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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[muon2]

I'm getting the feeling the Supreme Court, especially Kennedy, is getting sick of these redistricting cases and might be willing to call partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional as a means to try to end them. Fingers crossed in the Wisconsin case.

As long as they don't mandate that goofy efficiency gap theory. See my analysis on the Wisconsin Leg thread. It fails to separate a fair map from a partisan gerrymander, and worse IMO is that it would push map makers away from competitive districts in the plan. They would want to gerrymander as many safe seats with 60-75% for the winner to insure the plan was safe from challenges.

[muon2]

==================================================================================
Breaking: District Court, Splitting 2-1, Finds Some Texas Congressional Districts Violate Voting Rights Act or Constitution
==================================================================================

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91545

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Been waiting a lowng time for this!

The decision makes sense under the VRA, but at the same time the remedy would increase the efficiency gap if the WI standard were applied. The WI court seemed to completely ignore the fact that better VRA compliance also creates more Dem wasted votes. If this two pronged approach attacking Pub gerrymanders is successful, I don't see how one reconciles the two prongs. Based on the WI decision, they seem to hope the court never notices the contradiction.

[muon2]

Illinois legislature takes another crack at automatic voter registration (this time slightly less automatic)

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois/articles/2017-03-15/illinois-lawmakers-revive-automatic-voter-registration-push

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course Rauner will probably still veto this. It's unlikely his primary concern(s) were related to the bill's specifics but rather his chances at reelection. Suffice to say, the best way to get him to sign this would be to delay it until Jan 2019.

The House and Senate versions are not the same. Rauner endorsed a version identical to the House bill (HB626) last year. The Secretary of State and State Board of Election have both said that the Senate version has a time table that is probably too aggressive to meet, but the House bill does not have that problem. A key implementation detail is to coordinate AVR at the SBoE with the new Real ID data base at the SoS, scheduled to go online in 2018. Both bills are expected to see amendments before all is said and done.

[muon2]

Rauner got BTFO

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am still a little skeptical that it will eventually be signed into law, mainly because the original version had veto-proof support (iirc), only for Republicans to run away from the bill once Rauner vetoed it. However, that one was a purely partisan bill I think, and this new version has been rejiggered with contributions from Republicans, so if it can sync up with the House version, I don't see why it shouldn't pass.

Calling muon2!

-

Also, for the record, the Senate version at least has an activation date of July 2018:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=91&GA=100&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1933&GAID=14&LegID=105253&SpecSess=&Session=

Which means people will begin getting auto-registered months before the general election. This is noteworthy because (1) it will affect the midterm election, and (2) Rauner wanted the law to go into effect in 2019, so as to not hurt his chances at reelection. We'll have see where this goes.

The activation date remains a point of concern. The proponents want it ready for the 2018 general election. However, the bill requires coordination with the state's implementation of REAL ID. That's expected to be done sometime in 2018, but the SOS only has to be done by Sep to meet the feds extension. Even if REAL ID is done by July 1, that doesn't leave the State Board of Election time to get their technology synched with the SoS to handle the applications by that date. The SBoE has some other technical concerns - there's a lot of mismatched tech (and lack thereof in some locations) throughout IL.

The Dems passed an omnibus election bill in the lame duck session of 2014 on a partisan vote. It had an effective date of June 1, 2015 Parts of it still aren't implemented because the SBoE doesn't have the technical resources. Some would like to avoid that with AVR, so I expect negotiations to continue in the House. Many Senators were told that more changes would be forthcoming and they voted on it with that assumption. Many bills are passed unanimously out of one chamber to meet the deadline knowing that both sides are getting close, and that work will be finished in the other chamber.

[muon2]

Automatic voter registration unanimously passed the IL House today and will return to the Senate for concurrence on the House amendment which became the bill.

[muon2]

Automatic voter registration unanimously passed the IL House today and will return to the Senate for concurrence on the House amendment which became the bill.

Why is everyone (including Rauner) game for this version and not the last one?

The first version was essentially based on the idea that this is a great progressive idea and we ought to pass it. It couldn't be implemented as passed, and likely violated federal law to boot. The current version is based on the idea that we can make the voting process more efficient and secure, especially in light of polling places crowded last year with election day registrants and a state election data base hacked last year exposing over 100 K records.

The Senate has concurred with the amendment and it is on its way to the Gov.

[muon2]

I actually don't agree. Avr is a operations mess

How? All it does is automate something that previously required some input from people (although some versions of it still require a modicum of input). Otherwise I can't possibly see why you would say this.

It is only a mess so long as the design and basic implementation is a mess. The idea itself is solid, and there is no reason it couldn't be implemented smoothly.

Correct. It's a mess where states put it through without the planning or resources to implement it. AVR requires coordination between the state agencies (principally Motor Vehicles) and the state election authority, then from the state election authority to local jurisdictions (often counties) that have to run the polls. Making sure data formats and cross-checks are in place are part of a good program. So is setting up a clear and private process for citizens who want to opt out for personal reasons. Done properly, AVR acts like voter ID on the front end, so there is less need for it on the back end at the polling place. The IL law does all those things.

[muon2]

I actually don't agree. Avr is a operations mess

How? All it does is automate something that previously required some input from people (although some versions of it still require a modicum of input). Otherwise I can't possibly see why you would say this.

It is only a mess so long as the design and basic implementation is a mess. The idea itself is solid, and there is no reason it couldn't be implemented smoothly.

It's great in theory hard in practice. People are not stationary, they move around, 40% of eligible voters never vote. We have a moving 40% clogging up rolls making larger voter books that may be registered in places they don't live with no update.

The biggest problem with us voting is illegal voting. It isn't fraud. It's people voting in places they aren't eligible in, this continues this as well as presents people that run elections with additional challenges.

At the end of the day SOME responsibility has to fall on the voter.

In IL this was borne out by testimony from county clerks and local election officials. That same testimony talked about how the most important thing to address this was to catch address changes that lead to people showing up in a polling place without registration. Downstate IL counties were particularly affected by this in the 2016 primary when a surprising number of unregistered voters came out for Trump. Those counties spent a lot of time and money processing provisional ballots.

AVR fixes that. Most people will go to the DMV or some other state agency when they move to change their address. In the case of the DMV that change links to their status under the federal Real ID program (which includes citizenship) and uses that to verify their eligibility to vote. The new address and registration goes to the local election jurisdiction, and at the same time the state election board notifies the locals to delete any prior registration. The state can also tie to other states to track moves between states.

[muon2]

I'm not sure that McCormick understands the workings of AVR. There seems to be an assumption that the voter is automatically registered and can do nothing abut it. That's not how AVR works, and in many ways it just extends the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter). The difference is that under the Motor Voter law the voter must opt in, and under AVR the voter opts out. Either way the voter has final control about their registration status.

[muon2]

This would appear to be purely partisan politics here, since younger voters are more likely to be Democratic voters.  

Partisan politics is what guides most changes to election law by Republicans.

Unfortunately what I've seen in IL is that it guides most election law changes when Dems control.a state, too.

[muon2]

3. MT/ME (+WA) - These states already have same-day voter registration, and WA doesn't have SDR but it has mail voting which substantially boosts turnout as it is. AVR is not all that necessary in these states, but fwiw, WA might implement some form of AVR due to Democrats taking back the legislature.

In IL the existence of SDR made it much easier to craft a version of AVR that Pubs could support. As noted, AVR doesn't boost voter participation much beyond what one gets from SDR. It does shift where the cost and effort takes place. With SDR the cost and effort is on election day and the weeks immediately after since SDR voters still have to be verified by the local election authorities. In the 2016 primaries many rural counties were swamped with Pub voters and rushed to print more ballots at extra cost and then staff up to process the votes. Cutting those local costs with AVR resonated with budget-conscious Pubs.

[muon2]

==================================================================================
Massachusetts' top election official offers Legislature a plan for same-day voter registration
==================================================================================

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/01/25/top-election-official-mass-proposes-allowing-same-day-voter-registration/QJhitv3dsXh5gO3Oa7XJFJ/story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

About time. It's just a shame it took a judge ruling the current registration deadline unconstitutional and then a primary challenge for him to actually do this.

IL did find that election day registration did put a strain on some local election jurisdictions, especially when an unexpected turnout appeared such as for Trump in rural counties in the 2016 primary. Analysis showed that the best way to alleviate that strain is to use automatic voter registration since it takes care of the bureaucratic portion of registration at a time when the local officials are not tied up trying to run the election proper.

[muon2]

This is from a federal lawsuit that led to a stay on the Michigan legislature's bill that ended straight ticket voting:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/16/michigan-gop-straight-ticket-ban/110494644/

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.

Lots of partisan wrangling on that. I mean, let's be honest. If ending straight ticket voting but not doing anything to mitigate the longer lines it would cause is going to give Republicans any advantage, it's going to be a pretty small one, so why are they going through all this effort for it? They've already rigged both the legislative and Congressional maps. Is that not enough for them?

It's really absurd how far lawmakers are taking this crap.

I'm generally in favor of opening the voting process, especially when it comes to AVR and ballot access. I don't understand why anyone thinks straight party ticket options are democratic in a non-parliamentary democracy. I like the CA top two system which is antithetical to straight ticket voting.

[muon2]

Young suburbans often have a hard time comprehending that not everyone was blessed with parents who kept their birth certificate/social security properly stored.  Many a times more elderly, poor, minorities who grew up during the civil rights era will lack proper documentation.  See this example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.5c33d7df44e4

I've read a good amount of articles on this subject; and yes the barrier for entry is much harder than just going by the BMV and grabbing a government ID real quick.  You need to get all of the other documentation in order first; and that's often very costly.  So even if the government ID is free; it's still essentially a poll tax for voting when it comes to these people.  Especially if your license can be taken away/suspended due to failure of payment of a minor traffic violation (again; another hidden indirect poll tax).  I know many are okay with disenfranchisement of felons (which thankfully Democrats have made strides to correct like McAuliffe in Virginia); but essentially we're putting failure of payment for minor traffic violations by poor people into the same mix.  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/voter_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html

There are many valid reasons why one might not have an ID and why the unnecessary burden of a voter ID functions as an indirect poll tax on millions of them exercising their right to vote for the sake of warm and fuzzy feelings about stopping one or two cases of voter fraud. https://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146204308/why-millions-of-americans-have-no-government-id

I again fall back on:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, the Real ID is happening. That's already done.

If you don't believe photo IDs are required to vote, then there are a ton of things in society where the photo ID requirement should be legislatively banned. Period. There are far too many things that require photo IDs that are far less important than voting. How do these people function in daily society? You have to have a photo ID to drop off or pickup a child according to some daycares. To sit for the SAT exam, you have to have a photo ID. If you don't have a photo ID, you are effectively banned from leaving the country. You can't get into Canada for damn sure. You can't get on an airplane. You can choose to be an illegal and cross into Mexico or hop on an intertube and try to reach Cuba or Haiti. It is preposterous when you consider everything that requires a photo ID, and yet voting is the one thing where people think this should not apply.

To all people that don't think photo ID should be required to vote, I ask you to start pushing for legislation to ban all things that require photo ID. When you actually start doing those bills and they start getting turned into law, I'll treat your argument like it has merit. This is an intellectually bankrupt argument otherwise.


edit: To receive your credentials to get access into the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, you were required to show photo ID.

Few states have implemented Real ID, fwiw.

Anyways I think you’re debating practice vs principle. There’s nothing wrong with Voter ID in *principle*, hell I’m open to it, but in practice it is often designed to be unfair and keep voters unfavorable to GOP candidates from the polls. Making it hard to get an ID, arbitrary decisions in what kind of ID can be used, shutting down DMVs in minority areas... there are a number of cases in which Republicans pushing these laws have not acted in good faith.

That said, if implemented fairly, I’m not against it. Say, by combining AVR and Voter ID. I’d be open to that. Of course being spoiled to live in a VBM State I think our system is the best.

29 states and DC are compliant with Real ID. IL expects to be compliant by Jan 1, 2019. Real ID is an excellent tool to use in an AVR system. It helps avoid the necessity of a polling place ID when checking the ID was part of the AVR.

[muon2]

Turrible news for Mia Love:

Independent redistricting proposal appears to have qualified for November's ballot in Utah

Apparently this commission recommends plans to the legislature, and the legislature can opt to enact its own plan. However, it must still abide by rules provided in this initiative, which includes a prohibition on favoring incumbents, political parties and such. (initiative text). I'm not sure how well this will play out. It allows people to seek relief in the court for erroneous maps, but it's always possible that the courts end up allowing it anyway.

I don't understand why they did it this way. Why not just have the commission enact the map, with the legislature only making recommendations? All I can think of is that because it's an initiated statute, it has to accommodate the legislature's role in redistricting. But then it's also worth noting that the legislature can change this law if it wants, and it is very easy to see that happening.

It looks like it would function much like the system in IA. The UT commission substitutes for the legislative bureau that draws the maps as a neutral party. Like IA the legislature gets up to three tries at a plan drawn by the neutral party, and if failing to accept them draws its own. This UT proposal seems tighter in how it deals with the situation when the neutral party plans are not accepted. It's worth noting that IA has never gone to the point of rejecting all offerings since their system began in 1980.

[muon2]

It looks like it would function much like the system in IA. The UT commission substitutes for the legislative bureau that draws the maps as a neutral party. Like IA the legislature gets up to three tries at a plan drawn by the neutral party, and if failing to accept them draws its own. This UT proposal seems tighter in how it deals with the situation when the neutral party plans are not accepted. It's worth noting that IA has never gone to the point of rejecting all offerings since their system began in 1980.

Does Iowa allow the Governor to veto maps? If so, that Iowa has had split control of the government in every redistricting year post-1981/2 could account for that.

There is the possibility of a veto, but articles I've read about IA haven't suggested that. If one party wanted to force the issue and controlled the court, the IA constitution calls on the court to draw the map if no plan is enacted by Sep 15. That hasn't happened either since 1980, but did before the current process was created.

[muon2]

There is the possibility of a veto, but articles I've read about IA haven't suggested that. If one party wanted to force the issue and controlled the court, the IA constitution calls on the court to draw the map if no plan is enacted by Sep 15. That hasn't happened either since 1980, but did before the current process was created.

I suppose they could have tried. Not all state parties are as equally ruthless though. If the IAGOP was more like the NCGOP, I imagine they would have gotten rid of SDR almost immediately, along with trying to scrap the redistricting system in place.

IA as a whole shares a lot of the sense of fair play known in their neighbor as "Minnesota nice". My visits to UT give me the impression that they may also have enough of that to make this system work.

[muon2]

I suspect that the proposal in MO is based on similar state constitutional law as in IL. In IL the state constitution only deals with legislative apportionment, so that is the only type of district where one can impose procedural changes. Congressional districts are purely statutory.

As Torie notes, I have often quoted academic studies that show an ideal legislature should not mirror the statewide vote but should skew about 2 points for every point away from 50-50. If a state has very few districts then that skew can be greater. Consider a state with only one district (like the governor) - it skews 100% in favor of the party winning the statewide vote.

[muon2]

One cause of the disparity in polling places was section 5 of the VRA. Any changes to polling places that impacted covered minorities were subject to preclearance or judicial review just like redistricting. Many covered states chose to leave them unchanged, even as voting populations grew, rather than deal with the feds. Now that section 5 is inactive those disparities should be open to challenge under section 2, particularly after the precincts are redrawn due to the 2020 Census.

[muon2]

At a press conference this morning, a coalition of Democratic activists called out Dem Sec of State White for failing to comply with IL AVR. The current level of implementation means that the opt-out portions of AVR won't be ready for the Chicago and other municipal elections next Feb and Apr.