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.

Sen. Coburn reads the election returns; predicts quick action on two stalled judicial nominations

            In July, the United States Senate reached a new low when, for the first time, Senate Republicans filibustered a nominee for a judgeship on a United States Circuit Court of Appeals even after the nomination had been voted out of committee with bipartisan support.

Judge Bacharach

            The nominee is U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Bacharach, whom President Obama wants to appoint to the 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

            As AFJ President Nan Aron said at the time:

The Senate has become a theater of the politically absurd, and is so poisoned with partisanship that even the two senators from Judge Bacharach’s home state, who had expressed unequivocal support for his nomination, willingly voted to ignore their obligations to the Constitution and their fellow Oklahomans.

            But now, at least one of those senators, Tom Coburn, is singing a different tune.  He told The Oklahoman that the nominations of Bacharach and John Dowdell, who was nominated for a U.S. District Court judgeship in Tulsa, should “fly through” the Senate, when it reconvenes for a lame-duck session next week.

            What’s changed? There’s less partisan advantage for Republicans in trying to keep good judges off the bench.  As The Oklahoman points out: “Had Republican Mitt Romney won, he would have been able to make his own judicial nominations.”

            In addition to Bacharach and Dowdell, 17 other judicial nominations have been stalled by Senate Republicans after being voted out of committee.

            But as former U.S. Attorney Dan Webber told The Oklahoman:

Most of the nominees, including Judge Bacharach and John Dowdell, face little or no opposition and could be confirmed by unanimous consent or voice vote.  The Senate could confirm a dozen or more nominees, including the Oklahomans, in less than an hour.

            We hope other Senate Republicans will read the election returns in the same way as Sen. Coburn.  There is no reason the Senate can’t give swift approval to all 19 pending nominations during the lame-duck session, and begin to ease the critical shortage of federal judges, a shortage that delays, and sometimes denies, justice across the country.

            AFJ will be keeping the pressure on to get the Senate to move.