Good decisions on marriage equality, bad decision on Voting Rights Act leave America part equal and part unequal

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron released the following statement today in response to the Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry:

AFJ President Nan Aron speaks
at a rally in support of marriage equality
when the cases were argued in March

We strongly applaud the decisions in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry and look forward to the implementation of marriage equality in California and to the application of full federal rights to all same-sex married couples nationwide. This is a great day, not only for LGBT Americans, but also for all who cherish the fundamental principle of equal justice for all.

We are mindful, though, that although today the arc of history bent a little more toward justice,  there still is a long way to go.  This week’s conflicting decisions by the Supreme Court on marriage equality and voting rights are at once profoundly hopeful and deeply disappointing.

Even as we celebrate today’s victories, we are appalled, but not surprised that the Court in Shelby County V. Holder has cut the heart out of the Voting Rights Act, one of America’s most important civil rights statutes. This week, the Court majority willfully turned its back on the hard-won promise of equality, based on the delusion that the quest for racial equality is over.

Taking these cases together, we are concerned that this Court, by moving in opposite directions simultaneously, has once again left the nation part equal and part unequal.  Regrettably, this Supreme Court majority has seen fit to give with one hand, while taking with the other. The struggle for a full measure of justice for every American must continue in our own time, as it has since our nation’s founding. As Fannie Lou Hamer said so well, “Nobody’s free until everybody’s free.”

Read More:
● AFJ Audio Analysis of the marriage equality cases.
● Read more about marriage equality.
●Videos from AFJ’s luncheon celebrating marriage equality victories in the states.
● Video: AFJ President Nan Aron’s call for marriage equality during a rally at the Supreme Court in March.
● AFJ Audio Analysis of the Voting Rights Act case.
● Read more about the Voting Rights Act.

The OTHER voting rights case reaches the Supreme Court

The legal issues are different; the stakes are similar

The first thing Jesus Gonzalez did after completing the naturalization ceremony that made him an American citizen in 2005 was to try to exercise the most fundamental right of citizenship: the right to vote.

He filled out a voter registration form correctly. He provided the number for his certificate of naturalization. He signed an oath, under penalty of perjury, that he was a citizen. In short, he did everything the United States requires to register to vote in federal elections.

But Mr. Gonzalez had just become a citizen in Arizona, a state that keeps trying to put up barriers to poor people and people of color when they try to vote. In 2012, the state became notorious for its voter suppression efforts. But those efforts actually began long before this past election.

In 2004, Arizona passed a referendum which added burdensome state requirements beyond the simple guidelines in federal law. So the state turned Gonzalez down. He tried again, this time using his driver’s license number. But the state said the license was too old, and turned him down again. Finally, Mr. Gonzalez paid what amounts to a de facto poll tax: $112.95 to get a passport, in order to provide proof of citizenship.

He is not alone. Since the Arizona law took effect, more than 30,000 people had their voter registration forms rejected, without any evidence that the applicants were illegitimate. Today, they get their day in court.

At issue is the National Voter Registration Act, a law passed 20 years ago to provide a standardized, simple way for Americans to register to vote in federal elections. The law provides for a form prospective voters can fill out and mail to state boards of elections. States are required to "accept and use" the form. The law also requires the form be made easily available in many offices, including Departments of Motor Vehicles. That's how the law became known as the "motor voter" law.

The law was challenged by groups ranging from the Arizona Hispanic Community Forum to Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. Jesus Gonzalez is one of the plaintiffs in the suit, State of Arizona et. al., v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et. al.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the law. They said the federal law takes precedence and states have no right to add their own requirements. One of the judges was retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. (Retired Supreme Court justices sometimes hear cases in lower federal courts.) The full 9th Circuit meeting en banc – that is, with all of the judges hearing the case – affirmed that decision.

When it passed "motor voter," Congress made clear it had no interest in the kind of stunt Arizona is trying to pull. Congress specifically rejected an amendment to allow states to do what Arizona now is doing anyway - requiring people to submit documents proving their citizenship, documents that often are difficult for poor people, the elderly, new citizens, and active-duty military to provide. If Arizona wins in the Supreme Court, it could encourage other states to throw up similar roadblocks.

As always when a state seeks to suppress the rights of poor people and people of color to vote, the effort is cloaked in the mantle of curbing "voter fraud." But this kind of fraud – in which people who have no right to vote show up at the polls and vote anyway – is nearly nonexistent. And there is no evidence that the form provided under the motor voter law ever has been used to register fraudulently.

Perhaps most important, the Constitution is absolutely clear about where authority lies. It says Congress has the right to determine the "times places and manner" of federal elections.

In another case involving voting, Justice Scalia made headlines last month, suggesting that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which he called a "racial entitlement," should be overturned because he could read the minds of members of Congress when they reauthorized the law by nearly unanimous votes – and he didn't like what he imagined those members of Congress were thinking. Here, Congress clearly rejected a proposal to allow states to pass additional requirements that would surpass the basic guidelines of the NVRA.

So upholding the 9th Circuit and striking down the Arizona law should be an easy call.

"We should all have a right to vote in this country," says Jesus Gonzalez. "I want to have a voice in the United States."

Soon we'll know if the Supreme Court will do its duty and allow American citizens their right to "a voice in the United States" or if the majority will help Arizona try to silence that voice.

Hear NPR's story about the case.

Help protect the Voting Rights Act – and find out what happened during the arguments

One week from today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case challenging a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  That provision, known as Section 5, requires certain jurisdictions to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before they change voting rules or procedures.

The Voting Rights Act was, and remains, the keystone in the arch of civil rights protection for people of color.  As our overview of the issues makes clear, that provision is needed now as much as ever.

FEB. 26: TWITTER TOWN HALL

On the day before the case is heard, join in a Twitter Town Hall about the Voting Rights Act.

FEB. 27: RALLY AT THE COURT

AFJ is part of a coalition working to protect the Voting Rights Act. Those efforts include a rally in front of the Supreme Court at 9:00 AM. AFJ President Nan Aron is among the scheduled speakers.  Get the details here.

FEB. 27: ANALYSIS ON JUSTICE WATCH

Then, in the hours after the argument, check back here at Justice Watch for comprehensive analysis. Legal experts will be posting here about key issues raised by the case, including:

• Whether the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 still need to be covered.
• Whether the geographic reach of the statute is justified.  Does it include too many places?  Does it include too few places?
• What has happened since the Court last took up the Voting Rights Act in 2009?
• What deference should the Court give to congressional findings of fact?

Guest bloggers include Prof. Franita Tolson of Florida State University, Prof. William Yeomans of American University and Prof. Bertrall Ross of the University of California Berkeley School of Law.

If the Supreme Court makes audio of the oral arguments available in time, we'll include relevant excerpts with the Blog posts.

Hey, big spenders: S.C. Tax-and-spend conservatives love throwing money at voter suppression

In South Carolina, the state government doesn’t have a reputation for lavish spending.  In fact, in 2010 per capita state government spending was lower in South Carolina than in all but ten other states.

But state officials in South Carolina turn into the last of the big-time spenders when it comes to throwing money at efforts to suppress voting.

 

South Carolina was among the Republican-controlled states that jumped on the Voter ID bandwagon last year, passing a law to require all residents to show a photo identification in order to vote. That is a particular hardship for poor people and people of color – who also are more likely to vote for Democrats.

Fortunately, South Carolina is covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Under Section 5 of that Act, the state must get advance approval from the U.S. Department of Justice – called “preclearance” – before changing voting procedures.

The state sued – and spent $3.5 million in taxpayer funds on the lawsuit.  The state is now bragging that it “won” the suit and is getting some of its money back.

Not exactly. 

The law was upheld only after South Carolina responded to Justice Department pressure with a significant change – making it relatively easy for any voter who faced a “reasonable impediment” to obtaining a photo ID to vote without one.

As for the money the state will get back, it amounts to, at most, $90,379.59 $54,000 of that $3.5 million.  Thanks to their tax-and-spend conservative officials, South Carolina taxpayers still are on the hook for the rest.  Implementing the law is likely to cost the state another $600,000 – every year.

The real lesson here is, once again, that we still need the Voting Rights Act in general and the preclearance provision in particular.  We hope that lesson is not lost on the Supreme Court when it hears a challenge to the preclearance provision next month.

Florida Republicans’ cold, calculated effort to suppress the vote

More evidence that we still need the Voting Rights Act: The racial bias that led to it is alive and well.

            Here’s the voter suppression debate in a nutshell:

            Republicans: We just want to cut back on early voting and impose photo identification requirements to curb fraud.

            Democrats: You just want to make it harder for poor people and people of color to vote.

            But once in awhile, a Republican tells the real story – as when Mike Turzai, the majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, seen on this 13-second video, explains exactly why his state passed a voter ID law:

            And now, a cold dose of reality from the Sunshine State – straight from the elephants’ mouths.

            First, Florida’s former Republican governor, Charlie Crist said that, as The Palm Beach Post put it in a comprehensive story Sunday, “fraud concerns were advanced only as a subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.”  Then came a former chairman of the Florida Republican Party – Jim Greer.

            “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants. “They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”

            Current top Republican officials in Florida dismiss Greer and Crist as the equivalent of disgruntled ex-employees. Crist became an independent and endorsed President Obama.  The Post notes that Greer faces criminal charges of stealing $200,000 from the party.  Greer denies the charges – and is suing the party.

But Crist and Greer aren’t the only ones coming forward.  The Post quotes what it calls “two veteran GOP campaign consultants” who confirm their charges.

Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.  “In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. …

Another GOP consultant, who did not want to be named, also confirmed that influential consultants to the Republican Party of Florida were intent on beating back Democratic turnout in early voting after 2008.

All of these current and former Republicans said the voter suppression efforts targeted African Americans.

Attempts to stop African Americans and other people of color from voting are why Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – and why it was reauthorized by near-unanimous vote in 2006.  Now, a key provision of the law has been challenged in the Supreme Court.  That provision requires certain states and localities – including five counties in Florida – to get permission from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court before changing voting procedures.  As a result, Florida had to negotiate with the federal government over voting hours in those counties.

But what happens if the Supreme Court rules this key section of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional?  Will that further embolden those whose real goal is preventing people of color from voting?

Voting Arizona: Chaos in the wake of efforts to suppress the vote

Conventional wisdom has it that the re-election of President Obama means efforts to suppress the vote failed.

Try telling that to tens of thousands of voters in Arizona.

You remember Arizona: The state where basic information about when to vote kept getting, literally, lost in translation, with Spanish-language information sometimes misstating the date for the election.

It turns out, that wasn’t the only problem.

As of Saturday 486,405 ballots still had not been counted – this in a state with 3.1 million registered voters. Of that total, 178,785 are “provisional” ballots, often cast by voters who couldn’t meet the strict requirements of Arizona’s Voter ID law. (The remainder are ballots cast through early voting.)

According to The NewYork Times:

Activists say that they believe, based on what they have heard from people in the field, that provisional ballots tended to be used most often in Hispanic and black neighborhoods. … Advocates and elected officials are worried, though, that voters who had to cast conditional provisional ballots because they forgot to bring identification to the polls, as state law requires, may not know they have to present their ID at the county elections office by Wednesday for their vote to count.

The counting of these ballots may determine the outcome of several races. In a race for a new Congressional seat in Phoenix, counting of provisional and early ballots widened the lead of Democrat Kyrsten Sinema to the point that the Associated Press has declared her the winner over Republican Vernon Parker. Democrat Ron Barber, a former aide to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has retaken the lead in a very close race to keep that seat, which he first won in a special election to succeed Giffords.

And the Times reports there’s a slim chance that even the results of the U.S. Senate election in Arizona might be in doubt:

[A]s of Friday, Jeff Flake, a Republican congressman, was ahead of his Democratic challenger, Richard H. Carmona, by 78,775 votes, according to unofficial results posted by the secretary of state. Mr. Carmona conceded on Tuesday; on Friday, in a message to supporters, he wrote, “We will take every necessary step to make sure all of our supporters’ ballots are counted.”

The U.S. Department of Justice was concerned enough about the mess in Arizona to send in federal observers, something it is empowered to do thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That, of course, is the civil rights law some say no longer is needed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a challenge to a key provision of that law – though this challenge, even if successful, would not affect the right to send in federal observers.

AFJ President Nan Aron on today's Supreme Court decision to hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement on today's decision by the United States Supreme Court to hear a challenge to a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  At issue is a provision called "preclearance." Under this provision, places covered by the Act are barred from making changes in voting laws until the U.S. Department of Justice determines that the changes do not have either the purpose or effect of discriminating against people of color.

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 means the court will be focusing on the keystone in the arch of protection for people of color in America - the law that guarantees the right to vote.

The case will be argued before a Chief Justice, John Roberts, who has shown profound hostility to the Voting Rights Act during his legal career.  While serving in the Reagan Administration, Roberts was a driving force behind Administration efforts to significantly weaken the Act.  His push to weaken the law went beyond internal memos and other writings. He actively encouraged the Administration to publicly embrace and widely endorse his call for a weaker law – drafting numerous talking points, question-and-answer documents and op ed columns.

Opponents of the Voting Rights Act say it has outlived its usefulness. After nearly 50 years, they argue, all of the wrongs have been righted. But any claim that the wrongs that led to this Act are things of the past should have been dispelled by the concerted efforts during the campaign that just ended to deny poor people and people of color their right to vote through voter ID laws and other means of voter suppression.

On election night, according to a Hart Research Associates poll conducted for the AFL-CIO, there was racial inequality at the polling station.  The proportion of African American and Hispanic voters who had to wait on long lines before they could vote was more than double the proportion of white voters.

When he signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson declared that "This act flows from a clear and simple wrong. . . . Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify.  The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny."

Soon, the Supreme Court will decide if America will remain true to its principles.

And see the previous post to this blog for more on the need for strong voting rights protections.

A 21st Century poll tax?

            Being poor gives new meaning to the phrase “time is money.”

            If you’re a wealthy parent and you have an unexpected errand, the nanny will watch the kids.  If you’re poor, it’s leave the kids home alone or don’t run the errand.  If you’re wealthy, you can take a few hours of unpaid leave and it’s no problem.  If you’re poor, it could get you fired.

            But what if the “errand” is voting?

            We all know about the long lines at some polling places on election day – and sometimes well into election night.  But the burden was not spread equally.

            According to a poll for the AFL-CIO by Hart Research Associates, only nine percent of white voters had to wait for more than 30 minutes to vote.  But 22 percent of African American voters had to wait that long.  And the figure rose to 24 percent for Hispanic voters.

            Since African American and Hispanic voters are more likely to be low income voters, the burden of waiting fell heaviest on those least likely to be able to afford it.   So if time is money, are those long lines a form of poll tax?

            The lines were only one example of voter suppression efforts aimed at the poor and minorities. The best known are Voter ID laws.  But there were others, as AFJ’s Isaiah Castilla noted on our Bolder Advocacy blog this week.  And it’s not over yet.  There are questions about whether Latino votes are being properly counted in key races in Arizona.

            It’s widely expected that, during this term, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to a key provision of one of the most important protections for minority voters – the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  [UPDATE: 4:17PM: The Supreme Court just announced it will, in fact, hear such a challenge].  Opponents of the Act say that nearly 50 years after its passage it’s no longer needed.   But those long lines at the polls, and all the other problems, are important reminders that while all of us are created equal, at the polling station some still are more equal than others.  

Elections: ‘We have to fix that’

This post originally appeared on AFJ's Bolder Advocacy Blog.

Last night, the many months of political and ballot measure campaigning came to a close.  Millions of Americans, from all walks of life, came together to participate in the democratic process and exercise their right to vote.  Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, I think we can all agree on last night’s winner:  the voters.  Despite reports of long lines and even longer wait times, voters across the country confronted these obstacles and made a point to make their voices heard.

While volunteering with the Lawyers’ Committee on Civil Rights election protection hotline, 866-OUR-VOTE, I witnessed the unnecessary stress placed on voters’ first-hand.  The issues ranged from defective voting machines to untrained poll workers who were unfamiliar with their states voter ID requirements.  As President Obama said last night in reference to long lines at the polls, “we have to fix that.”

In the coming months, we look forward to working with organizations and policymakers to protect the right to vote and encourage sensible reforms to the election process that empower, not discourage, American voters.  In the meantime, let’s give a round of applause to the voters, especially the displaced voters of New Jersey, who voted in large numbers despite the devastating impact of Hurricane Sandy.

AFJ and allies pledge to counter threats to free and fair elections

AFJ is joining with more than 50 other organizations to express our concern about two critical threats to our democratic system: corporate influence in elections and laws and official actions that suppress the vote.  Under the banner “Money Out, Voters In,” we’re issuing this joint statement pledging to fight special interest money in politics and to support the rights of all voters:

Within the next week, citizens in every state will come together to cast their votes for President, Congress, and other state and local offices. The right to cast those votes – to elect leaders who represent us – is at the heart of our democratic system. But this year, that right is in danger.

Our system of fair and free elections is under attack on multiple fronts. The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates for special interest money and corporate influence in politics. At the same time, a rash of voter suppression laws in more than 30 states has threatened to make voting difficult, if not impossible, for millions of Americans.

Throughout the history of our nation, powerful politicians and interest groups have tried to block eligible voters from casting a ballot. For much of the twentieth century, they used literacy tests or demanded poll taxes. Today they ask for photo voter ID, or create restrictive voter registration schemes. These laws, combined with the challenge posed by limitless corporate influence, strike at the very core of our democracy.

Our nation’s history has been a journey towards true equality and the promise of a government of, by and for the people. Just as we have overcome many obstacles to achieve that promise, we are now committed to standing up against the pervasive, corrupting influence of an electoral system that auctions offices to the highest bidder and suppresses the vote of millions of Americans.

No matter what happens on November 6th, these threats must be addressed on November 7th and beyond. Together with our allies across the political spectrum, we pledge to fight for the rights of all voters in our nation and to move that much closer to creating a more perfect union. The future of our democracy depends on it.

The full list of organizations joining this effort is available here.

WWII vets fight to ensure voting rights at home

More than four decades ago, as the Vietnam War raged, the campaign for a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was fueled by the slogan “old enough to fight, old enough to vote.”

Now some Americans who fought for their country long ago fear that some veterans could wind up losing their right to vote as a result of voter ID laws.  Veterans are speaking out against such a proposal in Minnesota, where Voter ID is on the ballot in a referendum.

Meanwhile in Texas a federal court struck down a law requiring voters to produce a photo ID.  The court found that the Texas law violates the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.   But, as Dallas Morning News columnist Wayne Slater discovered “that’s not stopping some poll workers from asking that they show one anyway — and making it difficult if they don’t.”

The long, long learning curve in Arizona …

           Earlier this month, we posted here about how Maricopa County, Arizona had sent out Spanish-language instructions with its Voter ID cards that wrongly stated the election takes place on Nov. 8.  In fact, as the English-language instructions made clear, it’s Nov. 6.

            But hey, anybody can make one mistake.

            Except now the county has made the same mistake again, and once again it involves only material printed in Spanish. 

            According to The Huffington Post:

a bookmark distributed by the elections department … was passed along to HuffPost on Tuesday by minority advocacy group Campaign for Community Change.  It says, "Register today! Exercise your right to V-O-T-E!" and goes on to list important dates. 

            Once again, the English language bookmarks had the correct date, Nov. 6, while some of the Spanish language bookmarks said Nov. 8.  The story continues:

Yvonne Reed, spokesperson for the Maricopa County Department of Elections, told HuffPost that some of the Spanish-language notices were incorrect because the department used the election date from last year, but that they are no longer being distributed.

… BUT NOTHING IS LOST IN TRANSLATION IN MARYLAND

            While Maricopa County seems to be having an extremely difficult time getting materials out in Spanish to help people vote, a group in Maryland has had no trouble at all producing fliers warning noncitizens that it would be a crime for them to vote.  They warn of possible fines, jail time, and/or deportation – as if the one thing a noncitizen wants to do most is call attention to himself by voting illegally.

            The group is supporting a referendum to prevent implementation of Maryland’s DREAM Act, a law providing in-state tuition to the undocumented immigrant students.  The group  had no problem printing its flier in Spanish – and French, Chinese and Korean.

            Perhaps it’s all a matter of motivation.

PA voting rights advocates seek court order barring state from misleading voters

The voting rights advocates who won a delay in implementation of Pennsylvania’s Voter ID law are back in court.  They’ve filed a motion asking the court to order the state to stop misleading voters about the law.

On Oct. 2, Pennsylvania was ordered to allow voters to cast their ballots on Nov. 6 even if they don’t have a photo ID.  Election officials are free to ask for the ID, but they can’t turn away voters who don’t have it.

But you’d never know that if you relied on the information being disseminated by the state – unless you read the fine print.

For example, before the court issued its order, Pennsylvania ran a campaign featuring huge billboards with a picture of a Pennsylvania driver’s license and the words "SHOW IT," in huge type.

After the court ruled that voters don’t have to “show it” after all, what did the state do?  It added the words “This election day if you have it” – in much, much smaller type.  (There’s a photo on Page 7 of the motion.)

In addition, according to a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania:

• Lawyers have received dozens of complaints from voters alleging that radio and television commercials from the state falsely claiming that a photo ID is required still are on the air.
• As recently as October 11, some Pennsylvania Department of Transportation offices still were displaying posters claiming people need photo ID to vote.
• And, according to the statement: “Last week, thousands of Pennsylvania seniors received a mailing from … a program administered by the Commonwealth's Department of Aging, that included a Department of State card about the voter ID law. The card incorrectly states: ‘Voters are required to show photo ID on Election Day.’

As we noted previously on this blog, Pennsylvania's largest utility company has compounded the problem.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania statement notes that “Pennsylvania's voting laws prohibit dissemination of false or misleading information to the electorate about voting.”

 

The motion asks the court to order the state to stop spreading the misleading information – and order the state to “publish widely the clear and unambiguous message that Photo ID is not required to vote this Election Day…”

 

The motion was brought by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Advancement Project, and the law firm of Arnold & Porter. 

By the time you vote in Phoenix – will it be too late?

Still another screw-up in connection with Voter ID – this time in Phoenix, Arizona and surrounding suburbs.  There is nothing wrong with the ID cards themselves.  There is nothing wrong with the English-language instructions.  But some sets of Spanish-language instructions – no one knows how many – say the election is on Nov. 8.  Actually, it’s Nov. 6.

This, of course, comes on top of the blunders in Pennsylvania and Kansas noted previously on this blog.

And speaking of Pennsylvania, it seems the state has come up with an ad campaign with the potential to mislead voters.  According to the HarrisburgPatriot, the state has huge ads on the outside of buses featuring a picture of a state driver's license and, in huge type, the words "SHOW IT"   

In fact, while election workers are free to ask for such ID, thanks to a court ruling, Pennsylvania voters are not required to "show it." Presumably, that's why the ads also say, in notably smaller type, “this Election Day if you have it.”  You'd almost think the State of Pennsylvania wants to confuse voters - or worse.

The Patriot quotes one of the lawyers who sued to block the Pennsylvania voter ID law, Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, who noticed that a lot of the "Show it" signs with the great big driver's licenses are on bus shelters in poor neighborhoods where “you have low-income people who don’t have a license because they use mass transit. A cynic might say this is an insidious effort to mislead people. I, of course, am not a cynic.”

Even failed voter suppression efforts do damage

Misunderstandings spawn misinformation, confusion

Actually, the people at the utility serving Philadelphia and several suburban counties meant well.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the state's largest utility, known as PECO, just wanted voters to know that they would have to present a valid Photo ID in order to vote.  After all, at the time the newsletter was written – August – and the time it was sent out – the end of September – that really was the law.

But on Oct. 2 a judge struck down the photo ID requirement. As a result, more than one million utility customers have been misinformed.

While this started out as an honest mistake, PECO compounded the error by continuing to send out the newsletters, even after the judge issued his ruling.  According to the Inquirer:

[PECO spokesman Ben] Armstrong said PECO intended to continue distribution of the faulty newsletter through its October billing cycle, running through Oct. 28. It's not possible for its printer to schedule a corrected run, he said, and the newsletter contains information on other programs "that needs to get" to customers. 

Of course.  Indeed, one can only imagine the disappointment across the greater Philadelphia region if customers opened their bills to find – only a bill.  No doubt they would march on the utility offices pouring out their despair at missing their monthly newsletter.

And no wonder.  As the Inquirer reports:

The other items [in the newsletter] this month include information on the utility's home energy audits, how to make donations to its Matching Energy Assistance Fund, Fire Safety Month, and a cutout for customers to get discounts at the Please Touch Museum.

Something similar is happening, on a smaller scale, in Kansas.  In that state, county and state officials are bickering over what kind of school IDs can be used by high school students who are old enough to vote.

Of course all this is music to the ears of those pushing what are, in fact, voter suppression laws.  Even as courts narrow, postpone or strike down many of these laws, the confusion left in their wake is likely to dampen turnout at the polls.

This is one assault on the democratic process that can succeed even when it fails.

Why judges matter: another victory for voting – thanks to the Voting Rights Act

A special panel of three federal judges today delayed implementation of a South Carolina law requiring voters to produce a federal or state issued photo ID. The judges ruled that trying to implement the law in time for the presidential election would put an unreasonable burden on minority voters. That would violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

According to Bloomberg News:

"Given the short time left before the 2012 elections, and given the numerous steps necessary to properly implement the law -- particularly the new ‘reasonable impediment’ provision -- and ensure that the law would not have discriminatory retrogressive effects on African-American voters in 2012, we do not grant pre-clearance for the 2012 elections," U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh said in the ruling.

The keyword there is “pre-clearance.” Under the Voting Rights Act, one of the signature achievements of the fight for racial equality, certain parts of the country with a long history of discrimination must get special, advance approval – “pre-clearance” – before they change voting procedures.

This provision, considered the heart of the Voting Rights Act, has been in effect for nearly half a century. But now it is under threat. Its constitutionality has been challenged and the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear the case during the coming term. Given the track record of the current Supreme Court majority, many observers fear that the preclearance provision will be struck down.

It’s one more reason why judges matter.

Judges decide the fate of voter suppression laws as civic groups embark on voter registration day

As we celebrate Voter Registration Day, an effort to involve civic groups, media, and voters across the country, nationwide voter suppression efforts threaten the ability of millions of Americans to participate in the upcoming election. Two cases involving voter suppression efforts were decided this Monday: a federal judge in Florida gave a green light to Governor Rick Scott’s plan to cut back early voting, while a New Hampshire judge struck down a law that targeted college students seeking to vote in the state.

Governor Scott’s move to limit early voting is widely seen as a partisan effort, since early voters have heavily skewed toward the Democratic Party, especially for President Obama in 2008. Cutting back early voting is especially burdensome for students and minorities, who have less access to polling booths, and turn out in larger numbers during the early vote period. In 2008, Governor Charlie Crist, at the time a Republican, was attacked by his own party for extending early voting hours to accommodate the historic turnout in the election. The Florida law in question specifically ends early voting on the Sunday before Election Day, which saw particularly heavy minority voter turnout in 2008. Despite this history and the federal court decisions blocking other provisions of Florida’s voter suppression laws, Judge Timothy Corrigan of the Middle District of Florida found insufficient evidence that the reduction of early voting from 14 to 8 days would “impermissibly burden the right of African Americans to vote.” Judge Corrigan was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush.

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union and League of Women Voters found more success in New Hampshire, where Strafford County Superior Court Judge John Lewis blocked a law that would prevent out-of-state students from voting in New Hampshire, where they attend college and live for most of the year. This law would require all voters agree to register a car and obtain a state drivers’ license, which is limited only to those who intend to reside in New Hampshire indefinitely or permanently. The law was enacted by the Republican-dominated state legislature over the veto of Governor John Lynch (D-NH). Speaker of the House Bill O’Brien explained that students were “basically doing what I did when I was a kid and foolish, voting as a liberal.”

AFJ-backed law will make voting easier in California

While some other states are trying to make it harder for people to vote, California is making it easier.

California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into a law a bill supported by AFJ and other groups to allow people to register to vote on Election Day.  The bill won’t take effect until 2014 at the earliest, in order to allow time to create a computer database of voters. 

In his statement signing the bill Gov. Brown called voting “the sacred right of every citizen.” He added: “While other states try to restrict voters with new laws that burden the process, California allows voters to register online – and even on Election Day.”

There’s much more about voting at our Bolder Advocacy Blog, including a guide to National Voter Registration Day and a report on an AFL-CIO panel discussion on voter suppression.

Getting dramatic about voter suppression

Voter suppression laws are under challenge all across the country.  Nowhere is the fight more fierce than in Pennsylvania – in the courts and on the streets.

In Pittsburgh, members of the United Steelworkers made their point through street theater.  Check out the story on their excellent blog – a great source of information on issues involving labor, the economy and income inequality.