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

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
9th circuit en banc votes to deny injunction on AZ not counting out of precinct votes
==================================================================================

Purcell rule cited. Makes sense - this is simply too close to the election. While I'm unfamiliar with how it is on the ground there, it seems like it would be a logistical nightmare to implement in just a few days.

This was just a ruling on the injunction as I understand it. Litigation will continue.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Federal Court in AZ Refuses Injunction Barring Voter Intimidation Against the Trump Campaign and Stone
==================================================================================

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/file0.6353179100352811.pdf

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Judge Sides With RNC In Ballot Security Consent Decree Case
==================================================================================

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/judge-sides-with-rnc-in-ballot-security-consent-decree-case

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Important:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is highly likely to be re-litigated post-election, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
The Supreme Court Basically Told Judges To Stop Messing With Voting Laws Before The Election
==================================================================================

https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-attempts-to-slow-flood-of-last-minute-election?utm_term=.fobyrRO3o#.xy8wv6mVX

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the 9th circuit's emergency injunction on Arizona's ban on "ballot harvesting" is overturned as it is too close to the election to be messing with regulations, which is completely reasonable.

Personally, I feel that courts overturning bans on various things, or ID requirements is reasonable up to a further point than most other things. By overturning a thing like, say a ban on ballot harvesting or requiring photo ID, the election officials simply do not request an ID or challenge ballot deliveries. There is no harm in that close to election day, but <1 week before election day? Even to me that seems too close. This should have been handled month(s) ago.

Must be noted that the Supreme Court is only saying that the courts must stop with emergency rulings/injunctions before the election. The individual lawsuits can and will be litigated afterwards, so the ballot harvesting ban or the out-of-precinct vote ban lawsuit will still be heard and highly likely to be overturned if they draw a large Democrat-appointee panel.

--------

Note: There are a lot of lawsuits going on right now it's possible I missed some things. I've largely avoided posting every single voter intimidation lawsuit the DNC has made against Trump/RNC at the state level.

[Virginiá]

All the deplorables jumped out of the basket and voted for Trump?

Sad!


Seriously, why would Trump let these race baiting losers and their crap law hang around? The gerrymanders are coming, and it will be glorious.

Wow. Ok, look. Here's the thing - I created this thread to keep people posted about voting rights reform (which I think under a broader definition includes gerrymandering reform). If you want to keep updated, you can find information here.

What I didn't create this thread for was to serve as a place where people could gloat about rigging elections by either suppressing opposition party voters and/or diluting their representation with gerrymandered districts. If you want to talk about how shameless and corrupt you are willing to be to win elections, take it to another thread please.

[Virginiá]

Virginia, krazey is a known troll here who was banned for three months but mysteriously came back some years later to gloat.  Save yourself the stress and put him on ignore.

When will I ever learn?

thx love

[Virginiá]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predictions for 2017 & 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iowa : election-day registration is likely repealed by the newly minted GOP legislature. It won't really help them though, and in fact I wonder if it might hurt them by repealing it, but we'll see.

Nevada : I haven't checked the status recently, but there is a automatic voter registration initiative pending and as per state rules, the legislature can act on this in 2017. I expect the Democratic legislature to send a bill to Sandoval and upon veto, put it on the ballot for 2018.

New Mexico : Democratic legislature might move to put a redistricting reform initiative on the ballot for 2018, but I also believe there is chatter about auto voter reg or EDR as well. Any/all of this will have to be approved by the voters as Martinez would be expected to veto., although I wonder if she might be open to redistricting reform?

Florida : Floridians for a Fair Democracy has a felony disenfranchisement reform initiative being reviewed by the FLSC and it might make the ballot in 2018. If Democrats have a lick of sense, they will put funding behind this as the massive disenfranchisement rates of African Americans in FL depresses their support among black voters. I don't expect the party to though, as they are generally morons when it comes to this stuff.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending 2017 elections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Jersey : The NJ legislature has been itching to pass significant election reforms, but due to Christie's veto pen they have been unable to do so. If Democrats take back Gov, expect a large package of reforms (auto voter reg, early voting, vacancy appointment reform, etc) within a year. Reform was supposed to go on the ballot this year, but a lawmaker from Sussex used his sway over the BC to deny support unless they put in a provision allowing felons & people in prison to vote, which would have essentially been a poison pill, even if meant with good intentions.

Virginia : By Nov 2017, McAuliffe should be finished restoring voting rights to 200,000+ felons. As I understand it, around 20% of the 67,000+ that were restored prior to Nov 8th got registered, so I expect 20% - 25% of 200k to have an effect in next year's elections. Will Northam continue this if he wins? Given how controversial it is with the GOP legislature, who knows. Republicans may still try to put the kibosh on this executive power via constitutional amendment, but that wouldn't take effect until at least 2019 if they did, due to the way VA legislatively-referred amendments work.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
California 2017+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

California has automatic voter registration and same-day registration set to take effect in 2017, and an initial rollout of mail voting (with limited number of vote centers for in-person voting) in a handful of counties in 2018.

I think whether or not Trump is deeply unpopular in 2018, but even more so if he is, ongoing election reforms in CA will possibly have a reasonable effect in minority-heavy districts. I expect us all to continue watching CA-25, CA-49 and CA-10 in 2018.

[Virginiá]

I don't know if Iowa would get rid of same day registration, they didn't even get rid of it in Wisconsin after 2010.

Scott Walker did look at getting rid of recently-ish as part of his voter suppression agenda, but evidently it would have cost over 5 million in, I believe, at least semi-ongoing expenses, so he backed off. SDR has also been around for literally generations in Wisconsin, whereas Iowa only got it when Democrats assumed control of the legislature in 2007. Removing a service like SDR when it's been around for as long as the voters and their parents can remember and is used a lot is harder than it is if it was just enacted a decade prior.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Alaska voters approve automatic voter registration via PFD
==================================================================================

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/alaska-s-oil-cash-now-comes-with-automatic-voter-registration
https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Voter_Registration_via_the_Permanent_Fund_Dividend_Application,_Ballot_Measure_1_(2016)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A little bit more proof that doing away with unnecessary requirements for voting is not always a partisan affair among voters. It's a partisan affair among lawmakers who wish to cling to power by any means possible.

Hopefully some progress can be made on SDR and/or automatic voter registration via initiative in other states that provide such an option - FL, MI & OH, for instance.


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

In other news, IL Senate votes to override Rauner on automatic voter registration bill. House will vote on this in a few weeks or so. As I understand it, Democrats still have a bare supermajority in that chamber, so it should technically be possible. It also had bipartisan support before, but I'm not convinced it still exists. If they knew Rauner would veto, such token support would have been harmless if they knew they wouldn't support an override later on. Of course, I'm just speculating!

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Washington D.C. approves automatic voter registration
==================================================================================

http://dcist.com/2016/11/dc_council_passes_automatic_voter_r.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If only all states could be as progressive on voter access as the district.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Federal court rules Wisconsin Assembly districts map is unconstitutional
==================================================================================

http://wispolitics.com/1006/161121Ruling.pdf

From ELB:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It all depends on Kennedy now I suppose. Hopefully we could get this as a new test for determining if districts are gerrymandered, but we'll have to wait to see for that.

Meanwhile, the WI Assembly map is likely to be redrawn for 2018.

[Virginiá]

Gov-elect Sununu says one of first priorities is to get rid of same day voter registration
==================================================================

http://fusion.net/story/371159/bruce-rauner-chris-sununu-voting/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honestly, and I'm not just saying this to be spiteful, but he quite literally has no idea what he's talking about. What he said makes no sense. ED registrants need to provide proof of residency and an ID. He's talking about people from other states voting here when SDR has nothing to do with that, and has protections that ensure that doesn't happen.


Anyone wondering why liberals so frequently claim voter suppression, here is a perfect example. You have a Republican who is elected into a position of power and basically makes restricting voter access one of his first goals. Don't you think that looks suspicious?

But no, it's not just the timing. The excuses to restrict voter access matter too. He claims out of state people voting, and the need to "tighten things up" (Kasich said the same thing when he got rid of Ohio's EDR golden week). What does that even mean? New Hampshire's SDR option has little relation to the (non)problem he is whining about. It's become pro-forma for Republicans to take any problem with our elections, no matter how irrelevant, and then claim that voter ID/restricting voting is the only answer. People could say that there aren't enough polling places, and the GOP would respond: "Our solution is stricter voter ID rules. That will fix the polling place issue."

And then he suggests that, somehow, getting rid of SDR is actually "modernizing the system." Seriously? "Modernizing" would suggest greater voter access and easier registration rules, not harder. Registration deadlines are an outdated relic from the past and are no longer needed due to technology. His idea of "modernizing" is actually de-modernizing. Once again, another completely lousy excuse that makes little sense.

This is why we say what we say. Because Republicans are often offering up the lousiest excuses you can think of and acting in such a suspicious fashion. NH doesn't need tighter voter ID rules, nor does it need to drop SDR. This is just boilerplate GOP voter suppression strategy. If the NH truly isn't trying to suppress opposition voters here, then they are being idiotic because they are obsessing over something that their elections are already protected against, more or less.

[Virginiá]

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

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.