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

[Virginiá]

I'll be updating this periodically as numerous lawsuits and possible voting rights bills run their course this year. There are a number of voting rights lawsuits poised to be wrapped up soon, as well as a couple bills and also outstanding redistricting lawsuits.

Edit: I'll also be updating this going through 2018 as it looks like Democrats are poised to take back some legislatures this cycle, and given some chatter last year, I fully expect there to be some movement on various voting-related bills in places such as NV, NM, CO, IL and so on.



==================================================================================
FEDERAL COURT MANDATES WISCONSIN MUST ALLOW THOSE WITHOUT PHOTO IDS TO VOTE
==================================================================================

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/19/federal_judge_strikes_blow_to_wisconsin_voter_id_law.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, if a voter doesn't have an ID, they can sign an affadavit and receive a regular ballot to vote. This is different from some states who allow people to sign an affidavit and then receive a provisional ballot that might not end up being counted, as most (or all?) of them require the voter to get an ID generally within a week, sharply reducing the point of such an affidavit as many lacking an ID on election day will not suddenly come up with the documents and/or means to get an ID so quickly.

At any rate, this is likely to go to appeal but prospects for this ruling remaining in effect look good.




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

Notice for this thread and what content goes here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT ORDERS LOWER COURT TO FIX TEXAS VOTER ID LAW
==================================================================================

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/appeals-ourt-says-texas-voter-id-law-has-discriminatory-effect/2016/07/20/781bf340-4cef-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So basically the end result might be similar to yesterday's Wisconsin voter id ruling - Allowing voters without IDs to sign an affidavit and receive a regular ballot. I don't know exactly what else they could do given the ruling, as simply expanding the ID list does nothing to solve one of the primary issues, that many people face significant obstacles in getting the prerequisite documents.

We'll see what comes of this within the next 2 - 3 weeks, I'm sure. I would also like to add that it is a bit disappointing that this federal circuit allowed this issue to fester for so long, even waiting until the soft deadline imposed by the USSC, which may or may not lead to SCOTUS blocking changes if the lower court takes a long time to issue a fix.

Texas district and circuit courts seem to have a habit of slowing down cases regarding voting rights and redistricting, given the sluggish nature of this lawsuit and the still pending redistricting lawsuit over Texas' maps that were already found to be rigged. It has taken the panel basically half a decade and thensome, and they don't expect new maps until 2018. There is pretty much no excuse for this and one should be forgiven for thinking that the judges are purposefully stringing the case out so conservatives can benefit for as long as possible under the current maps. I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for such delays yet. There are no viable excuses at this point. Fixing rigged maps does not take half a decade.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
FEDERAL COURT STRIKES DOWN MICHIGAN REPEAL OF STRAIGHT-TICKET VOTING
==================================================================================

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/21/michigan_judge_strikes_down_straight_party_voting_ban.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The idea was to repeal straight-ticket voting to both cause lines (and thus discourage would-be voters) in areas with heavy amounts of Democratic voters, notably African American communities as they were identified to heavily use straight ticket voting. Another idea suggested when this bill was passed was that Republicans wanted this tweak to hopefully give them a leg up in the statewide offices they haven't been able to take yet. I'm not exactly sure how this would have worked, but when Republicans repeal things meant to make voting faster or easier, they generally have partisan politics in mind. This much we know based on the wave of restrictions passed since a black man had the audacity to win a presidential election.

At any rate, good for Michigan.

[Virginiá]

McAuliffe has now pledged to do all 13,000+ restorations the long way before the election.  I assume he's serious because it would look horrible to promise this and then go back on it.

I'm fine with this. It respects the process and is within his power.

I read Virginia's State Constitution and the parts related to executive power and restoration of voting rights make no mention on how they must be restored. The thing about these relevant Constitutional clauses is that they are remarkably short and simple. There is no vagueness to it. It doesn't restrict the governor's power at all, in any shape or form, and doesn't even hint at how it must be used. The only overt restrictions I found said that the Governor may not pardon himself if impeached, and that the Governor must report to the legislature who it pardons/restores rights for. Maybe restoring rights en masse like this is wrong, but just because one doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional.

Look, many legal experts looked at this and concluded there were no such restrictions, so the case here is simple: McAuliffe restored rights for partisan purposes and the State Supreme Court, filled with judges appointed by a Republican legislature, made a partisan decision to overturn it. It's just a partisan tit-for-tat game at this point.

I sure hope none of those judges who ruled against McAuliffe are textualists, because they essentially made up a restriction on executive powers. That much is undeniable.

------

At any rate, McAuliffe said he is going to restore rights on an individual basis, as mandated, starting with the 11,600+ who already registered to vote. I'm not sure if he literally has to sign each paper himself, or if he can do it in a faster way, but it's possible that a substantial number of felons still end up getting their rights back by November 8th.

[Virginiá]

Straight-ticket was never intended to make voting faster or easier. It was intended to coerce voters to vote a certain way.

...

If you decide to vote for individual candidates, and this takes longer, and this makes the line for your neighbors longer, should you be charged with an election law violation? Should this be a misdemeanor or felony? State or federal law or both?

I wasn't saying it was implemented to make voting faster, I said that it was repealed to cause longer lines. Regardless of how it was implemented, straight ticket voting obviously has an ability to make voting faster, particularly for people who already intend to vote one way downballot.

Regarding your questions, I do not believe lawmakers should be allowed to tinker with election regulations / services in any way meant to discourage turnout among any group(s) of people. It's one thing to repeal a regulation because it serves no purpose, or harms elections, but to repeal or institute regulations to reduce turnout among your political opponents is wrong. It doesn't matter how simple the measure(s) seem(s). Specifically, if you repeal a service or institute a restriction with the intent of reducing turnout among a specific race, purely because they vote against you, that's discrimination plain and simple.

Republicans have never made it so clear to me why the federal government should set general voting regulations for all states, including number of polling places, voter registration rules, ID requirements, amount of poll workers, and so on. Time and time again states have shown their inability to run fair elections either out of incompetence or out of sheer corruption / political/racial discrimination.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
NEW PRELIMINARY TEXAS VOTER ID RULES ISSUED
==================================================================================

http://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2016/07/22/federal-judge-lays-out-framework-to-fix-texas-discriminatory-voter-id-law

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So basically:

1. Anyone without an ID will be able to use their voter registration card
2. State must engage in a meaningful education campaign so voters know the rules
3. Poll workers must be educated on new rules so they don't turn people away.

* New rules/adjustments may be submitted prior to November

Personally I think a voter registration card should have always been acceptable, as it proves you are registered to vote at the very least (not that they can't look your name up either way, but meh)

Finally, the judge is going to decide if this law was made with intent to discriminate, which would make it eligible to be put back on federal preclearance for 10 years. As the article stated, the same judge actually already decided that was racially discriminatory in 2014. I suppose he is going over it again in light of the new rulings.

[Virginiá]

A voter registration certificate doesn't prove that you are who the card says you are, and it may have been obtained under false pretenses. For example, imagine you are canvassing a neighborhood and find a small bungalow with 20 people registered at it. You mention it to the candidate you are supporting, and he tells you that is where his opponent lives.

..

So what? It's something. The fact is is that not everyone in this country has IDs and many face unreasonable hurdles to get them. If we actually had mass voter fraud, then yes I would be all for more secure measures. Further, if everyone had an ID, I'd also be for it. But that isn't the case. Just because you can think of some theoretical way that fraud can occur doesn't mean you should start enacting restrictions that solve that problem even before it ever became a problem. Same goes for fringe cases that barely ever happen.

The state should first follow through on measures that absolutely do no affect turnout and escalate only when absolutely necessary. So far I see little effort being put into mythical voter fraud solutions that don't involve reducing turnout, despite them existing. Really I don't care how reasonable anyone thinks requiring an ID is when the fact remains that voter fraud is not a serious issue and thus restrictions like these are not necessary.

What do you mean by the "federal government"? Do you think that the President should appoint governors, and that the President and governors should appoint 20% of legislators.

Christ jimrtex, seriously, WHAT are you talking about? I was clear about what I was talking about. I said voting regulations - Such as the federal government setting rules such as voter registration deadlines and also approving say, number of polling stations, and other restrictions such as ID requirements. I have no idea what you are talking about with presidents appointing governors or the like. I don't even know how you got that in your head.

Regarding straight-ticket voting repeal - Why remove this? What is wrong with people who are going to vote Democratic downballot anyway from being able to check a box? Even more so, why is it so important to get rid of it? In fact, why are Republicans so obsessed with making voting more difficult? It doesn't matter how difficult each little change makes it - Why can't they do things to encourage turnout?

As for intent - Guess what, I don't have access to any information that would let me figure that out except the current status of GOP efforts around the country and other "coincidental" things, such as them changing ballot initiative signature rules to make it harder to get issues on the ballot while people were collecting signatures for controversial initiative(s)? See, this is the thing, I'm not playing this game where lawmakers create new restrictions or hurdles, then supporters say "Prove it was partisan/discriminatory". I really don't care for it and you can think what you want. I'm tired of playing this little game where Republican lawmakers throw up roadblocks and we're all supposed to pretend they have legitimate, non-partisan reasons in mind.

I'm curious, do you think the GOP has been engaged in a nationwide campaign to reduce turnout among Democratic voters by tinkering with election regulations/services?

Executive summary: The court fixed the boundaries before the 2012 election. The plaintiffs are dragging the case out.

I don't really care whose fault it is, jimrtex. It shouldn't take this long. If it does, then something has to change. It's really that simple to me. We shouldn't have people rigging maps to begin with, but if this is how it is going to be, then lawsuits need to be handled much faster.

Edit: As for the interim CD map - From some reading I get the impression that the current map is still gerrymandered and still being decided over the courts, right? If that is so, then again, it has taken too long.

[Virginiá]

Or not. Just because an issue can possibly have multiple good-faith interpretations does not mean that deciding upon one of these interpretations is partisan or made up or invalid. Limits on the executive dispension of law are rooted in history. Noted Democrat and Her's Veep Candidate Tim Kaine argued that he lacked the power to do what McAuliffe did ... how partisan. Muh Judicial Activism!

What Kaine thought is irrelevant.

My point was that the text of the state constitution didn't really even hint at such restrictions. He didn't just sign one order to do all this for the rest of his term, either. He said he was signing an order every month. And it wasn't for every single person whose rights were taken away. There were exceptions. I have to admit though, it's refreshing to see conservative lawmakers taking a liberal-ish approach to constitutional interpretation when it suits them, and switching back to textualist views when it comes to things they want.

At any rate, it appears he's going to restore them one by one individually, so I suppose this point is moot now. So we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law
==================================================================================

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-law-226438

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As the article says, voter ID requirements are ended and same-day registration and out of precinct voting are now back in effect (actually they were always in effect due to an injunction, but now that is solidified). This essentially brings us back to where North Carolina was in 2008-2012, in terms of voter access. I don't think this will be significantly consequential for the November elections, but it will definitely have an effect based on the types of voters who tend to benefit most from these pro-voter reforms - Minorities and young voters, two critical blocs of the Democratic coalition.

So, if you will allow me just a moment of gloating over a decision I have been waiting on for months...

AHA! WE WIN! (for now)

[Virginiá]

Not SCOTUS, the 4th Circuit.  But there aren't likely 5 votes to reverse or stay this at SCOTUS before the election, so it should be final.  4th Circuit precedent is binding on VA as well as NC.  Does this mean the VA voter ID law also falls, or is it specific to the circumstances under which the NC one passed?

They were only handling the NC voter restriction bill as I understand it. I don't think this ruling was on the merits of voter ID in general, but rather NC's bill in particular.

I think the plaintiffs in Virginia's voter ID case appealed the unfavorable decision handed down in May, but I don't actually know if they went through with it. However, if they did file it, the appeals court will need to decide soon or SCOTUS could indeed end up putting it on hold if ruled on too close to the election.

Anyone else know any specifics about that case?

This should also be the basis for bailing NC back into VRA Section 5 coverage.  There is a provision in the VRA that allows courts to order that under these circumstances when a voting law was passed with discriminatory intent.  A similar proceeding should soon happen in Texas.

That was my first thought the second I read “passed with racially discriminatory intent.” Given the reality that the GOP is likely to control the NC state legislature for some time to come, it'll be helpful in stopping what promises to be a biannual NCGOP tradition of passing small tweaks to election laws in order to suppress voting in any ways they can.

[Virginiá]

AHA! WE WIN! (for now)

Plausibly, is this going to get to the SCOTUS before or after the confirmation of Scalia's replacement?

I think the state is most definitely going to appeal, and SCOTUS may or may not respond before the election - They have a habit of rapidly going through election-related cases before elections and either delaying lower court decisions until after or allowing them.

Now, I think this decision will stand for 2 primary reasons:

1. Conservatives no longer have a majority on the bench and the liberal wing will not vote to overturn the 4th circuit's decision. A tie means the lower court's ruling stands.

2. Most of the services that the 4th circuit upheld - Same day registration and out-of-precinct voting were still in effect due to an injunction from year(s) ago. I believe they only were repealed after the district court's ruling from Schroeder. The reason this is important is because SCOTUS would generally delay changes like this so close to the election because the state wouldn't be ready to implement them and there would be a lot of troubles at the polls. However, this is not the case here. The state is already prepared for same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. Restoring those services would take very little effort as they were already in place as early as April of this year. So there is no argument in saying that the state would face an undue burden by having to institute those pro-voter services for this election. Same goes for early voting expansion and pre-registration for teens.

I suspect this will help Clinton a decent bit, as the Democratic base in NC for presidential races is heavily stacked with young voters and minorities, the two groups who use these services the most. Democrats downballot will benefit as well.

Because of this, well-funded groups organizing extensive GOTV operations (like Steyer and his 40+ million dollar turnout effort(s)) might move into North Carolina and try to flip Burr's seat. Steyer had previously only committed his resources to states with more competitive seats and/or states with pro-voter laws like same-day registration. Because NC had repealed that, he mostly stayed out. This could very well change now.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Federal Judge Bars North Dakota From Enforcing Restrictive Voter ID Law
==================================================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/north-dakota-voter-identification-law.html?_r=0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Automatic voter registration begins in Connecticut
==================================================================================

http://wtnh.com/2016/08/08/connecticut-dmv-motor-voter-registration-starts-this-week/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This deal was already hashed out some months ago, and was already in the news, but I figured I'd post that it is now going active. Voters will be automatically registered to vote when conducting business with the DMV. No legislation was passed for this.



==================================================================================
Stuff worthy of mention, but not in their own post(s)
==================================================================================

Automatic voter registration bill that Christie will surely use his grubby sausage fingers to veto:
http://www.nj.com/suburbannews/index.ssf/2016/08/automatic_voter-registration_r.html

Judge rules Wake County (NC) must use 2011 maps after Republicans did their usual shenanigans:
http://abc11.com/politics/ruling-wake-co-must-use-2011-voting-maps-in-november/1462685/

-

Conservative group sues to block Illinois same-day registration law:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-illinois-idUSKCN10F283

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically citizens in counties with <100,000 people can still register same day at the clerk's office, but I see some merit on the challengers' side. I don't know if the legislature forbid registration at polling sites in counties with less than 100,000 people, or simply didn't require it, but suspending the law because of this would be completely ridiculous. It makes more sense just to have all the smaller counties allow it at polling sites before early voting starts, or if there is not enough time, just have the state run a campaign to inform citizens in smaller counties of how to register same day, and then mandate that all counties allow it at polling sites after the election.

At any rate, I'm not convinced much will come of this. People in smaller counties can still register on the same day. They should be able to at the polling place, but their argument is too weak to suspend it for everyone this November if you ask me.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stays lower court ruling weakening voter ID law
==================================================================================

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/federal-appeals-court-issues-stay-of-voter-id-ruling/article_da79480c-9d7a-5bf4-8240-8ab3c21f97b4.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A separate ruling by another federal judge that forced Wisconsin to quickly issue IDs and documents to those in need still remains in effect. It's possible that this federal judge's other rulings suspending recent changes to early voting and absentee voting could be stayed and overturned as well.

Short of any additional surprises, voter ID will be in full effect in Wisconsin for the presidential election.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Illinois Governor vetoes automatic voter registration bill / demands changes
==================================================================================

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bruce-rauner-veto-automatic-voter-registration-met-0813-20160812-story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As usual, whining about fraud roughly translates into "I don't want to risk voters voting me out of office by making it easier to vote". He wants the bill to delay implementation until after 2018 so he won't have any extra trouble in his bid for reelection.

A veto override is quite possible, as Democrats have a bare supermajority right now and seems unlikely they would lose it after November, unless select IL State House races aren't going so well.

In the end, Illinois still has same-day voter registration, so automatic voter registration was always just sort of icing on the cake.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Appeals court rejects bid to end straight-ticket voting in Michigan
==================================================================================

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/straight-ticket-voting-michigan-court-ruling-227114

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

This isn't a lawsuit or bill, but it is indeed relevant to the recent lawsuit in North Carolina:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/north-carolina-voting/496415/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Important:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The state party is now leaning on county election board members to slash early voting hours/locations and eliminate Sunday voting days. Wake County's extra 7 days only allow early voting at 1 location - the board of elections office in downtown Raleigh. That is ridiculous and a blatant attempt at voter suppression.

The arguments being put forth are basically "early voting is bad because it gives more opportunities for fraud", which is patently false. The only way early voting could be construed as a way for more fraud is if you think any chance to vote is a chance for fraud. Why not get rid of voting altogether then? Obviously we can't stand for a handful of cases of fraud per millions of vote, so let's just let the Republican party pick all our lawmakers! Finally, the idea that same-day registration during early voting is going to cause fraud is ridiculous. You still need some sort of identification to register, just as if you did it at the DMV. If you say same-day registration leads to fraud, you're basically saying all voter registration leads to fraud.

These excuses are pathetic and board members using them should be ashamed of themselves.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Federal judge rules Texas law violates Voting Rights Act by needlessly restricting voter access to interpreters
==================================================================================

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/federal-judge-strikes-down-texas-law-violates-voting-rights-act-n632831?cid=sm_tw

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is emblematic of the kind of contemporary voter suppression methods used by Republicans. These little regulation changes that seem insignificant to the average person but when they throw them altogether, it can impede voting enough to give Republicans a decent advantage.

Here, interpreters had to be registered as a voter in the county they were helping in, which is a completely pointless restriction and really ironic coming from the party who is constantly railing against regulations. Further, apparently almost anyone could technically help a voter if the voter specifically asked for an assistor, but if they ask for an interpreter, only someone registered to vote in that county could help. I mean this really makes no sense except in the context of preventing voters who have difficulty with English from voting.

When is this nickle-and-diming strategy of voting regulations/restrictions going to stop?

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Appeals court: Week of early voting shouldn't return to Ohio
==================================================================================

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/appeals-court-week-of-early-voting-shouldnt-return-to-ohio-227319

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So there will be no 'golden week' where people can register and vote on the same day. Personally I think this change should have blocked just based on their intent, which I 100% believe to be for partisan advantage, but in the end Ohio still has a lot of early voting time, and the same-day registration quirk was only available for 1 week, so it shouldn't make a big difference either way.


-----------


==================================================================================
7th U.S. Circuit Court denies stay in Judge Peterson's overturning of broad voter restrictions in Wisconsin
==================================================================================

http://www.wpr.org/federal-appeals-court-allows-early-voting

From another article, these are the restrictions that were overturned:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think I already posted before when Judge Peterson made his ruling, but this new ruling from the appeals court means those restrictions definitely won't be in effect. It's interesting because the same appeals court put a stay on another judge's ruling that effectively overturned the voter ID law in Wisconsin, but they allowed this far broader ruling to remain. Anyway, 1 for 2 isn't too bad. These restrictions had no real purpose other than to suppress turnout among Democrats.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Supreme Court rejects Michigan straight-ticket voting appeal
==================================================================================

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-election-idUSKCN11F1YA

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm really going to enjoy reading about more voting restrictions from Republicans being overturned from 2017+ when a liberal SCOTUS majority and a significantly more liberal federal judiciary no longer rubber stamps conservative-backed restrictions on voting.

[Virginiá]

EARLY VOTING IN NORTH CAROLINA
-------------------------------------------------------------

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ruling-north-carolina-board-careful-vote-41968963

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.

Possibility of a lawsuit still seems high given both the circumstances that lead up to the BOE hearing yesterday and a number of early voting plans the State BOE voted for.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Three Judge Court Dismisses Maryland Legislative Gerrymander Case on Procedural Grounds
==================================================================================

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86358

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a shame - As I understand it, this case had the potential to get some sort of test before the Supreme Court to hopefully be used to reign in gerrymandering nationwide. Or was that a different Maryland case?

Anyway, down to the Wisconsin case for now.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Appeals court overrules federal election official on proof of citizenship for voting
==================================================================================

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/voters-proof-of-citizenship-alabama-georgia-kansas-227986

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Supreme Court kills last hope of restoring key early voting week in Ohio
==================================================================================

https://thinkprogress.org/ohio-loses-golden-week-of-early-voting-afb451f9c356#.7kv0bh1el

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not surprised. Unfavorable circuit court rulings (from the Democratic perspective) are not stayed for the same reason favorable rulings to voting restrictions weren't.

In the end, this quirk was 99% likely to not make a real difference in the presidential/Senate race anyway. It's nothing like, say, the restrictions overturned in North Carolina.


-----

In other less important news - NJ lawmakers are taking another stab at overriding Christie's veto of automatic voter registration, as they had 54 votes in the Assembly (bare 2/3rds majority), but they need another 3 in the State Senate. I don't see that happening. Election reforms will just have to wait until Christie leaves office. Such reforms could have been on the ballot this November, but completely unreasonable Democratic lawmaker(s) from Essex County put the kibosh on that.

[Virginiá]

==================================================================================
Polling places become battleground in U.S. voting rights fight
==================================================================================

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-vote-precincts-insight-idUSKCN11M0WY

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It never ends. Saving money as an excuse really doesn't do it for me. Is it really too much to ask to have enough polling stations so everyone, including those without cars, can easily go vote? We don't have elections every month. At the very least, polling places should be plentiful for federal elections.

But what I am saying - this often has little to do with saving money. When morally and ethically bankrupt people run the government, silencing political opposition by impeding their ability to vote is just business as usual.

Just another reason why Congress needs to set basic rules for federal elections - including a fair formula for # of polling places per population, minimum polling hours and requirements to keep lines to a minimum. States can't be trusted to do this, and over a hundred years of non-stop voter suppression schemes proves it.