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

The Lawyers' Committee Supports Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez as Next Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Mr. Perez has worked tirelessly during his tenure with the Civil Rights Division (CRT) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to serve the American people and protect their civil rights and we firmly believe he will be equally dedicated and committed as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Click Here to View Complete Letter

Voter ID laws applied unequally, study shows

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

A University of Chicago study has revealed that young minority voters were disproportionately affected by voter ID laws across the country in 2012. While only about 50% percent of white youth voters were asked for ID in the general election, about 60.8% of youthful Latino voters and 72.9% of young African-American voters were made to present identification before they could vote.

The study also revealed that whereas only 4.7% of non-voting white Americans cited lack of proper identification as their reason for avoiding the polls, 17.3% of non-voting African Americans provided it as their explanation.

As the study shows, strict ID requirements deter eligible voters from going to the polls, especially for people with disabilities, African-Americans, students, and elderly voters, who are much less likely to own the required forms of identification.

Read the full Daily Pennsylvanian article here

General Assembly considering state voter ID law

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

The Maryland General Assembly is considering a bill that would require voters to show government issued photo ID, a voter notice card or a specimen ballot from voting on a regular ballot, in order to cast a ballot.

Critics of the bill argue that no evidence for voter impersonation fraud has even been brought forward. Instead of preventing the non-existent problem of voter fraud, the bill will merely take the right to vote away from eligible voters, especially those from certain groups such as African-Americans and the elderly who are already less likely to have government-issued ID.

Read the full CecilDaily.com article here

Voting Rights Group Decries Virginia's New Restrictive Voter ID Law

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

WASHINGTON -- Civil rights advocates say a new voter ID law signed by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) on Tuesday will creating more hurdles to voting.

“Rather than address the real issues Virginians have faced at the polls on Election Day, such as waiting in line for 6 to 7 hours to vote, the Governor decided to impose unwarranted restrictions that will only further exacerbate existing problems,” said Marcia Johnson-Blanco, co-director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers’ Committee. “This law will inflict undue burdens on the very communities we should be encouraging to participate in our democracy – students, communities of color and poor persons.”

The Justice Department has to sign off on the law before it goes into effect. But that could change if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states like Virginia with a history of racial discrimination to have their voting laws and procedures approved by either the DOJ or a panel of federal judges in D.C.

Last year, the Justice Department signed off on a less stringent voter ID law signed by McDonnell that allowed for a range of documents to be used for identification at polling places. But the new more restrictive voter ID law takes away the ability of Virginia voters to cast a ballot after showing a utility bill, bank statement or social security card as proof of identity.

Republican supporters of the measure say it's needed to prevent voter fraud.

Will Supreme Court reject Arizona's other 'papers please' law?

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund Director of Litigation Nina Perales, MALDEF lawyer Luis Figaroa, Lawyers' Committee Chief Counsel Jon Greenbaum and San Carlos Apache Tribal Chairman Terry Rambler talk with reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court after attending oral arguments in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council et al. March 18, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Voting-rights advocates are expressing confidence that the Supreme Court will reject an Arizona law that requires people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote, in a case that could have major implications for the federal government’s ability to protect the right to vote.

Lawyers challenging the law argued before the Supreme Court Monday that Proposition 200, passed in 2004, violates the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, known as Motor Voter, which was aimed at simplifying and boosting voter registration. The Motor Voter law already requires voters to attest, under penalty of perjury, that they’re citizens, but does not require them to provide documentation. By requiring election administrators to reject forms that aren’t accompanied by proof of citizenship, voting-rights groups argue, Prop 200 runs directly into the Motor Voter law. When state and federal law conflict, federal law takes precedence.

“It appeared that a majority of justices, based on their questions, were agreeable to that argument,” Jon Greenbaum, of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told reporters Monday afternoon, in response to a question from MSNBC.

Arizona argues that the proof of citizenship requirement is not unduly burdensome, and doesn’t violate Motor Voter. A U.S. appeals court last summer found for the law’s opponents.

Last month, another voting-rights case that went before the Supreme Court—concerning the constitutionality of a key part of the Voting Rights Act—received widespread coverage. The Arizona case has flown largely under the radar, but the stakes are high. Election-law expert Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, wrote Saturday that a ruling by the court to uphold Arizona’s law “would alter the state-federal balance over federal elections and give states a greater ability to manipulate election rules for partisan reason,” and suggested this could be the “sleeper case of the year.”

Despite Greenbaum’s confidence, in oral arguments Monday morning the justices appeared sharply divided on the case. As expected, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the court’s liberal wing, sounded skeptical about the legitimacy of Prop 200.

“Many people don’t have the documents that Arizona requires,” she said at one point. And at another, she declared: “I have a huge difficulty—great difficulty” with the claim that requiring proof of citizenship would not be unduly burdensome.

But equally expected, Justice Antonin Scalia, a standard-bearer for the conservative bloc, seemed supportive of the measure. At one point he even asked Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne why the state did not challenge the original Motor Voter form for not requiring proof of citizenship.

And the court’s most frequent swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, did not tip his hand. At one point he said that if a state can add additional requirement on top of the Motor Voter form, then that form “is not worth very much.” Later, though, he added that states have a “vital interest” in federal elections.

Allowing the law to stand would threaten voting rights in two major, related ways, those challenging the measure argue. First, as Hasen suggested, it would set a precedent that would give states more leeway to evade federal mandates aimed at making elections fairer and more efficiently run.

“It would open the floodgates to other states being able to attach their own requirements” to voter registrations forms, Nina Perales of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), which filed the original challenge against the law, told reporters. Perales said that age, mental capacity, and criminal records could theoretically become criteria for states to use if the law is upheld.

Second, it would make it much harder for organizations that conduct voter registration drives to do their work effectively—both in Arizona and in any other states that might now try to pass similar measures. Elizabeth MacNamara , the president of the League of Women Voters, explained to MSNBC that her group generally seeks out unregistered voters in malls, community centers, and other public locations—not places where people tend to carry around their birth certificate or passport. That means that if they don’t happen to have a driver’s license—as many students and lower-income Americans don’t—they’re out of luck under Prop 200.

“A lot of folks are not in a position to prove they’re a citizen out there in the community in order to be able to register,” MacNamara said.

In Arizona’s largest county, Maricopa, voter registration through community drives dropped by 44% in the two and a half years after Prop 200 was implemented, according to court documents filed by MALDEF. “It really does impair our ability to reach the people we really want to reach and to make sure every eligible voter has got the same access to registration that every other voter does,” MacNamara added.

That’s a big deal, because hampering registration drives ultimately does much more to restrict voting than some other measures, like voter ID laws, that have gotten more attention lately. In 2008—even after an unprecedented registration drive by the Obama campaign and affiliated groups—just 71% of eligible voters were registered. And the number of eligible, but unregistered, voters is significantly higher for lower-income and less educated Americans—groups typically targeted by voting drives.

The challenge to the law isn’t about racial discrimination. Arizona is covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the law was cleared by the Justice Department as not having a discriminatory impact.

But some voting-rights advocates nevertheless maintain that Prop 200 is an effort to disempower Latinos, who are more likely than whites to be unable to document their citizenship.

“What concerns us most is that many states are following a growing trend of voting practices that target Latinos—such as use of the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE data—and subjects them to greater obligations of proof of their citizenship,” Penda Hair, the co-director of the Advancement Project, said in a statement. “The court needs to recognize that this must cease if we are to ensure that elections in our country are free, fair and accessible for all eligible voters.”

Arizona Voter ID Law to be Heard This Week by Supreme Court

Sun, 17 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week concerning the legality of Arizona’s voter-approved Proposition 200, which requires voters to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

Opponents of the law argue that it is merely a thinly veiled attempt to disenfranchise vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, naturalized citizens, and the elderly. Very little evidence of voter fraud by undocumented immigrants has actually been put forth – whether in Arizona or anywhere else. In Florida, only 0.001% of registered voters were found to be noncitizens. In Colorado, election officials found 0.004% of registered voters were noncitizens. Whether those noncitizens actually voted or were just registered is not known.

Either way, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will set an important precedent. If the constitutionality of the law is upheld then other states, such as Alabama, Kansas, Georgia and Tennessee, who are considering similar legislation, will get the green light to push it through.

Perhaps more importantly, according to David Verrilli, upholding the law could lead to an increased allowance for each state to “impose all manner of its own supplemental requirements beyond the federal form,” in voter registration processes.

Read the full Fox News article here

Study finds voter ID laws hurt young minorities

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Numerous studies in the past have confirmed that restrictive photo ID legislation suppresses minority votes. 17.3% of African-American youth voters did not vote last year specifically because they lacked the required form of identification, as opposed to 8.1% of Latino youth said their lack of adequate ID kept them from voting, compared with just 4.7 percent of white youth.

A new study, conducted by Cathy J. Cohen of the University of Chicago and Jon C. Rogowski of Washington University in St. Louis, sheds light on prejudice in voter ID procedure on Election Day. According to the study, in the most recent election, 72.9% of 18-29 year-old African American voters were asked to show a voter ID at their polling place while 60.8% of Latino and 50.8 % of white youth voters were asked to present an ID on Election Day. In states with no voter ID laws, 65.5% of black youth were asked for an ID on Election Day, as opposed to 55.3% of Latino youth and 42.8% of white youth.

This study is particularly important given that the Supreme Court, through Shelby County v. Holder, is currently deliberating on the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which stipulates that certain states with a history of racial discrimination must attain pre-clearance from the federal government in order to change voting regulations. Rogowski said the study supports the continued relevance and necessity of Section 5.

Read full Politico article here

Secretaries of State announce national task force on emergency preparedness for elections

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0600

Nevada Secretary of State and National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) President Ross Miller and NASS members announced the creation of a Task Force on Emergency Preparedness for Elections to formulate effective emergency response procedures for elections. The national task force was prompted by the negative effect Hurricane Sandy had on many people’s ability to vote. Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast just before the 2012 election; had it hit just a few days later, its effect on voter turnout could have been catastrophic.

The task force will hopefully propose laws and practices that enhance the ability of state election officials to effectively combat the effects of emergency situations on voter turnout. Certain voting stipulations including limited absentee voting and early voting put additional burden on Election Day which could have an adverse effect under short term emergency circumstances.

NASS President Ross Miller of Nevada, who will be working on the task force, stated, "Our members want to identify the strategies that worked well for election officials who dealt with the fallout from Hurricane Sandy while avoiding major disruptions to voting on Election Day, and more importantly, find some cost-effective ways in which states can better prepare for such emergency scenarios in the future. By bringing together a diverse group of Secretaries of State and independent state election chiefs, we hope to offer guidance that will improve the collective capabilities of the states."

Read full foxreno.com article here

Biden critical of challenges to Voting Rights Act

Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0600

In Selma, Alabama, during the annual commemoration of Bloody Sunday in 1965, Vice President Joe Biden told those gathering that Americans “can’t let their guard down” against attempts to suppress voting rights, a statement made in regards to the Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court case, in which the Court is deciding whether to uphold Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which forced states with a history of racial discrimination to have their changes in voting regulations pre-cleared by the federal government.

In a speech during the Martin and Coretta King Unity Brunch, Biden said states had passed 180 laws restricting voting, “some more pernicious than others.” Later, at a speech at Wallace State Community College, the Vice President stated: “Here we are, 48 years after all you did, and we’re still fighting? In 2011, 12 and 13? We’re able to beat back most of those attempts in … 2012, but that doesn’t mean it’s over.”

Other speakers joined Biden in his defense of Section 5. Rev. Jesse Jackson stated at the brunch, “If they remove Section 5, streets cannot hold us. We’re not going back. If they remove Section 5, jails cannot contain us. We’re not going back.” William Bell, the mayor of Birmingham, Ala., recalling the turmoil of the Civil Rights fight in Birmingham, stated “Challenges every day are occurring,” Bell said. “Now is the time to recommit ourselves (to civil rights).”

Read full USA Today article here.

Story: A crack in civil rights law? Some justices think so

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0600

At the Shelby Count v. Holder Supreme Court argument on Wednesday, several of the conservative Supreme Court Justices were highly critical of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which stipulates that certain states with a history racial discrimination must have all their changes in voting law and procedure pre-cleared by the federal government. Section 5 has been used recently to strike down restrictive photo ID laws, limits to early voting, and redistricting proposals that would have an adverse effect on minority voter turnout.

Several justices argued that the Section 5 is unfair in that it puts a burden only on some states. Chief Justice John Roberts went as far as to ask Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: "Is it the government's submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than the citizens in the North?" Justice Scalia called Congress’ upholding of the Voting Rights act a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” In response to this line of argument, Justice Stephen Breyer stated: “Of course this is aimed at states. What do you think the Civil War was about? Of course it was aimed at treating some states differently than others.^”

Moreover, the court's four liberal justices defended the coverage formula under which Section 5 operates, which has been criticized for being based on registration data and discriminatory practices from 1964. Justice Elena Kagan said, "the formula seems to be working pretty well" by targeting states and jurisdictions with the highest success rates in voter discrimination lawsuits.

If Section 5 is struck down, there is discussion to whether Congress will try to modernize the coverage formula. Jon Greenbaum, the legal director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil rights Under Law, stated: "People in the field would be putting pressure on Congress to do something about it. But we also know that, generally speaking, it's hard to pass any legislation through Congress these days."

Read full USA Today article here

Scalia: Renewing Voting Rights Act a 'perpetuation of racial entitlement'

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0600

During the Supreme Court oral arguments in Shelby vs. Holder, in which the constitutionality of Section 5 of Voting Rights Act is under question, Justice Antonin Scalia said that Congress’s renewal of the law was the “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires states with a history of racial discrimination to have any changes made to voting regulations and procedure to be pre-cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Scalia claimed that Congress’s 2006 re-authorization of the law, which was done by a unanimous vote in the Senate and a 390-33 vote in the House was political maneuver to remain in office, stating “I don’t think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act… They’re going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful.” Some of the Justices posited that racial discrimination is no longer limited to the states covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and therefore unfairly targets states covered under Section 5, which include all of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, and parts of California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Michigan, and New Hampshire.

Barbara Arnwine, President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told MSNBC.com,

“It’s a severe misreading of the law, and quite shocking that he would use that shorthand to describe a major law of the magnitude of the Voting Rights Act in such a way. This law does not entitle anybody to anything other than the fundamental protection from racial discrimination. That’s all it does.”

A decision on Shelby County v. Holder is expected something in late June. Read more about Shelby County vs. Holder.

Read the full NBC News article here

Voter ID Questions Remain: Wash U. Professor

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0600

Greg Magarian, a professor of Constitutional law at Washington University, has said that even if a new, more stringent voter ID law passes through the Missouri legislature, there will likely be court challenges at the federal level.

The proposed voter ID law would require a constitutional amendment in the State of Missouri and would have to be approved by voters. However, that is not the problem according to Magarian who says courts would instead consider: “How easy or difficult is it to get a necessary form of ID, what findings are there about how many people this would effectively block out from voting?” Indeed, numerous studies have shown that restricting the types of IDs voters can use to vote makes it harder for eligible citizens to vote, and has a disproportionate impact on the elderly, people with disabilities, the poor, and minorities.

Read the full CBS article here

Why we still need the Voting Rights Act

Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0600

This week the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Shelby County v. Holder, perhaps one of the most important voting rights cases of our generation. At stake is the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states with the worst histories of discrimination obtain federal preclearance for all proposed changes to election law. The court will decide whether or not section 5 remains a necessary remedy for modern levels of discrimination.

As recently as 2006 congress renewed section 5 for 25 years. They debated the issue for 10, compiled substantial evidence and came to the near unanimous conclusion that: “While some change has occurred, the places with a legacy of long-standing, entrenched and state-sponsored voting discrimination still have the most persistent, flagrant, contemporary records of discrimination in this country.”

Opponents of section 5 contest that the preclearance provision puts an unconstitutional burden on covered states but, according to Congressman Lewis, “their only cost is the paper, postage and manpower required to send copies of legislation to the federal government for review,” which he goes on to say is “hardly a punishment.”

According to Lewis, a renowned civil rights leader who fought for the right to vote, evidence proves that there are still for forces who seek to systematically disenfranchise minority citizens in this country. That is why every president and every congress since 1965 has reauthorized section 5, and, therefore, why the Supreme Court should uphold its constitutionality this year.

Read the full Washington Post article here

Virginia Senate panel OKs more stringent voter

Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0600

Currently, in order to cast a ballot in Virginia, an eligible voter needs either a current and valid photo ID, a utility bill, bank statement, government check or paycheck that shows name and residency information, or another government document that shows proof of name and address such as a voter registration card. A bill before the Virginia Senate (House bill 1337) would eliminate utility bills, bank statements, and paychecks from the list acceptable documents to use as suitable forms of identification at polling places. Under House Bill 1337, Virginia residents could still use voter registration cards and Social Security cards as adequate forms of ID on Election Day.

By a 63-36 vote, the House of Delegates passed a substitute version of HB 1337 on February 5 that added a provision that the acceptable forms of ID have to be “current and valid” and “contain a photograph or the name and address of the voter.” After House approval, the bill moved to the Senate. On February 19, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee endorsed the bill.

If the new restrictions are put into place, many eligible citizens will no longer be able to use IDs that have been acceptable for years to prove their identity and may have to opt for more expensive options. Without fixing any actual problems, this bill could make it harder for eligible citizens to vote, especially for the elderly, people with disabilities, those with limited income, and communities of color.

Read full DelmarvaNow.com article here

Voter ID Bills Out of Committee, Headed to House and Senate

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0600

There are two bills, currently on their way to the floors of the Virginia state House and Senate, which take last year’s list of approved IDs and whittle them down significantly. House Bill 1337 and Senate Bill 719 would no longer allow for voters to present utility bills, bank statements, government checks, or paychecks that show the name and address of the voter, to be used at polling places as a valid form of ID.

Proponents of these bills argue that reducing the types of acceptable ID to include only those with both a photo is an important step towards eliminating voter fraud. On the other hand, critics argue these stricter new measures would simply make it harder for eligible citizens to vote.

Read the full NBC article here

Analysis: 201,000 in Florida didn't vote because of long lines

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

One of the most striking images and stories of the 2012 election were those of people waiting in lines 6-7 hours. Those long voting lines according to a study by the Orlando Sentinel may have prevented 201,000 registered voters from casting ballots on Election Day. The study found that 762 precincts in Florida’s 25 largest counties that had people voting after 8:30 PM, an hour and a half after closing time. Of these precincts, 60% were Miami-Dade, Orange, Lee, and Osceola counties.

Of the counties studied, many of the precincts with ling lines and wait times were in predominately Latino neighborhoods like Miami-Dade which has a Latino-American population of 64.5%. Orange County Supervisor Bill Cowles claimed that poll lines were extremely long because of a lag caused by Spanish-speaking voters needing state-provided translations of the numerous proposed constitutional amendments.

While precincts that were able to close by 7:30 were usually smaller (an average of fewer than 1,900 voters each), there were still dozens of precincts with 4,000 or more voters that closed by 7:30. Dara Lindenbaum of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which leads the non-partisan Election Protection Coalition, attributed the excruciatingly long lines to the counties’ lack of preparedness for a longer ballot as well as a larger body of voters on Election Day due to cutbacks in early voting.

Read full Orlando Sentinel article here

From Arizona to Montana, Native Voters Struggle for Democracy

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

The Native-American communities in New Mexico, Arizona, and Montana faced immense voter suppression in the 2012 election. From overcrowding to voter intimidation, Native-American Americans faced many obstacles on their way to polls. In New Mexico, the Native-American population has grown by 11% over the last decade, yet polling places did not keep pace with population growth, leading to extremely long lines. New Mexico ran out of voter registration forms in six counties, half of them having high Native-American populations.

In Arizona, there were issues simply over where polling sites would be located. Some Native Americans must vote at two separate locations for federal elections and tribal elections. Due to the distance between the two locations as well as the long lines reported in several precincts, voting at both locations would take several hours. Many voters did not have the time for both and had to choose in which election they would participate.

Moreover, voters in Arizona faced voter intimidation tactics. Native-American Vote Election Protection volunteers observed several such actions. Over the course of six hours, five Maricopa County Sheriff’s vehicles were observed patrolling outside the Guadalupe polling location, which mostly serves Pasqua Yaqui voters. In Pima County, border patrol agents walking with German Shepherds, were stopping every vehicle leaving the Tohono O’odham Nation asking drivers about their citizenship. Furthermore, Native-American Vote Election Protection watchers observed that once Native-American American individuals made it to the polls, many were forced to full out provisional ballots, and some were not even allowed to do that. By the end of Election Day, the Native-American Vote Election Protection volunteers in Arizona assisted thirty-seven people who were originally told they couldn’t cast a ballot to vote.

Montana faced its own issues with overcrowded polling places in Native-American American population pockets, partly due to the fact that the state offered early voting in heavily white areas beginning October 10, but did not establish early voting on the Northern Cheyenne, Crow and Fort Belknap reservations. Sixteen Native-Americans filed suit requesting satellite early voting offices on their reservations but were refused by Judge Richard Cebull.

Read full Nation article here

Lancaster mayor Rex Parris will be trial attorney in voting rights lawsuit against neighboring Palmdale

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

Lancaster mayor Rex Parris has signed on to become the plaintiff’s attorney in a lawsuit against the neighboring city of Palmdale, which alleges that Palmdale’s method of electing its city council suppresses Latino and African American voting rights.

Juan Jauregi, a local resident of Palmdale, who is the plaintiff in the case, believes that the "at-large elections" by which voters throughout Lancaster choose from the same pool of candidates, dilutes the vote of Latino and African American citizens and prevents them from electing their preferred candidates. He would prefer the system used by Los Angeles, in which the city is divided into districts that each elect their own representative to city council.

According to Parris the disenfranchisement in Palmdale is all too obvious: "The effects of the city of Palmdale's at-large method of election are apparent and compelling," he said. "Despite a Latino population of approximately 54.4 percent and an African-American population of 14.8 percent in the city of Palmdale, only one Latino and not a single African-American has ever been elected to Palmdale's City Council."

Parris supports dividing the city into districts and appointed a commission Tuesday to look into it. In the case Parris will serve as trial attorney alongside Kevin Shenkman, who has litigated the case since it was filed in April 2012, and Alexander Wheeler, also of the R. Rex Parris Law Firm.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled March 19, with trial to begin May 5.

Read the full Daily News Los Angeles article here

Voter ID debate returns

Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

The debate over Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law, which garnered so much scrutiny during last year’s election cycle, is back. The law would have required voters to present approved identification to poll workers in order to cast a ballot in November, but Commonwealth court judge Robert Simpson delayed its implementation under heavy pressure from voting rights groups, who demonstrated in court that many eligible citizens were unable to obtain the ID they would need to vote under the new law

Judge Simpson issued an order last week scheduling trial for July 15^th in a legal challenge that may ultimately decide the law’s fate. However, it’s likely that Simpson’s decision will be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

It’s important to note that Simpson’s original injunction only prevented the law from taking effect in this past election. Several groups representing the plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union, will request that the injunction be extended until the case is heard, but it could go either way, as judge Simpson has said he’ll rule on the matter by March 21^st.

Read the full article here

Gov. O'Malley Proposes Expanding Early Voting

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley seeks to expand upon the state's early voting plan, which has been in place since 2010. His proposal includes revisions such as increasing the number of early voting days from six to eight, as well as allowing same-day voter registration on the days designated for early voting. Of the proposed changes the Governor recently said - "We would be proposing same-day voter registration. We will also be proposing an expansion of what has been a very popular and well-received early voting system in Maryland."

Under O'Malley's bill same-day registration would be limited to early voting periods. Casting a ballot on Election Day would continue to require advance registration.

Read the full CBS article here

Lawyers' Committee Supports Congress' Efforts to Improve America's Elections

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

Obama Inauguration Speech Gives Voting Rights A Shout-Out

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said during his inauguration speech on Monday that it was up to this generation to carry on the work of previous civil rights icons in ensuring everyone had access to the polling place.

"Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote," Obama said in his speech. Obama had said on election night that the country had to "fix" the problem of long voting lines and the Justice Department is currently looking for ways to make voting easier.

Voting rights advocates saw the shout-out as an good sign.

"It's encouraging that President Obama used two major moments during the last couple of months to shine a light on the problems that too often plague our system of elections -- his election night speech and then his second inaugural address," Eric Marshall of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law told HuffPost.

"My hope is he uses his third opportunity, which is the upcoming State of the Union, where he's laying out his policy priorities for his second term to make a forceful statement to Congress that federal action is needed for uniform standards for elections in getting us to a place where we have a modern system of voter registration," Marshall told HuffPost.

Lawyers' Committee Statement on U.S. Election Assistance Commission Post-Election Roundtable

Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

On January 9th, Barbara Arnwine, President & Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, participated in a roundtable discussion at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The roundtable, entitled "Informing Change: A Review of Events and Issues of the 2012 Elections Cycle," brought together advocates, scholars, researchers, and members of the media to discuss operational and administrative challenges in the 2012 election and improvements moving forward. The Lawyers' Committee contributed to this dialogue by highlighting the problems voters faced on Election Day and outlining ways to improve the system for everyone.

The 2012 election demonstrated yet again that Americans are willing to overcome barriers to make their voices heard on Election Day. It's not difficult to understand why the voting community expected that voters would encounter significant problems given the wave of restrictive photo ID laws, early voting cuts, voter purges, pre-election day challenges, and limitations to voter registration opportunities in 2012. During the 2012 cycle, voters encountered chronic problems, the same as in previous election cycles - which have been documented for the past ten years through Election Protection. These problems were exacerbated in 2012 because of the nationwide effort by partisan lawmakers and election officials to manipulate the rules by which voters are able to cast their ballots for their benefit. In addition to the problems mentioned above, other obstacles were long lines, poll workers' inability to navigate the maze of voting rules, and the frequent use of provisional ballots. The quick pace by which legislators passed voting law changes combined with the lack of preparation for responsible implementation by election officials served to enlarge the confusion and problems experienced by voters and poll workers alike on Election Day. Notably, too often communities of color, the disabled, seniors, and students bear the brunt of these problems.

Election officials are woefully under-resourced and have to make do with less than they should, especially given the enormity of their task in administering elections. Despite these challenges election officials can still greatly improve their performance. For starters, every election jurisdiction should develop a written plan for the administration of elections that includes detailed plans for everything involved from processing voter registration forms to resource allocation and contingency plans on Election Day.

There are many ways election officials can be creative to improve the process. Establishing partnerships with high schools, colleges, local businesses, or government agencies can increase and diversify the poll worker work force. Administering post-election surveys and asking for feedback from clerks, staff, voters, advocates, and poll workers on recommendations for improvements can help build new efficiencies into the process. These and other innovative steps can be implemented immediately and will undoubtedly improve the experience for the American voter.

Finally, underlying the continuing problems of the recent elections is the need to modernize our nation's voter registration system. Such a structural overhaul would substantially decrease many of the problems faced by voters. Voter registration problems led to countless additional problems during the election including the overuse of provisional ballots, long lines, and disenfranchisement. Modernizing the registration system will not only make the American electoral system far more efficient and effective, it will allow communities to reinvest these resources in other critical functions.

Sandy storm exposes need for voting contingency plans

Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

Hurricane Sandy threw election efforts in New York and New Jersey into disarray, but it wasn't quite the worst-case scenario.

WASHINGTON - Holding a presidential election one week after a major storm has destroyed homes and knocked out power to much of your state may seem like a worst-case scenario, but the problems New Jersey experienced after Superstorm Sandy could have been much worse, a state elections official said Wednesday.

"If the storm was a week later, we would not have been able to have a presidential election in New Jersey and parts of New York," Robert Giles, director of New Jersey's Division of Elections, said at a hearing before the Election Assistance Commission. "There's nothing in place to address that. It's always been, 'Well, we'll deal with it if it happens.' Well, it almost did."

Sandy struck New Jersey and New York on Monday, Oct. 29. That was the week before the Nov. 6 election, although many people in affected areas were given additional time to e-mail or fax in their ballots.

Giles and other elections officials taking part in Wednesday's hearing called for contingency plans in the event of another disaster.

Pamela Green Perkins, administrative manager at the New York City Board of Elections, said a major challenge after Sandy was finding out which kind of generators each polling place needed.

"We needed to know the number of kilowatts and the voltage," she said. "We had none of that information."

Dawn Sandow, deputy executive director of the NYC Board of Elections, said she ran into bureaucratic red tape when she tried to get permission in advance of the storm to move hundreds of voting machines from elections offices in Clifton, in an evacuation area, to the Staten Island Armory.

"You just have to be persistent," she said, describing how the authorization came through 20 minutes after she ordered trucks to begin the transfer.

Giles of New Jersey said the big challenge for his state was preparing for the unknown. Even with advance warning systems in place, it wasn't clear where and when the storm would make landfall or how much destruction it would cause.

The Friday before the storm, he said, elections officials from several Northeastern states spoke by conference call with elections officials in Mississippi and Louisiana to get tips on preparing contingency plans.

That same day, his office sent a list of polling places to local utility companies so they could be put on a priority list when it came time to restore power.

After the storm, New Jersey announced directives aimed at making voting easier for victims of the storm.

It extended the deadline for residents to request mail-in ballots, extended early-voting hours, relaxed the limit on the number of ballots that can be picked up and delivered to others, and lifted the requirement that poll workers live in the county where they work.

When it appeared those measures wouldn't be enough, the state announced that displaced residents would be able to vote by e-mail or fax. It then extended the deadline for submitting ballots one of those ways, and opened up provisional voting across the state.

"We didn't have to create any new laws, we just expanded upon what we already had, relaxed them a little bit," Giles said.

State officials don't know how many voters voted by e-mail or fax, he said. But allowing those options helped the state's turnout, estimated at 67%, he said. That's a record low. The previous record low was 70% in the 2000 contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

Other states are paying close attention, said Jennie Drage Bowser, an elections analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. Bowser said more states are likely to consider legislation that includes election contingency plans.

Michael Alvarez, a professor at the California Institute of Technology, said Sandy - just like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 - illustrates the need for such plans. He called for more research into what such contingency plans should include.

There also needs to be a plan to protect voting rights of first responders who help in disasters, said Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Arnwine, whose organization led a national Election Protection effort, said the group's Election Day hotline received calls from first responders in New Jersey and New York who couldn't vote back home.

Giles said first responders were encouraged to cast provisional ballots in New Jersey and told their ballots would be sent to their home states. It's unclear if they were counted, however.

"The response was definitely less than desirable,'' Arnwine said.

Lawyers' Committee Applauds Representative Miller for Leadership on Voting Rights

Mon, 07 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 7, 2013 -- The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is encouraged that Representative George Miller is pressing members of Congress to continue the important conversation on necessary steps to improve our voting system. It is un-American for any voter to stand in long lines to vote or otherwise be prevented from voting due to problems with their voter registration or other administrative problems outside of their control. It is long overdue for Congress to establish minimum standards for the conduct of our elections so that our voting system meets the ideals of our democracy.

H.R. 6591, the SIMPLE Voting Act provides a building block for conversations about some of the most egregious problems that we witnessed in the 2012 elections including extraordinarily long lines where voters waited six to eight hours to cast a ballot to desperately understaffed polling locations. The Lawyers’ Committee is committed to the maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the franchise while affording every eligible voter the right to vote and we look forward to working with Representative Miller and others in Congress to move our voting systems forward.

About The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCRUL), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. The LCCRUL is celebrating its 50^th anniversary in 2013 as it continues its quest of “Moving America Toward Justice.” The principal mission of the LCCRUL is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and fair lending, community development, employment, voting, education and environmental justice. For more information about the LCCRUL, visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.