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

[muon2]

2. With #1 in mind, I do agree with the plaintiffs in general, but they waited too long. They could have brought this case a long time ago, but no, they didn't. What happened to staying changes to election law changes/lawsuits so close to elections? SCOTUS seemed very active in that regard in 2014. Perhaps the legislature was devious here, but so were the plaintiffs. They seem to have acted in a way that prevented any remedies due to the timing of the lawsuit leaving no time to fix the issue.

As I understand the timing of the suit, one problem was to find a party with standing to sue. The primary plaintiff, Patrick Harlan, is the Pub nominee for the 17th Congressional District which has population in both large and small counties. The current EDR law was in effect for the March primary and the data was available for analysis by late spring and summer. The results of the primary strongly suggested that the lower population counties in the 17th CD, which are more Pub, would have proportionally less use of EDR than the larger population, more Dem counties in the CD. That creates the possibility for an irreparable harm against candidate Harlan. Those conditions didn't exist until after the March primary.

[Virginiá]

As I understand the timing of the suit, one problem was to find a party with standing to sue. The primary plaintiff, Patrick Harlan, is the Pub nominee for the 17th Congressional District which has population in both large and small counties. The current EDR law was in effect for the March primary and the data was available for analysis by late spring and summer. The results of the primary strongly suggested that the lower population counties in the 17th CD, which are more Pub, would have proportionally less use of EDR than the larger population, more Dem counties in the CD. That creates the possibility for an irreparable harm against candidate Harlan. Those conditions didn't exist until after the March primary.

Couldn't any rural citizens have brought a suit? If it's about equal treatment under the law, then I don't see why not. There should be enough data to show the effects of SDR without needing a fresh election to prove both that there at least might be a plausible chance harm and of success in the case.

But still, regardless of the merits of the claim, this is too close to an election. Wouldn't this qualify for a stay on this injunction based on Purcell? I don't think it's not late enough, as SCOTUS has acted on election changes that occurred at roughly the same time, such as Wisconsin in 2014 (though, admittedly, there were differences between WI and IL)

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Appeals court: Ballot selfie ban unconstitutional
==================================================================================

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/09/voters-selfie-ban-new-hampshire-unconstitutional-228852

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do see a reasonable justification for such a ban. I don't see why the desire to take a picture of you and your ballot overrides the desire to try and prevent vote buying and/or voter intimidation (as selfies could be used to confirm). I don't actually think people are buying votes en masse and using selfies as proof, but I'm also not saying it might not happen in smaller local races, either. I just don't think a selfie is more important in this case.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Terrible decision. If people can provide proof of their vote this opens the door to all sorts of 19th-century style corruption.

[muon2]

As I understand the timing of the suit, one problem was to find a party with standing to sue. The primary plaintiff, Patrick Harlan, is the Pub nominee for the 17th Congressional District which has population in both large and small counties. The current EDR law was in effect for the March primary and the data was available for analysis by late spring and summer. The results of the primary strongly suggested that the lower population counties in the 17th CD, which are more Pub, would have proportionally less use of EDR than the larger population, more Dem counties in the CD. That creates the possibility for an irreparable harm against candidate Harlan. Those conditions didn't exist until after the March primary.

Couldn't any rural citizens have brought a suit? If it's about equal treatment under the law, then I don't see why not. There should be enough data to show the effects of SDR without needing a fresh election to prove both that there at least might be a plausible chance harm and of success in the case.

But still, regardless of the merits of the claim, this is too close to an election. Wouldn't this qualify for a stay on this injunction based on Purcell? I don't think it's not late enough, as SCOTUS has acted on election changes that occurred at roughly the same time, such as Wisconsin in 2014 (though, admittedly, there were differences between WI and IL)

I wasn't involved with the case, but the only data that was available last year after the law was passed was the one election where it was used at county centers in 2014. That really didn't tell anything about rural vs urban usage of EDR. It was pretty reasonable to guess that adding precinct EDR would increase it's usage in those counties, but there was no proof from the 2014 data. There was a rural county plaintiff as well, but the stronger argument came from the impacted candidate.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Free Speech: 1
Big Government: 0

[Antonio the Sixth]

Free Speech: 1
Big Government: 0

Libertarian Logic never ceases to amaze.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Plaintiffs in North Carolina voting rights case target early voting restrictions
==================================================================================

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/north-carolina-early-voting-election-229007

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's hard to see this being denied entirely. Some, maybe even all of these counties had better early voting plans during the primaries but after the 4th circuit threw out many of the 2013 bill's restrictions and extended early voting, these counties removed early voting sites they had in the primaries - Many in overwhelmingly black areas, including a site at WSSU, a black college in Forsyth County.

Based on the changes after the primaries, and the fact that Dallas Woodhouse had sent out an email urging county board of elections to restrict early voting as much as possible, and other issues, to argue that these changes are not an attempt at voter suppression would essentially be a more subtle way of saying we're all just stupid and don't understand.

Emergency motion: http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Emergency-Motion-Brief.pdf

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Illinois: Legal interpretation expands same-day voting registration opportunities for early voting
==================================================================================

http://www.nwherald.com/2016/10/03/legal-interpretation-expands-same-day-voting-registration-opportunities/a2ribn7/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't find this anywhere else, so if it turns out to be inaccurate I'll remove it.

However, given my comments before, I don't see why this wouldn't be allowed for the same reason states like FL or NC can offer different early voting opportunities in different counties. If counties can offer different days and hours, why can't Illinois do the same with SDR? It's not like all counties don't offer SDR, rather that smaller counties aren't required to offer SDR at polling places by default and have to institute it only if they want to. Otherwise, they only offer it at various county offices.

But, then again, I do agree that the law should be changed to force it everywhere in the state. This current legal issue just doesn't seem disqualifying, though.

[muon2]

==================================================================================
Illinois: Legal interpretation expands same-day voting registration opportunities for early voting
==================================================================================

http://www.nwherald.com/2016/10/03/legal-interpretation-expands-same-day-voting-registration-opportunities/a2ribn7/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't find this anywhere else, so if it turns out to be inaccurate I'll remove it.

However, given my comments before, I don't see why this wouldn't be allowed for the same reason states like FL or NC can offer different early voting opportunities in different counties. If counties can offer different days and hours, why can't Illinois do the same with SDR? It's not like all counties don't offer SDR, rather that smaller counties aren't required to offer SDR at polling places by default and have to institute it only if they want to. Otherwise, they only offer it at various county offices.

But, then again, I do agree that the law should be changed to force it everywhere in the state. This current legal issue just doesn't seem disqualifying, though.

I think this is accurate. The judge only ruled about EDR at precincts in large counties vs small counties. This is about what we call grace period voting where one goes to register and vote early at the same location. Grace period voting predates the 2015 law and we not mentioned in the ruling.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Same-day voter registration temporarily reinstated in Illinois
==================================================================================

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-illinois-idUSKCN12502O?il=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same-day registration is now fully back in effect. Given how close to the election this was, I feel like this was the right choice. You can't have voter registration groups spending millions to register voters based on a strategy that relied on same-day registration being available, then have some judge at the 11th hour suspend the law. I'd be for the suspension if there was no opportunity to register same day, but voters can register same day at certain county offices, and on early voting, they can vote/register same day.

However, the last part confuses me. Is the 7th circuit actually suggesting they will hear this case entirely in October and then issue a ruling that might end with SDR being suspended for this election? If so, that is absurd. No more changes to election laws should be allowed at this point if they are going to result in some people not being able to vote. It's one thing if this were like the Wisconsin case, where at this point suspending voter ID might be best for this election given the recent news that WI DOT disobeyed a court order to give out IDs. No one would be prevented from voting if that law was suspended, but people would be if Illinois' law was.

Anyway, for now, good news. Hopefully Rauner doesn't stonewall a fix to this law after the election, assuming Democrats send one to his desk (which they better)

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MasterJedi]

On FB of all the local news stations everyone is decrying the mass amounts of voter fraud that is currently happening in Milwaukee due to early voting going on since September 24. So they're basically saying they don't think voter ID helps voter fraud.

In all honestly I'm fully for voter ID, as long as one is provided free to anyone who needs them. Personally I'd just support automatic voter registration when everyone turns 18 and just avoid the registering phase.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
State/Federal court(s) extends voter registration deadline(s) in NC, GA
==================================================================================

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87506

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-north-carolina-registrat-idUSKBN12E24E

GA is only in Chatham County, and only until Oct 18th (today, sorry, I've been MIA)

In NC, a state judge extended it +5 days in 36 counties. However, this order is somewhat superfluous as thanks to the 4th circuit, NC continues to offer EDR during early voting. I suppose it's useful to be able to register and not vote at the same time, but even if the judge had not extended the deadline, it wouldn't have been that big of a deal.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Native Americans in Nevada win lawsuit to get early voting sites on tribal lands
==================================================================================

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/07/tribe-says-they-have-enough-registered-voters-require-polling-site/91733818/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm quite amazed they didn't have it already. No one living in any town should have to travel that far to go vote. It's really a shame that it took a lawsuit to boot.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Wisconsin: State must provide more voter ID info after defying court order
==================================================================================

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/13/state-must-provide-more-voter-id-info/91990994/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has to be the most infuriating case to me so far in this election cycle. The state did almost nothing to comply with the court order and DMV employees likely rejected a whole lot of people for months, a time where they should have been giving out IDs to vote with.

How can the judge allow them to require IDs when they are not giving them out, even when ordered by the court? The judge said that due to the other 7th circuit ruling staying the other lower court's ruling to allow affidavits, that he wasn't sure he even could suspend the law. That's tripe. The 7th circuit stayed that other judge's ruling because he allowed affidavits under any circumstances, instead of only for people who had certain issues, like not having the money to get prerequisite documents for an ID. Judge Peterson could have allowed affidavits for a limited number of reasons while also ordering Walker to fix this mess.

And I will say it again: What the hell is the point of requiring IDs to vote if you just give IDs to anyone? At this point, it's just a pointless roadblock to voting that only serves what is quite obviously the WI GOP's goal: to prevent Democratic-leaning voters from voting. Their own aides and lawmakers have admitted as much.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Federal judge rules Florida must allow absentee voters the chance to correct their signatures if they do not match
==================================================================================

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-give-florida-voters-chance-fix-vote-mail-42854594

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't really make sense to me (outside of trying to game the system in their favor) why the FL legislature would not permit voters to fix their signatures, but would allow those who left the field empty to fix their forms. People's signatures change over time, and for people whose signatures on file are really old, there would definitely be changes. Also, I'm not sure how they determine what is a mismatch, but that seems to leave a good bit of leeway for just throwing out ballots left and right (not saying they have done that, though)

Also, I'm glad he rebuked them for stalling. Given their response, it should not have taken that long. This Walker guy is on a roll!

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Appeals court denies more early voting time in Forsyth and four other NC counties
==================================================================================

http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/appeals-court-denies-more-early-voting-time-in-forsyth-and/article_a78e562a-9616-11e6-88d1-bfb26c75410e.html#.WAel1CU6H_k.twitter

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that ends that. I'm not sure why they denied it, but it could possibly be that it's too close to the election now. However, to me, I still wonder why if the 4th circuit ruled that Republicans targeting Sunday voting was discriminatory, why would they not restore Sunday voting in these counties when Republicans cut it post-ruling? Some of the early voting cuts were blatant attempts to get around the court ruling.

[Blue3]

Why is this a stickied thread? Unlike gay marriage, this is so under-the-radar.

[Virginiá]

Why is this a stickied thread? Unlike gay marriage, this is so under-the-radar.

Dunno, but I surely appreciate it. Lots of changes to election laws happening & projected in the near future.

[The Dowager Mod]

Why is this a stickied thread? Unlike gay marriage, this is so under-the-radar.

Because I find it interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is this a stickied thread? Unlike gay marriage, this is so under-the-radar.

Because voting rules are the pillar on which democracy rests?

This is by far one of the most important and informative threads on the forum.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Federal judge orders Virginia voter registration reopened
==================================================================================

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While he only extended until Midnight tomorrow (11:59pm Fri Oct 21st), his order also says that registrations that were received this week up until the new deadline are valid. Since the deadline was Monday, this is actually an implicit 4-day extension as opposed to what appears to be only a 36~ hour extension.

Either way, this is more good news for those of us that loathe arbitrary registration deadlines. Florida was a particularly satisfying case, with an extra week being very helpful to Democratic efforts (yes ok I'm being partisan!)

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Judge restores voting rights for thousands of Ohioans in illegal voter purge case
==================================================================================

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/10/19/1019-voting-rights-restored.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I believe most (or all?) of the 846,000 purged for "infrequent voting" (not voting in 3 consecutive federal elections) will now be able to vote with provisional ballots which will be counted if they are found to be living in the same county and are among the illegally purged voters.

Honestly, I don't see why officials either now or decade(s) ago would think that not voting for 3 federal elections in a row is a good reason to purge voters. If a state doesn't allow same-day registration, then some of these people may show up and unexpectedly find themselves unable to vote.

We shouldn't be purging voters based on arbitrary criteria like this. If they want to be more accurate, then link databases nationwide to track who moves / re-registers elsewhere. Keep better track of who passes away, and so on. No voter registrations should ever be canceled on a damn hunch.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Good Guy McAuliffe restores voting rights to 67,000 felons (so far)
==================================================================================

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/virginia-felons-voting-rights_us_5809292fe4b000d0b155b2cc?section=&section=us_politics

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because of the VA GOP hissy-fit month(s) ago, Gov. McAuliffe has had to restore rights one-by-one with an auto-pen. At this rate, he'll have restored voting rights to every single eligible felon in time for them to register to vote for the 2017 state elections. That's over 200,000 felons, many of whom are African Americans. From a partisan perspective, this will be invaluable to Virginia Democrats if they can register a sizable chunk of them. However, given recent trends, Democrats may still perform well next year regardless of what happens with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the person from this article may have this wrong. The amendment wouldn't affect people who have already gotten their rights back. That would be felons post-ratification.

I'm not convinced they will actually pass that amendment either - At least not in its current menacing form. To not give the Governor any ability to restore rights of some people, thus creating a permanent underclass, would be bad PR. What is more likely is that they end up requiring felons to apply for restoration rather than just let the Governor restore arbitrarily. They could even go so far as to create a complicated application process to effectively create a large swathe of permanently disenfranchised citizens in all but name only.

In the end, I imagine if the next Governor is a Democrat, he will have to ease up on these restorations to avoid provoking movement on this amendment if it hasn't already gotten action. If Republicans don't end up trying to pass it before Nov 2017 but then perceive these endless restoration hijinks to be "the new norm" for Democratic Governors, then they will definitely move to end it by any means possible. They know their time is limited in Virginia, and the hell if they are going to help Democrats snuff themselves out.