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

[GeorgiaModerate]

White House wants to argue that AVR us unconstitutional:

That argument might hold some water against a law requiring compulsory voting.  But I don't see how it applies to registration; you can still choose not to vote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

White House wants to argue that AVR us unconstitutional:

That argument might hold some water against a law requiring compulsory voting.  But I don't see how it applies to registration; you can still choose not to vote.

I could see it for voter registration that does more than that, such as party registration.  Such a choice could be viewed as compelled speech, even with the option to not choose a party.

[Sestak]

White House wants to argue that AVR us unconstitutional:

That argument might hold some water against a law requiring compulsory voting.  But I don't see how it applies to registration; you can still choose not to vote.

I could see it for voter registration that does more than that, such as party registration.  Such a choice could be viewed as compelled speech, even with the option to not choose a party.

I mean, you could have two options: "No Party" and "Did not specify".

Also, I think it'd be pretty tough for the textualists to rule that the act of not registering to vote is protected by the First Amendment.

[KingSweden]

PA-07 is pretty bad, but MD-03 is absolutely horrendous.

I think MD-3 is uglier, but PA-7 is a more gerrymandered district.  I’d argue Ohio has a worse gerrymander than MD or PA though (PA is still pretty bad o/c).  MD’s map is ugly, but the idea that it is among the worst partisan gerrymanders is pretty ridiculous.  PA, NC, TX, OH, MI, and arguably even WI are all far worse.  MD is about on par with the gerrymander in IN imo.  The Democrats didn’t even draw an 8-0 map (which they certainly could’ve done).

MD’s map isn’t so much a partisan gerrymander as it is a “keep all this Baltimore guys in the House” gerrymander

White House wants to argue that AVR us unconstitutional:

That argument might hold some water against a law requiring compulsory voting.  But I don't see how it applies to registration; you can still choose not to vote.

Yeah this reads more to me like the WH trying to preempt any state lawmakers from dabbling in AVR by spoiling them from the start

[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.

[jimrtex]

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.

In Oregon, prospective new voters are sent a notice. To opt out they have to return the card within a short period of time. They can also return the card to choose a party.

If someone returns the card after the deadline, their wishes are honored.

Most of the recipients do nothing, and party registration is plummeting. When the program started in 2016 they would send a notice immediately after they had had contact with the DMV. They also had a secondary program, sending notices to those who had contact in 2014 and 2015 but were not registered. A larger share of these were returned saying they did not want to be registered. Presumably, some of these had been asked in 2014-2015 and had said NO, and now the government was attempting to force them to register.

So what is happening is the people who would have said Yes, are getting a form that says you don't have to do anything, so they don't, and if they had been given the form, they might have picked a party. Those who are indifferent are being registered, but they are unlikely to vote.'

They could make it Opt-in by simply requiring the card to be returned. If there is no response, they could send a second notice, or send someone out in person.

[junior chįmp]

Maryland governor to push redistricting reform bill again


ANNAPOLIS, MD.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said Wednesday that he will try again for the fourth consecutive year to make congressional redistricting a nonpartisan process.

Hogan, a Republican, said he will submit legislation in the next session to create an independent commission to draw congressional and state legislative districts.

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Virginiá]

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.

[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.

[Virginiá]

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.

True. It might be more fair to replace 'Republicans' in my sentence with 'political parties' but I wanted to dump on Republicans for a moment there.

[junior chįmp]

PA gerrymandering verdict due out by January 2018....just in time for the-midterms.

[Torie]

PA gerrymandering verdict due out by January 2018....just in time for the-midterms.

One would think that the upcoming SCOTUS decision would circumscribe what the PA state Supreme Court does, or if the PA court rules first, perhaps override some of it.

[junior chįmp]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PA gerrymandering verdict due out by January 2018....just in time for the-midterms.

One would think that the upcoming SCOTUS decision would circumscribe what the PA state Supreme Court does, or if the PA court rules first, perhaps override some of it.

I don't think we get a ruling on Gill Vs Whitford till June of 2018

[KingSweden]

PA gerrymandering verdict due out by January 2018....just in time for the-midterms.

One would think that the upcoming SCOTUS decision would circumscribe what the PA state Supreme Court does, or if the PA court rules first, perhaps override some of it.

The PA case is based on the PA Constitution - no federal case has purview

[junior chįmp]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

PA gerrymandering verdict due out by January 2018....just in time for the-midterms.

One would think that the upcoming SCOTUS decision would circumscribe what the PA state Supreme Court does, or if the PA court rules first, perhaps override some of it.

The PA case is based on the PA Constitution - no federal case has purview

Are you sure about that? That is the key point.

[junior chįmp]

BIG, if true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[KingSweden]

BIG, if true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whoa!

PA gerrymandering verdict due out by January 2018....just in time for the-midterms.

One would think that the upcoming SCOTUS decision would circumscribe what the PA state Supreme Court does, or if the PA court rules first, perhaps override some of it.

The PA case is based on the PA Constitution - no federal case has purview

Are you sure about that? That is the key point.

I’m quite sure. The GOP appeal to take the case federal was denied and it’s currently being decided by PA state courts

[Virginiá]

BIG, if true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are there any updates on what the IDC is doing? Because these kinds of reforms would take every single non-Republican vote in the state Senate to pass. I really hope he can ram it through but I'm not too confident right now.

[junior chįmp]

BIG, if true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are there any updates on what the IDC is doing? Because these kinds of reforms would take every single non-Republican vote in the state Senate to pass. I really hope he can ram it through but I'm not too confident right now.

The real reason Cuomo proposed this is because NYC just passed these reforms and Cuomo absolutely hates De Blasio and wants to "up" him in any way.

Cuomo may not be motivated by genuine reasons but he never passes up a chance to stick it to de Blasio in a petty competitive way lol

[Antonio the Sixth]

BIG, if true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are there any updates on what the IDC is doing? Because these kinds of reforms would take every single non-Republican vote in the state Senate to pass. I really hope he can ram it through but I'm not too confident right now.

The real reason Cuomo proposed this is because NYC just passed these reforms and Cuomo absolutely hates De Blasio and wants to "up" him in any way.

Cuomo may not be motivated by genuine reasons but he never passes up a chance to stick it to de Blasio in a petty competitive way lol

I mean if by "stick it to" you mean "coopt his agenda" that's fine with me.

[junior chįmp]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh wow, I wasn't expecting that either. I knew they had taken up AVR a couple years ago but for one reason or another they dropped it after Republicans kept raising privacy concerns. Also, Maryland does have same-day registration already, but only for early voting (I think it was due to go into effect in 2018). Glad to see they are going full speed ahead with this stuff.