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

[KingSweden]

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

If there is any state in need of a serious elections law overhaul, it is NY

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

If there is any state in need of a serious elections law overhaul, it is NY

The GOP clowns in the legislature keep blocking it

How about allowing people to switch parties within 6 months of a primary in NY?

And California approved same day registration 5 years ago, but never implemented it. Where is it? Alex Padilla is a joke.

[Virginiá]

How about allowing people to switch parties within 6 months of a primary in NY?

Yes, as I recall that is reflected in the voting plans from both him and the NY AG.

And California approved same day registration 5 years ago, but never implemented it. Where is it? Alex Padilla is a joke.

You're right - it is a joke that it took this long. The thing is, that law (and others like automatic voter registration in '15) were passed with a provision that they only come into effect the year after the statewide voting system VoteCal is finished/comes online, and being a govt IT project which naturally is mismanaged to death, it literally took about 10+ years to get it done. Alex Padilla only took office in 2015, and the system was finished in early 2016. It's not even remotely his fault. VoteCal and SDR were passed/started long before he took office. If anything you might say he got it back on track.

[Virginiá]

North Carolina special elections for redrawn districts in 2017 on hold per SCOTUS order

==================================================================================
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.

Further, given that the court is having the legislature redraw it (aka the legislature that rigged the maps in the first place), the plaintiffs may be able to file another lawsuit if the GOP tries to maintain equally awful districts.

Also, and I'm not sure if this would idea would work, but since the map is being redrawn, if the legislature continues to gerrymander in their favor, challengers may be able to bring a new lawsuit in state court, but this time under the new 4-3 Democratic State Supreme Court majority (as per Morgan's successful judicial election). I'd like to think that if this worked, they could finally force court-drawn non-partisan maps by 2018. That could open up a possible chance to take back one of the legislature chambers in time for the next round of redistricting in 2021-2022.

If anyone has any thoughts on that last idea, feel free to weigh in!

SCOTUS has issued a temporary stay on the 4th circuit's order for 2017 NC special elections. I'm not sure if this means NC doesn't have to redraw the map, or just that it has to by 2018 instead of March 2017.

It's possible this gets resolved in time for the NC special elections to still occur this year.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011017zr_k5gm.pdf

[jimrtex]

And California approved same day registration 5 years ago, but never implemented it. Where is it? Alex Padilla is a joke.

You're right - it is a joke that it took this long. The thing is, that law (and others like automatic voter registration in '15) were passed with a provision that they only come into effect the year after the statewide voting system VoteCal is finished/comes online, and being a govt IT project which naturally is mismanaged to death, it literally took about 10+ years to get it done. Alex Padilla only took office in 2015, and the system was finished in early 2016. It's not even remotely his fault. VoteCal and SDR were passed/started long before he took office. If anything you might say he got it back on track.

The federal requirement was for the system to be operation in 2006. The USDOJ and the California SOS entered into a consent decree that permitted California to get a non-interactive database running by 2006 (counties would upload their records periodically - this might have even been daily).

This was the schedule for the 10-year late implementation. VoteCal Schedule. If anything, they started slipping after he took office. This likely was not his fault, but neither should he get credit for completing the project.

Alex Padilla is a political hack, who was term-limited from the senate, and needed a place to hang out until another position opens up.

At the single SOS debate before the primary. One candidate said that SOS was his dream job. Alex Padilla said that voters should vote for him so he could help Diane Feinstein implement the $15 wage!

Jfern is too kind to Padilla.

[jimrtex]

North Carolina special elections for redrawn districts in 2017 on hold per SCOTUS order

==================================================================================
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.

Further, given that the court is having the legislature redraw it (aka the legislature that rigged the maps in the first place), the plaintiffs may be able to file another lawsuit if the GOP tries to maintain equally awful districts.

Also, and I'm not sure if this would idea would work, but since the map is being redrawn, if the legislature continues to gerrymander in their favor, challengers may be able to bring a new lawsuit in state court, but this time under the new 4-3 Democratic State Supreme Court majority (as per Morgan's successful judicial election). I'd like to think that if this worked, they could finally force court-drawn non-partisan maps by 2018. That could open up a possible chance to take back one of the legislature chambers in time for the next round of redistricting in 2021-2022.

If anyone has any thoughts on that last idea, feel free to weigh in!

SCOTUS has issued a temporary stay on the 4th circuit's order for 2017 NC special elections. I'm not sure if this means NC doesn't have to redraw the map, or just that it has to by 2018 instead of March 2017.

It's possible this gets resolved in time for the NC special elections to still occur this year.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011017zr_k5gm.pdf

The NC congressional case is under consideration by the SCOTUS (the hearing was last December). If the SCOTUS determines that the district court got that wrong, they may want to look at the NC legislative case.

The legislative districts were upheld by the NC Supreme Court, which had the benefit of the SCOTUS decision in the Alabama case. Technically, there is not a split since the federal court overrules the state court, but the SCOTUS may nonetheless want to consider why two courts came to different conclusions.

In addition, the federal court acted like a panel of martinets in ordering new elections so soon.

[Virginiá]

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate pushes voter ID plan, but resists photo ID requirement

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/12/voter-id-plan-isnt-aimed-election-fraud-pate-says/96504508/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His plan sounds more reasonable, and it is nice to see a Republican not insisting on photo IDs for once. If his plan really does call for reaching out to most people without IDs and providing them one suited for voting, then that is something I can get on board with.

However, how much sway does he really have in this debate? He is the state SoS, and legislators can just pass their photo ID requirements regardless of what he thinks. Anyway, we'll see!

[KingSweden]

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate pushes voter ID plan, but resists photo ID requirement

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/12/voter-id-plan-isnt-aimed-election-fraud-pate-says/96504508/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His plan sounds more reasonable, and it is nice to see a Republican not insisting on photo IDs for once. If his plan really does call for reaching out to most people without IDs and providing them one suited for voting, then that is something I can get on board with.

However, how much sway does he really have in this debate? He is the state SoS, and legislators can just pass their photo ID requirements regardless of what he thinks. Anyway, we'll see!

This actually seems pretty reasonable.

[krazen1211]

The Department of inJustice is reviewing its complaints against Texas commonsense voter ID!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-change-coming-texas-voter-id-case-135207848.html

I don't mind your blathering hyperbole too much krazy, but would you at least get some basic details right.  (Indeed I appreciate you naming Trump's DoJ the Department of inJustice.) So far they've only signaled a desire to review the case and asked for a delay while they do so.

[Virginiá]

New Mexico legislature planning to put automatic voter registration amendment before the people in 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.demos.org/press-release/groups-praise-automatic-voter-registration-constitutional-amendment-increase-voter-acc

As I predicted late last year, the NM legislature appears to be moving to get automatic voter registration implemented before 2020 by referring it to the ballot in 2018. As a loyal Republican, Martinez won't sign any bill that makes voting notably easier, so this is the only way while she is in office. I don't know if this particular amendment will see action soon or even at all, but I think it signals the intent of the legislature, whether it is now or early 2018.

Here is the amendment text:
https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/17%20Regular/resolutions/house/HJR04.html

Also note this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This would require the state to offer election day registration as well. If the goal is to promote maximum voter access, automatic voter registration is best implemented with election day registration, as it allows anyone missed by AVR to still vote, but without causing the long lines SDR can sometimes cause.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

SCOTUS refuses to hear appeal over Texas' voter suppression law

[Gass3268]

Federal judges rule Alabama must redraw legislative districts

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting to note that Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, a possible favorite for the open seat, voted in favor of the redraw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good to know that if he's chosen he wouldn't be horrendous on redistricting cases.

[Badger]

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate pushes voter ID plan, but resists photo ID requirement

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/12/voter-id-plan-isnt-aimed-election-fraud-pate-says/96504508/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His plan sounds more reasonable, and it is nice to see a Republican not insisting on photo IDs for once. If his plan really does call for reaching out to most people without IDs and providing them one suited for voting, then that is something I can get on board with.

However, how much sway does he really have in this debate? He is the state SoS, and legislators can just pass their photo ID requirements regardless of what he thinks. Anyway, we'll see!

This actually seems pretty reasonable.

Except of course I assume the provision COMPLETELY unrelated to partisanship about not allowing student IDs as a valid form of picture ID remains?

[jimrtex]

Except of course I assume the provision COMPLETELY unrelated to partisanship about not allowing student IDs as a valid form of picture ID remains?

Schools typically do not validate identity, residence, citizenship, or age.

[jimrtex]

Federal judges rule Alabama must redraw legislative districts

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting to note that Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, a possible favorite for the open seat, voted in favor of the redraw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good to know that if he's chosen he wouldn't be horrendous on redistricting cases.

A second order indicated that there is no intent to require new boundaries before 2018. It is possible that they delayed issuing their ruling until after the election, and when Loretta Lynch was on her way outside the door.

This places the Alabama district court in conflict with the North Carolina district court.

When the SCOTUS heard the case, there was a debate between the Justices about whether the plaintiffs had actually cited any specific districts, as the conservative justices were suggesting that the liberal justices were writing the brief for the plaintiffs on the fly. The majority opinion went out of its way to list specific instances in the brief where specific districts had mentioned.

Part of the problem was the plaintiffs had put a lot of emphasis on the fact that the legislature had set a 1% deviation limit, whereas the Democrats in the 2000 era had set a 5% limit and then drew most majority black districts-majority at 4% or more below the quota. By 2010 many black-majority  districts were more than 20% below the quota. The SCOTUS was embarrassed to question the plaintiffs about their claim of discriminating by making districts equal in population, and ruled that of course the legislature was required to equalize population, and they could not use that as justification for drawing the districts.

On remand, the district court let the plaintiff's itemize the problems with each district (they challenged 36 districts). The court ruled that 14 districts had discriminatory effect by too aggressively seeking black votes, but two were OK because the representatives from the district had testified in legislative hearings that they needed 62%-black districts to be sure of being elected.

The dissent said that 24 districts were discriminatory, and the majority opinion hisses at the "dissent" and the "dissenting judge" dozens of times.

It will be interesting to see if the plaintiffs appeal the decision. If the SCOTUS takes the case, they will have to take the North Carolina legislative case.

[Badger]

Except of course I assume the provision COMPLETELY unrelated to partisanship about not allowing student IDs as a valid form of picture ID remains?

Schools typically do not validate identity, residence, citizenship, or age.

state schools?

[jimrtex]

Except of course I assume the provision COMPLETELY unrelated to partisanship about not allowing student IDs as a valid form of picture ID remains?

Schools typically do not validate identity, residence, citizenship, or age.

state schools?

In Texas it is illegal for public schools to inquire about citizenship because it might be discriminatory.

[Virginiá]

Iowa considers restrictive photo ID bills in addition to more broad reform, including ending same day registration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/2017/01/31/read-iowa-secretary-of-state-paul-pates-draft-voter-id-and-election-reform-bills/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I stated last year, with complete control of the state government, Iowa Republicans are moving to try and lock in their majorities via voter suppression, as is standard practice among new GOP state majorities.

Even the Iowa SoS is pushing for non-photo voter ID, and ending SDR does nothing to prevent fraud, especially considering that they already require an ID to register on election day.

[Brittain33]

In Texas it is illegal for public schools to inquire about citizenship because it might be discriminatory.

I'm guessing they don't want the children of undocumented immigrants, whether undocumented themselves or not, to be kept out of school by parents afraid of being exposed.

[jimrtex]

In Texas it is illegal for public schools to inquire about citizenship because it might be discriminatory.

I'm guessing they don't want the children of undocumented immigrants, whether undocumented themselves or not, to be kept out of school by parents afraid of being exposed.

See Plyler v Doe

[krazen1211]

Arkansas starts the process to pass great voter ID!

Link

 A bill that would require voters to show verification that they are registered to vote passed the Arkansas House of Representatives on Tuesday (Jan. 31).

[Virginiá]

Virginia GOP-controlled Senate passes felony disenfranchisement reform amendment that strips some rights restoration power from Gov, while automating other restorations

* additional amendment aims to allow GOP to usurp potential Democratic power by giving legislature ability to overturn executive regulations by simple majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/gop-legislature-moves-to-wrest-regulatory-power-from-va-governor/2017/02/07/368dac82-ecc4-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Update (Feb 11th) Upon further review of the amendment summary/text, I have amended my response as follows:

1. Republicans have crafted this amendment to grant the General Assembly the ability to craft virtually unlimited new criteria for rights restoration via statute, meaning they can essentially prevent any mass rights restoration indefinitely, assuming they have a unified government to preempt a future Democratic administration. This was probably their intention - give themselves the ability to adapt to new situations where Democratic felons might actually get their rights back. If the legislature majority party wasn't full of people willing to suppress voting to win, I'd be largely indifferent to this provision. Since it's not, I have to disagree with their goals here.

2. The criteria that felons pay full court fees, restitution and any other fines in order to vote almost seems like a poll tax. I wouldn't be surprised if this was able to be litigated in federal court.

Overall, after further study on this, I'm not sure it is fair to call this anything else other than what it is: an attempt by the GOP to restrict the franchise for felons and prevent Democratic governors from restoring rights to any sizable majority of people. Should this pass, it would give the GA the ability to create nearly unlimited new restrictions and by forcing violent felons to apply to get their rights back, after waiting 5 years and paying fines/fees/etc, it will result in the vast majority of violent felons never getting their rights back - which is exactly what the VA GOP wants.

Amendment text: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+ful+SJ223ES2+pdf



Update on McAulife voting rights restoration actions: Gov McAuliffe has so far, by Jan 2017, restored voting rights to 140,000 felons. This is close to his initial goal of 200,000 felons, which will, at this rate, definitely be completed before this year's state elections, in time for these felons to be registered.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/34203534/governor-mcauliffe-provides-update-on-restoration-of-rights-numbers

I think it should probably go without saying that 200,000 felons getting their rights back will probably give a boost to the Democratic Gov. nominee. Even at a somewhat conservative registration/vote rate of 20% of the 200,000 felons, that is still 40,000 more voters. In a state where 53% of all felons are African American, Democrats can expect to benefit the most from these restorations.

I also must state that 53% of all felons being African American in a state where African Americans are only 19.7% of the population, something is deeply wrong and politicians who allow such a blatantly discriminatory criminal justice system to continue should be ashamed of themselves.




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



Also, not voting-related, but here Virginia Republicans are following the NCGOP playbook and using what power they do have to try and shift more power from the Governor's office to the legislature. They probably realize that they are going to increasingly be marginalized in the state, so what better way to cling to power than to give them easy vetoes over the Governor's regulatory agenda!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(from same WaPo article)

This amendment would also need to be approved by the HoD, and then approved again by the entire legislature in 2018, where it would then go on the 2018 ballot. The same goes for the felony disenfranchisement amendment above.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Well that's the least worst voting rights related bill I've seen come out of a GOP state legislature in recent years, but still a bad bill.

Regarding the legislature power consolidation, depending on how the Virginia state legislature election goes later this year, it might be too late for the GOP to actually make use of a more powerful legislative check on executive regulations by the time it passes through all the hoops to become law.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
California aims to make election day a state holiday
==================================================================================

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/16/california-bill-would-make-election-day-a-state-holiday/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Normally I wouldn't post things like this, but California has been extremely progressive with expanding voter access since 2012, so on that alone, the chances this becomes law are pretty significant imo.

However, I am a bit torn on this. How many private businesses will close to encourage voting? Unless the govt provides some incentive, whether it be tax breaks or something else, I don't see it having much effect. Instead, this mainly gives public workers more chances to vote. It's something, but not enough.

On the other hand, one must applaud California for the work it has done expanding the franchise over the years. Aside from big-ticket policy like auto/same day registration, CA has passed numerous smaller changes similar to this that alone, may not seem like much, but together combine to make a more substantial difference.


Also, at the bottom:

You must be logged in to read this quote.