South Carolina: In Beaufort County, 10 percent of voters must seek photo ID to vote | savannahnow.com

Of Beaufort County’s 92,879 registered voters, 9,674 or just more than 10.4 percent will not be able to vote in the next election unless they obtain a state-approved photo identification card. The United State Department of Justice is reviewing South Carolina’s new voter ID law, which was pushed by Republican state lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. Nikki Haley in May. For the law to go into effect, the federal justice department must issue a decision under the Voting Rights Act, given South Carolina and other southern states’ history of discrimination.

The governor, however, announced that Sept. 28 will be “Identification Card Day,” which will allow any citizen 18 or older who has no valid driver’s license or identification card to request state-sponsored transportation to an office of the Department of Motor Vehicles. Reservations must be made by Sept. 22.

Statewide the new law would bar 178,175 of the state’s 2.5 million registered voters from voting, unless they obtained identification. The affected population with no driver’s license or approved ID makes up 6.96 percent of the state’s registered voters. Under the new law, a military ID or passport would also be OK.

Texas: Redistricting Battle Coming in Texas | Roll Call

The Justice Department will deliver its opening salvo today in Texas’ controversial redistricting case, laying out its initial argument on whether the state’s new Congressional map adheres to the Voting Rights Act.

The department’s legal brief will also give a hint as to how hard the Obama administration will fight for Hispanic voters in a proxy battle against one of the president’s potential opponents next year, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).

“It’s a critical step in figuring where we end up in redistricting, especially Congressional redistricting,” said Michael Li, a Democratic election attorney in Dallas. “It’s the first time Democrats have controlled the Justice Department [during this process] in 40 years, since the Voting Rights Act was enacted. Everyone has been wondering how aggressive the Justice Department is going to be.”

Florida: State allows civil rights groups to intervene in federal voting lawsuit | Miami Herald

Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning on Friday agreed with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to allow civil rights groups and individual legislators to intervene in a lawsuit over whether the state’s recent voter laws suppress minority voting.

Browning has asked the court to take over for the U.S. attorney general’s office and “pre-clear” the law to determine if it is in line with the minority voting protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The new law shortens the number of days available for early voting from 14 to eight days, (although it leaves open the opportunity to extend the number of total hours available for voting.) It also imposes tight limits on third-party voter registration groups and requires an out-of-county voter — such as a student — who tries to change her voting precinct on Election Day to cast a provisional ballot, which can be more easily challenged.

Texas: Voter ID law in federal hands as groups file papers | Star Telegram

The contentious issue of voter ID in Texas is now in the hands of federal officials. On Wednesday, several civil-rights groups filed documents with the Justice Department, asking officials to oppose any early approval or “pre-clearance” of the measure, which fully takes effect in Texas on Jan. 1.

The groups — which include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Asian American Justice Center, the Advancement Project, the Southwest Workers Union, and the New York-based public policy and advocacy group DEMOS — said the law discriminates against black and Hispanic voters.

“This law is a part of the largest legislative effort to turn back the clock on voting rights in our nation in over a century,” said Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the civil-rights “action tank” the Advancement Project. “If this bill is allowed to stand, it will undermine the basic fabric of our nation’s democracy.”

Florida: League of Women Voters Takes Legal Action on New Elections Bill | wctv.tv

Today, the League of Women Voters of Florida and Democracia USA, represented by the Brennan Center for Justice, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and pro bono attorneys from the law firm of Bryan Cave, filed a motion to intervene in the State of Florida’s lawsuit against the Department of Justice over the state’s new elections law. Since the state withdrew the four most contentious sections of the law from DOJ review last month, a federal court must now decide whether or not to “preclear” the law under the National Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The League has advocated against preclearance, arguing that Florida’s new law will reduce opportunities for voting and unlawfully restrict voter registration, disproportionately affecting Florida’s minority population.

 

Editorials: John Nichols: Voter ID rule is a poll tax | madison.com

When Wisconsin legislators passed the most restrictive voter ID law in the country earlier this year, they enacted what legal experts and voting rights activists have correctly identified as a poll tax. Proponents of the law argued otherwise. They pointed out that eligible voters who could not afford a state ID could obtain one without charge.

With the decision of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to direct DMV employees to refrain from actively informing the public about the ability to receive a free identification card for the purposes of voting, however, the potential that the voter ID law could serve as a poll tax becomes realistic — and legally significant. Notably, the head of the DOT is a former Republican legislator with close ties to Gov. Scott Walker, and the author of the memo on denying information to prospective voters is a political appointee.

The term “poll tax” has a sordid history. With roots in the anti-democratic practice of allowing only the landed gentry to vote, poll taxes became even more notorious when they were associated with the efforts of Southern segregationists to deny the franchise to African-Americans. A critical turning point came in 1962 with the ratification of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed poll taxes in federal elections.

Texas: Elections Office In Limbo Over Voter ID Law | KSAT San Antonio

The upcoming Nov. 8 election could be the last one where no photo identification will be needed to vote if the state’s new voter I.D. law is given the needed pre-clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice. Jacque Callanen, Bexar County elections administrator, said normally the review takes 60 days.

“The Texas Secretary of State’s office says that could be by the end of next week,” Callanen said. According to the Voting Rights Act, any possible changes to the state’s election laws require pre-clearance because of the state’s history of discriminatory voting practices.

South Carolina: State Voter ID Laws Draw National Scrutiny | ABC News

The Department of Justice is reviewing, and has the power to reject acontroversial new law passed in South Carolina that requires a registered voter to present a government -issued photo ID before his or her vote is counted.

Gov. Nikki Haley signed the bill into law in May and she’s not alone. Four other states have passed similar voter ID laws in 2011, including Wisconsin, Texas, Tennessee and Kansas. But thanks to the DOJ, South Carolina’s law could still be rejected by federal officials. And while other states have passed voter photo ID laws in the past, the laws passed in 2011 are by far the strictest with the exception of the law passed in 2005 by the state of Indiana.

Arizona: State’s Case Against the Voting Rights Act | The Atlantic

In the past few years, the right to vote–basic to any real democratic self-government–has become controversial again.  Since the Republican sweep of state legislatures in 2010, seven states have enacted fashionable new “voter ID” laws.  No one even pretends these laws won’t make it harder for older, poorer, less white (and, coincidentally, more Democratic) voters to cast a ballot.  (The Supreme Court regrettably gave the go-ahead to these laws in the 2007 case of Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections.)

It is almost surreal that in this moment that Arizona, which is becoming to Latinos what Mississippi once was to African Americans, is now seeking a judicial decree that voting rights are no longer a matter for Congressional concern.

Arizona’s new Republican Attorney General, Tom Horne, filed a suit last month asking a federal court to declare that § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional.  Arizona–in some ways the Mississippi of the 21st Century–is a weird plaintiff, and its claims are even weirder; but weirder claims have succeeded in the past. The Supreme Court signaled in 2009 that it was a bit weary of all this right-to-vote business.  If “state’s-rights” advocates succeed in weakening the Act, and gutting Congress’s enforcement power under the Fifteenth Amendment, it will be a matter of serious concern.

Colorado: 16 counties go forward with English-only ballots after federal delay | The Denver Post

Sixteen Colorado counties are printing ballots this week in English but not Spanish for the November election after waiting in vain for months for a federal Voting Rights Act mandate.

The counties had expected to be ordered by the U.S. Justice Department to supply ballots in Spanish as well as English because populations of Spanish-speaking voters had increased to a level that could trigger a requirement for dual-language ballots under the 1973 act.

But ballots were certified Friday by Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, and a spokesman for his office said it is too late for Spanish ballots. “That ship has sailed,” said Gessler spokesman Rich Coolidge.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID: Is fraud really a concern at the ballot box? | PennLive.com

Forget life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no more fundamental right in the United States than the right to vote. That is because our representative government — of the people, by the people and for the people — is the foundation of every other basic right. And that is why the voter identification proposal about to come before the Pennsylvania Senate is a bad idea in its current form.

The nationwide push for voter identification over the past decade has been led almost entirely by Republicans. Since 2003, 15 states have passed voter ID laws. Five more states have strengthened existing laws to require a photo ID. The goal, of course, is unarguable: that only duly registered U.S. citizens vote in each election.

But while the goal sounds lofty and nonpartisan, the reality is not. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, some 12 percent of Americans do not have a government-issued photo ID. However, that’s not the real story. The percentage is higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities and low-income voters because they are most likely to lack the underlying documentation — the ID you need to get an ID. The voters most likely to lack those IDs tend to vote Democratic.

South Carolina: DOJ Has More Questions About South Carolina’s Voter ID Law | TPM

The Justice Department wants more information about South Carolina’s new voter ID law, which was signed by Gov. Nikki Haley (R) in May. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, South Carolina is required to have changes to the state’s voting laws precleared by federal authorities or by a federal court to insure they’re not discriminatory.

A letter from the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division asks South Carolina for more information about their voter ID law and lays out eight questions about how it will be implemented.

National: Repealing the Voting Rights Act | Technorati

The State of Arizona and its Republican Governor Jan Brewer received a lot of negative press and garnered national attention last year over its immigration legislation that allowed for racial profiling. It also drew the attention of the Obama administration and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Last week, Arizona filed a lawsuit challenging the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Arizona’s Republican Attorney General Tom Horne said that the requirement for the state to get prior approval from the DOJ for any changes to the state’s election laws is unconstitutional.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder responded to the Arizona suit that the Voting Rights Act is vital to ensure that “every American has the right to vote and have that vote counted.” Holder added, “The provisions challenged in this case, including the preclearance requirement, were reauthorized by Congress in 2006 with overwhelming and bipartisan support.” Holder said the DOJ “will continue to enforce the Voting Rights Act, including each of the provisions challenged today.”

Editorials: Democracy Under Attack; Another State Dismantling Voting Rights Act of 1965 | Rolling Out

Perhaps we now know why the earth rumbled beneath the Eastern Seaboard then sustained the wrath of Hurricane Irene as she barreled ashore — in the same area and in the same week. The spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., who was immortalized with a memorial on the National Mall, may have been aroused to anger as yet another state, this one Arizona, is tampering with the Voting Rights Act, one of the measures for which he and others selflessly sacrificed their lives.

Republican attorney general Tom Horne, obviously executing the whims of powerful GOP operatives, has decided to challenge Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a measure that was implemented specifically to protect the rights of the minority electorate. This is a bold and obvious move to further bolster conservatives’ obsession with making President Obama a one-term president.

The same body of individuals has doubtlessly ordered a systematic challenge to this law across the country after the U.S. Supreme Court mysteriously ruled that voting districts could be exempt from the federal law if they can show they’re no longer engaged in race discrimination.

Voting Blogs: Worth the Wait: DOJ Review of South Carolina Photo ID Could Yield First Real Data to Evaluate Claims of Disenfranchisement | PEEA

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Voting Section requested more information from the State of South Carolina regarding a new photo ID law for voters. DOJ is reviewing the new law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires some states and jurisdictions – including SC – to submit their voting changes for approval before they can be enforced.

The request for more information – which gives the state 60 days to respond and will delay DOJ’s decision up to 60 days after the receipt of the new data – came in a letter from Section chief Chris Herren to the office of Attorney General Alan Wilson.

South Carolina: Department of Justice seeks info on voter ID law | The Post and Courier

Read the Department of Justice’s request for more information on SC’s Voter ID law.

South Carolina voters will have wait to find out whether the U.S. Department of Justice will authorize the state’s new voter ID law, following an announcement Monday that federal officials need more information from the state.

Chris Whitmire, spokesman for the State Election Commission, said once state officials supply the information to the Justice Department, a 60-day window will begin for the federal agency to render a decision on the law. The law could be in effect for the November elections, but that will depend on how long the state takes to respond and if the Justice Department takes two full months to decide.

Ohio: Ed FitzGerald, Jon Husted spar over mailing voter forms | cleveland.com

Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald wants the county’s congressional delegation to help stop Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted from banning the Board of Elections from processing mail-in absentee voter applications.
Husted said Friday he is considering prohibiting Cuyahoga County’s Board of Elections from processing applications from people who wish to vote by mail if FitzGerald’s administration goes forward with a plan to mail applications to all active registered voters in the county.

Fitzgerald says the secretary of state’s remarks raise issues about voters’ rights and voter suppression that merit a review by the U.S. Department of Justice. He said his office will forward a transcript of Husted’s remarks to members of the delegation so they can help raise the issue.

South Carolina: Attorney General says State will fight if voter ID law rejected | The Times and Democrat

South Carolina is prepared to pursue litigation on several fronts “up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary,” South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said. Wilson was one of several elected state constitutional officers who spoke at an Orangeburg County Republican Party fundraiser Monday.

One issue involved the state voter ID law submitted to the U.S. Justice Department for review. Wilson said he has “no faith that it will do the right thing.” “I can tell you we won’t lay down on this,” he said.

The state Democratic Caucus lodged a formal objection to the law with the Justice Department last week. The law passed on the strength of the Republican majority in the General Assembly. Justice requested more information Monday before making a decision.

Voting Blogs: Arizona looks to wind back VRA | The Stump

If Lyndon Johnson, the 36th President of the United States of America, was ever going to turn in his grave it might be now. Johnson was the President who, in 1965, signed into law the Voting Rights Act (VRA) which enabled Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders of the time to achieve their dream of helping their fellow African-Americans win the right to vote for the first time. But now the state of Arizona, fresh from passing a fiendishly harsh migration law, wants to wind back the VRA, despite the fact that in 2006 the Senate voted 98-0 to approve the law for another 25 years.

Last Thursday Arizona’s Attorney-General Tom Horne, a Republican, launched legal proceedings that seek to declare as unconstitutional the requirement for states to have any changes they make to voting cleared by the federal government. The so-called “pre-clearance” requirement is viewed by supporters of the VRA as critical because it prevents states making it difficult for minorities to vote through mechanisms such as ballot papers in English only, or having polling booths in predominantly minorities areas.

Editorials: Colorado Congressman Coffman’s attack on voting rights | The Denver Post

Rep. Mike Coffman’s intent to repeal the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act is not only ill-conceived but places the rights of millions of U.S. citizens in jeopardy.

In 1975, Congress expanded the Voting Rights Act by adding language assistance amendments. The effort was spearheaded by Sen. Walter Mondale, D-Minn. Congress added Sections 203 and 4(f) to provide targeted oral or written language assistance to American citizens of voting age who were not fluent in English after finding that the denial of the right to vote among limited English-proficient citizens was “directly related to the unequal educational opportunities afforded them, resulting in high illiteracy and low voting participation.” According to the 2000 Census, three-quarters of all voters covered by Section 203 were native-born, voting-age citizens.

Section 203, the part of the act that Coffman wants to remove, is based on the 14th and 15th Amendments, which guarantee “equal protection and the right to vote without regard to race, color, or previous conditions of servitude.” Consistent with our constitution, Section 203 “prohibits discriminatory practices and procedures that effectively exclude language minorities from participating in the electoral process and provides for appropriate remedies.”

South Carolina: Department of Justice decision due for new voter photo ID law | Houston Chronicle

A decision could come as early as Monday from the U.S. Justice Department on whether voters will have to show state or federal photographic identification for the first time when they vote in South Carolina elections.

Monday marks the end of a 60 day review period for the new law, said Chris Whitmire, spokesman for the state Election Commission. “We expect to hear something by Monday,” Whitmire said. That word could mean approval, rejection or that the Justice Department has more questions and will take more time to review the law. South Carolina’s history of voting rights violations require federal oversight of election law changes, including requiring voters to show photographic identification.

South Carolina: Senate Democrats formally protest voter ID law | Houston Chronicle

South Carolina Senate Democrats said Friday they’ve asked the U.S. Justice Department to reject a new state law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification before they vote. The protest filed by the Senate Minority Caucus comes just days before a Justice Department could release a decision on whether the agency will allow the law to go into effect.

Democrats call the new law the nation’s most restrictive and say it targets a state where blacks voted in equal percentages to whites for the first time in 2008. The new law stands to disenfranchise black and elderly voters, said State Sen. Gerald Malloy, a Hartsville Democrat. “How does our law — which would be the most restrictive in the nation — not abridge the right to vote on account of race?” Malloy said.

Arizona: State sues over Voting Rights Act | Arizona Republic

Arizona has filed another lawsuit challenging the authority of the federal government. This time, the focus of the federal challenge is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Arizona is the first state to challenge the constitutionality of sections of the federal law that forbid states from enacting a law or process that denies or limits someone’s right to vote based on their race or color.

The sections at issue require states that failed to meet certain criteria in 1972 to get federal approval for any state legislation or procedural change that could impact voting. Nine states failed to meet that criteria, which included having low voter turnout and not offering election materials in other languages. The nine states are Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

Arizona: State sues feds over Voting Rights Act | msnbc.com

Opening up a new front in its legal battles with the Obama administration, the state of Arizona on Thursday challenged the federal Voting Rights Act, prompting a swift response from Attorney General Eric Holder.
Other political news of note

“The Voting Rights Act plays a vital role in our society by ensuring that every American has the right to vote and to have that vote counted. The Department of Justice will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act in this case, as it has done successfully in the past,” Holder said.

Arizona is challenging the law’s requirement that the state seek Justice Department approval for any changes in how elections are conducted. Many states are subject to the law’s pre-clearance requirement, generally to remedy past restrictions that discouraged minority voting.

Michigan: Voting rights activists threaten state with lawsuit | Michigan Messenger

A coalition of groups, including Demos, Project Vote, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCRUL), and the NAACP, sent a letter to Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson last week alleging that the state is in violation of federal law requiring voter registration at public assistance offices.

… Nicole Zeitler, an attorney with Project Vote, told the Michigan Messenger that the state is not following the law. “The NVRA requires the state to do more than simply make voter registration ‘available’ at public assistance agencies,” she said. “

Agencies must affirmatively offer a voter registration application form with EVERY application for benefits, recertification, and change of address form, whether or not the client asks for one. Michigan DHS policy, on the other hand—in violation of the NVRA—is to ONLY offer a form IF someone specifically requests one. Furthermore, our field investigations found that only 1 in 4 clients who did request a form received one.”

Texas: State Cites Controversial Bush-Era Approval Of Voter ID Law In Petition To DOJ | TPM

Texas officials are citing the Justice Department’s controversial approval of Georgia’s voter ID law during the Bush administration as a reason for the Obama administration to clear their new law.

… Secretary of State Hope Andrade wrote a letter to the chief of the Civil Rights Division’s voting section defending the measure and seeking preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. Andrade called the Texas law “remarkably similar” to Georgia’s precleared voter ID law. “In fact, DOJ precleared Georgia’s original photo-identification law even before Georgia enacted its free ID provision and its most recent extensive voter education mandate, which Georgia added in a subsequent legislative session.”

But the approval of the Georgia voter ID law was done by political officials in the Bush Justice Department over the objection of career employees in the voting section, who had recommended that the law not be approved.

Editorials: Is ‘open primary’ system for Mississippi? | Desoto Times Tribune

Once again, Mississippi voters, frustrated by not being able to cross party lines to cast ballots for their favorite candidates, are excited about installing an “open primary” election system that neighboring Louisiana has had since 1975.

Not that the Legislature hasn’t tried to scrap the state’s traditional closed primary system. In fact, four times since 1966, lawmakers have passed legislation to put candidates for all parties (and independents) on the same primary ballot without party designation and require a runoff between the two highest finishers.

For various reasons, none of the bills have become law. Mostly it’s been the Justice Department disapproved Mississippi’s proposed changes under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Blacks objected it would block them running as independents in general elections after being historically shut out of the closed Democratic primaries.

Florida: Secretary Of State Pens Incomplete Defense Of Controversial Voting Law | TPM

Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning wrotein an editorial on Thursday that the Justice Department had determined “all 76 provisions” of Florida’s new elections law were not discriminatory, except for the four controversial parts of the law he didn’t want the department to review.

In fact, Browning retracted his submission of four controversial provisions of Florida’s new election law from the pre-clearance process at the Justice Department after the agency started asking questions.

Florida instead took the more expensive route of asking a federal court to decide whether additional provisions — including one that reduces the early voting period from 14 days to eight; another that requires voters who moved from another county to cast provisional ballots; one that requires third-party groups registering voters to turn in all forms within 48 hours — passed the smell test.

Colorado: Colorado congressman wants ballots printed only in English | The Denver Post

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman announced plans Wednesday to introduce legislation that would repeal a section of the 1973 Voting Rights Act that requires jurisdictions with large populations of nonproficient English speakers to print ballots in more than one language.

Coffman, R-Colo., asserts that Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act is an unnecessary and unfunded federal mandate that can be a financial hardship for some jurisdictions because of the increased cost of translating and printing election materials and mailing larger ballots.

South Carolina: Department of Justice says South Carolina Voter ID law can’t be enforced this year | Examiner.com

A recently-passed state law requiring voters to present photo IDs could be delayed. Passed in May, the new law directly affects 178,000 registered voters in South Carolina who are without, or with expired, state-issued photo identification cards.

The problem with the new law is the length of time it could take that high number of residents to receive new IDs.  As a result, it can’t be enforced in elections this year, the U.S. Dept. of Justice said on Tuesday. Robert Cook, deputy attorney general with DOJ, declared “such short time period is beyond the voter’s control.”