Under judicial review, voter ID laws crumble

“A citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.” In Ohio, that right to participate equally has been abridged…” So was the opinion of federal court Judge Peter Economus who suspended the Ohio Revised Code ‘ 3509.03 and the Ohio Secretary of State’s further interpretation of that statute with regard to in-person early voting.

In July, President Obama’s reelection campaign filed a lawsuit claiming that a recently enacted Ohio law eliminating early voting in the three days before an election, except for members of the military, violates the Constitution’s guarantee that all voters enjoy equal access to the franchise. The campaign’s lawsuit called for the right of all voters to cast an early ballot be restored.

In his ruling Judge Economus noted that “In 2005, Ohio expanded participation in absentee balloting and in-person early voting to include all registered Ohio voters. Now, “in-person early voting” has been redefined by the Ohio legislature to limit Plaintiffs’ access to the polls… Following Supreme Court precedent, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated a constitutional claim that is likely to succeed on the merits. As a result—and as explained below—this Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Source

 

 

In another instance of a voter ID law collapsing under legal challenge,  a Federal court struck down the Texas voter ID statute that was signed into law in 2011 by Republican Gov. Rick Perry. Calling it “discriminatory,” on August 30^th, a three-judge panel unanimously agreed with the argument made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder - that Texas failed to show the law will not have "the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race." The judges said the new law would require tens of thousands of registered Texas voters who are poor and do not drive cars to travel to a state motor vehicle office to obtain the required state photo ID card. And one-third of Texas counties do not have a Department of Public Safety (DPS) office, they noted. “Even the most committed citizen, we think, would agree that a 200- to 250-mile round trip — especially for would-be voters having no driver’s license — constitutes a substantial burden on the right to vote,” said Judge David Tatel in unanimous opinion. The ruling is the first during the Obama administration by a federal court holding that a strict voter identification law violates the Voting Rights Act. Source

Thus far, state and federal courts have struck down voter ID and other laws and policies that were passed or imposed by GOP controlled state legislatures, governors and Secretaries of State in Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, Iowa and Ohio. Maine state voters overturned a GOP sponsored law that ended election day voter registration. The Justice Department blocked South Carolina’s voter ID law. The GOP dominated Michigan state legislature passed a restrictive voter ID bill but, the bill was vetoed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. Only in the state of Pennsylvania has a court upheld a voter ID law. The Pennsylvania law is currently being reviewed on appeal by that state’s Supreme Court. Since the lower court ruling upholding the law it has been revealed that many senior citizens who are inductees of the Pennsylvania Voter Hall of Fame do not have the proper ID in order to vote in the Nov. 6 Presidential election  CNBC’s “Mad Money” host, Jim Cramer, tweeted that his elderly father would not be able to vote under the new law. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation quickly sent the elder Cramer a free voter ID. But for the rest of the nearly one million Keystone State voters who have been made ineligible to vote, Washington Post reporter Ann Gerhart chronicled the laborious struggle of what one Philadelphia resident (a 54 year old African American woman who has been a registered voter in Pennsylvania since she was 19 years old) endured in order acquire the newly required photo ID. Watch Ann Gerhart on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews.

by Brent Scott, Executive Director of Vote by Mail America

ReSegregation

It has taken forty-eight years for the Republican Party of Lincoln to contort itself into the Segregationist Party of Strom Thurmond. In 1964 U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina joined the GOP. Since that time there has been an unmistakable trajectory of the Republican Party away from the values and principles of President Lincoln as the party morphed into and came to embody the views and politics of the hateful, racist, segregationist Thurmond.

“Metamorphosis”  a complete change of form, structure, or substance, as transformation by magic or witchcraft

 

Segregationist Strom Thurmond



Florida GOP Gov. Rick Scott

Lest we forget, Thurmond, ever the race war activist, drafted the Southern Manifesto in 1956 in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated public schools. In the “Manifesto” Thurmond called on all supporters of racial segregation to work to “bring about a reversal of this decision…” Thurmond was also a supporter of the Southern strategy which refers in part to Richard Nixon’s and the Republican Party’s 1968 plan for winning elections in southern states by exploiting racism against Black Americans. Were he alive today Strom Thurmond and the 99 co-signers of the “Manifesto” would be proud of the Republican Party 2012. The GOP has completed their nearly half a century long transfiguration from supporters of Civil and Voting Rights to that of ReSegregationist. From Wisconsin to Florida Republican state legislators and governors have set about on a course to deny the fundamental right of voting to African Americans by way of Voter ID (read Voter Suppression) laws. _{See: An Absence of Honor}    

As we noted in July, 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. The Toledo Blade described it this way, “During the last century, when black voter suppression was enforced with poll taxes and literacy tests, black churches rallied their members to protest such blatant injustice... Although poll taxes have been eliminated, voter suppression has taken a more insidious form… If Americans have learned anything over the years, it is that efforts to discourage people from voting never stop. They become more creative and cynical.”

 

Ohio GOP Secretary of State Jon Husted

 

Former KKK Klansman David Duke

Republican Party’s war on Christians
The Republican Party’s efforts to disenfranchise African Americans of the right to vote is so saturated in the divisive, racial politics of Strom Thurmond that Ohio’s chief election official, Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted, is waging a war on Christian voters. For years churches in African American communities have brought entire congregations to register to vote and more recently, to vote early on the Sunday before election day. Last week Mr. Husted unilaterally decided to restrict early voting to weekdays only. The move has been universally called out for the blatantly hostile act that it is, an effort to suppress turnout among African American Christian voters.  

Segregationist Bull Connor

Pennsylvania GOP Rep. Mike Turzai



In 1994, when the GOP won both Houses of Congress for the first time in forty years, the new majority immediately began a campaign to “defund the left.” The defunding took the form of withholding federal funds from PBS and NPR and other ridicules antics. None of it worked.  PBS and NPR are as strong today as they ever were. But, Strom Thurmond’s GOP hasn't given up on defunding, or dividing America. On the campaign trail this year Republican presidential candidate Willard Romney said that he wanted to ‘get rid’ of planned parenthood. With voter suppression laws, euphemistically called “voter ID laws” Strom Thurmond’s Republican Party has graduated from trying to defund programs that they don’t like to disenfranchising, 'getting rid,' of African American voters.

The New America

When their party won big in the 2010 mid-term elections, the GOP began in earnest its descent from being the Party of Lincoln. Considering the new demographics of America, that America is no longer a majority caucasian nation and with bi-racial populations ever increasing, it is at once peculiar and confounding that the Republican Party would revert backwards and embrace the failed hateful, divisive politics of Strom Thurmond. Peculiar and confounding though it may be that is exactly what Republicans have done with their ever strident attempts to suppress the votes of African Americans. They (Republicans) have picked up the mantle and legacy of Strom Thurmond and the segregationist. They have completely destroyed their once proud brand. Neither American demographics nor right is on the side of the Republican Party and their updated for the 21^st century voter suppression tactics. It is important to remember that during the civil and voting rights battles of the 1950s and 60s the segregationist lost.

For more see:

Ed Show on NBCNews.com

The Rachel Maddow Show on NBCNews.com

The Rachel Maddow Show on NBCNews.com

by Brent Scott,
Executive Director of Vote by Mail America

Another voter suppression law heads to court

The campaign of President Barack Obama has filed a lawsuit to block a voter suppression law in the state of Ohio. The suit asks a federal court to overturn a new voter suppression law that was passed on a party line vote by the GOP controlled legislature and was signed by Ohio's Republican Governor, John Kasich. Specifically, the new law would shorten early voting in this battleground state, cutting the last three days before election day. Under the new law only active duty military service members would be allowed to vote early in the last three days before November 6^th presidential election. In 2008, 93,000 Ohioans voted early in the last three days leading up to the presidential election.

Obama campaign manager, Jim Axelrod, Calls Out FoxNews 

“The last three days of Early Vote are especially important to ensuring a free and fair election,” Obama’s Ohio campaign said in a statement to ABC News. “We are moving forward in the fight to reinstate the last 3 days of Early Voting and ensure that all Ohio voters can make their voices heard this November.” _Source

In a discussion of voter suppression laws across the nation, Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice, referred to Ohio as “Florida without the palm trees” on the Rachel Maddow Show on NBCNews.com.

The Obama/Biden campaign posted this statement on their campaign website: “In addition to reducing Ohioans’ access to the polls, the legislature created inequality between military voters who can cast early ballots in person through the day before the election and all other voters who only have until 6 p.m. on the Friday before the election to vote in-person absentee.” _Source

The Obama campaign was joined in the lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party.

by Brent Scott
Exe. Dir. of Vote by Mail America

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