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

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Nevada: Automatic voter registration initiative has enough signatures to get on 2018 ballot
==================================================================================

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/motor-voter-initiative-will-go-legislature-next-year

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As the process goes, the Nevada legislature will take this issue up next session and vote to pass the initiative, subject to a veto. If it is vetoed or otherwise not passed, it will go to the voters in 2018.

Given that Nevada only requires a majority vote for ballot initiatives, I'd say that it is all but assured that automatic voter registration is passed in Nevada within the next 2~ years. Either the legislature+Governor approve it, or the voters do, and I really don't see this being rejected in 2018.

We'll see. I'll be posting more about this after the legislature acts on it and probably again before the midterms.

[jimrtex]

==================================================================================
Federal judge orders North Carolina legislative maps redrawn by March, special election in in Nov 2017
==================================================================================

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judges-order-legislative-maps-march-special-election-43860290

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If this order is upheld on appeal to the USSC, it will give Democrats another chance to weaken the Republican supermajority in the legislature only 1 year from now instead of 2. This time it will be one year into Trump's presidency, where, if he finds himself embroiled in scandal and/or remains deeply unpopular, might have a negative effect on Republicans in this election.

The story is not accurate. Only 19 House districts and 9 Senate districts have to be redrawn along with any adjacent districts that are modified. I suspect it will be around 40 to 60.

North Carolina requires legislative districts to follow county lines, but OMOV decisions require county lines to to be crossed. The North Carolina courts have harmonized the two by requiring grouping of counties equivalent to a whole number of legislators, then drawing districts.

When the legislature drew the districts, they disregarded county lines in trying to maintain majority-black districts in order to get Section 5 preclearance from the Obama administration, which they did. The district court ruled that you can't violate the Constitution simply to placate an out-of-control partisan bureaucrat in Washington.

The districts are mostly in the eastern part of the state. The furthest west are in Mecklenburg and Guilford counties, where the house districts are entirely contained in a single county.

The legislature is not going to completely draw a new map. They will redo the majority black districts, which will still end up in the mid-40s. It may make an adjacent district more Democratic, but few if any districts will be flipped. Perhaps a black candidate may be tempted to run in the Democratic primary. If they win, then a Republican might have a chance in the general election.

[Virginiá]

The story is not accurate. Only 19 House districts and 9 Senate districts have to be redrawn along with any adjacent districts that are modified. I suspect it will be around 40 to 60.

Right. A few other articles I read on this did correctly state that. Would only the redrawn districts be up for reelection then in 2017?

Either way, lots of gains aren't even necessary here. Obviously this is not going to make it much easier to take back the chamber, but picking up only a handful of seats in the State House would allow Democrats to prevent veto overrides, provided they vote party line.

[Gass3268]

Tea Leaves suggest Kennedy will be in favor of striking down the 12 over packed African American legislative districts in VA, less sure about the North Carolina case

[muon2]

==================================================================================
Illinois legislature fails to override veto on automatic voter registration
==================================================================================

https://thinkprogress.org/breaking-republicans-block-program-to-register-2-million-illinois-voters-2c975811cf6f#.vxhfpfgs5

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dead in the water until at least 2019, or possibly longer if Rauner wins reelection.

The Dems could have taken up HB6627 last month which met all of the issues raised in the Gov's veto message. As I noted when the Gov vetoed the bill, it was weak on privacy and data security between agencies and that was spoken about during debate last May.

[Virginiá]

The Dems could have taken up HB6627 last month which met all of the issues raised in the Gov's veto message. As I noted when the Gov vetoed the bill, it was weak on privacy and data security between agencies and that was spoken about during debate last May.

Is there a legitimate reason why Rauner waited until the last minute to veto this? Is that standard practice? Because it does look like he was just running out the clock to prevent further movement. If he was really open to changes, why give no time to do it?

Further, didn't Rauner specifically want implementation delayed until after 2018? I mean let's be honest here. Even if Democrats had made the necessary changes, it still seems likely Rauner would find another reason to veto it. Republicans are rabidly against expanding voter access for a reason.

For the record though, I don't think some of the changes requested are unreasonable. Letting people opt-out onsite by checking a box (whereas not checking 1 little box means they get registered) is what California and iirc, Vermont did as well. So it's not the worst thing. It is still going to be effective in registering many new low-propensity voters. I personally think Democrats should just do that, as it is better than nothing. But, we'll see. As stated, I'm not convinced Rauner is serious. Republican politicians have forfeited the benefit of the doubt in my eyes.

[pbrower2a]

It's over. Welcome to the new CSA (Corporate States of America).

[krazen1211]

Voting ID is coming to the great state of Michigan.

Link

Strict voter ID law approved in Michigan House




Great news!

[pbrower2a]

Do you know the difference between snakes and the Michigan Republican party?

Snakes hibernate in the winter.

[muon2]

The Dems could have taken up HB6627 last month which met all of the issues raised in the Gov's veto message. As I noted when the Gov vetoed the bill, it was weak on privacy and data security between agencies and that was spoken about during debate last May.

Is there a legitimate reason why Rauner waited until the last minute to veto this? Is that standard practice? Because it does look like he was just running out the clock to prevent further movement. If he was really open to changes, why give no time to do it?

Further, didn't Rauner specifically want implementation delayed until after 2018? I mean let's be honest here. Even if Democrats had made the necessary changes, it still seems likely Rauner would find another reason to veto it. Republicans are rabidly against expanding voter access for a reason.

For the record though, I don't think some of the changes requested are unreasonable. Letting people opt-out onsite by checking a box (whereas not checking 1 little box means they get registered) is what California and iirc, Vermont did as well. So it's not the worst thing. It is still going to be effective in registering many new low-propensity voters. I personally think Democrats should just do that, as it is better than nothing. But, we'll see. As stated, I'm not convinced Rauner is serious. Republican politicians have forfeited the benefit of the doubt in my eyes.

The bill passed on the last day of session (5/31) with large numbers of Pub votes - 15 /47 in the House and 12/20 in the Senate, including the Senate minority leader. Just before that a WV compromise bill (AVR with Canadian-style voter ID) was offered and rejected. The passed bill went to the Gov on 6/13 and negotiations were started with proponents. The only scheduled special session was on June 30 to pass a stopgap spending plan, and negotiations had just begun. Those negotiations continued through the summer. Had negotiations been successful then the Gov might have offered an amendatory veto rather than a full veto. After the veto the Pubs offered further negotiation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In private conversations the proponents conceded that AVR wouldn't add that many actual voters to the 2016 election since IL had such strong EDR. The checkbox was a big issue they didn't want, since it would block the addition to the database of many potential voters who would otherwise opt out later, essentially to help with data mining.

After the election the Pubs offered a clean AVR bill with the Gov's recommended changes and described the issues in an op ed in the Springfield paper. I suspect that the proponents saw all the Pub votes on the original bill and assumed that an override would be easy. But the Pubs switched their support to the alternate bill and the veto was upheld. The proponents stuck with their initial position throughout and got nothing in the end.

[Virginiá]

In private conversations the proponents conceded that AVR wouldn't add that many actual voters to the 2016 election since IL had such strong EDR. The checkbox was a big issue they didn't want, since it would block the addition to the database of many potential voters who would otherwise opt out later, essentially to help with data mining.

After the election the Pubs offered a clean AVR bill with the Gov's recommended changes and described the issues in an op ed in the Springfield paper. I suspect that the proponents saw all the Pub votes on the original bill and assumed that an override would be easy. But the Pubs switched their support to the alternate bill and the veto was upheld. The proponents stuck with their initial position throughout and got nothing in the end.

Thank you for the clarification mr muon.

The reason you stated in the first part is actually something that has worried me about automatic registration. In addition to that, in the states where registrations have party affiliation data, it would heavily skew the rolls towards unaffiliated as people inevitably fail to mail back a choice (if given the option). Of course this could be remedied by not only allowing but also encouraging voters to choose an affiliation when they go vote.

There are situations where AVR beats out SDR imo - Vote-by-mail states would benefit a lot from AVR as ballots would essentially be mailed to most eligible voters. In states without vote-by-mail, SDR would seem to be a better option as AVR doesn't provide overwhelming benefits worth the loss of data you mentioned + party data. On the other hand, SDR can cause large lines if they don't make adjustments to properly accommodate it. It's part of the reason I think AVR would be better in say, FL.

I really think AVR states will need to reconcile some of these issues at some point. Much more advanced statistics on the who, what, where, when of voting might help.

[Gass3268]

Voting ID is coming to the great state of Michigan.

Link

Strict voter ID law approved in Michigan House




Great news!

Michigan Senate kills the bill

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
4th Circuit Unanimously Rejects Challenge to Virginia Voter ID Law
==================================================================================

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/va-voter-id-4th.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I predicted before, the bill was upheld. No way a 3-judge panel of Republican appointees was going to throw out VA's photo ID law, especially given the relative weakness of the case.

Personally I still think it should have been overturned. They had a more reasonable ID law before this photo ID requirement. That they only found it necessary after Democrats began winning a bunch of elections is enough for me. They don't care about non-existent fraud. They care about shrinking the electorate to their benefit.

[KingSweden]

Virginia,

What are your thoughts on WV, where my understanding is they passed voter ID paired with automatic voter registration?

[Virginiá]

Virginia,

What are your thoughts on WV, where my understanding is they passed voter ID paired with automatic voter registration?

Not as against it as my usual positions might suggest. I wrote a thread about it prior to the creation of this one:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=232083.0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I stated, I'm not against voter ID in principle, but until basically everyone has an acceptable form of ID or actual in-person voter fraud becomes a huge problem, I can't support voter ID - particularly photo ID requirements. What WV did was pretty reasonable, and is the kind of voter ID law I'd support if one had to be passed. My beef with voter ID laws is that they tend to be strict photo ID requirements specifically designed to reduce Democratic turnout. There are better ways to protect against in-person fraud than requiring photo IDs, but of course Republicans aren't passing these laws because of fraud. That's just their "official/public" excuse.

Plus, when voter ID must be passed, I would insist it be paired with another pro-voter access service/regulation that would offset the drop in turnout that voter ID can cause. That is why I liked West Virginia's law. Usually Republicans don't do that, and they actually could have in WV but choose to be decent about it. For now, anyway.

[KingSweden]

Virginia,

What are your thoughts on WV, where my understanding is they passed voter ID paired with automatic voter registration?

Not as against it as my usual positions might suggest. I wrote a thread about it prior to the creation of this one:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=232083.0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I stated, I'm not against voter ID in principle, but until basically everyone has an acceptable form of ID or actual in-person voter fraud becomes a huge problem, I can't support voter ID - particularly photo ID requirements. What WV did was pretty reasonable, and is the kind of voter ID law I'd support if one had to be passed. My beef with voter ID laws is that they tend to be strict photo ID requirements specifically designed to reduce Democratic turnout. There are better ways to protect against in-person fraud than requiring photo IDs, but of course Republicans aren't passing these laws because of fraud. That's just their "official/public" excuse.

Plus, when voter ID must be passed, I would insist it be paired with another pro-voter access service/regulation that would offset the drop in turnout that voter ID can cause. That is why I liked West Virginia's law. Usually Republicans don't do that, and they actually could have in WV but choose to be decent about it. For now, anyway.

I think it's the best compromise in non-all mail voting states

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Judge puts NC GOP elections board makeover on hold after Roy Cooper sues
==================================================================================

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article123763694.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since this fight over the election/ethics board(s) will significantly impact early voting opportunities in the 2017 and 2018 elections, it seems fit to be here.

[KingSweden]

Despite the nakedly partisan shenanigans here, I do think it's insane NC has a BoE structured the way it does

[Virginiá]

Despite the nakedly partisan shenanigans here, I do think it's insane NC has a BoE structured the way it does

Well yes, quite honestly it is, but if one party of a bipartisan setup decides it will just obstruct any reasonable early voting plans, this setup essentially becomes necessary. I'd much rather have a bipartisan panel that is better designed to avoid deadlocks, but also defaults to generous early voting plans if the board can't make a decision. Right now, indecision would result in the default of only 1 early voting site per county affected - at the clerk's office, and this is exactly what Republicans want to happen.

[Virginiá]

https://twitter.com/desmoinesdem/status/816811626208829443




As I alluded to (though I was more specific on SDR) after the election, Iowa GOP is moving to pass a voter suppression bill, as it standard for where ever they gain new legislative power.


Edit: https://www.yahoo.com/news/iowas-top-election-official-announces-voter-id-bill-232539114.html?ref=gs

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course student IDs won't be accepted. What would be the point of voter ID if it didn't reduce turnout among young people.

I'll make a new post once the actual bill(s) are submitted.

[pbrower2a]

Your statement that you are the person intending to vote on pain of sentence of perjury for any false statement should be enough.

[Virginiá]

Your statement that you are the person intending to vote on pain of sentence of perjury for any false statement should be enough.

what?

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Court Holds Pasadena, Texas Discriminated in Move to At-Large Districts, Places City under Preclearance
==================================================================================

https://www.scribd.com/document/335897732/Patino-v-Pasadena

You must be logged in to read this quote.

==================================================================================
US designates election infrastructure as 'critical'
==================================================================================

https://apnews.com/64a7228c974d43009cdfc2b98766320b/US-designates-election-infrastructure-as-'critical?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kind of amazing how this is just being done now, particularly when you look at what other sectors are already designated as critical. What isn't amazing is the usual conservative reaction of "overreach" - Kemp is probably afraid this will somehow impact his state's ability to suppress their political opponents.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
In Alabama, federal intervention protects minority rights
==================================================================================

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-alabama-federal-intervention-protects-minority-rights/2017/01/07/7286ce48-d217-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.77436e29bf57

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The hours still seem incredibly measly, but it's better than before. You can't require documents/IDs then make it virtually impossible to get them because only one office is open nearby one day of the month. Some people may have to make multiple trips, yet that is not reasonably possible with those kinds of hours.

My view is that if you want to require IDs to vote but can't afford to fund services that provide said IDs, then you need to repeal the ID requirement or find a way to pay for it. It's a no-brainer. I'm sure AL GOP lawmakers understood this just fine, though.

[Gass3268]

Andrew Cuomo proposes same day voter registartion, early voting, and automatic voter registration via the DMV in New York.