The Legal Mobilization Project - The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - News Feed

Federal Court Rejects Texas Voter ID Law--Holder's Justice Dept Prevails

Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Following a week-long trial, the U.S. District Court for District of Columbia has rejected Texas' new voter ID law, SB-14.

This decision comes after the Department of Justice's declaration that the voter ID law was unconstitutional due to its violation of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that changes to election laws must not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters.

In its opinion, the three-judge panel expressed concern that hundreds of thousands of minority voters would have their right to vote taken away by the new law, and stated that the implicit costs of the law "will fall most heavily on the poor and that a disproportionately high percentage of African Americans and Hispanics in Texas live in poverty."

Texas is just one of over 30 states that passed or proposed voter ID laws under the guise of protection against voter fraud. The Texas law would have required voters to present a current, government-issued photo ID from a limited set of accepted IDs in order to vote.

The costly application process, coupled with the getting to the Department of Public Safety, could present a challenge to hourly wage and poor voters, many of whom are also minorities. Furthermore, in 81 Texan counties, there are no driver's license offices and in 34 counties, the Department of Public Safety offices are only open two days per week - and those days have limited hours

Read the full article here

Voter ID laws: one person's arduous effort to comply

Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Matt Bevilacqua used to think that since he didn't live in a swing state, his vote hardly mattered. So when he moved to Philadelphia from New York, he was excited to vote in a competitive state. However, his excitement diminished when he learned about Pennsylvania's recently passed state law that requires voters to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls in November. After the passing of this law, Matt, like many other voters in Pennsylvania, was forced to go through the difficult process of obtaining a "free" government-issued photo ID.

To begin the process, Matt had to leave work early on a Thursday afternoon because his local PennDOT center closes at 4:15 pm on weekdays, a move that he estimates cost him about $42.97 in lost wages. Because he does not have a driver's license like many other disenfranchised voters in Pennsylvania such as people from communities of color, the elderly, students, and people with disabilities, Matt was forced to take the bus to his destination. Upon arriving at his PennDOT center, he was informed that his estimated wait time was twenty-four minutes. One hour and four minutes later when he was called to the counter, he discovered that in addition to the birth certificate and social security card that he brought with him, he would also need to show two proofs of his current address.

When he returned to the PennDOT center with all of his information and the required documents, he was again forced into a long wait, this time, one hour and forty-four minutes. After his information was approved, he again had to wait for his photo to be taken, a wait that cost him another hour and three minutes. At this point, he was finally given a temporary state ID card and a promise that the permanent one would arrive in the mail within a few weeks.

When this long and difficult process was finally over, Matt estimates that the ordeal cost him $65.47. This includes the wages he lost for leaving work early, the price of bus fare, and the cost of shipping his birth certificate and Social Security card from his parents' home in New York State.

Tom Boyer, a writer for the blog Examine Voter ID, found that the ID law will have a negative effect on black and Hispanic voters in Philadelphia. With a minimum wage of $7.25/hour or $58/day, Pennsylvania's new ID law puts a heavy financial burden on the city's 410,000 low-wage and no-wage earners, especially if obtaining one costs a day's wages. Matt's experience shows that the so-called easy process of obtaining a "free" government-issued photo ID can be anything but.

Read the Crosscut article here

D.C. Court Rejects Texas' Voter ID Law

Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:00:00 -0500

A Texas bill requiring voters to produce a photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot has been rejected by a three-judge panel in Washington D.C. The panel ruled that the state of Texas failed to prove that the bill (SB 14) would not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. In their opinion on the ruling, the judges on the panel stated that not only does the bill fail to meet anti-discriminatory requirements, it would also "likely have a retrogressive effect" on voting rights for minorities.

The bill was struck down on the basis that it sidelines certain groups, including communities of color, the poor, people with disabilities, students, and the elderly, from the right to vote. Members of these groups face difficulties obtaining the types of photo identification that the bill would require. While it is widely believed that obtaining a government-issued photo identification is common practice, 11% of the eligible voting population does not have the government-issued photo ID that new voter ID laws would require.

The bill, like those passed in nine states is based on the belief that rampant voter fraud occurs throughout the country. However, little evidence backs these claims as very few authentic voter fraud cases have been reported and confirmed, and while about 2,000 cases of voter fraud occurred since 2000, there were only 10 cases of possible voter impersonation. Voter impersonation is so rare because the fraudulent voter would have to know a great deal about the person they are impersonating, be able to accurately forge the victim's signature, and be willing to risk a felony conviction, $10,000 fine, and 2-5 years in prison for one single vote.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott reported that the state will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the full Texas Tribune article here

Federal Court Strikes Down Texas' Voter ID Law

Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Today’s decision in Texas v. Holder is a significant victory for voting rights. A three-judge district court found that Senate Bill 14 (SB 14), Texas' recently enacted voter ID law, violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because the state failed to prove the law lacked discriminatory effect. This is the second time in one week that the courts have found Texas to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act. These decisions confirm the continuing need for the Voting Rights Act.

The three-judge court recognized that the law placed unnecessary burdens on poor voters, which consequently affects their right to vote. The court wrote, "A law that forces poorer citizens to choose between their wages and their franchise unquestionably denies or abridges their right to vote." According to the court's opinion, would-be voters "who possess none of the underlying forms of identification will have to bear out-of-pocket costs." Additionally, a 200-250 mile trip to and from a DPS office is a heavy burden for anyone -- but especially daunting for the working poor.

Furthermore, the court found that these burdens disproportionately affect racial minorities. The court recognized, "[M]any Hispanics and African Americans who voted in the last election will, because of the burdens imposed by SB 14, likely be unable to vote in the next election. This is retrogression."

The Texas State Conference of the NAACP and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC), along with the Justice Department and others, presented evidence showing the law would make it unnecessarily hard to vote. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and other voting rights advocates represented the Texas NAACP and MALC in the case. Other attorneys in this case are Dechert LLP, the Brennan Center for Justice, the NAACP office of General Counsel, and the Law Office of Jose Garza.

“This clear victory affirms how vital Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is in protecting minority voting rights,” said Bob Kengle, co-director, Voting Rights Project, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “It’s important to protect the integrity of our elections and stop voter fraud, but we should not be making it harder for millions of eligible Americans, including seniors and minorities, to participate in our democracy. Clearly the court agrees.”

There are a numbers of steps Texas could have taken to blunt the retrogressive effect of the ID law, but the legislature ignored all proposed amendments.

You can read the court's opinion here, and you can read more about the Lawyers' Committee's involvement in the case here.

New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:00:00 -0500

A nationwide investigation of voter fraud since 2000 conducted by News21 has revealed that voter fraud is incredibly rare. Of special notice is that among the 2,038 alleged voter fraud cases, only 10 of those cases involved possible voter impersonation, approximately one out of every 15 million prospective voters.

In a separate database, the Republican National Lawyers Association compiled a list of 375 election fraud cases which upon investigation was revealed that only 77 were alleged fraud by voters. Further analysis revealed convictions or guilty pleas in only 33 cases. The RNLA database reveals no cases involving voter impersonation.

The main reason behind this is the difficulty of carrying out voter impersonation. Impersonating another voter demands intricate coordination and high risk for little gain. One of these rare instances involved a 17-year-old Mark Lacasse of Londonderry, New Hampshire, who used his father's name to vote in the 2004 Republican presidential primary. The case was eventually dismissed after Lacasse performed community service. The other nine voter impersonation cases were isolated incidents in Alabama, California, Colorado, Kansas and Texas.

Despite this, 37 state legislatures cite voter fraud as the driving force behind consideration or enactment of voter ID laws. Of the nine states - South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Mississippi and Alabama - that have passed strict voter ID laws, only three - Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Kansas - are expected to be in effect in November.

These laws require voters to bring a current government-issued photo ID to the polls, drawing criticism due to the disproportionate impact the unnecessarily restrictive laws have on minorities, students, senior citizens and people with disabilities. It also has the effect of an unnecessary burden on the poor who must obtain the underlying documents to receive an ID, even a "free" ID that some states are providing.

In Pennsylvania, as many as 758,000 people, 9% of the state's registered voters, don't have the required ID they need to vote under the new law, prompting the US Justice Department to conduct an investigation into ID law to determine whether it violates the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act. Furthermore, civil-rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are suing Pennsylvania over the law.

The state, in pretrial documentation, said it would neither offer any evidence that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere," nor would it provide any evidence that "in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of a photo ID law."

Further analysis of the News21 investigation reveals that the majority of voter fraud lies in absentee ballots and voter registration, both issues which requiring a government-issued photo ID would not prevent. Election fraud cases were often the result of mistakes made by confused voters or elections officials. For example, felons or noncitizens are often confused about their eligibility and register to vote.

Experts agree that the majority of what is considered "voter fraud" is simply the result of mistakes and clerical errors.

Link to News21's voter fraud database

Read the full NBC Open Channel article here

Pennsylvania Voter ID Trial Witnesses: PennDOT Can't Handle Voter-ID Demands

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Witnesses in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court have testified about the problems with the new voter ID law requiring government issued photo ID from all voters. Part of the law requires the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to issue free voter ID cards to voters without a driver’s license or other suitable forms of ID, but as the witnesses attested, getting these free IDs could be difficult or impossible for the estimated hundreds of thousands of voters who don’t currently have PennDOT ID. The Secretary of the Commonwealth, Carol Aichele, testified that the state was doing all it could to provide ID to voters who need it, but that they were only expecting that about 100,000 would need ID. Based on the testimonies of the witnesses, though, the implementation of the law has been shoddy at best.

One of the main problems arises from the offices issuing the ID themselves. Many of these offices are open only one day a week, leaving only 13 business days between now and Election Day for voters to get ID. Some offices employ contract workers, who have refused to offer assistance or provide the free voter ID, telling people to come back when a PennDOT employee is in. Other offices are difficult to get to, with limited or no public transportation to get citizens there. Another major hurdle is misinformation among clerks who have asked voters to pay a fee for the ID that is supposed to be free, or have admitted that they are unsure about the provisions of the law.

Above and beyond the clerical issues that prevent voters from receiving the ID, some voters are stuck in a catch-22 of identification, where they need ID to get ID. One witness explained her situation: she does not drive because of a psychological disability, so has no ID. In order to get the free ID she needs to provide a birth certificate, and because she was born in Germany and immigrated here, she needs a photo ID to get a copy. She has voted for the past 35 years, and stated, "I vote because it's important to me to make my voice heard," Gray testified. "I may now be prevented by clerical stumbling blocks."

The plaintiffs in the case are seeking a court injunction to block the law and protect the right to vote for the voters who are having their right to vote threatened by this requirement.

Read the full Philadelphia Inquirer article here

Official In Charge Of Pennsylvania Voter ID Law: 'I Don't Know What The Law Says'

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Pennsylvania's voter ID law has reached the Commonwealth Court, and Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele - the chief official in charge of implementing the law - under questioning admitted that she doesn't know what the law says.

Despite this, Aichele stuck by her stalwart defense of the law, re-affirming her claim that 99% of voters have the necessary ID and that the free voter ID will be easy to obtain for voters who need it. When confronted with the testimony of a Department of State official claiming the 99% figure was inaccurate, Aichele disagreed. Investigations by independent organizations and the state's Department of Transportation estimate the number much lower, at between 87% and 91%, meaning that up to 1 million voters could be stripped of their right to vote by this law.

Other testimonies called into question the ease at which this ID could be obtained, citing the lack of capability among Department of Transportation offices, misinformation among clerks who are supposed to be distributing the free ID, and that getting free ID requires documents that many voters don't have or can't afford to get - like a certified copy of their birth certificate.

Pennsylvania is just one of nearly a dozen states that have passed photo ID laws. These laws have widely been justified as a necessary measure to address voter fraud. However, the state has agreed that it will not argue that there is any evidence of voter impersonation fraud in Pennsylvania, nor that it can likely be expected to occur in the 2012 election.

Read the full Talking Points Memo article here

Voter ID Trial Day 4: State really has no idea how many are without valid voter ID

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

The second week of the Pennsylvania voter ID trial began with a testimonial of Jonathan Marks, a commissioner for the Department of State's Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation, with the purpose of identifying how many Pennsylvania citizens would be disenfranchised from voting in the presidential election come November should the law be implemented.

The Department of State originally estimated that 89,000 voters lacked the ID required to vote under the new law, but further research confirmed in June that the number was actually closer to 759,000. When asked on Monday whether this figure included the 600,000 Pennsylvanians with expired IDs; the answer was no, which brings the total to 1.5 million.

Marks doesn't believe that the number is that high because a few hundred people of the 759,000 verified that they had ID. He also states that letters to the 600,000 individuals with mismatching information on registration would be sent towards the end of the summer to inform them of the discrepancy.

When discussing the procedure for correcting one's registration, Marks said that PennDOT would handle it, but did not specify how.

Marks also expressed that November 6 would be a "bad day" if any eligible voters were not allowed to vote due to the ID restrictions. Due to the complexity of getting 1.5 million people valid IDs, it is almost guaranteed that if the restrictive and unnecessary voter ID law is implemented for the November 6^th election, many people will be disenfranchised.

Read the full ACLU article here

Will Ohio Count Your Vote?

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

The high number of uncounted ballots is due to confusing laws and regulations as well as poll worker and voter errors. Hundreds of votes are disqualified because they were cast in the wrong precinct, and those who forgot to seal the envelope on their absentee ballot also had their votes rejected.

Notorious for its close elections as well as controversial voting practices, all eyes will be on Ohio as the November 2012 presidential election looms. The state has taken measures to protect the integrity of the vote, but it is doubtful that they have done enough to resolve the issue. The goal for Ohio in the upcoming election is to ensure the nation a "timely, accurate, and lawsuit-free count."

In the 2008 presidential election, of the 207,000 provisional ballots cast in Ohio, some of 40,000 of them were not counted, mostly due to the "right church, wrong pew" problem, where voters cast ballots at the right polling place but at the wrong precinct table at that polling place.

Making matters worse, Ohio's state legislature changed its voting law to prevent poll workers from assisting voters and directing them to the correct table. Poll worker errors account for some uncounted provisional ballots due to directing voters to the wrong precinct. It comes down to the simplest of issues, like whether a voter's street address is an even or odd number which sometimes determines the voter's precinct. Many of Ohio's polling places house multiple precincts and the division between precincts are rarely clear to the public. A lawsuit is pending that the law that prevents votes cast in the incorrect precinct from being counted when it is due to poll worker error.

Ohio grants 13 specific circumstances under which a voter can cast a provisional ballot, the most common reasons being a change of name or address without updating registration, or not having the required identification. Citizens without proper identification at the time of voting must bring a valid ID to the board of elections within ten days to have their vote counted; only eight individuals did so.

Al Tuchfarber, the former director for the University of Cincinnati's Institute for Policy Research, notes that poorer people are more likely to be renters, making them more likely to move and thus cast a higher percentage of provisional ballots due to the need to re-register.

Due to the various rules governing provisional ballots, states have large differences in the number of provisional ballots cast. California, for example, had over 800,000 provisional ballots in 2010, while Kentucky only had 1,000. Ohio fell somewhere in the middle with 105,195, but the demographics of provisional ballots within the state were peculiar. Just over half of all provisional ballots cast in Ohio came from the five largest cities. These urban cities also have a lower rate of counting these provisional ballots. While provisional ballots provide a safety net for voter who otherwise would have been turned away, it is important to note that they are not a guaranteed vote.

Click here for an infographic explaining how ballots can be disqualified.

Read the full Cincinnati.com article here

Pa.'s Tough, New Voter ID Law Tackles First Legal Challenge Amid Debate Over Voting Rights

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Pennsylvania’s new voter ID is being challenged in state court this week by formerly eligible citizens who have been stuck in a Catch-22 situation of being unable to get the ID they need to vote under the new law.

The original justification for the law when it was introduced was that it was necessary to prevent voter fraud. That argument, however, will not be used by state lawyers to justify the law because Pennsylvania admits there have been no documented cases of voter fraud in Pennsylvania. Instead, Pennsylvania argues that this law is valid under the state legislature’s ability to pass election-related laws. The lawyers for the opponents, on the other hand, argue that this law is completely unnecessary precisely because Pennsylvania has no documented cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud—the only kind of voter fraud this law prevents.

The opposition also claims that this law will bar many eligible citizens from exercising their right to vote. The first three witnesses for the plaintiffs on Wednesday were citizens who had been eligible to vote before the voter ID law, but lacked a photo identification and the necessary documents for obtaining a photo identification. They all testified that they vote regularly, but will be unable to vote in November because of Pennsylvania’s new, restrictive voter ID law.

Read the Washington Post article here

Ahead of Voter ID Trial, Pennsylvania Admits There's No In-Person Voter Fraud

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Applewhite et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., is the trial that will examine whether voter ID law is within the boundaries of Pennsylvania's constitution. The Justice Department is investigating the law on a federal level, but the plaintiff of the case is the ACLU and other civil rights groups, representing eligible citizens who have voted for years but under the new law will have their right to vote taken away.

The plaintiffs have a major advantage in this case; the stipulation agreement signed by the state that recognizes that there have been "no investigations of prosecutions of in-person voter fraud and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of such investigations or prosecutions in other states." Furthermore, the state agrees not to argue that "in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012."

In Pennsylvania, an estimated 750,000 registered voters currently do not have the ID they need to vote under the new law, and will be disenfranchised should the law be proven constitutional. The fact that there this law will not solve a nonexistent problem, but rather create one, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands more eligible citizens than instances of fraud have ever occurred is strong evidence in favor of the plaintiffs for this trial.

Read the full TPM Muckraker article

Everything you've ever wanted to know about Voter ID Laws

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

In the anticipation of the November 2012 election being a close match, the emphasis of any changes to voting laws becomes increasingly politicized. Voter ID laws are the hot topic of the upcoming election with 30 states implementing some form of identification requirement in order to vote.

The purpose of voter ID laws is to simply verify the identity of voters at the polls. Restrictive photo ID laws are unnecessary as there are already safeguards in place to verify identity - though the types of identification accepted vary from state to state.

It has always been that case under federal law that first time voters who registered by mail must prove their identity at the polls by bringing either a photo ID, bank statement, or utility bill in order to vote. Photo identification was never a mandatory requirement, but rather one of many acceptable ways to prove identity. Now, in states with restrictive photo ID laws, if a voter does not bring proper ID with them to the polls, some states give voters a provisional ballot only to be counted if they bring proper identification to the county clerk's office within a specified number of days following the election. The precise rules vary by state, but Indiana was the first state to make photo IDs a condition for voting in 2006.

The problem with new, restrictive voter ID laws is that not all eligible voters have acceptable forms of ID. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that 11% of voting age citizens lacks the required identification that would be required to vote under the new laws. Furthermore, the majority of the 11% is comprised mostly of elderly citizens, people with disabilities, minorities, and low-income individuals, so the result will have a disproportionate effect on these formerly eligible citizens. Overall voter turnout, already low, is expected to decrease between 0.8 and 2.4%.

States that enforce voter ID laws say that they will provide free ID cards to eligible voters, but this is usually a broken promise - there are still costs associated that inhibit voters. Applicants must access their birth certificates which can be a financial burden, and many ID offices are not geographically accessible and have severely limited service hours, in extreme cases are only open 5 times a year.

All of these regulations relating to voter ID are supposedly enacted to eliminate voter impersonation fraud. However, a 2007 analysis from the New York Times attributes only 86 convictions of voter fraud in a five year span, stemming from an intensive investigation by the Department of Justice during the Bush Administration. The consequences of voter fraud include a felony conviction, lengthy prison term, and a $10,000 fine.

Lawsuits over voter ID laws are underway in Texas and Pennsylvania with the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union. The federal government has a role under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act whereby states and jurisdictions that have a history of voter discrimination must seek judicial preclearance to any changes in voting laws.

Other states such as Minnesota, Missouri, and North Carolina have vetoed voter ID bills, and two judges in Wisconsin have blocked enforcement of the law. Despite the political divide on the issue of voter ID, it is important to remember that voting is a right. While these laws claim to prevent voter impersonation fraud, one must accurately weigh the extent of the problem against the consequences of what laws will do to otherwise eligible citizens.

Read the full article here

Without a Photo ID, Some PA Voters Won't Count in November Under Strict Law

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Pennsylvania recently passed a law that requires citizens to present a photo identification before voting—despite the fact that more than 750,000 eligible Pennsylvania citizens lack the photo identification required by the law. For Pennsylvania residents like Wilola Lee, whose birth certificate was destroyed in a fire ten years ago, trying to navigate the process of acquiring a photo identification can be extremely difficult.

The common justification for voter ID laws is that they prevent voter impersonation fraud and ensure the integrity of elections. However, Pennsylvania has admitted that there are zero documented cases of fraud at the polls in Pennsylvania. Currently, four civil rights groups are challenging the law and Department of Justice Civil Rights Division opened an investigation to determine whether the law complies with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

State officials have a plan in place to distribute free identification cards to eligible voters, but the cards will not be available until late August and the details of the plan are still vague. Joe Certaine of the Pennsylvania Voter I.D. Coalition said, “There are all kinds of problems associated with the implementation of this law that wasn't considered by the legislature when they drafted the law.”

Additionally, for many voters the process of acquiring a photo identification is not as simple as bringing the required documents to the DMV. Nearly 500,000 voters in 10 states with strict ID requirements live in households without vehicles and live at least ten miles away from an office that issues ID. Making matters worse, many such offices are open fewer than two days a week.

Read the full transcript of the PBS report

Feds Investigating Pennsylvania Voter ID Law

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez sent a letter of inquiry to the Pennsylvania state government on Monday requesting databases of Pennsylvania voters and drivers, a reaction to the voter ID laws passed last March.

Pennsylvania's Secretary of State announced that 9.2% of eligible Pennsylvania voters do not have proper, state-issued identification and will be disenfranchised with the implementation of voter ID laws.

Although Pennsylvania is bound by preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act because it does not have a history of racially discriminatory voting practices, the voter ID law will still have a discriminatory impact as African-Americans, Hispanic and Latino citizens, seniors, people with disabilities, and students will all be disproportionately harmed by the new, stricter regulation.

Read the full Politico article here

How a Great-Great-Granny Could Settle the Voter ID Issue

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Although in 2008 the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law that requires voters to present photo identification before voting, lawsuits are being brought against similar laws in other states. In Pennsylvania, the requirements are more restrictive than those in Indiana, so the Supreme Court case does not necessarily decide whether the Pennsylvania law is constitutional.

The ACLU is bringing the challenge against the Pennsylvania law, and they argue Ms. Applewhite is a prime example of why Pennsylvania’s law will prevent eligible voters from casting ballots in the November election. The ACLU states that she has tried three times to obtain a birth certificate, which is necessary for acquiring a photo identification, but that she had yet to receive one before she joined the lawsuit.

Proponents of stricter voter ID laws argue they are necessary to prevent voter fraud, but while there is little to no evidence of voter fraud, there is much evidence that restrictive voter ID laws will prevent eligible citizens like Ms. Applewhite from voting. Pennsylvania supplies voters with free identification cards, but voters have to pay for a birth certificate in order to obtain an identification card if they do not already have a birth certificate. Obtaining an identification card also requires navigating complex red tape and access to a motor vehicle.

Read the full Yahoo article

Prince William groups to educate voters about Virginia voter ID law

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

In response to Virginia’s recent passage of a stricter voter ID law, African American groups are pushing to educate voters about the new requirements ahead of November.

The need to educate eligible voters on changes in the law has fueled the launch of the Prince William County African Americans Citizens Coalition. The group has held several voter information sessions – informing the public about the most important law changes such as the introduction of provisional ballots (which require a follow-up with ID after election day) in place of the previous practice signing a sworn statement to prove identity.

Dara Lindenbaum, an Associate Counsel in the Voting Rights Project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, notes that the new law is unlike more drastic laws in Texas or Florida in that allows for other means besides photo ID to prove identity.

Many in Virginia think they’ll need a photo ID to vote. They will not, she said. “My goal is really to educate the community and let them know they do not need government photo ID . . . so they are comfortable voting on Election Day,” Lindenbaum said.

Mental Health Facility Residents Still Without Voter IDs

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

During debate over Kansas’s law that requires all citizens to present photo identification before being able to vote, the Westview Manor nursing home became a flashpoint. The facility’s director testified that few of the residents had photo identification and that it would be difficult to help them all obtain the proper identification before the November election. The law was passed, but last month Assistant Secretary of State Eric Rucker personally visited Westview Manor as part of an effort to help all the residents acquire photo identification.

Unfortunately for many other nursing home residents across Kansas who do not have photo identification, the Assistant Secretary of State has not visited them in an attempt to give them aid. For these other individuals, obtaining photo identification can be a costly, complicated, and sometimes fruitless venture. Often times, individuals who do not have a photo identification do not have other forms of identification either—leading to a bureaucratic “catch-22” in which it is impossible to obtain an ID. For these people, an ACLU representative said “we’re not really sure what they do [to get an ID].”

In fact, even residents of Westview still might not be able to vote in the August 7^th election because their ID’s are still being processed. Kansas State Representative Ann Mah said, “[i]f your nursing home supervisor's been working on this for six months, the Assistant Secretary of State comes out personally to help you, and then you still might not have an ID before the primary, what chance does an ordinary citizen have?”

Read the full Topeka-Capitol Journal article

New Voter ID Glitch: State ID Cards Fail Expiration Date Test

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Under Pennsylvania’s new law, one of the acceptable forms of identification voters must before they vote is a photo ID provided to all government workers. The only problem? IDs that are accepted at the polls must contain expiration dates, and government employee IDs have none.

Although the Department of General Services released a statement affirming all government employees could obtain an identification with an expiration date free of charge, some are taking this as further evidence that Pennsylvania’s law was designed to make it more difficult for certain segments of the population to vote. Sen. Daylin Leach said, “[i]t makes it clear that the law is an attempt to prevent Pennsylvanians from voting.”

Government employees are not the only group of that might find themselves without an ID that is accepted at the polls. Other groups, such as people with disabilities, students, minorities, those in poverty, and the elderly, are all more likely to lack a proper form of identification and have a more difficult time securing one. This lack of an acceptable identification may prevent as many as 10% of eligible citizens in Pennsylvania —more in these marginalized groups—from casting a ballot in November.

Read the full Commonwealth Confidential article

Court Rules Husted is Still Bound by Consent Decree on Provisional Ballots Agreed to by Previous Secretary of State

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Ohio’s previous Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner agreed to a consent decree that provisional ballots are valid when they are cast in the right building, but in the wrong precinct, as long as the voter provided the last four digits of his or her social security number and the mistake was made due to poll worker error.

Ohio’s current Secretary of State Jon Husted wishes to no longer count those provisional ballots, but a U.S. District Court Judge has held he must abide by the terms of the consent decree. Husted may yet appeal the decision.

Read the full Ballot Access News article

Delay voter ID in Pennsylvania: There are too many questions and too much confusion for November's use

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Pennsylvania’s new law requiring photo ID from all voters could take the right to vote away from almost 10% of eligible citizens statewide, and as many as 18% in urban areas like Philadelphia, according to new estimates issued by the state. This contradicts earlier estimates from the Secretary of the Commonwealth that only 1% of voters would be affected. The new estimates issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation compare the list of individuals with PennDOT ID (driver’s license or non-driving state-issued ID) and voter registration lists, and find that over 750,000 registered voters don’t have government-issued ID. Proponents of the law originally suggested that education efforts to ensure all voters know about the change in the law and providing ID to voters who currently do not have it would cost the state about $1 million. Actual projections by the state Legislature put the number at $8 million.

The law, like similar laws popping up in states across the country, is allegedly an attempt to curtail voter impersonation fraud, but the laws do more harm than good. District Attorneys in Pennsylvania report that voter impersonation fraud is not a common problem. One national report documented 400 cases of election fraud in the past decade – less than one case per state per year. In Indiana, Tennessee, and Georgia – states which have all enacted similar laws – hundreds of eligible voters that were unable to cast a ballot because of the new requirements, and these were all in relatively low turnout primary elections. Nonpartisan investigations and civil rights organizations have pointed out that underrepresented groups are the most likely to not have required photo ID – communities of color, students, the elderly, people with disabilities, and the poor.

Read the full editorial from The Patriot-News

As court fight looms over voter ID in Texas, those who have none fear losing voice

Sun, 08 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

A trial in federal court this week will likely determine the fate of Texas's new voter ID law that would require government-issued photo ID from all voters in order to receive a ballot. The court case is pitting the Texas State Attorney General against the Department of Justice and civil rights organizations. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas is required to obtain pre-clearance from the federal government before making any changes to voting, because of a history of racial discrimination in voting in certain counties. The Department of Justice initially denied the photo ID law from going into effect, citing its disproportionate impact on Latino and Hispanic voters.

Proponents of the Texas law claim that photo ID requirements are necessary to combat voter impersonation fraud, despite a lack of evidence that such voter fraud is a significant problem, and a lack of evidence that new ID requirements will do anything to prevent voter impersonation fraud. Lawmakers and civil rights organizations that oppose restrictive photo ID laws point to the huge number of voters - 11% of all eligible voters nationwide, according to one study - that do not have government issued photo ID. These citizens are disproportionately people of color, the elderly, people with disabilities, students, and low-income.

José Zuniga is one such Texas resident who lacks photo ID. Zuniga, who is 83 years old and lives in south Texas, does not drive, and rarely leaves his home. As a low-income person who uses a wheelchair, the prospect of getting to the nearest DPS office - 20 miles away - to get a government issued photo ID is daunting. It would require two or three bus trips. As a Latino former migrant farm worker, he also fears harassment in the government office. Juan José López Jr. who lives in the same small city in south Texas also lacks photo ID. He is a sanitation worker, and is caught by a vicious catch-22: he lost his photo ID, and is unable to obtain documents - like school records - that would help him get a new one, because he doesn't have an ID. Dealing with the run around of obtaining ID would require him to take a day off work - something he cannot afford. Voters like Zuniga and López are part of an estimated group of 600,000-800,000 eligible, registered voters who do not have government issued photo ID in Texas.

Read the full Austin Statesman article

Foes of Voter ID Laws Find Ways to Mute Their Impact

Sun, 08 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Since 2010, over 30 states have introduced laws requiring photo ID for voters to cast a ballot, with 10 state legislatures having passed restrictive government-issued photo ID requirements. Some states have reasonable voter identification laws that include a wide variety of potential identification, including things like a utility bill, driver’s license, or sworn statement. This new wave of laws, however, allow for only certain forms of photo identification, supposedly in reaction to voter impersonation fraud. There is no significant evidence, though, of this type of fraud existing, nor any evidence that photo ID requirements would curtail voter fraud. One national study from the Brennan Center estimates that nearly 11% of eligible voters do not have these kinds of photo ID, and these eligible voters are disproportionately underrepresented groups – communities of color, students, the poor, and the elderly.

However, some politicians, as well as voting and civil rights organizations have successfully pushed back against these laws using a variety of different measures put in place to safeguard civil rights. In some states, governors have used their executive power to veto overly restrictive voter laws, while in others, the Department of Justice, legal organizations, voters, and law firms have challenged the laws in courts. Community organizations across the country have also engaged in voter education campaigns about these new laws, including educating voters on how to obtain photo ID if they do not currently have it.

Support and opposition for many of these measures in state legislatures has fallen on partisan lines, compelling some media groups, political and civil rights groups to question the intentions of these laws. Regardless of the short-term political impacts of these laws, their potential impacts on voting rights and civil rights are unquestionable. Non-partisan civil rights groups continue to advocate against any laws that threaten equal access to the ballot box.

Read the full National Journal article

What could tighter voter ID laws mean in November?

Sun, 08 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

New laws with restrictive voter ID requirements have cropped up in states across the country. Above and beyond the impact these have on removing the right to vote from 11% of eligible voters who do not have photo ID, they also create an additional layer of confusion to voters that do not understand the implications of the law or have not been properly notified of the changes. As state legislatures continue to complicate laws surrounding voter ID, it falls to individual voters, poll workers, and local election officials to interpret and implement these changes. New election laws have been passed in many states without considerable education regarding how this affects voters.

Changes in laws will likely cause an increase in the number of provisional ballots cast. For individuals who are unaware of photo ID requirements, they may be denied a regular ballot and forced to cast a provisional ballot. Voters may also have to cast a provisional ballot if they are challenged at the polls. While voter challenger laws vary state-by-state, in some states, any voter who is challenged is forced to vote a provisional ballot – and these challenges can come from anyone who suspects they are not a legitimate voter, for any reason. Voters offered a provisional ballot and are often not notified of the steps needed to make sure the ballot is counted.

The Associated Press did an investigation into what happens to these provisional ballots, and found that a large number of them end up getting thrown out. Some voters may choose not to go through the hassle, and some may not be able to get ID in time, but some may just not know that they need to submit further documentation. Such was the case with Edward and Mary Weidenbener – two voters in Indiana both in their late 80s – they didn’t know about the photo ID requirement in Indiana, or about the follow up required for a provisional ballot to be counted. They hadn’t even realized that their votes in the Republican primary weren’t counted until much later when approached by an Associated Press reporter.

The experiences of Edward and Mary demonstrate two important facts when it comes to election reform – first, ongoing voter education in addition to specific efforts after voting changes are vital to ensuring voters can exercise their right to vote, and two, changes in voting and voter registration need to make the process more simple, not more complicated.

Read the full Christian Science Monitor article

U.S. Supreme Court expected to hear Shelby County's challenge to the Voting Rights Act

Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

A challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may reach the United States Supreme Court through the Shelby County v. Holder case. The case seeks to challenge the constitutionality of two key sections of the landmark civil rights legislation-the requirement for local governments with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get preclearance from the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court of D.C., and the formula used to determine which counties are subject to this requirement. The Shelby County case is unique because it is responding to the law itself, unlike previous cases, which have responded to a specific Department of Justice action.

The 2006 re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act passed in Congress in with nearly unanimous and bipartisan votes in both the House and the Senate. It serves as an important safeguard for voting rights in targeted counties. The constitutionality of the law has also been upheld in two federal courts since the Shelby County case was filed two years ago. However, it appears that the plaintiffs will likely file a petition to the Supreme Court to hear an appeal. Previous decisions by the Roberts Court suggest that the Court will likely opt to hear the case.

The Court's next session begins in October, and if the case goes to the Supreme Court, oral arguments could begin in early 2013.

Read the full Huntsville Times article

Voting Rights Organizations File Suit to Enforce National Voter Registration Act in Pennsylvania

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0500

The Black Political Empowerment Project and ACTION United are filing an official Complaint with the State of Pennsylvania for non-compliance with the National Voter Registration Act. The plaintiffs are represented by a coalition of non-partisan voting rights groups, including the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Demos, and Project Vote. The Complaint is being filed against the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Pennsylvania Departments of Public Welfare and Health.

The National Voter Registration Act - also known as the "Motor Voter Law" - requires designated public offices to provide opportunities to register to vote, including the DMV and Secretary of State. Under section 7 of this law, public assistance offices are also required to offer voter registration applications to new applicants, during applications for recertification, or when a service user changes address. According to numbers submitted by the state of Pennsylvania, there has been a 93% decline in voter registrations through public assistance offices between 1995-1996 and 2009-2010. At the same time, the number of new food stamps applications has nearly doubled. Interviews with public assistance clients suggest that many public assistance offices do not offer, and sometimes do not even have voter registration materials.

Voter registration organizations have been attempting to collaborate with the state to ensure compliance with the law, however, the state's reluctance and slow movement required legal action. The Complaint calls for a court-approved plan that will remedy past and continuing violations of the National Voter Registration Act.

Read the full Demos article and download the Complaint