On Voting Rights, MLK’s Work Continues | Hartford Courant

One would think that the inauguration Monday of Barack Obama for a second term as president of the United States would forever stamp as successful the heroic, historic voting rights work nearly a half-century ago of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose birthday is also being celebrated Monday as a national holiday. Yes, Mr. Obama, the first African American president, was not only elected but re-elected. That should prove that Dr. King’s legacy is secure, that the impediments to minority voting swept away by the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 exist only in the dark recesses of history, right? Wrong. It would appear that for some Americans, especially minorities, the right to vote — consecrated in the blood of the Selma to Montgomery march — can never be taken for granted, that it must always be contested.

National: Black conservatives launch effort to scrap part of Voting Rights Act | guardian.co.uk

A group of prominent black conservatives is trying to help scrap a key part of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights-era legislation that enshrined the right of black Americans to have equal treatment at the ballot box. The law was signed in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson in the presence of civil rights leaders like Dr Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, and it represented one of the milestone victories in ending the Jim Crow segregation of the deep south. Now, however, a black conservative group called Project 21 has filed a legal brief before the US supreme court in support of a case aimed at overturning key provisions of the act. The bid, on which the supreme court is set to rule this summer, has been brought by the authorities in Shelby County in the southern state of Alabama.

Arizona: Lawmakers crafting responses to election concerns | Cronkite News

The large number of provisional ballots cast in November has two lawmakers so far proposing ways to address the issue. Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, the House minority leader, said he is drafting legislation to form a committee to study election problems and recommend legislation. Sen. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale, chairwoman of a new Senate Elections Committee, said she is aiming to cut down on problems with permanent early voting lists that led to many provisional ballots being cast. Provisional ballots are given to voters at a polling places when there are questions about their identity or eligibility to vote. About 172,000 were cast in the general election, up from the 107,000 in 2008.

National: At Supreme Court, no reprieve for GOP in voting rights consent decree | CSMonitor.com

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a request by the Republican National Committee to lift a 30-year-old consent decree that restricts the political party’s ability to enforce preelection ballot security programs that critics say would result in minority voter suppression. The high court, without comment, turned aside the Republican Party’s petition. At issue was a consent decree dating from 1982 involving allegations that Republicans had attempted to intimidate and suppress black and Hispanic voters in New Jersey in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

North Carolina: GOP-led General Assembly plans to pass law requiring voters to show ID | FayObserver

The General Assembly will move gingerly but deliberately to pass a law this year requiring voters to show IDs at polls, said state Rep. David Lewis, chairman of the House election law committee. Republicans have sought a voter ID law for years, saying it’s needed to prevent election fraud. State Sen. Wesley Meredith of Fayetteville supports the idea and expects such a bill to be one of the first pieces of legislation he will sponsor when the General Assembly reconvenes Jan. 30.

National: Voter ID battle set to rage again | NJ.com

The national battle over voter ID laws that roiled the presidential campaign for a time then fizzled before Election Day is set to rage again in 2013. This year promises a flurry of new voter ID legislation across the country as well as reignited court battles in states where the laws were blocked last year and a Supreme Court ruling on part of the Voting Rights Act. All of the activity will bring the debate — which pits conservatives targeting potential election fraud against voting-rights groups convinced the laws are really about disenfranchising low-propensity liberal voters — to the forefront again. “There are a number of states where there’s clearly active legislative attempts to make their voter ID laws more restrictive,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, which has been involved in court challenges to a handful of the voter ID laws around the country. “This is not an issue that has gone away.”

Texas: New Bill Would Repeal Texas Voter ID Law | The Texas Tribune

State Rep. Eric Johnson, D-Dallas, started the 83rd legislative session with one issue in mind: voter identification laws. Johnson filed five bills Thursday, his first legislation of the new session, aiming to both increase voter participation and strike down a bill requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. Senate Bill 14, the voter ID law, passed in 2011, requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID to cast their ballot, but the law has yet to be implemented. It was rejected by both the U.S. Department of Justice and a federal three-judge panel in 2012. The rulings said that Texas did not prove that the measure did not discriminate against minorities.

Editorials: Voting Rights Act: What’s lost if the Supreme Court kills it? | Richard Hasen/Slate Magazine

Odds are, the Supreme Court will strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act after hearing a case from Alabama that will be argued next month. If the part of the law called Section 5 does indeed go down, minority voters in Southern states and elsewhere will lose a key bargaining chip. Section 5 has enabled them to beat back some attempts to make it harder for them to vote, and helped insure that the gains they’ve made in representation and redistricting are not rolled back. As another recent fight over South Carolina’s voter ID law shows, Section 5 still serves a vital role in an era in which partisan legislatures may manipulate election laws for political gain. Like many other states with Republican majority legislatures acting over the last few years, South Carolina adopted a tough photo identification law before the 2012 election. The state’s Republican legislature likely acted out of the belief that such laws would marginally depress Democratic turnout and help Republicans at the polls. Controversy over voter ID laws also motivates the Republican base to turn out to vote. (What voter ID laws don’t do is prevent a lot of real voter fraud, though that’s the rationale their supporters cite.)

Editorials: GOP v. Voting Rights Act | Reuters

The Republican Party is in danger of reaping what it has sown. Much has been written about the GOP’s problem with minority voters.  Quite simply, the party has managed to alienate every nonwhite constituency in the nation. This is not an accidental or sudden phenomenon. Ever since Republicans chose almost 50 years ago to pursue a Southern strategy, to embrace and promote white voters’ opposition to civil rights, the party has been on a path toward self-segregation. Successive Republican administrations have pursued agendas that included retreating on civil rights enforcement and opposing government programs that increase minority opportunity. That steady progression culminated in Mitt Romney’s disastrous showing among African-American, Latino and Asian voters.

Alabama: 1965 Voting Rights Act: Alabama attorney general says theres no need for federal input: Arguments set for Feb. 27 in U.S. Supreme Court | The Montgomery Advertiser

Alabama’s practice of discriminating against minorities at the ballot box is a relic from a bygone era and the state no longer deserves to be punished for it, according to papers Alabama’s attorney general has filed with the Supreme Court. “Alabama has a new generation of leaders with no connection to the tragic events of 1965,” Attorney General Luther Strange wrote in a brief filed last week. “The effects of those events on voting and political representation have now, thankfully, faded away.”

North Carolina: Voter ID Law Could Impact 613,000 Voters, Report Says | Huffington Post

As Republicans in North Carolina make a renewed push to pass a voter ID law, a new report from the State Board of Elections suggests that nearly one in ten voters lack state-issued photo identification. The report shows that up to 613,000 voters, about 9.25 percent of all registered voters in North Carolina, lack state-issued photo identification. Former Gov. Bev Perdue (D) vetoed a voter ID law passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2011. But current Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, spoke out in favor of the law on the campaign trail and has promised to sign it if it reaches his desk.

Editorials: Why ‘gerrymandering’ doesn’t polarise Congress the way we’re told | Harry J Enten/guardian.co.uk

You ever hear a point of view that is so infuriating that you want stick your head out the window and yell? I go bananas when I hear an opinion that goes against well-established political science literature. That happened this past weekend when respected television journalist Tom Brokaw said the House of Representatives is becoming increasingly polarized because of gerrymandering. Don’t get me wrong, I love Brokaw. It just so happens that he is wrong, and posts about the effect of gerrymandering on redistricting have been written over and over again in past months. It could be that Brokaw doesn’t quite understand what gerrymandering is. For those who don’t, gerrymandering is the manipulation in the drawing of House districts to ensure a desired result. Brokaw’s assumption is that politics is becoming more polarized as the result of gerrymandering in districts in which Democrats and Republicans are increasingly safe from worrying about a competitive challenger from the other party. While it is true that House districts are increasingly “safe”, this is the case even when controlling for redistricting. Last week, Nate Silver noted that there was an 8% increase in polarization independent of any effects of redistricting in 2012.

Arizona: Attorney General to pitch Supreme Court on voter proof of citizenship | East Valley Tribune

Attorney General Tom Horne will argue to the nation’s high court on March 18 that Arizona should be allowed to enforce a 2004 voter-approved law requiring people to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. The justices are reviewing a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said Arizona cannot refuse to register voters who do not provide proof of citizenship if they instead fill out a special registration form prepared by the federal Election Assistance Commission. That form requires only that the person avows, under oath and penalty of perjury, that he or she is eligible to vote. A 2004 voter-approved measure requires both proof of citizenship to register and identification to cast a ballot at the polls. Foes challenged both. The courts sided with the state on the ID at polling places requirement. While that remains a legal issue in some states, opponents of the Arizona law never appealed that decision and it will not be an issue when the U.S. Supreme Court looks at the law in March. But the appellate court had a different view on the citizenship-proof requirement.

Editorials: Casting Votes | Jeffrey Toobin/The New Yorker

Here’s a safe prediction for 2013: few people will pine for the Presidential campaign of 2012. Even Barack Obama’s most ardent supporters acknowledge that his victory provided little of the euphoria of four years ago. Not many Republicans have longed to hear from Mitt Romney since his swift journey to political oblivion. Anyone miss the barrage of Super pac ads? (Those, alas, will probably be back in four years.) The pseudo-candidacy of Donald Trump? (Ditto.) But in last year’s spirited competition for the nadir of our political life the lowest blow may have been the Republicans’ systematic attempts to disenfranchise Democrats. To review: after the 2010 midterm elections, nineteen states passed laws that put up barriers to voting, including new photo-I.D. and proof-of-citizenship requirements, and restrictions on early and absentee voting. In most of those states, Republicans controlled the governorship and the legislature. The purported justification for the changes was to limit in-person voter fraud, but that claim was fraudulent itself, since voter fraud is essentially nonexistent. Mike Turzai, the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, revealed the true intent behind most of the laws last June, when, after the House passed such a measure, he boasted, in a rare moment of candor, “Voter I.D., which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done.” Turzai’s prediction was wrong, but that doesn’t mean that the Pennsylvania law and others like it weren’t pernicious. Obama won in Florida, too, but a recent study by Theodore Allen, an associate professor at Ohio State University, found that, in central Florida alone, long lines, exacerbated by a law that reduced the number of days for early voting, discouraged about fifty thousand people, most of them Democrats, from casting ballots.

Alaska: New District Maps Fail to Pass Muster | Courthouse News Service

For a third time, the Alaska Supreme Court emphasized deference to state law while nixing the latest congressional district lines. Alaska’s redistricting board began redrawing congressional districts in 2011 after receiving data from the 2010 U.S. Census. A federal voting rights expert urged the board to draw district boundaries with a focus on creating “effective” Native districts that give Natives the ability to elect candidates of their own choosing. But when this map led to a slew of lawsuits, a Fairbanks superior court judge threw it out and found that four of the proposed House districts unnecessarily deviated from state constitutional requirements.

New Hampshire: Conservative group trying to block voting lawsuit | Fosters

Does the U.S. Department of Justice have ulterior motives for allowing New Hampshire to be released from a portion of the Voting Rights Act? That’s the theory being advanced by some conservative groups, including The Center for Individual Rights (CIR). Headquartered in Washington, D.C., CIR is questioning the motives behind a decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to release New Hampshire from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. A key piece of civil rights legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1964 guarantees that voters aren’t disenfranchised on account of race or color. It also contains several special provisions that impose stringent federal oversight in certain areas of the country, known as “covered jurisdictions.”

New Hampshire: Conservative Group Attempts To Block New Hampshire’s Bailout From Voting Rights Act | Huffington Post

The state of New Hampshire and the Justice Department agree that the state shouldn’t have to seek permission from the federal government before making changes to its voting laws. But a conservative group that doesn’t think any state should be subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain jurisdictions to pre-clear any such changes, is trying to block New Hampshire’s so-called bailout, alleging it’s all part of a scheme to trick the Supreme Court. The Center for Individual Rights filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit last month to attempt to block New Hampshire from getting out of Section 5, alleging the 10 New Hampshire towns or townships covered by the provision aren’t entitled to a bailout under the law.

National: Supreme Court will revisit the Voting Rights Act | Voxxi

The New Year is likely to amass a wave of issues that will affect Latinos including a pending case in the Supreme Court that revisits a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In Shelby County vs. Holder, the Supreme Court justices will be deciding whether it makes sense to pursue section 5. The provision requires that lawmakers who want to enact changes to voting laws are obligated to seek permission from the federal government in states with a history of discrimination. Advocates argue that without this key provision, federal judges would not have been able to block voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina. It also voided district maps in Texas and prevented early voting in parts of Florida. Yet, critics claim the provision is outdated.

Texas: Court battles on Texas election issues go on and on | Star Telegram

Believe it or not, it’s not too early to start worrying about whether the 2014 party primary elections might be delayed because of the ongoing court fights over redistricting and other issues. That’s right, the same legal battles that delayed this year’s primaries from early March to late May. That’s not a prediction — just saying it could happen. It’s probably more productive for now to get up to date on where the ongoing court battles stand. A lot has happened since spring. The primaries were held, runoffs came in July and there was a pretty big national election in November.

National: Democrats Set Stage for Supreme Court Defense of Voting Rights Act Provision | PBS NewsHour

With the Supreme Court set to hear a challenge to a main provision of the Voting Rights Act in February, advocates argued Wednesday that the November elections only underscored the need for the law and its protections of minority voting rights. The high court will hear a challenge by Shelby County, Ala., that the so-called “pre-clearance” portion of the act, which requires jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to get approval of the Justice Department before making changes to their voting rules, is unconstitutional. But opening a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he was concerned even before Election Day about a “renewed effort in many states to deny millions of Americans access to the ballot box through voter purges and voter identification laws,” adding, “what we saw during the election shows that we were right to be concerned. Purges of voter rolls, restrictions on voter registration, and limitations on early voting…led to unnecessary and avoidable problems.”

Editorials: Voting Rights Under Fire: Why We Still Need Section 5 | Caroline Fredrickson/Huffington Post

They were young African-Americans and supporters of equality marching peacefully from Selma, Ala. to the state’s capital to protest the murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson by police and the denial of voting rights when they were attacked by scores of state police and others, spewing tear gas beating the protestors with billy clubs. Those brutal, revolting attacks were aired nationally by major TV networks, like ABC would prove a catalyst for one of the nation’s most compelling civil rights laws, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Quickly after what was to be known as “Bloody Sunday,” President Lyndon B. Johnson went before a joint session of Congress and unveiled the voting rights measure and provided a stirring, impassioned call for an end to oppression and an expansion of freedom.

North Carolina: Expect state lawmakers to act quickly on Voter ID | Indy Week

If anyone starts an office pool on how soon after convening the General Assembly will pass a Voter ID bill, put me down for an hour and a half. Last session, the GOP-dominated House couldn’t secure enough Democratic defections to override Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto of a bill that would have put North Carolina at the vanguard of a nationwide voter suppression movement. House Bill 351, better known by its Orwellian short title, “Restore Confidence in Government,” would have disenfranchised tens of thousands of North Carolina voters. For hundreds of thousands of others, the measure would have created additional burdens to registering and voting by requiring them to obtain a government-issued photo ID, which in turn requires possession of one’s original birth certificate, a valid passport or other official papers.

National: Senate hearing on voting rights turns partisan | MiamiHerald.com

Senate Democrats and Republicans sparred Wednesday over whether voter ID laws, attempts to purge voter rolls and restricted early voting were legitimate efforts to stop fraud or mainly Republican strategies to hold down Democratic votes. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a onetime Republican who recently turned Democrat, said the state GOP aimed its efforts at Hispanics and African-Americans. They cited as one example the elimination of early voting on the Sunday before the election, when members of those groups historically vote after church.

National: Senate Judiciary Committee taking postelection look at November’s voting problems | kspr.com

A polarized and gridlocked Congress is taking its first look at problems voters had in November, including long lines that left many waiting for hours to cast ballots. The problems went well beyond lengthy waits. A rise in the number of provisional ballots delayed the results for days in some cases. Growing photo ID requirements placed on voters by Republican-controlled state legislatures sparked intense partisan fights. And the time allowed for early voting was too short for many, too long for others. The Senate Judiciary Committee was to examine last month’s balloting during a hearing Wednesday on the Voting Rights Act. But with Congress expected to adjourn within days, any focus on possible fixes won’t occur until next year — if at all. The 1965 law is the federal government’s most potent weapon against racial discrimination in elections, requiring all or parts of 16 states with a history of discrimination in voting to get U.S. approval before making election changes.

Texas: Speedy appeal on voter ID law | SCOTUSblog

The time may be short for the Supreme Court to act on the state of Texas’s power to impose a new voter photo ID law, but the state nevertheless plans to pursue a prompt appeal in hopes of a quick final decision, perhaps during the Justices’ current Term.  The state got permission on Monday to pursue an immediate appeal from a three-judge U.S. District Court in Washington.  That court had ruled against the voter ID law in August. Texas officials already have taken steps to try to get the Justices to rule during the current Term on new redistricting plans for the Texas delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives and for the two houses of its state legislature.  The Justices will consider that appeal at their January 4 Conference, after the state gave up some of its filing rights in order to advance the case.  That would be in time, if the Court accepts review, for a decision before the Justices’ summer recess in late June.  (That case is Texas v. United States, docket 12-496).   If the Court were to move ahead this Term on one or both of the new Texas cases, that would mean a further exploration of the scope — and even the constitutionality — of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

National: Court to hear voting rights case in February | The Hill

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Feb. 27 in a lawsuit that challenges a central provision of the Voting Rights Act. The court announced the scheduling Monday. The case, Shelby County v. Holder, is just one of three high-profile civil rights cases on the court’s docket next year. The justices are also set to rule on affirmative action and same-sex marriage.

Texas: Voter ID Suit Put on Hold Till Supreme Court Rules | Bloomberg

A federal court deferred further proceedings in a lawsuit filed by Texas over the state’s voter identification law until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on whether part of the Voting Rights Act is constitutional. A three-judge panel in Washington said today that “in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy” it will wait for the Supreme Court to review a provision of the 1965 law requiring all or part of 16 mostly Southern states to get federal approval before changing their voting rules. The Texas suit challenges the same provision.

Editorials: States can’t be allowed to limit voting | Contra Costa Times

Seven hours in line to vote? That’s outrageous in America. But many voters faced waits like that on election day because of some states’ attempts to discourage voting rather than encourage it. The federal government has to intervene and set some rules. All Americans should have reasonable access to the polls. California Sen. Barbara Boxer has a proposal she calls the LINE Act that could work. It would require national standards for the number of voting machines, election workers and other resources to ensure no one has to wait longer than an hour to vote.

Editorials: The Election Is Over, but the Voting Rights Fight Is in Full Swing | The Nation

One of the most popular post-election narratives remains that voter suppression efforts were soundly defeated. While the concept is essentially true, it says very little about how voting rights will fare in the near future—or how activists are continuing the work they began to preserve voting rights. Many voter ID measures, cut-offs to early voting and excessive voter purges were blocked or weakened at the state level in 2012, but lawmakers are aiming to propose new measures in 2013. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has announced that it will hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 next year. That’s in addition to Arizona v. InterTribal Council of Arizona, which stems from a rule that demands voters demonstrate proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The two cases, which hinge on the Court’s interpretation of federal legislation that bars discrimination and its interpretation of what’s known as the Motor Voter Act, could make sweeping changes to the ways voting rights are—or are not—protected. Those stakes aren’t lost on community groups around the nation that hope to continue their voting rights work, even without the spotlight of a presidential election.