Voting rights bills and lawsuits megathread (Updated: April 27th 2020)

[Virginiá]

I'll be updating this periodically as numerous lawsuits and possible voting rights bills run their course this year. There are a number of voting rights lawsuits poised to be wrapped up soon, as well as a couple bills and also outstanding redistricting lawsuits.

Edit: I'll also be updating this going through 2018 as it looks like Democrats are poised to take back some legislatures this cycle, and given some chatter last year, I fully expect there to be some movement on various voting-related bills in places such as NV, NM, CO, IL and so on.



==================================================================================
FEDERAL COURT MANDATES WISCONSIN MUST ALLOW THOSE WITHOUT PHOTO IDS TO VOTE
==================================================================================

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/19/federal_judge_strikes_blow_to_wisconsin_voter_id_law.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, if a voter doesn't have an ID, they can sign an affadavit and receive a regular ballot to vote. This is different from some states who allow people to sign an affidavit and then receive a provisional ballot that might not end up being counted, as most (or all?) of them require the voter to get an ID generally within a week, sharply reducing the point of such an affidavit as many lacking an ID on election day will not suddenly come up with the documents and/or means to get an ID so quickly.

At any rate, this is likely to go to appeal but prospects for this ruling remaining in effect look good.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice for this thread and what content goes here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Glorious news!

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT ORDERS LOWER COURT TO FIX TEXAS VOTER ID LAW
==================================================================================

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/appeals-ourt-says-texas-voter-id-law-has-discriminatory-effect/2016/07/20/781bf340-4cef-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So basically the end result might be similar to yesterday's Wisconsin voter id ruling - Allowing voters without IDs to sign an affidavit and receive a regular ballot. I don't know exactly what else they could do given the ruling, as simply expanding the ID list does nothing to solve one of the primary issues, that many people face significant obstacles in getting the prerequisite documents.

We'll see what comes of this within the next 2 - 3 weeks, I'm sure. I would also like to add that it is a bit disappointing that this federal circuit allowed this issue to fester for so long, even waiting until the soft deadline imposed by the USSC, which may or may not lead to SCOTUS blocking changes if the lower court takes a long time to issue a fix.

Texas district and circuit courts seem to have a habit of slowing down cases regarding voting rights and redistricting, given the sluggish nature of this lawsuit and the still pending redistricting lawsuit over Texas' maps that were already found to be rigged. It has taken the panel basically half a decade and thensome, and they don't expect new maps until 2018. There is pretty much no excuse for this and one should be forgiven for thinking that the judges are purposefully stringing the case out so conservatives can benefit for as long as possible under the current maps. I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for such delays yet. There are no viable excuses at this point. Fixing rigged maps does not take half a decade.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
FEDERAL COURT STRIKES DOWN MICHIGAN REPEAL OF STRAIGHT-TICKET VOTING
==================================================================================

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/21/michigan_judge_strikes_down_straight_party_voting_ban.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The idea was to repeal straight-ticket voting to both cause lines (and thus discourage would-be voters) in areas with heavy amounts of Democratic voters, notably African American communities as they were identified to heavily use straight ticket voting. Another idea suggested when this bill was passed was that Republicans wanted this tweak to hopefully give them a leg up in the statewide offices they haven't been able to take yet. I'm not exactly sure how this would have worked, but when Republicans repeal things meant to make voting faster or easier, they generally have partisan politics in mind. This much we know based on the wave of restrictions passed since a black man had the audacity to win a presidential election.

At any rate, good for Michigan.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Virginia Supreme Court reverses McAuliffe's felon restoration today. The State Constitution requires the Governor to provide notice to the General Assembly for each felon who has their rights restored. This decision says that the Governor can only restore voting rights one person at a time, so a blanket restoration was invalid. The 10K new voter registrations are invalid. Since this is a State Constitutional decision (AISG), there will not be an appeal to a federal court.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-court-strikes-down-order-allowing-felons-vote-n615291

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1160784.pdf

[Mr. Reactionary]

McAuliffe has now pledged to do all 13,000+ restorations the long way before the election.  I assume he's serious because it would look horrible to promise this and then go back on it.

I'm fine with this. It respects the process and is within his power.

[Antonio the Sixth]

McAuliffe has now pledged to do all 13,000+ restorations the long way before the election.  I assume he's serious because it would look horrible to promise this and then go back on it.

If he does that, he's a certified BADASS.

[jimrtex]

The idea was to repeal straight-ticket voting to both cause lines (and thus discourage would-be voters) in areas with heavy amounts of Democratic voters, notably African American communities as they were identified to heavily use straight ticket voting. Another idea suggested when this bill was passed was that Republicans wanted this tweak to hopefully give them a leg up in the statewide offices they haven't been able to take yet. I'm not exactly sure how this would have worked, but when Republicans repeal things meant to make voting faster or easier, they generally have partisan politics in mind. This much we know based on the wave of restrictions passed since a black man had the audacity to win a presidential election.

At any rate, good for Michigan.

Straight-ticket was never intended to make voting faster or easier. It was intended to coerce voters to vote a certain way.

Before the Australian (government-printed) ballot was adopted in the late 19th Century, elections were write-in. Voters could write out the names of candidates in advance, and take it the polling place and put it in the ballot box. If they wanted secrecy, they would keep it in their vest pocket. Political parties would print ballots with their candidates printed on it. They might use red or blue print so that observers could see who they were voting for. Instead of lawyers trying to keep candidates or parties off the ballot, parties would use toughs to disrupt distribution of ballots. Voters might be given a free lunch in exchange for taking a ballot. If you had a bunch of ballots you could fold them inside each other and stuff them in the ballot box.

Since elections were still nominally write-in, voters could edit printed ballots, and write the name of an alternative candidate.

When the Australian Ballot was adopted, it was often done by literally piecing the partisan ballots together. You could tear off the section for your favored party, and if you wanted to split your ticket could cut out a particular candidate.

Instead of toughs keeping other parties from distributing their ballots, there were laws that made it hard to get on the ballot, as a party or an independent (it used to be impossible to run as an independent in Michigan).

In Texas, parties were arranged in columns, with offices in rows. Choices were made by crossing off names. if you wanted to vote a straight ticket, you would just draw a vertical line down the column.

Under a straight ticket system, you can still vote for individual candidates. When the Texas legislature was considering eliminating the straight ticket, a longtime Representative recalled being told to be sure to mark the Republican party candidate for every office, because the Democrats would switch votes by marking down-ballot races.

If you decide to vote for individual candidates, and this takes longer, and this makes the line for your neighbors longer, should you be charged with an election law violation? Should this be a misdemeanor or felony? State or federal law or both?

[Taco Truck 🚚]

McAuliffe has now pledged to do all 13,000+ restorations the long way before the election.  I assume he's serious because it would look horrible to promise this and then go back on it.

I'm fine with this. It respects the process and is within his power.

So you actually prefer for a government official to fill out 13K pieces of paper when one would have sufficed?

In a completely unrelated topic, what qualifies as waste fraud and abuse?

[Virginiá]

McAuliffe has now pledged to do all 13,000+ restorations the long way before the election.  I assume he's serious because it would look horrible to promise this and then go back on it.

I'm fine with this. It respects the process and is within his power.

I read Virginia's State Constitution and the parts related to executive power and restoration of voting rights make no mention on how they must be restored. The thing about these relevant Constitutional clauses is that they are remarkably short and simple. There is no vagueness to it. It doesn't restrict the governor's power at all, in any shape or form, and doesn't even hint at how it must be used. The only overt restrictions I found said that the Governor may not pardon himself if impeached, and that the Governor must report to the legislature who it pardons/restores rights for. Maybe restoring rights en masse like this is wrong, but just because one doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional.

Look, many legal experts looked at this and concluded there were no such restrictions, so the case here is simple: McAuliffe restored rights for partisan purposes and the State Supreme Court, filled with judges appointed by a Republican legislature, made a partisan decision to overturn it. It's just a partisan tit-for-tat game at this point.

I sure hope none of those judges who ruled against McAuliffe are textualists, because they essentially made up a restriction on executive powers. That much is undeniable.

------

At any rate, McAuliffe said he is going to restore rights on an individual basis, as mandated, starting with the 11,600+ who already registered to vote. I'm not sure if he literally has to sign each paper himself, or if he can do it in a faster way, but it's possible that a substantial number of felons still end up getting their rights back by November 8th.

[Virginiá]

Straight-ticket was never intended to make voting faster or easier. It was intended to coerce voters to vote a certain way.

...

If you decide to vote for individual candidates, and this takes longer, and this makes the line for your neighbors longer, should you be charged with an election law violation? Should this be a misdemeanor or felony? State or federal law or both?

I wasn't saying it was implemented to make voting faster, I said that it was repealed to cause longer lines. Regardless of how it was implemented, straight ticket voting obviously has an ability to make voting faster, particularly for people who already intend to vote one way downballot.

Regarding your questions, I do not believe lawmakers should be allowed to tinker with election regulations / services in any way meant to discourage turnout among any group(s) of people. It's one thing to repeal a regulation because it serves no purpose, or harms elections, but to repeal or institute regulations to reduce turnout among your political opponents is wrong. It doesn't matter how simple the measure(s) seem(s). Specifically, if you repeal a service or institute a restriction with the intent of reducing turnout among a specific race, purely because they vote against you, that's discrimination plain and simple.

Republicans have never made it so clear to me why the federal government should set general voting regulations for all states, including number of polling places, voter registration rules, ID requirements, amount of poll workers, and so on. Time and time again states have shown their inability to run fair elections either out of incompetence or out of sheer corruption / political/racial discrimination.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
NEW PRELIMINARY TEXAS VOTER ID RULES ISSUED
==================================================================================

http://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2016/07/22/federal-judge-lays-out-framework-to-fix-texas-discriminatory-voter-id-law

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So basically:

1. Anyone without an ID will be able to use their voter registration card
2. State must engage in a meaningful education campaign so voters know the rules
3. Poll workers must be educated on new rules so they don't turn people away.

* New rules/adjustments may be submitted prior to November

Personally I think a voter registration card should have always been acceptable, as it proves you are registered to vote at the very least (not that they can't look your name up either way, but meh)

Finally, the judge is going to decide if this law was made with intent to discriminate, which would make it eligible to be put back on federal preclearance for 10 years. As the article stated, the same judge actually already decided that was racially discriminatory in 2014. I suppose he is going over it again in light of the new rulings.

[jimrtex]

==================================================================================
NEW PRELIMINARY TEXAS VOTER ID RULES ISSUED
==================================================================================

http://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2016/07/22/federal-judge-lays-out-framework-to-fix-texas-discriminatory-voter-id-law

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So basically:

1. Anyone without an ID will be able to use their voter registration card
2. State must engage in a meaningful education campaign so voters know the rules
3. Poll workers must be educated on new rules so they don't turn people away.

* New rules/adjustments may be submitted prior to November

Personally I think a voter registration card should have always been acceptable, as it proves you are registered to vote at the very least (not that they can't look your name up either way, but meh)

Finally, the judge is going to decide if this law was made with intent to discriminate, which would make it eligible to be put back on federal preclearance for 10 years. As the article stated, the same judge actually already decided that was racially discriminatory in 2014. I suppose he is going over it again in light of the new rulings.

A voter registration certificate doesn't prove that you are who the card says you are, and it may have been obtained under false pretenses. For example, imagine you are canvassing a neighborhood and find a small bungalow with 20 people registered at it. You mention it to the candidate you are supporting, and he tells you that is where his opponent lives.

Friends and relatives had registered at the address so that they could vote for the candidate. Most people would be unwilling to use an incorrect address on their driver's license to help out a politician. There will be more stringent eligibility tests for things like driver's licenses.

Texas permitted voters to vote with their driver's license for several years before they required it. Most voters preferred it because they carry their driver's license. There is a good chance that you misplaced your certificate, or perhaps it was lost in the mail. Driver's licenses can be scanned which simplifies lookup when you vote.

What will likely happen is the affidavit will show that there are very few would-be voters who don't actually have ID, and even fewer who couldn't obtain ID. The training requirement will ensure that poll workers actually come in for training before the election. Democrat election judges in particular belief they know about the election law because they have been doing it for decades.

The appeals court overturned Judge Ramos finding on intentional discrimination by a 13-2 vote. The two dissenters would have deferred to her as the trier of the evidence. The overwhelming majority said that she considered inappropriate evidence. They also overturned her opinion that the Voter ID requirement was a poll tax.

[Ebsy]

Is there a single example of the above occurring?

[jimrtex]

Is there a single example of the above occurring?

What are you specifically referring to?

[jimrtex]

Straight-ticket was never intended to make voting faster or easier. It was intended to coerce voters to vote a certain way.

...

If you decide to vote for individual candidates, and this takes longer, and this makes the line for your neighbors longer, should you be charged with an election law violation? Should this be a misdemeanor or felony? State or federal law or both?

I wasn't saying it was implemented to make voting faster, I said that it was repealed to cause longer lines. Regardless of how it was implemented, straight ticket voting obviously has an ability to make voting faster, particularly for people who already intend to vote one way downballot.

Regarding your questions, I do not believe lawmakers should be allowed to tinker with election regulations / services in any way meant to discourage turnout among any group(s) of people. It's one thing to repeal a regulation because it serves no purpose, or harms elections, but to repeal or institute regulations to reduce turnout among your political opponents is wrong. It doesn't matter how simple the measure(s) seem(s). Specifically, if you repeal a service or institute a restriction with the intent of reducing turnout among a specific race, purely because they vote against you, that's discrimination plain and simple.

Republicans have never made it so clear to me why the federal government should set general voting regulations for all states, including number of polling places, voter registration rules, ID requirements, amount of poll workers, and so on. Time and time again states have shown their inability to run fair elections either out of incompetence or out of sheer corruption / political/racial discrimination.

What do you mean by the "federal government"? Do you think that the President should appoint governors, and that the President and governors should appoint 20% of legislators.

What evidence is there of discriminatory intent in Michigan?

We can probably agree that it is the intent of the Democratic party bosses in Michigan that voters should vote a straight Democratic ticket. I am assuming that you don't believe that the party bosses are indifferent (i.e. a boss says that he could care less what voters do, and that he personally carefully considers the qualifications of the candidates, and it is just coincidence that he has voted for Democrat candidates 100% of the time for the past several decades. But he has been told by certain voters that they just don't have time to consider how they are voting, and insist on the convenience of straight ticket voting.)

Should someone be able to vote for all women candidates, or all white candidates if they want to? Of course. But why should deference be given to one prejudice over another? Why should it be easier and quicker to vote for all Democrats, than all women, or all whites?

What happens if I live in an area where there are voters who go down the ballot and select all women, or all whites. When they come to a name whose race or sex is ambiguous, they ponder, as they try to determine whether Eddie Johnson is a man, and whether he is white or not. He might be "Eddie Bernice" whose parents used an unconventional spelling of Bernard. President Obama who is black, had a white mother whose first name was Stanley, so you can never be sure. What if the longer lines cause me to not vote?

[jimrtex]

Texas district and circuit courts seem to have a habit of slowing down cases regarding voting rights and redistricting, given the sluggish nature of this lawsuit and the still pending redistricting lawsuit over Texas' maps that were already found to be rigged. It has taken the panel basically half a decade and thensome, and they don't expect new maps until 2018. There is pretty much no excuse for this and one should be forgiven for thinking that the judges are purposefully stringing the case out so conservatives can benefit for as long as possible under the current maps. I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for such delays yet. There are no viable excuses at this point. Fixing rigged maps does not take half a decade.

In 2011, the district court made their initial ruling. The day after Thanksgiving they released their maps, which just "happened" to draw a boundary one block outside Joaquin Castro's house. Charlie Gonzalez announced that he had decided to not run for re-election in a seat that he or his father had held for the last 52 years, saying he needed to make some money. Castro, who had been planning on running against Lloyd Doggett in a newly created Austin-San Antonio district announced he was switching to the suddenly open seat (implied wink wink ...)

The US Supreme Court tossed the map the map.

The district court then delayed the 2012 primaries why they considered new maps. One hearing was recessed so that the judges could call the DC Court of Appeals who were considering the Section 5 preclearance (Texas was having to simultaneously defend their maps in two different federal courts). The San Antonio judges called another recess to take the return phone call from the judges in Washington. Apparently they were given no hint on what the other court would rule or when they would rule.

The San Antonio court drew a remedial map, including their assumptions about what the Section 5 court would rule. That remedial map imposed by the federal court in 2012, has been used for the 2012 elections, the 2014 elections, and the 2016 elections. In 2013, the Texas legislature adopted the court-imposed plans. So the allegedly unfair plans were remedied by a federal court and used for 3 elections.

In late summer of the 2012 the DC court finally made their ruling, and the San Antonio court decided not to delay the 2012 elections. The DC court's decision was vacated after Shelby County.

So now the San Antonio court is stuck with considering whether they should have evaluated the Section 5 evidence which they didn't consider or would have considered differently, even though Section 5 is no longer in force, but was 5 years ago. They also have to consider whether Texas should be lassoed in to preclearance. They also have to consider the Corpus Christi case which the 5th Circuit has recently rejected in large part. Any decision they make will be appealed to the US Supreme Court, which they can't avoid. They may also have wanted to wait on the Supreme Court's decision in Evenwel.

Executive summary: The court fixed the boundaries before the 2012 election. The plaintiffs are dragging the case out.

[Virginiá]

A voter registration certificate doesn't prove that you are who the card says you are, and it may have been obtained under false pretenses. For example, imagine you are canvassing a neighborhood and find a small bungalow with 20 people registered at it. You mention it to the candidate you are supporting, and he tells you that is where his opponent lives.

..

So what? It's something. The fact is is that not everyone in this country has IDs and many face unreasonable hurdles to get them. If we actually had mass voter fraud, then yes I would be all for more secure measures. Further, if everyone had an ID, I'd also be for it. But that isn't the case. Just because you can think of some theoretical way that fraud can occur doesn't mean you should start enacting restrictions that solve that problem even before it ever became a problem. Same goes for fringe cases that barely ever happen.

The state should first follow through on measures that absolutely do no affect turnout and escalate only when absolutely necessary. So far I see little effort being put into mythical voter fraud solutions that don't involve reducing turnout, despite them existing. Really I don't care how reasonable anyone thinks requiring an ID is when the fact remains that voter fraud is not a serious issue and thus restrictions like these are not necessary.

What do you mean by the "federal government"? Do you think that the President should appoint governors, and that the President and governors should appoint 20% of legislators.

Christ jimrtex, seriously, WHAT are you talking about? I was clear about what I was talking about. I said voting regulations - Such as the federal government setting rules such as voter registration deadlines and also approving say, number of polling stations, and other restrictions such as ID requirements. I have no idea what you are talking about with presidents appointing governors or the like. I don't even know how you got that in your head.

Regarding straight-ticket voting repeal - Why remove this? What is wrong with people who are going to vote Democratic downballot anyway from being able to check a box? Even more so, why is it so important to get rid of it? In fact, why are Republicans so obsessed with making voting more difficult? It doesn't matter how difficult each little change makes it - Why can't they do things to encourage turnout?

As for intent - Guess what, I don't have access to any information that would let me figure that out except the current status of GOP efforts around the country and other "coincidental" things, such as them changing ballot initiative signature rules to make it harder to get issues on the ballot while people were collecting signatures for controversial initiative(s)? See, this is the thing, I'm not playing this game where lawmakers create new restrictions or hurdles, then supporters say "Prove it was partisan/discriminatory". I really don't care for it and you can think what you want. I'm tired of playing this little game where Republican lawmakers throw up roadblocks and we're all supposed to pretend they have legitimate, non-partisan reasons in mind.

I'm curious, do you think the GOP has been engaged in a nationwide campaign to reduce turnout among Democratic voters by tinkering with election regulations/services?

Executive summary: The court fixed the boundaries before the 2012 election. The plaintiffs are dragging the case out.

I don't really care whose fault it is, jimrtex. It shouldn't take this long. If it does, then something has to change. It's really that simple to me. We shouldn't have people rigging maps to begin with, but if this is how it is going to be, then lawsuits need to be handled much faster.

Edit: As for the interim CD map - From some reading I get the impression that the current map is still gerrymandered and still being decided over the courts, right? If that is so, then again, it has taken too long.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I read Virginia's State Constitution and the parts related to executive power and restoration of voting rights make no mention on how they must be restored. The thing about these relevant Constitutional clauses is that they are remarkably short and simple. There is no vagueness to it. It doesn't restrict the governor's power at all, in any shape or form, and doesn't even hint at how it must be used. The only overt restrictions I found said that the Governor may not pardon himself if impeached, and that the Governor must report to the legislature who it pardons/restores rights for. Maybe restoring rights en masse like this is wrong, but just because one doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional.

Our Constitution also establishes a presumption that voter eligibility categorically excludes felons. The Clause allowing the Governor to restore voting rights exists to create exceptions to a general rule. The Governor declaring that "now and forever every single existing felon ever and ongoing until I leave office does not face the constitutionally mandated restrictions" is clearly reversing the constitutional presumption rather than carving out exceptions. Unilaterally dispensing with the law is strictly prohibited by the constitution, and for good reason. I mean, do you really think there would be no separation of powers issues if tomorrow Obama decided in one act to pardon every single federal criminal ever, alive or dead, whether in custody or pending prosecution or sentence served or even people who haven't been caught yet and that this pardon was both backward looking and forward looking? Just because a constitutional power is broad does not mean that there are no clear boundaries found in other constitutional clauses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or not. Just because an issue can possibly have multiple good-faith interpretations does not mean that deciding upon one of these interpretations is partisan or made up or invalid. Limits on the executive dispension of law are rooted in history. Noted Democrat and Her's Veep Candidate Tim Kaine argued that he lacked the power to do what McAuliffe did ... how partisan. Muh Judicial Activism!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think its about individual signatures. He could probably get away with a single act if it was just a long list of actual names + crimes being pardoned + Specific Information to the GA. But just saying "Everyone" again is not an exception, its a presumption. So it should at bare minimum mention the names of the actual persons being pardoned, which seems pretty obvious and inoffensive.

[Virginiá]

Or not. Just because an issue can possibly have multiple good-faith interpretations does not mean that deciding upon one of these interpretations is partisan or made up or invalid. Limits on the executive dispension of law are rooted in history. Noted Democrat and Her's Veep Candidate Tim Kaine argued that he lacked the power to do what McAuliffe did ... how partisan. Muh Judicial Activism!

What Kaine thought is irrelevant.

My point was that the text of the state constitution didn't really even hint at such restrictions. He didn't just sign one order to do all this for the rest of his term, either. He said he was signing an order every month. And it wasn't for every single person whose rights were taken away. There were exceptions. I have to admit though, it's refreshing to see conservative lawmakers taking a liberal-ish approach to constitutional interpretation when it suits them, and switching back to textualist views when it comes to things they want.

At any rate, it appears he's going to restore them one by one individually, so I suppose this point is moot now. So we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

[jimrtex]

Regarding straight-ticket voting repeal - Why remove this? What is wrong with people who are going to vote Democratic downballot anyway from being able to check a box? Even more so, why is it so important to get rid of it? In fact, why are Republicans so obsessed with making voting more difficult? It doesn't matter how difficult each little change makes it - Why can't they do things to encourage turnout?

Most States have removed it. Jim Matheson and Charlie Dent introduced a bill in Congress that would require all states to remove it. If your beloved diktat from the top came from Washington, do you think they would require the 42 states without straight ticket voting to institute it, or eliminate it in the 8 states where it still continues?

The straight-ticket option causes confusion, and increases roll off for non-partisan races and ballot propositions. It is hard to implement on voting machines. It is harmful to independent candidates and minor parties.

It is coercive:

Imagine this scenario:

18 YO voter: I've been studying the ballot so I can make an informed decision for every office.

Older relative: You don't want to do that. Don't you know about the Reverend Martin Luther King, Junior and the Selma March? If you fritter your time away considering each race, it will make the lines longer. Think about your Aunt Louise, who has to use a walker and is on oxygen. Do you want to make her stand in line for hours. And think about that no good shiftless Walter Johnson. It is hard enough to get him to show up to vote. If you're in their holding up things, he might just turn around and go home. That would suit The Man fine.



It must be OK to blindly vote for every candidate of one party, because there wouldn't be that option if it wasn't OK. And they even put it first on the ballot.

Just remember, "Two Legs Bad, Four Legs Good".

Executive summary: The court fixed the boundaries before the 2012 election. The plaintiffs are dragging the case out.

I don't really care whose fault it is, jimrtex. It shouldn't take this long. If it does, then something has to change. It's really that simple to me. We shouldn't have people rigging maps to begin with, but if this is how it is going to be, then lawsuits need to be handled much faster.

What is "it" in "It shouldn't take this long"? You don't appear to have a clue, and moreover don't want to have a  clue.

Edit: As for the interim CD map - From some reading I get the impression that the current map is still gerrymandered and still being decided over the courts, right? If that is so, then again, it has taken too long.

The remedial map was imposed by the federal court. It has been used for three election cycles. The state has accepted the map. The plaintiffs associated with the Democratic Party want a do-over.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The straight-ticket option causes confusion, and increases roll off for non-partisan races and ballot propositions. It is hard to implement on voting machines. It is harmful to independent candidates and minor parties.

Whatever one may say about the problems with straight ticket voting, this isn't one of them. Even back in the day of mechanical voting machines, the necessary logic to implement it was fairly easy to design and build, tho it was a maintenance hassle, and that was mainly due to the mechanics needed to ensure that only one candidate was selected for each office. Mechanically, an OR gate is simple.  Now that everything is being tabulated electronically, be it by touchpad screen or Scantron sheet, it's pathetically easy to implement

[jimrtex]

The straight-ticket option causes confusion, and increases roll off for non-partisan races and ballot propositions. It is hard to implement on voting machines. It is harmful to independent candidates and minor parties.

Whatever one may say about the problems with straight ticket voting, this isn't one of them. Even back in the day of mechanical voting machines, the necessary logic to implement it was fairly easy to design and build, tho it was a maintenance hassle, and that was mainly due to the mechanics needed to ensure that only one candidate was selected for each office. Mechanically, an OR gate is simple.  Now that everything is being tabulated electronically, be it by touchpad screen or Scantron sheet, it's pathetically easy to implement

Modern electronic voting machines are expected to give feedback while a voter votes.

In Texas, a voter may override the straight ticket vote on individual races. I have personally overridden the straight ticket on every race, but one, on a ballot.

The voting devices that are used in much of Texas, including Harris, Dallas, and Travis counties, there is a dial wheel used to scroll through the ballot, and a button that is used to select a candidate, a party, or a Yes or No on a ballot proposition.

Once a candidate is selected his name is highlighted.

So let's imagine you select a Green Party straight ticket. You scroll to Green and press the select button. You scroll down to the the presidential race, and decide that you don't want to vote for Jill Stein, or anyone. So you click on Jill Stein, and your vote for Stein is cancelled.

Now let's imagine you select a Green Party straight ticket. You scroll to Green and press the select button. You scroll down to the the presidential race, and decide that you really like Jill Stein, so you click on Stein (a "make sure" vote), and your vote for Stein  is cancelled.

You also don't have to vote the ballot in order. So imagine you have voted for 50 or so races, and decide that you want to vote straight ticket. You scroll back to the top and select a party. How is the rest of the ballot to be interpreted.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, pathetically easy.  I'll deal with the machines here in South Carolina since I'm familiar with them.  First off, your worry about unintentionally cancelling out a vote for Jill Stein doesn't make much sense.  There should be someway to cancel out a vote if that us what the voter wants, and if they don't want that, the disappearance of the green bordered box with a check mark in it ought to clue the voter about that.  Even if it doesn't, when one goes to cast the ballot, the machines here nag you if you have any races that don't have a vote in them and offers to take you to the first such race.

As for an idiot wasting time to go back and cast a straight ticket at the end, I'm not too terribly worried about his vote, but assuming the machine is configured properly, it'll only override races in which a vote has not been cast directly. (Assuming that's what the law in that state calls for.)

[jimrtex]

Again, pathetically easy.  I'll deal with the machines here in South Carolina since I'm familiar with them.  First off, your worry about unintentionally cancelling out a vote for Jill Stein doesn't make much sense.  There should be someway to cancel out a vote if that us what the voter wants, and if they don't want that, the disappearance of the green bordered box with a check mark in it ought to clue the voter about that.  Even if it doesn't, when one goes to cast the ballot, the machines here nag you if you have any races that don't have a vote in them and offers to take you to the first such race.

As for an idiot wasting time to go back and cast a straight ticket at the end, I'm not too terribly worried about his vote, but assuming the machine is configured properly, it'll only override races in which a vote has not been cast directly. (Assuming that's what the law in that state calls for.)

Did you vote for Alvin Greene in the primary?  If not, you may notice things that some voters do not. If you were in Palm Beach County in 2000 would you have been confused by the butterfly ballot? What about Duval County, or the other counties with confusing ballots? Many had worse performance than Palm Beach. What about the Scotland parliamentary elections in 2007?

Maybe the idiot who went back and voted straight ticket saw when he had completed the ballot on the review screen:

Straight Ticket: No Vote

You can select any race on the review screen and you will be sent back to the race in question.

Maybe the idiot thought that the computer was "nagging" him.


There is a way to cancel a vote on the voting machines.

On a paper ballot there is no way to unvote a race than to mark instructions on the ballot. Let's say that you are voting straight ticket Democrat, but the unoppose Democrat candidate for sheriff is your sister's ex-husband. You don't want to vote for him. All you can do is write on the ballot "No vote for this S.O.B." and hope your instructions are understood.

The voting machines have three controls. One is only used when you have finished voting. The other two are (1) the scroll wheel to position you on the ballot, (2) a select button.

The select works as both a select and de-select.

It is programmed to work like this:

If you have selected one candidate, and then select another, it switches your vote, rather than permitting you to overvote and then explicitly requiring you to reject the candidate after you overvote, or to deselect a candidate before selecting another.

But if you simply want to deselect a candidate you select them again. It works just like most computer GUIs would.

The Democrats sued over a close race in Dallas County, where they claimed that some votes for a legislative candidate had been "erased" by confusing voting machines. The federal court eventually ruled that the voting machines were fine and the election was fine, but that county should have precleared the machines under Section  5. The machines had been precleared two or three times, but supposedly not for that particular interaction explicitly.

One of the plaintiffs lawyers lived in Ellis County, and there was a dispute whether he actually did work on  the case (when fees were being awarded). Meanwhile, the lawyer moved to Dallas County, where he was elected county judge, likely due to straight ticket voting.

Dallas County has an election administrator. The default in Texas is for the county clerk to conduct elections and the county assessor/collector to conduct registration (vestigial role from when they collected the poll tax). Both offices are partisan. But a county may have an independent election administrator, and Dallas County had one. By all accounts he was quite competent and scrupulously neutral - going so far as to not register to vote.

He appealed the lower court preclearance decision to the Supreme Court. There is a 5-member body that can hire and fire the election administrator. It is comprised of the county judge, the county clerk, the county tax assessor collector, and the county chairs of parties that conduct primaries (eg Democrat and Republican).

The county judge called a meeting (this body had not met since the election administrator had been chosen more than a dozen years previously, and does not have an ongoing oversight role). One of the county chairs called the election administrator, and asked what the meeting was about. The administrator hadn't heard about it - the county judge would later claim it was to do a job review, but typically the person who is being reviewed participates in the process.

The election administrator tried to find out what was up, and somehow ended up in a discussion with John Wiley Price a county commissioner and not incidentally, black. The election administrator offered to resign after completing an upcoming local election (a month or to away). Price went away and came back, and said that the county judge thought he should go immediately. It is unclear (in a legal sense) why Price was involved at all.

A public hearing attended by 100s of election judges, ended up with Price shouting, "All of you are white. Go to hell" which resulted in the hearing being terminated. Eventually, the five-member body met and selected the chief deputy election administrator, who was black, to be the election administrator, but to be more responsive to Price.

Price is currently under federal indictment, but his trial keeps getting pushed back, because the defense needs to wade through the 9.2 terabytes of evidence that the government turned over.