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

[Virginiá]

krazen-style counter-narrative Fiendish Republicans attempt to nullify actual election results by calling for expensive, low-turnout and confusing recall elections whenever the rightful rulers of California do something totally within their power.

The glorious Democrats of the successful state of California are merely attempting to fix the broken recall system, and hopefully more changes are implemented to prevent such blatant partisan games from lowly CA Republicans!

[jimrtex]

The Supreme Court will hear a case next term challenging Ohio’s policy of removing inactive voters from the registration rolls: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/335595-supreme-court-to-hear-ohio-voter-purge-case

The problem is how Ohio implements it. Federal law is you can only remove a voter from the voting rolls for cause - they're dead; they've moved; been convicted of a felony; been declared mentally incompetent. There has to be proof - which there generally is in the case of death, felony conviction, or mental incompetence.

When someone moves, there is not generally proof that they have moved, even if they were evicted, someone saw them move, AND the apartment burnt down. If the voter registers elsewhere in the state, they can be removed. Or if you can make contact with a voter and they confirm they have moved, they can be removed.

Federal law requires an attempt to contact the voter by mail to fail, and that they are then classified as an "inactive voter" for two federal election their registration may be purged. If they show up to vote, they can (no provisional vote is required), and they are also removed from the inactive list.

The term "inactive voter" causes confusion, since it implies someone who just doesn't bother voting very often (e.g a 45 YO whose first vote was cast for Obama in 2008, or Trump in 2016). But so long as they keep receiving mail at their voting residence, they are fine to not vote for the next 40 years. Some states exclude "inactive voters" from the calculation of signatures needed for petitions, reasoning that you shouldn't have to get X% of signatures from voters who have probably moved, or alternatively X+% from voters who appear not to have moved.

Anyhow, Ohio appears to mail out a notice to voters who have not voted in a federal election, and if that is returned as undeliverable, the skipped election counts as the first missed election.

The case is not a constitutional issue at all, but an interpretation of a federal statute.

As a practical matter, it may not matter much. If you didn't vote in 2016, were sent a postcard asking whether you still lived at that address, and it was returned as non-deliverables, and don't vote in 2018; you are pretty unlikely to show up to vote in 2020.

[jimrtex]

Also there are probably 5 votes now to uphold the legality of partisan gerrymanders, which sucks.

Why do you say that?

The federal district court accepted the replacement non-racial maps drawn by the legislature, and which were used for the 2016 election. There are court challenges to those maps, but they were not an issue before the SCOTUS. All the SCOTUS said was that the maps which were no longer in use were unconstitutional.

[KingSweden]

krazen-style counter-narrative Fiendish Republicans attempt to nullify actual election results by calling for expensive, low-turnout and confusing recall elections whenever the rightful rulers of California do something totally within their power.

The glorious Democrats of the successful state of California are merely attempting to fix the broken recall system, and hopefully more changes are implemented to prevent such blatant partisan games from lowly CA Republicans!

Heh that was pretty good

The Supreme Court will hear a case next term challenging Ohio’s policy of removing inactive voters from the registration rolls: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/335595-supreme-court-to-hear-ohio-voter-purge-case

The problem is how Ohio implements it. Federal law is you can only remove a voter from the voting rolls for cause - they're dead; they've moved; been convicted of a felony; been declared mentally incompetent. There has to be proof - which there generally is in the case of death, felony conviction, or mental incompetence.

When someone moves, there is not generally proof that they have moved, even if they were evicted, someone saw them move, AND the apartment burnt down. If the voter registers elsewhere in the state, they can be removed. Or if you can make contact with a voter and they confirm they have moved, they can be removed.

Federal law requires an attempt to contact the voter by mail to fail, and that they are then classified as an "inactive voter" for two federal election their registration may be purged. If they show up to vote, they can (no provisional vote is required), and they are also removed from the inactive list.

The term "inactive voter" causes confusion, since it implies someone who just doesn't bother voting very often (e.g a 45 YO whose first vote was cast for Obama in 2008, or Trump in 2016). But so long as they keep receiving mail at their voting residence, they are fine to not vote for the next 40 years. Some states exclude "inactive voters" from the calculation of signatures needed for petitions, reasoning that you shouldn't have to get X% of signatures from voters who have probably moved, or alternatively X+% from voters who appear not to have moved.

Anyhow, Ohio appears to mail out a notice to voters who have not voted in a federal election, and if that is returned as undeliverable, the skipped election counts as the first missed election.

The case is not a constitutional issue at all, but an interpretation of a federal statute.

As a practical matter, it may not matter much. If you didn't vote in 2016, were sent a postcard asking whether you still lived at that address, and it was returned as non-deliverables, and don't vote in 2018; you are pretty unlikely to show up to vote in 2020.

A layman like me would assume a finding for the plaintiffs in this case, then.

[jimrtex]

==================================================================================
Abbott signs relaxed voter ID, end of straight-party voting into law
==================================================================================

http://www.statesman.com/news/abbott-signs-voter-end-straight-party-voting-into-law/5vb95W3p0406a5mRgysEyL/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honestly, that is a voter ID bill I could get behind, save for the absurd felony provision.

It tracks the TRO that Texas operated under in 2016. The 5th Circuit has ruled that Photo ID is OK, but that some people have a hard time getting a Photo ID, and that this has a discriminatory effect since black and Hispanic voters are less likely to have such an ID.

The main differences for actual photo ID is that an expired ID is valid for four years after it expired, and for those over age 70 for life.

The reasonable impediment declaration is only for those without a photo ID, and have a reasonable claim why they don't have one. In the 2016 election, about 3000 voters completed the declaration and were permitted to vote.

Felony prosecution would be most likely for someone who showed up to vote, said they were "Virginia" and showed a utility bill they got while dumpster diving.

[jimrtex]

The Supreme Court will hear a case next term challenging Ohio’s policy of removing inactive voters from the registration rolls: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/335595-supreme-court-to-hear-ohio-voter-purge-case

The problem is how Ohio implements it. Federal law is you can only remove a voter from the voting rolls for cause - they're dead; they've moved; been convicted of a felony; been declared mentally incompetent. There has to be proof - which there generally is in the case of death, felony conviction, or mental incompetence.

When someone moves, there is not generally proof that they have moved, even if they were evicted, someone saw them move, AND the apartment burnt down. If the voter registers elsewhere in the state, they can be removed. Or if you can make contact with a voter and they confirm they have moved, they can be removed.

Federal law requires an attempt to contact the voter by mail to fail, and that they are then classified as an "inactive voter" for two federal election their registration may be purged. If they show up to vote, they can (no provisional vote is required), and they are also removed from the inactive list.

The term "inactive voter" causes confusion, since it implies someone who just doesn't bother voting very often (e.g a 45 YO whose first vote was cast for Obama in 2008, or Trump in 2016). But so long as they keep receiving mail at their voting residence, they are fine to not vote for the next 40 years. Some states exclude "inactive voters" from the calculation of signatures needed for petitions, reasoning that you shouldn't have to get X% of signatures from voters who have probably moved, or alternatively X+% from voters who appear not to have moved.

Anyhow, Ohio appears to mail out a notice to voters who have not voted in a federal election, and if that is returned as undeliverable, the skipped election counts as the first missed election.

The case is not a constitutional issue at all, but an interpretation of a federal statute.

As a practical matter, it may not matter much. If you didn't vote in 2016, were sent a postcard asking whether you still lived at that address, and it was returned as non-deliverables, and don't vote in 2018; you are pretty unlikely to show up to vote in 2020.

A layman like me would assume a finding for the plaintiffs in this case, then.

I messed up on what Ohio was doing.

They were using the failure to vote in a two-year period (where "voting" could also include activities such as updating a voting address) as the trigger to attempt to contact the voter. It was only when they failed to respond AND then did not vote for two federal elections that their registration was cancelled.

The federal district court sided with Ohio, the 6th Circuit overturned the decision on a 2:1 decision, and that is what Ohio is appealing.

The 6th Circuit construed federal law narrowly, that a voter can't be purged for not voting; even though that same paragraph has an exception saying that a voter can be purged for not voting in conjunction with the address confirmation process - which is mandated by federal law.

Georgia has a similar process to Ohio, and it has been upheld, so there is now a live conflict between two different circuits.

The complaint also said the confirmation notice did not:

(1) Tell the voter that his registration would be cancelled if he failed to respond or re-register AND didn't vote in two federal elections, instead it said it might be cancelled.
(2) Didn't state a time period for responding;
(3) And didn't tell persons who moved to another state how they continue to be eligible to vote.

The SOS changed the form with respect to the first two, and the district court accepted that mooted the legal issue. The 6th Circuit disagreed, saying that the SOS might change the form again. The 6th Circuit agreed that Ohio had failed to tell voters who had moved to other states, even Michigan, how they might continue to be eligible to vote.

[TheSaint250]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assume this is automatic as a result of registering to get a drivers license?

[Virginiá]

Thanks Mondale!

I assume this is automatic as a result of registering to get a drivers license?

This is the basic assumption, but the reason it's called automatic here is because so many people use the DMV, that auto-registering people there is tantamount to near-universal registration. I dispute that though, particularly with growing numbers of Millennials forgoing the motor vehicle experience for longer periods of time, and the fact that minorities are disproportionately likely to lack cars and/or IDs.

Some states include other state agencies in their automatic registration bills. I know Illinois' proposed auto-registration bill would include a a whole bunch of agencies, which helps fill in the gaps. Unfortunately (imo), not enough of the AVR states do this.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2017/02/22/maricopa-county-recorder-adrian-fontes-could-lose-elections-job-arizona-legislature-bill/98048454/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The idea being that if they go to review the agreement, they will strip him of his powers for the crime of being a Democrat who actually wants to make it slightly easier to vote in Maricopa County.

[Virginiá]

Potential Michigan redistricting amendment for 2018

http://www.votersnotpoliticians.com/


Looks like we have a chance at getting this fixed, and if what the Democratic Party's redistricting group said was true, they might end up helping with getting this on the ballot. I'm not holding my breath though, as a number of potentially good MI initiatives of all stripes have fizzled out in the recent past. And that was before Republicans made it harder to collect signatures.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Clark County to switch from precinct locations to vote centers (voters will be able to vote anywhere in the county)
==================================================================================

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/clark-county-to-switch-from-precincts-to-vote-centers-for-2018-primary-election

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Sununu signs voter registration restrictions into law
==================================================================================

http://www.wmur.com/article/sununu-signs-controversial-voter-registration-measure-into-law/10286339

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And for this, it would be nice if they could just admit for once that this will not "help turnout," and is designed to lower turnout among students, who many Republican lawmakers don't want to vote as they tend to lean Democratic. Adding restrictions does not "help turnout," and if Republicans want more confidence in elections, they should stop screaming about fraud they know is virtually non-existent every time they lose or come close to losing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not very surprising that HP gov Sununu would make this his priority literally right after winning the election. Many of the races in NH were very close, and when close elections are lost, it's not uncommon to see politicians rush to their posts to pass voter suppression measures to give them just a little bit more of an advantage.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Gerrymandering in Michigan is done!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aren't you jumping the gun a bit?  They have to collect enough signatures to get on the ballot, and then it has to pass.

[Virginiá]

Excellent! Now we are waiting on Rauner to sign the AVR bill sent to him. Hopefully he doesn't drag his feet until the last minute only to veto it.

[Virginiá]

Looks like West Virginia Republicans might repeal automatic voter registration, which they themselves passed only last year, and also turn their light ID requirements into strict photo ID:

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news-politics/20170308/wv-house-judiciary-mulls-stricter-voter-id-law

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WV Republicans must feel slighted that they didn't win every single election in 2016, so now they are going over the books to further game election laws in their favor.

[Virginiá]

Suffolk Superior Court (MA) rules voter registration deadline violates state constitution

https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/889548010530770944

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/889548288231428097

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/889548628712460288

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://aclum.org/uncategorized/statement-aclu-massachusetts-voter-registration-ruling/


I knew this lawsuit was going on, but I didn't actually expect that kind of ruling. Very cool! Massachusetts could now end up seeing same-day voter registration by 2018. Given how deep Democratic control is there, it's disappointing that it hasn't already been implemented, but at least now their hand is being forced. This could also mean some potential movement on automatic voter registration as well.

[KingSweden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remarkable that Bosma is onboard with this. I will say IN's CDs are actually not terrible

[Virginiá]

ACLU investing millions of dollars in Florida to restore ex-felons’ voting rights

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/07/31/aclu-investing-millions-in-florida-to-restore-felons-voting-rights/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

5 million dollars is a lot of money. With that, I'd say this is almost guaranteed to get on the ballot next year. I just wish this was done for 2016, where the electorate would have been younger and more likely to sign off on such a change. Given the 60% vote requirement, there is a fairly good chance this falls short of approval.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Gerrymandering in Ohio is done!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wake me when it actually passes.

[pbrower2a]

I'm guessing that many of the felonies are deeds that do not indicate unsuitability for voting:

marijuana possession
drunk driving
failure to pay child support

[GeorgiaModerate]

Federal Court finds two Texas congressional districts (27 & 35) violate the VRA and 14th Amendment, require that it "must be remedied by either the Texas Legislature or this Court."

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94308

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Texas voting law on language interpreters violates Voting Rights Act, court says
==================================================================================

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/08/17/texas-voting-law-language-interpreters-ruled-unconstitutional/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

wonderful news!

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Texas and/or North Carolina are not put back on under preclearance sometime before 2020, I'd say there is zero reason to have any confidence in Section 3. What we've seen from these two states over the past half decade is about as obvious as their voter suppression will ever get. Top Republican officials are not going to waltz out into the street and tell everyone they are trying to prevent minorities from voting. Any case for preclearance has to be made through the actions of the state government.