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

[Badger]

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate pushes voter ID plan, but resists photo ID requirement

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/12/voter-id-plan-isnt-aimed-election-fraud-pate-says/96504508/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His plan sounds more reasonable, and it is nice to see a Republican not insisting on photo IDs for once. If his plan really does call for reaching out to most people without IDs and providing them one suited for voting, then that is something I can get on board with.

However, how much sway does he really have in this debate? He is the state SoS, and legislators can just pass their photo ID requirements regardless of what he thinks. Anyway, we'll see!

This actually seems pretty reasonable.

Except of course I assume the provision COMPLETELY unrelated to partisanship about not allowing student IDs as a valid form of picture ID remains?

[Badger]

Except of course I assume the provision COMPLETELY unrelated to partisanship about not allowing student IDs as a valid form of picture ID remains?

Schools typically do not validate identity, residence, citizenship, or age.

state schools?

[Badger]

The newly formed Department of Justice supports commonsense voter ID!

Link


What an Amazing President!

Weak trolling 1/10

[Badger]

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.

I'm 100% sure that Kennedy will rule in favor...I also think Roberts might too

Today's Virginia case was 8-0...that definitely bodes well

I also do think, though, that the jurisprudential endgame is to curtail VRA districts as unconstitutional, just a theory

I'm ok with that if it kills gerrymandering. The end of gerrymandering could diffuse the extreme political polarization we have in the long run. People like Chafass or Pelosi would not be so quick to engage in the hackery they've been engaging in because they know they have a forever safe seat

I agree that gerrymandering, more than donations or lobbyist money, is what ails our politics more than anything else.

[Badger]

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.

Avr doesn't fix this, it actually accentuates the problem. Yes people go to the dmv to change addresses but this actually creates duplicates under AVR, because AVR doesn't automatically remove anyone.and many people who move within state don't go to the dmv in anyway

Ummm. You DO realize what Muon does for a living, right? You really should give him the benefit of the doubt in knowing more than you here.

[Badger]

Is there a reason no one's banned Krazen yet?

Oh yeah, Nym.

[Badger]

Very intredasting map of all the places Dems could pass AVR via ballot initiative:



It's a shame the Dems are so terrible at strategy that they aren't pouring money into this

Arizona and Michigan are the two states that really stand out at me. It's really something else that after somany years of intense Republican efforts to game election rules to their advantage, that Democrats haven't fought back in ways they know could make an impact. AZ and MI are two places where AVR might be of help.

However, some caveats about some of the other states:

1. Nevada - AVR actually is going to be on the ballot in 2018. It was already approved. Sandoval had a chance to sign it into law before it went to the voters but of course he vetoed it.

2. Ohio - There was an effort to get it on the ballot this year but for some reason it fizzled out (afaik)

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.

4. North Dakota doesn't have voter registration at all

5. Massachusetts is getting a lot of pressure to implement it, so they might. However, recently the state's voter registration deadline was struck down by a state court and iirc, that ruling was upheld on appeal, so in 2018 it should have de-facto same-day registration. If so, AVR isn't particularly useful here. As an intensely pro-voter access proponent, I'd root for it, but it won't make much difference in the end.

6. ID/WY/UT/SD/MO/OK/AR/MS/NE Don't really even need it. Sure, the left could try to get it on an initiative, but what rewards would they get for their efforts? These states are not competitive, except possibly Missouri (mostly downballot). I will concede that NE-02 is competitive, but who knows what it looks like in 2022 and beyond.

7. Florida - This is a big one for me. All this opportunity in Florida and Democrats have done nothing, meanwhile Republicans raised the initiative vote requirement to 60% over a decade ago and have even eyed trying to raise it further due to their dislike of voters actually getting policy they want. Only now are Democrats trying to eliminate the felony disenfranchisement rules that block almost 1/4 of African American adults from voting! HOWEVER, because of the 60% vote requirement and the expensive nature of fielding a viable initiative, there is a decent amount of risk here. If Republicans mounted a large campaign against it and pro-AVR groups had no resources to fight back, it might not be hard for the FLGOP to poison the electorate with incorrect and misleading information about AVR.


At this point, I'd rather Democrats push redistricting reform in Missouri, Ohio and also to get redistricting commission initiatives in Florida, since Rick Scott is attempting to stack the state Supreme Court by illegally replacing 3 retiring justices minutes after his term ends. Since Scott has been aggressive in appointing partisan judges, I think we all know how the state court will rule on future challenges to GOP maps.

I can see realistic scenarios where AVR could have a tangible impact in some Utah Congressional seats, South Dakota races in general, and Big Time overall in Mississippi.

[Badger]

ETA: The judge also ordered Kobach to take some legal classes!  That's hilarious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

hahahahahaha wow

Freedom Ruling!

[Badger]

Huh, weird. Is it a PR stunt on their part ("see, we're totally not just a way to funnel dark money into GOP candidates!") or something more sinister? It sure ain't out of the goodness of their hearts.

The Koch brothers in fact have a long history of being decidedly libertarian style conservatives. It's one of the reasons they broke at least somewhat with Trump earlier this year. Well they're certainly the type of libertarian who believes the freedom to choose to terminate a pregnancy or marry someone of the same gender shouldn't be protected federally, and then don't care one bit if at all if it's protected at the state level, they have been iirc supportive of prison reform and stopping mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I guess this is extends out of that.

It certainly wouldn't be political, as everyone Under the Sun fully understands these and other laws barring felons from voting not only originated in the post-slavery efforts to keep black subservient to whites, but have been actively used since the end of Jim Crow to suppress the black vote.

[Badger]

Voting rights aren't really a libertarian thing, though. They're about democracy rather than freedom, and if anything libertarians tend to be suspicious of democracy. And obviously someone who's serious about democracy wouldn't pour millions of dollars into manipulating their outcome. I'm not willing to give the Kochs the benefit of the doubt here, although obviously I'm still glad they're helping.

Sure. It's not so much about giving the Koch brothers the benefit of the doubt, is that their right-wing version of libertarianism is having a broken clock moment.

[Badger]

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.

This may be naive, Muon, but surely plans to expand voting locations and machines in minority-majority districts would likely sail through fed review relatively easily? I mean, it is the feds, but still.

[Badger]

EPIC-MRA-Michgian:



Also an initiative to reform redistricting up 48-32. If both of these pass, Michigan could go from one of the worst voting states to one of the best.

Also, an initiative to legalize recreational pot is up 56-41.

Source

[Badger]

I just hope the voters are reminded that the GOP is asking them to begin unraveling their initiative process entirely because the GOP feels their grip on power is threatened by it. That alone should be grounds for rejection. The entire point of having such a system is to give voters a way to overrule or bypass the state legislature when they refuse to do something the public wants. Even Republican voters should find utility in that.

Yes. Well in principle I think that amendments to the state constitution should be governed by a super majority, there still should be ready remedy with a popular majority vote initiative to repeal legislative Acts. Unfortunately, in Ohio the primary method of doing so is to amend the state constitution, so...

More importantly, I emphasize this is in principle only. As long as Ohio's legislature is grotesquely gerrymandered and we have our share of voter suppression laws as well. As Virginia noted the only and I mean only reason this is being done isn't out of good governance but to consolidate the Republican Monopoly on state power against direct democracy.

[Badger]

New York's recent election reform bills signed into law. Still waiting on AVR/felony disenfranchisement reform (and primary stuff):

https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1088476351537893376


-

https://www.abqjournal.com/1271967/democrats-push-host-of-election-proposals.html

New Mexico looks like it could potentially end felony disenfranchisement entirely and let people in prison vote, like Vermont and Maine. They also might pass automatic voter registration and same-day registration.

Am I a big old fascist meaning for saying that allowing people actually in prison to vote is Step too far? I mean, it's one thing to say once people have completed their parole / probation, or even allowing those on probation parole to vote has Ohio does, what people actually doing time?

[Badger]

I didnt know where to post this, but I thought I would share:

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1103452113923846144

For anyone confused, the bill is basically the typical Voting Rights bills the Ds have been pushing around the country. NV has some of the most restrictive voting laws, and it has impacted D performance(since Hispanics are a rather key part of the D coalition here). With this change in voting laws, NV could see a rather quick march towards the Left.

Surprise surprise, the party in power takes steps to help themselves win elections.

Yes, because it is clearly a partisan hack position to think...that people eligible to vote should easily be able to vote.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/KeithWillWynne/status/1144760154342248448

Massive FF!

[Badger]

Crazy good Virginia legislative session - better than I was expecting. Some bills yet to be signed by the governor, but the list looks likely to be at least this:

Same-day registration (effective October 2022)
Automatic registration
No-excuse absentee voting, extended absentee voting period
Pre-paid postage for absentee ballots
Permanent absentee mailing list
Extended voting hours during early voting and election day from 7pm to 8pm
Election day made a holiday (not necessarily good for voter access)
Strict voter ID law significantly softened - basically rolls back all Republican-backed changes since Obama was elected.

+ other changes


I'd also note the redistricting amendment, but that has to be approved by voters. I'm also not convinced it is a good thing, either. Democrats had a chance to pass an actual reform amendment, but couldn't seem to force that. This amendment doesn't actually prohibit partisan gerrymandering. It just structures a commission in such a way that it makes it unlikely, because it requires buy-in from members of the other party. Failure to adopt maps punts it to the Virginia State Supreme Court, which in some ways is a partisan body whose members are elected by the General Assembly to 12 year terms. So a court "elected" by Republican lawmakers is responsible for drawing maps that indirectly determine whether or not they keep their jobs when their term(s) are up. Massive conflict of interest if I ever saw one. The bench has a vested interest in seeing Republicans retain control of the GA, so they themselves can keep their judicial positions. But many of the stakeholders were so desperate for anything that they latched onto this flawed amendment as if it were the only option. Another option would have been to pass a better amendment and have it force a redraw of legislative/Congressional maps after it goes into effect, which would be post-2022 elections, if approved.

WTF were Virginia Democrats thinking agreeing to this weak tea anti-gerrymandering law?!? They could have either past an amendment creating a bona fide independent redistricting Commission like Iowa, or if they wanted to play true Hardball and say F you two states like North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, etc etc, they could have ran through a vicious redistricting of Their Own after the ongoing census. I'm not in favor of the ladder to be honest, but why they left things up to a court-appointed by the same hacks who were elected to office through gerrymandering to begin with and like you said have a vested interest in maintaining that, is indecipherable.