As States Rush to Restrict Voting Rights, Justice Ginsburg Says I Told You So

[AdamSmith]

As States Rush to Restrict Voting Rights, Justice Ginsburg Says I Told You So

Elspeth Reeve 19 hours ago

In the month since the Supreme Court struck down the pre-clearance formula of the Voting Rights Act, Texas, Florida and North Carolina are working on rules designed to make it harder to vote. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent in Shelby County v. Holder, is not surprised. "I didn't want to be right, but sadly I am," she told the Associated Press' Mark Sherman.

When the Shelby verdict was handed down the day after a less-sweeping decision on affirmative action, The New York Times' Linda Greenhouse postulated that Ginsburg, who dissented in both, was expressing regret for signing on with a 2009 decision in which Chief Justice John Roberts expressed great skepticism about the VRA's Section 5 — "things have changed in the South" — but did not strike it down. "Why did the liberal justices sign on to the Northwest Austin opinion in 2009? Clearly, it was the price of the compromise to buy the Voting Rights Act a little more time," Greenhouse writes.

In her interview with the Associated Press, Ginsburg indicates that's what happened. "I think in the first voting rights case, there was a strong impetus to come down with a unanimous decision with the thought that maybe Congress would do something about it before we had to deal with it again... But I suppose with the benefit of hindsight, I might have taken a different view." Congress did not act then. It looks unlikely Congress will act now. Here's what the states are doing to take advantage of that.

North Carolina

On Thursday night, North Carolina's legislature passed a voter ID bill that now goes to Gov. Pat McCrory's desk for signature. It's a set of changes to its voting laws that, Mother Jones' Kevin Drum writes, are "astonishing" in their scope:

• Require voter ID at polling places.
• Reduce the early voting period from 17 days to 10 days.
• Prohibit counties from extending poll hours by one hour on Election Day even in extraordinary circumstances, such as in response to long lines. (Those in line at closing time would still be allowed to vote.)
• Eliminate pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, who currently can register to vote before they turn 18.
• Outlaw paid voter registration drives.
• Eliminate straight-ticket voting.
• Eliminate provisional voting if someone shows up at the wrong precinct.
• Allow any registered voter of a county to challenge the eligibility of a voter rather than just a voter of the precinct in which the suspect voter is registered.

One amendment that failed? Allowing people without a photo ID to cast a ballot if they could meet the requirements for mail-in absentee ballots, WRAL explains. Democratic voters tend to use early voting, while Republican voters tend to use absentee voting. A Justice Department lawsuit to stop the new law is possible, The Washington Post reports.

Florida

On Wednesday, a federal court dismissed a lawsuit that said a purge of voter rolls in Florida would have to be pre-cleared by the Justice Department under the VRA. Since the pre-clearance formula has been found unconstitutional, the lawsuit is moot. Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner said in court filings the state would resume the purge, the Associated Press reports, lifting a five-month-old stay that blocked the state from giving the names of people it suspected weren't citizens to county election officials.

Last year, some of the names listed for removal were citizens. But now the state says its list will be accurate because it can access a national immigration database, the Associated Press reports. Florida Reps. Ted Deutch and Alcee Hastings asked Gov. Rick Scott to stop the purge on Thursday.

Texas

Immediately after the Shelby County v. Holder decision, Texas announced it would go though with a voter ID law that was passed in 2011 but blocked by the Justice Department. The law requires a state-issued ID to vote (notably, a concealed-carry permit counts.) As The Atlantic Wire's Philip Bump noted, the state's research showed that Latinos were less likely to have such an ID, so the law would keep more Latinos from voting than non-Latinos.

On Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department would ask a federal court in Texas to require the state to get pre-clearance for new voting laws. Holder also said the department would support a lawsuit by Texas Democrats that challenges the state's redistricting plan.

We should have seen this coming, the Supreme Court justice says. "The notion that because the Voting Rights Act had been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn't make any sense to me," Ginsburg says. "And one really could have predicted what was going to happen."

http://news.yahoo.com/states-rush-restrict-voting-rights-justice-ginsburg-says-162252733.html

[RA1]

Somebody (or everybody) jump on me and explain why some of these "new" rules are so onerous. Let me mention a couple of the NC rules.

1. Picture ID. Even though I am a multiple of the legal age to buy beer, I have to show a picture ID to buy it in a grocery store and elsewhere.

2. Reducing early voting from 17-10 days. Why not make early voting year round? There has to be some limit. What is so onerous about "only" 10 days?

3.Extending polling hours. Ditto the above. Some limit is necessary or it would take "forever" to count the votes. What is unreasonable about a polling official going to the end on the line at closing time and saying, you are the last voter?

I don't know the point, for or against, most of the rest of the NC rules but the legislature voted them in and can vote them out, just like voters can do the same with the legislators.

Best regards,

RA1

[ihpguy]

Well it actually is a bit difficult to vote them out if you cannot get into the poll to vote.

Much of the state has already been gerrymandered to favor the republicans. Just look to Pennsylvannia for proof of that. I think ditto for Ohio if I remember correctly.

For many of the working poor, every cent does count. Normally these state ID's are not issued without a charge.

To obtain a State ID, when do they have time get one? And if the person does not drive, it might entail some long bus rides. The repubs are counting on these voters to have a WTF moment and just give up. It is just easier to let it slide.

It takes a lot to motivate a great part of the electorate to go to the polls on election day. Or even to know where their poll is and if it has moved. One only has to remember the long lines in Florida in 2000, to realize how important all of this should be to a great many more people.

[AdamSmith]

Somebody (or everybody) jump on me and explain why some of these "new" rules are so onerous.

I think you know what I'll say, but to roll it out:

The new NC laws are pernicious because they will have the effect of making it more difficult for citizens to vote.

You recall how Ervin opened the Watergate hearings:

What they were seeking to steal was not the jewels, money or other property of American citizens, but something much more valuable -- their most precious heritage, the right to vote in a free election.

That of course is exactly what is going on here. The practical effect of these new rules will be to narrow enfranchisement.

If you think that is a good thing for democracy, then huzzah.

But the cost/benefit arguments, I think, need to be pretty compelling indeed to justify fixing problems that are either nonexistent, or of minimal burden compared with the disenfranchising cost of the fix. For example the curtailment of early voting and of extended polling hours.

Likewise the new voter ID law, purportedly needed to guard against voter fraud. What fraud? Well, here in NC:

In 2012, nearly 7 million ballots were cast in the general and two primary elections. Of those 6,947,317 ballots, the state Board of Elections said 121 alleged cases of voter fraud were referred to the appropriate district attorney's office.

That means of the nearly 7 million votes cast, voter fraud accounted for 0.00174 percent of the ballots.

Looking back at the 2010 election cycle -- which was not a presidential year -- 3.79 million ballots were cast and only 28 cases of voter fraud were turned over to the appropriate DA's office. So in 2010, voter fraud accounted for 0.000738 percent of ballots cast.

http://www.wncn.com/story/22934120/widespread-voter-fraud-not-an-issue-in-nc-data-shows

Your comparison is to the ID required to buy beer. If voter fraud were remotely as popular as underage drinking, you might have a point. Even so, I wonder if consumer access to controlled substances merits quite the same level of protection as the right to vote.

Besides the basic antagonism toward the democratic process of any disenfranchising measure, there is the blatant dishonesty in this Republican legislature and governor using these fig leaves to enact measures crafted specifically to suppress Democratic voter participation. Nothing new here, but it reeks nonetheless.

[RA1]

iphguy-

Thanks for the reply.

Democrats also gerrymander districts.

TN for one issues ID's free and tries to make it easy to get one. They even open offices on Saturdays to make it so.

If they do not drive and have no ID, how do they buy beer? There are so many "modern" things that require a government issued picture ID I do not see how many except the extreme poverty stricken can do without one. Sorry to say, those folks are doing without a lot and voting may or may not be any help to their daily lives.

If you don't know where your polling place is, do you have the IQ to cast a reasoned vote. I realize that IQ is not a requirement to vote in the US but it would be nice if voters were informed, would it not?

I am not arguing with you or naysaying your comments, just presenting my or another side of same.

Thanks.

Best regards,

RA1

[RA1]

AS-

As usual, you make it more difficult to disagree.

I have no idea how much voter fraud exists and I think few others do either. If there is no ID of the voters and anyone can just show up and vote, how does anyone actually know? OTOH, any citizen who can "prove" he is a citizen by ID who just wants to go to the nearest polling place should be able to cast a vote (according to me), but he should be able to and required to prove he is a citizen of not only the US but also the local area. I realize that is a "flaming" idea.

I have no wish to make it more difficult for US and local citizens to vote, more or less regardless of their other qualifications. However, life is full of obstacles put in front of us all to achieve our goals. Politics is elemental but fraught with consequences.

Thanks for the reply.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest EXPAT]

if getting picture IDs cost money then you have a toll to vote and that is unconstitutional. So eventually it will have to be free to get legal picture IDs and very easy to get them as well otherwise it will be easy to sue that there is a voting toll.

[ihpguy]

Here in the Rio metro area, most everything is going to ID via fingerprint. One now registers to vote here and they take an image of your thumbprint. Of course, everyone is de facto required to carry a picture ID for many transactions as well. But there are no voter ID books/binders at the polls, it is all now done electronically.

Also, not sure how this all works, but just a thumprint as an ID for certain bank transactions - no need for a card anymore. As I don't have fingerprints - readable/scannable ones) I am left out of the mix down here.

[RA1]

That is interesting. If I am not intruding, why do you not have fingerprints?

Best regards,

RA1

[ihpguy]

If I told you, I'd have to kill you. NOT!

[AdamSmith]

North Carolina Republicans slammed over 'suppressive' voting bill

State on collision course with Justice Department over bill experts say will damage rights of poor, elderly and minorities

• Paul Lewis in Washington
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 27 July 2013 10.40 EDT

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are set to pass a wide-ranging repeal of voting-rights protections. Photograph: David Becker/Getty Images

North Carolina is set to introduce what experts say is the most "repressive" attack on the rights of African American voters in decades, barely a month after the US supreme court struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act.

The bill, which was passed by the state's Republican-dominated legislature this week, puts North Carolina on collision course with Eric Holder, the attorney general, who has announced plans to protect voter rights in Texas.

Civil rights advocates and experts in election law are stunned by the scope of the new law. What began in April as a 14-page bill mainly focused on introducing more stringent ID rules, ostensibly to guard against voter fraud, snowballed over the last week as it passed through the North Carolina senate. By the time it was passed by both houses late on Thursday night, the bill had become a 57-page document containing a raft of measures opposed by voting rights organisations.

If the bill is passed by the state's Republican governor, Pat McCrory, voters will be required to present government-issued photo IDs at the polls, and early voting will be shortened from 17 days to 10. Voting rights experts say studies reveal that both measures would disproportionately affect elderly and minority voters, and those likely to vote Democrat.

The bill also ends same-day registration. Instead, voters in the state will be required to register, update their address or make any other needed changes at least 25 days ahead of any election. It also abolishes a popular high-school civics program that registers tens of thousands of students to vote each year, in advance of their 18th birthdays. And it ends straight-ticket voting, the practice of voting for every candidate fielded by a party has on an election ballot, a provision that has been in place in the state since 1925.

Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California and one of the country's foremost experts on electoral law, said:

It rolls into a single piece of legislation just about all of the tools we've seen legislatures use in recent years to try to make it harder for people to register and vote.

Hasen described the bill as "probably the most suppressive voting measure passed in the United States in decades".

'A sad day'

Voting rights activists stand outside the supreme court in Washington. Photograph: MCT /Landov / Barcroft Media

The bill has only been made possible because of a controversial supreme court decision, handed down on 25 June, which effectively halted the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The law, one of the cornerstones of civil rights era, was designed to prevent racial discrimination against voters in North Carolina, Texas and other (mostly southern) States.

On Thursday, in an effort to get round the supreme court ruling, Holder announced his department would be asking a federal court in San Antonio to require the state of Texas to obtain advance approval before putting future certain election decisions in place. Holder also promised to take "aggressive action against any jurisdiction that attempts to hinder free and fair access to the franchise". It now seems likely that North Carolina will be next on his list of targets.

William Yeomans, a law professor in Washington and a former chief of staff in the Justice Department, said Texas and North Carolina may just be the start of a series of legal battles over voter rights in states across the country. Voter ID laws in Alabama and Mississippi could be possible future targets.

Yeomans said the North Carolina legislation represented "a sad day" for democracy in the US.

It is clearly designed to suppress the vote. It is clearly designed to reshape the electorate to suite the needs of the Republican party. One of the ways they are going to do that is by disenfranchising minority voters.

He added: "It was sadly predictable that this sort of thing was going to happen once the supreme court gutted the Voting Rights Act."

Before last month's supreme court ruling, North Carolina would have been required to seek permission from a federal court or the Justice Department before enacting its rules changes. The requirement, known as "preclearance", was designed to ensure voting changes in certain jurisdictions were not discriminatory.

After the supreme court's ruling, state legislators can alter their voting rules without federal interference – although they are still open to challenge in the courts. Unless Governor McCrory objects to the rule changes passed this week, they will come into effect in just over a month's time.

Sonia Gill, associate counsel at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, described the bill as the "most repressive" legislation she had recently come across. "It throws everything that might damage voter rights in one large package of changes that is going to be devastating for voters in North Carolina," she said.

In addition to the voting rights changes, the North Carolina bill weakens transparency regulations designed to reveal who is underwriting campaign ads. Political parties will be enabled to rake in unlimited corporate donations. The cap on individual campaign donations in North Carolina will rise from $4,000 to $5,000.

'We understand there will be lawsuits'

Protests against decisions made by North Carolina lawmakers can be read on signs made by members of a grassroots movement fighting budget cuts and attacks on democracy. Photograph: Dj Werner/ DJ Werner/Demotix/Corbis

Defending the changes, Republicans in the state claimed the changes will restore faith in elections and prevent voter fraud, which they claim is endemic and undetected. However, records show only a handful of documented cases of in-person voter fraud prosecuted in the state over the last decade, out of 30 million ballots cast.

"We understand there will be lawsuits," said the state senate leader, Phil Berger.

It's our belief the laws we are passing are consistent with constitutional requirements and they will be upheld.

Nonpartisan voting rights groups argue that the true goal is suppressing voter turnout among the young, the old, the poor and minorities. They point out that the changes will almost certainly benefit the Republicans legislators who are implementing them.

Although the new voting rules are likely to be challenged, the recent supreme court ruling deprives civil rights attorneys of one of the key instruments used to challenge electoral rules that are perceived to be discriminatory.

In the Texas case, which relates to redistricting, the Justice Department is filing what is known as a statement of interest, in support of the private groups that have filed suit. The move rests on a case last year in Texas, in which evidence was presented of "intentional" discrimination in the way electoral districts were drawn-up.

However the clause that allows the department to intervene in Texas cannot currently be applied in North Carolina. If the department chooses to challenge North Carolina's legislation, it will need to find another section of the Voting Rights Act that survived the supreme court ruling – or another legal statute altogether.

Either way, well-placed observers say that Holder's department is likely to find a way to challenge North Carolina. "I think they are likely to get involved in this one," said Richard Hasen, whose latest book examines "voting wars" across the US since 2000. "It is pretty clear that they are going for broke here. They are going to go after these states as aggressively as they can."

In his speech this week, Holder sounded defiant. He said he would not be discouraged by the supreme court decision on the Voting Rights Act and promised to "fully utilise the law's remaining sections to ensure that the voting rights of all American citizens are protected". After announcing legal action against Texas, Holder also made a point of criticising an attempted photo ID law in South Carolina. He also said that while the action in Texas was the first step by the department since the supreme court decision, "it will not be our last".

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department press spokesman until 2011 who remains close to Holder, said North Carolina's measure would "almost certainly" elicit a legal challenge from the department. "It is very hard to look at this legislation and see it as anything other than an attempt to stop people from voting," he said."They can cloak it in as much of the anti-fraud language they want but it is just a naked power grab.

"If you do an analysis of the Texas statute and find it is discriminatory, it is hard to see how you would not reach the same conclusion with this statute in North Carolina."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/27/north-carolina-republicans-voting-rights-bill