NAACP wins National Voter Registration Act case

In a case brought by the NAACP, a federal judge ruled that the state of Louisiana was in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993.  U.S. District Judge Jane Richie Milazzo of the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that state officials must provide voter-registration materials and assistance to welfare recipients whether benefits are applied for in person, online, through the mail and over the telephone.

“The court's ruling will ensure that low-income individuals will not be denied voter-registration services because of advancing technology,” said Sarah Brannon, director of the Public Agency Voter Registration Program at Project Vote, which is based in Washington, D.C. “The court recognized that the mandates of the NVRA are not limited to in-person visits to public-assistance offices.” Project Vote is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that promotes voting in historically underrepresented communities.

President Bill Clinton signing the National Voter Registration Act, 1993

The state of Louisiana argued in the case titled Ron Ferrand, Et AL versus Tom Schedler, ET AL, that state public-assistance agencies only were required to offer voter-registration forms and assistance to clients who registered in person or in one of the local offices.

Dale Ho, assistant counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), said, “The vast majority of Louisiana's public-assistance clients never step foot in a state office….Louisiana's refusal to enforce NVRA risks denying tens of thousands of our poorest citizens a clear path to voter registration.”

In her ruling, Judge Milazzo wrote, “That mandating ‘in person’ requirements to Section 7 frustrates the plain intent of the NVRA. It is evident to this court that Congress’s purpose in enacting the NVRA was to ensure that all Americans are affirmatively provided an opportunity to register to vote. Congress made this intent clear when it uses such language as ‘in addition’ and ‘each.’ Thus, the reading of section 7 as applying to each transaction, whether it be in person or remote serves to accomplish the clear goal of Congress by ensuring access for public-assistance clients to the appropriate forms, no matter how they contact the public assistance offices.”

by Brent Scott: Executive Director of Vote by Mail America

Federal court: "overt racial discrimination persist"

The US Court of Appeals in Washington DC has upheld the preclearance
requirement under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). In a 2-1 decision the court found (in a challenge brought by Shelby County, Alabama) that “overt racial discrimination persists” in the covered jurisdictions - which includes 9 states and dozens of counties and municipalities that were found to have used discriminatory devices in the past to prevent minorities from voting. “Several categories of evidence in the record support Congress’s conclusion that intentional racial discrimination in voting remains so serious and widespread in covered jurisdictions that Section 5 preclearance is still needed,” wrote Judge David Tatel. The Voting Rights Act is “a cornerstone” of civil rights law, and the department will fight constitutional challenges to it” said Justice Department spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa.

President George W. Bush at the 2006 VRA reauthorization signing ceremony. Google Images

　

There is a concerted move on by right leaning political organizations and Republican politicians to present legal challenges to the preclearance requirement. The states of Texas, South Carolina and Mississippi have passed voter ID laws (either legislatively or by referendum) that triggered legal challenges by the US Department of Justice and/or from public interest organizations such as the NAACP. The hope of these organizations and GOP politicians is to get the issue before the US Supreme Court, where the conservative leaning majority may vote to strike down the preclearance provision. See: The Nation

The Voting Rights Act was first signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson and has been renewed and/or amended by Congress on several occasions. The most recent 25 year reauthorization of the VRA was signed by President George W. Bush in 2006.

by Brent Scott, Exe. Dir. VBMA

President Obama's profile in courage

Over the years I have heard TV and radio talk show host lament that "news" is always made whenever they take a vacation. So when President Obama made his endorsement of marriage equality "news" last week I wondered which hosts and columnist would lament taking a vacation in early May for years to come. My next thought was literally, "what knots will members of the opposition GOP twist and tie themselves into over this issue?" Of course, I knew just what to expect from the mild "I support traditional marriage," to the political, "the president is just pandering," to the downright ugly - this from former Louisiana State Representative and failed US Senate candidate, Tony Perkins, now president of the Family Research Council ,"From opposing state marriage amendments to refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) to giving taxpayer funded marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the President has undermined the spirit if not the letter of the law."

ABCNews

Make no mistake about it, whether one agrees or disagrees with 
President Obama on Marriage Equality, this was a profile in courage moment. Consider this, only days before the president took this stance, voters in North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment banning recognition of same gender marriage in that state. Indeed, in more than 30 states voters have passed laws and constitutional amendments either banning same gender marriage and/or refusing to recognize same gender marriages from other states. For the president to make his endorsement then, seemingly against popular opinion, took courage and a great deal of it. President Obama joins brave American Presidents from Lincoln who declared war to end slavery to FDR who famously stated during a time of economic depression and brewing world war that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson who stood against racial hatred and segregation. 

If we are to believe polls, President Obama has high personal approval ratings from the American people. As was stated by Vice President Albert Gore in his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2000, "the Presidency is more than a popularity contest. It's a day-by-day fight for people. Sometimes, you have to choose to do what's difficult or unpopular. Sometimes, you have to be willing to spend your popularity in order to pick the hard right over the easy wrong."

by Brent Scott
Executive Director of Vote by Mail America

Another day, another voter suppression law

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has entered the suppress the vote wars. A new law that would require photo ID in order to vote is being challenged in court by several public interest organizations including the ACLU. The lawsuit, filed in Commonwealth Court, said the law violates the state constitution's "free and equal" elections clause and another clause that establishes qualifications to vote in Pennsylvania. If allowed to stand the new law would negatively impact college students, senior citizens, low income individuals and minorities, groups that are expected to vote heavily for President Obama in November. Pennsylvania is a swing state.

In 2010 Republicans won majorities in both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature and the governorship. As in other state where Republicans won control of the legislature and/or the governorship, new voter ID bills have been introduced and passed including in Florida, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Arizona, Tennessee, Texas and Ohio. Voters have responded negatively to the vote suppression laws - filing law suits and/or gathering petitions to overturn the laws via the ballot box. Tennessee Republicans were embarrassed when a "free voter ID card" was denied to Dorothy Cooper, a 96 year old Black woman. In Ohio voters have collected enough signatures to put that state's voter ID law on hold until it can be decided in a referendum this November.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) blocked the South Carolina voter ID law. A state judge struck down the Wisconsin voter ID law, saying that it violated the state's own constitution and in Maine voters quickly overturned a GOP passed law that ended the state's decades long practice of election day voter registration, known as Same Day Voter Registration.

By Brent Scott, Executive Director: Vote by Mail America
Edited by: Jason Nicoletti

Obama tackles voter suppression laws

The NY Times is reporting that field staff for President Obama’s campaign are fanning out across the country to confront the “barrage” of GOP passed voter ID laws. Many of these vote suppression laws, including those in Florida and Wisconsin, are the subject of legal challenges. Earlier this year, voters in Maine overturned a GOP passed law that ended same day voter registration. The President’s campaign apparently wants to be prepared for either situation, the laws being struck down or upheld. 
In the 2010 midterm elections GOP candidates won 29 of 50 governorships and took majority control of an additional 19 state legislative chambers that were controlled by Democrats. What happened next, Ann Sanner of the Associated Press reported that state legislatures under new Republican control are moving to trim early-voting days, beef up identification requirements and put new restrictions on how voters are notified about absentee ballots. In Florida, the GOP led legislature went further, adding an onerous new requirement of 48 hours for groups registering voters to turn in the voter registration forms.  Posted by Brent Scott, Executive Director of Vote by Mail America

Early voting under "a sneak attack"

Last November, in a stinging rebuke of GOP Gov. John Kasich, voters in Ohio overturned SB 5, which was widely regarded as an anti-union law. SB 5 placed new restrictions on collective bargaining for public employees. In what may prove to be an
embarrassing case of history repeating, Ohio voters may vote to overturn the vote  suppressing HB 194, that was signed into law by the governor in July of 2011. 
On December 9, 2011 the Ohio Secretary of State certified that supporters of a referendum to overturn HB 194 had collected sufficient signatures to qualify the measure for the November 6, 2012 statewide ballot, concurring with the presidential election.

Now, in a move Democratic State Rep. Kathleen Clyde of Kent described as a "sneak attack" on early voting, Ohio Senate Republicans have begun a push for legislative repeal of HB 194 ahead of the scheduled Nov. 6, 2012 election, perhaps hoping to avoid what is likely to be a second stinging rebuke at the polls for the governor and the GOP controlled legislature.
As reported in the Akron Beacon Journal, "the repeal bill seeks to reinstate one of the most objectionable features of HB 194 -- imposing a deadline on in-person absentee voting starting the Friday before Election Day, cutting off a three-day window when interest reaches its peak." Read ABJ editorial

Poisonous to democracy

For the second time a Wisconsin state judge has struck down, as unconstitutional, the constrversial SB 6 voter ID law.

Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess issued the permanent injunction, finding the law unconstitutional because it would abridge the right to vote. He wrote in his eight-page ruling that "voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression." Report.

Disenfranchising voters in "absurd" ways
By Brent Scott

On May 19, 2011 the Wisconsin legislature passed a controversial voter ID bill, SB 6. A few days later Gov. Scott Walker signed it into law. On March 7, 2012, in a case brought by the Milwaukee NAACP, Dane County Judge David Flanagan temporarily blocked enforcement of the law. In his opinion, Judge Flanagan noted: the law disenfranchises voters, sometimes in absurd ways, and targets a problem that is only slightly more real than fairies and unicorns. Reuters article.

In his ruling Judge Flanagan explains, the Wisconsin Constitution provides particularly strong protections for the right to vote — "[e]very United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district," regardless of whether or not they have an ID. Moreover, the state supreme court has interpreted this constitutional provision very robustly. "Voting is a constitutional right," according to the Wisconsin supremes, "any statute that denies a qualified elector the right to vote is unconstitutional and void." more