The Smoking Gun Evidence of Voter Suppression

The legal battle over Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law began this week with attorneys for the state admitting in court filings that, “There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.”  In plain terms then Pennsylvania's new voter ID law is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

The Pennsylvania ACLU, the Advancement Project ET AL sued the state to block implementation of the new law. The voting rights groups argue that the law will disenfranchise as many as one million Pennsylvania voters in this year’s presidential election. Those most impacted by the law will be the low income, minorities, senior citizens and college students, opponents of the law claim. Pennsylvania ACLU and Advancement Project Attorneys are asserting that the new voter ID law violates the Pennsylvania Constitution which reads in part: “Elections shall be free and equal.” The voting rights organizations contends that if some voters cannot afford to purchase the kinds of identification that the law stipulates then their right to vote will be infringed upon.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett's Rick Perry moment. Youtube Video

In their pre-trial filings to the legal challenge attorneys defending the law also advised that they “are not aware of any instances of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania” and informed the court that they, “will not offer evidence of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania or elsewhere.” At a press conference on Wednesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett suffered a Rick Perry moment when, in response to a reporter’s question, he could not name all of the forms of acceptable identification the voter ID bill that he signed into law mandates.

Why the zeal for voter ID laws when proponents can’t provide evidence that fraud is talking place? Perhaps the real motivations behind the voter ID push can be found in a piece of video tape. In the video a PA legislator, Republican Mike Tauzai, tells an audience that the state’s new voter ID law “will help Mitt Romney win the White House,” click here for video.  Attorney Judith Browne-Dianis of the Advancement Project referred to the video as, “The smoking gun evidence of voter suppression.”
Voter ID bills that were introduced and signed into law since 2010 are transparent in their design to disenfranchise certain voters for the partisan advantage of one political party, the GOP.

Presenting valid identification at the polling place before voting seems, on the surface, plain enough. But consider this, nearly every incarnation of voter ID bills that have been introduced since 2010 mid-term elections have several communalities:
1. Since 2010 voter ID bills have been introduced by Republican state legislators - almost exclusively and when passed, signed into law by GOP governors - exclusively. 
2. Voter ID laws place a financial burden (a poll tax) on low income voters, minorities, senior citizens and college students - groups that typically vote Democratic and are expected to vote overwhelmingly for the reelection of President Obama and for Democratic candidates running for office this November. 3. Voter ID bills/laws introduced in 2010 do not grandfather in, IE exempt, senior citizens who have issues of mobility and therefore do not have a current driver license or passport. Many also may not have a birth certificate.  4. The new laws take effect immediately instead of two-four years later. This unnecessary immediacy denies election officials enough time to prepare and deprives voters of enough time to acquire the necessary identification as stipulated. 5. In every instance proponents claim that the laws are necessary to protect the integrity of the voting process and yet, the proponents of voter ID laws are unable to present a scintilla of evidence that voter fraud is taking place.  


by Brent Scott

Executive Director of Vote by Mail America

Rigging the Game in the Keystone State

As if any further proof was necessary, a Republican lawmaker from Pennsylvania has openly admitted that the GOP sponsored voter ID law was designed for partisan advantage. On June 25^th the Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Rep. Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny), told an audience that Pennsylvania’s  new voter ID law “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” The comment earned this response from Steve Benen of the Maddow Blog, “the state lawmaker's candor was a reminder that Pennsylvania's voter-ID law isn't about the integrity of the process; it's about ensuring Republican victories by rigging the game.

Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny), Youtube video

The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting that “More than 758,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania do not have photo identification cards from the state Transportation Department, putting their voting rights at risk in the November election, according to data released Tuesday by state election officials.

The report continues, “The new numbers, based on a comparison of voter registration rolls with PennDot ID databases, shows the potential problem is much bigger, particularly in Philadelphia, where 186,830 registered voters - 18 percent of the city's total registration - do not have PennDot ID."

Let there be no confusion, the GOP is trying to “fix” the 2012 presidential election.  This is no time for those who fight on the side of the angles to sit one out.  Both the Obama Justice Department and voting and civil rights organizations have ample grounds on which to challenge the Pennsylvania voter ID law (read voter suppression) in court.

by Brent Scott

An absence of honor

Let’s imagine that a BIG GAME is to be played this November. The BIG GAME is football and will be played in the state capitol at the state university’s football stadium. The two teams playing against each other consist of a state university (LSU for example) versus a private university (Tulane University for example). The two teams have a long and storied rivalry and fans on both sides are excited to see this year’s BIG GAME. Now, let’s imagine that political leaders want the state university team to win so badly that they wrote a new law specifically configured to benefit the state university.

Under the new law, the Tulane University football team must be in town 48 hours before the BIG GAME is to be played. Each Tulane team player must submit to a medical examination 24 hours before the game, at their own expense. Finally, each Tulane team player must prove their American citizenship by presenting their birth certificate to state officials before they are allowed to take the field. As prescribed in the new law, failure of any one Tulane team player to comply with or satisfy any one of the new rules will result in an automatic disqualification of the whole Tulane University football team and, a forfeiting of the BIG GAME.

Now, let us imagine that due to the new law the BIG GAME is never actually played, Therefore LSU wins by forfeiture and, the LSU football team, their families and their fans are proud of their victory and exuberant in their celebrations.

If the above scenario strikes you as grossly unfair, outrageously Un-American or too shameful to even imagine - then you have more dignity, moral fortitude and respect for the American ideal of fair play than the nearly one dozen GOP governors and hundreds of Republican state legislators who have passed game fixing voter ID laws specifically for partisan advantage. Let there be no confusion, the GOP is trying to “fix” the 2012 presidential election. According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, since 2010 Republican officeholders have introduced 180 bills to restrict voting rights.

Somehow, GOP leaders have convinced themselves that disenfranchising millions of American voters is an acceptable political exercise. As a pretext for their actions, they claim to be protecting the integrity of American elections. And, voter ID laws are not the only game fixing tactics that Republican leaders have pulled out of their voter assault arsenal. In Maine the GOP controlled legislature eliminated election day voter registration. In Florida GOP legislators passed a law that hindered voter registration drives. In both instances the victories were short lived. Voters in Maine overturned the legislature’s banning of election day voter registration and in Florida a federal judge has struck down the parts of the law that were intended to impede registration of new voters.

Football is an all American sport. We expect each game to be played on an even playing field that does not provide an advantage or disadvantage for either team. But, in politics of late the ideal of American fairness and evenhandedness has been muddied. It is not “alright,” no matter what spurious argument is offered by Republican partisans, to tip the scales of American elections to the advantage of one political party. Today’s leaders of the Party of Lincoln have abandoned a quintessential American principle - the principle of victory with honor. Disenfranchising American voters for partisan gain is Un-American. Any electoral win under such convention represents a  hollow victory. A man or woman who  assumes office under a "game fixing" arrangement is contemptuous of democracy and, has no honor.
by Brent Scott, Executive Director of Vote by Mail America

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