BREAKING: Hans von Spakvosky Withdraws Nomination to the FEC
05.16.08
by Jonah Goldman
Hans Von Spakovsky, President Bush’s controversial nominee to the Federal Election Commission, has just withdrawn his nomination, ending a confirmation battle that has lasted over a year. The National Campaign for Fair Elections and the Lawyers’ Committee has been helping to lead the opposition to his nomination. We are pleased that von Spakovsky’s efforts to use the levers of justice for partisan political gain while overseeing the Department of Justice’s Voting Section will not be rewarded with a place on the FEC.
For more information about Hans and our efforts, please click here.
TPMMuckraker has more information on the withdrawal of his nomination.
Our Primary Report in the News
05.15.08
by Eric Marshall
On Tuesday, the St. Louis American ran a story featuring Lawyers’ Committee Executive Director Barbara Arnwine and the Election Protection 2008 Primary Report: Looking Ahead to November. Arnwine spoke about the report, saying it "demonstrates that most of the state and county and local election machinery was unprepared for a real heavy turnout...It really demonstrates that our democracy has deep fault lines and is not being administered well...We are not prepared. We actively count on a low voter turn out and count on voter apathy."
The story continues by citing examples of issues covered in the report:
- In Pennsylvania’s Delaware County, one voter was told the voting machines at her precinct were set for Republicans only. The voter was not able to cast a vote.
- Finally, in Pennsylvania, a caller reported a polling location with only three voting machines and no printers working. Voters were leaving without being offered emergency ballots.
- In the Georgia primary Feb. 5, a man allegedly from the secretary of state’s office walked around in a uniform and a gun asking people if they belonged there. He left within 10 minutes after a call to the secretary of state’s office, Arnwine says.
The story concludes by summarizing our plans leading up to November:
A team of lawyers and other volunteers that make up Election Protection Legal Committees will be meeting with heads of electoral boards, secretaries of state as well as the U. S. Election Assistance Commission in order to report problems and work out solutions, she says.
Meanwhile, the report recommends: Improving poll worker training; ensuring proper protocols for dealing with election machinery breakdowns; guaranteeing that all eligible registrants make it on to the registration rolls; and widely publicizing correct requirements and restrictions about voter identification and other procedures.
"We’re very, very on top of this," Arnwine says. She adds that they have not ruled out court action if necessary.
"If we can tell in advance that a jurisdiction is not properly prepared and has not set up the amount of voting sites that are needed, does not have or has not set up [appropriate] election equipment, or enough poll workers in advance, absolutely, we will take whatever action is necessary."
Click here to read the St. Louis American story.
The absurdity of punitive voter ID laws
05.15.08
by Whitney Norton
Syndicated columnist Cynthia Tucker offered a well-deserved sarcastic "Congratulations to the Indiana legislature" on Monday in her column Even God couldn’t vote in Indiana without proper ID.
Writing about the case in Indiana where a group of retired nuns weren’t allowed to cast a ballot, Tucker argues that "If the absurdity of punitive voter ID laws - adopted in several states with GOP-dominated legislatures - was not apparent before now, this case ought to help all but the most partisan see the fallacy."
Tucker continues, questioning the rationale of Supreme Court Justice Stevens:
Two weeks ago, in a ruling that spurns the universal franchise, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s ID requirements. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that there was no "concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who now lack photo identification."
How about the vicious proposition of throwing out the ballots of elderly nuns, law-abiding citizens who have given their lives to the purest form of service? How about the burden of forcing them to go get a state-sponsored photo ID?
Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita was even more contemptuous, telling reporters that "the sisters were aware of the photo ID requirements and chose not to follow them."
The article even addresses Indiana’s justification for its onerous requirements: the illusive "voter fraud":
...If ferreting out fraud were the point of restrictive voter ID laws, state legislatures would tighten the requirements for absentee ballots. There has been precious little of that.
Instead, those who tout the fraud-preventing brilliance of voter ID laws note that those without official IDs could use absentee ballots if they feel so strongly about the franchise. Mr. Rokita offered absentee ballots as Indiana’s "safety net" for those without state-sanctioned ID.
To read Tucker’s article, click here.
New York Times examines the Myth of Voter Fraud
05.14.08
by Jonah Goldman
In follow-up to Ian Urbina’s Monday article, the New York Times published an editorial yesterday commenting on The Myth of Voter Fraud. The editorial discusses bills requiring proof of citizenship requirements in Missouri and elsewhere, calling them an insincere "effort to prevent noncitizens from voting; that is a made-up problem. The real aim is to reduce turnout by eligible voters."
The Times continues, saying:
There is no evidence that voting by noncitizens is a significant problem. Illegal immigrants do their best to remain in the shadows, to avoid attracting government attention and risking deportation. It is hard to imagine that many would walk into a polling place, in the presence of challengers and police, and try to cast a ballot.
There is, however, ample evidence that a requirement of proof of citizenship will keep many eligible voters from voting. Many people do not have birth certificates or other acceptable proof of citizenship, and for some people, that proof is not available. One Missouri voter, Lillie Lewis, said at a news conference last week that officials in Mississippi, where she was born, told her they had no record of her birth.
Proof of citizenship is just one of an array of new barriers to voting that have been springing up across the country. Indiana adopted a tough new photo ID voting requirement, over objections from Democrats that it would prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot. The critics were right. In last week’s Indiana primary, a group of about 12 nuns in their 80s and 90s were prevented from voting because they lacked acceptable ID
The editorial concludes by indicating that the burden is now on "on state legislators, governors, state courts and ordinary citizens to ensure that the right to vote is not taken away for partisan political gain."
To read the editorial, click here.
Do you know where your birth certificate is?
05.12.08
by Jon Greenbaum
In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s onerous voter ID law, national attention has turned to Missouri. An amendment to the state constitution has been proposed which would require proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, to register to vote.
Today’s New York Times features an article by Ian Urbina, Voter ID Battle Shifts to Proof of Citizenship, which examines the current debate surrounding the proposed amendment. I am quoted in the article saying, "Everyone has been focusing on voter ID laws generally, but the most pernicious measures and the ones that really promise to prevent the most eligible voters from voting is what we see in Arizona and now in Missouri."
The article points out that:
The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.
Urbina continues, examining the potential effects of such an amendment:
Measures requiring proof of citizenship raise the bar higher because they offer fewer options for documentation. In most cases, aspiring voters would have to produce an original birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport. Arizona and Missouri, along with some other states, now show whether a driver is a citizen on the face of a driver’s license, and within a few years all states will be required by the federal government to restrict licenses to legal residents.
Critics say that when this level of documentation is applied to voting, it becomes more difficult for the poor, disabled, elderly and minorities to participate in the political process.
The impact of a law like this is clear, the Missouri Secretary of State estimates that the amendment "could disenfranchise up to 240,000 registered voters who would be unable to prove their citizenship."
Click here to read Urbina’s article.
Indiana Voter ID Law Disenfranchises Voters, from Students to Nuns
05.07.08
by Eric Marshall
As predicted, the strict voter ID law in Indiana resulted in what Lawyers’ Committee board member John Borkowski called "an unnecessary barrier to the ballot box" which "disenfranchises legitimate voters." Borkowski witnessed firsthand an incident that was quickly picked up by national media.
The incident, reported by Election Protection, came to light when a group of poll workers, nuns at a local convent, attempted to help a freshman college student through her problems with Indiana’s voter ID law. While they were helping her, they indicated that some of their fellow nuns also could not vote because of the photo ID law. Not only was this student disenfranchised, but so would be many of the retired nuns at the convent. Click here to read Election Protection’s press release detailing this and other incidents in yesterday’s primary.
Columnist Greg Gordon, writing for McClatchy Newspapers, picked up the story. In his article With no photo IDs, nuns denied ballots in Indiana primary, Gordon continued to rely on Borkowski, who referred to the "supreme irony" of the situation:
"This law was passed supposedly to prevent and deter voter fraud, even though there was no real record of serious voter fraud in Indiana. Here you have a bunch of nuns whose votes can’t be accepted by a bunch of nuns ... who live with them in the polling place in their convent because they don’t have an ID."
Gordon continues, acknowledging that it was not only the nuns who were disenfranchised:
At least six other people also were relegated to filing provisional ballots at the polling place on the ground floor of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross, said Amy Smessaert, a spokeswoman for the convent.
Among them was Lauren McCallick, an 18-year-old freshman at St. Mary’s College in South Bend, who said she got "teary-eyed" and then angry at being rejected the first time she was old enough to vote.
The article also quoted National Campaign Director Jonah Goldman:
"The nuns and this young woman are the face of the Supreme Court case," said Jonah Goldman, who directs the Lawyers Committee’s Campaign for Fair Elections. He said his group, which has bird-dogged polling places in primaries across the country over the last three months, also has found widespread confusion in other states over voter identification requirements.
"We’ve seen people in every contest that we’ve covered being disenfranchised by a perceived, incorrect or illegal restrictive identification requirement," partly because some poll workers have demanded more identification than was required by law, Goldman said.
Click here to read Gordon’s article.
Voter ID Remains an Issue as Voters Go to the Polls
05.06.08
by Whitney Norton
As voters go to the polls in Indiana, the issue of voter ID remains at the forefront.
Politico published a piece by Ben Adler, ID law could depress black turnout in Ind., on Saturday, examining the potential impact of the Supreme Court decision:
Experts say African-American voters...might be disproportionately affected in Tuesday’s Indiana primary by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the state’s voter identification requirement.
Studies show that African-Americans are especially likely not to have the identification necessary to vote on Tuesday. Several other groups, notably elderly voters, disabled voters and young voters, are also more likely than the general population not to have the necessary identification.
The piece continues, noting other demographics at risk for disenfranchisement due to the Supreme Court decision:
...a University of Washington study found that 28 percent of African-Americans in the state of Indiana do not have the proper ID to vote. African-Americans make up 9 percent of the voting population in Indiana.
By comparison, slightly less than 20 percent of Indianans over 70 do not have the necessary ID, according to the same study. ... According to a recent Rock the Vote poll, 19 percent of people under 30 do not have a valid photo identification with their current address. Since young people move frequently they are less likely to have identification cards with their current address.
Adler went on to quote Jonah Goldman, speaking about the real-life effects of such laws on minorities:
"We’ve seen in the past that voter ID provisions are only implemented on people who fit into certain categories," said Jonah Goldman, of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law’s Voting Rights Project. "We’ve gotten hotline calls from, for example, an African-American voter who says he was IDed but not the person in front of him or behind him."
Click here to read the full article.
If you have any questions or encounter any problems at the polls today call 1-866-OUR-VOTE. Trained volunteers are staffing the hotline to provide voters with free live assistance if they encounter any problems at the polls. No question is too simple or too complex.
Also, make sure you know your rights before you go to the polls on the May 6th by downloading the Indiana or North Carolina voters’ rights flyers.
Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE on May 6th!
04.30.08
by Jonah Goldman
Attention Indiana and North Carolina voters: If you have any questions or encounter any problems at the polls on May 6th call 1-866-OUR-VOTE. Trained volunteers will be staffing the hotline to provide voters with free live assistance if they encounter any problems at the polls. No question is too simple or too complex. In addition, mobile legal volunteers will be at monitoring targeted polling places in both states, and Election Protection will be in contact with election officials to solve problems as they happen.
Make sure you know your rights before you go to the polls on the May 6th by downloading the Indiana or North Carolina voters’ rights flyers.
Please visit www.866OurVote.org for more information.
Lawyers’ Committee Sends Letter to Chairman Richie Addressing Irregularities in Texas Primary
04.30.08
by Ami Sanchez
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law recently issued a letter to Texas Democratic Party Chairman Boyd Richie, expressing deep concerns over the problems and difficulties voters in Texas faced during the recent primary and Presidential nominating process on March 4, 2008. The state Democratic Party employs a complicated dual primary election-caucus system to apportion delegates to Democratic Presidential candidates. Throughout March 4th, the Lawyers’ Committee, along with other members of the Election Protection coalition, worked together to run the national Election Protection Hotline (1-866-OUR-VOTE), and received numerous calls from Texans on Election Day. Over fifty percent of which came after the polls had closed and nearly a third of those calls came from voters reporting problems, confusion, and concerns about the caucus system. In addition to highlighting the problems with the misadministration and confusion regarding the administration of their complicated dual election-caucus system, the letter also urged the Chairman to amend Party rules to employ a less complicated and burdensome process.
Click here to read the letter.
Supreme Court’s decision on the Indiana ID Crawford Case in the News
04.29.08
by Whitney Norton
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s voter ID law was all over the news today, and the National Campaign and Lawyers’ Committee served as resources.
In today’s New York Times, Ian Urbina’s Decision is Likely to Spur Voter ID Laws in More States claims:
Far from settling the debate over voter identification, the Supreme Court ruling on Monday upholding Indiana’s voter ID law is likely to lead to more laws and litigation, voting experts said.
Urbina goes on to quote National Campaign Director Jonah Goldman:
"Even before the verdict, we saw confusion surrounding voter ID laws, and now voters and poll workers are more likely to think the Supreme Court just approved some national voter ID law, which indeed they did not," said Jonah H. Goldman, director of the National Campaign for Fair Elections for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Mr. Goldman said that poll workers might ask for unrequired identification and that citizens might not vote because they mistakenly thought that they could not do so if they did not have certain forms of identification.
To read the entire article, click here.
NBC News Channel interviewed Director of the Lawyers’ Committee’s Voting Rights Project Jon Greenbaum about the Supreme Court’s decision. Their affiliate in Knoxville, TN called it the "biggest court decision affecting politics since Bush versus Gore in 2000." Greenbaum warned that "At the polls in November, you’re gonna be seeing voters asked for identification where it’s not required in their jurisdiction." To read the entire story, click here.
The Washington Post and the New York Times published editorials this morning decrying the decision. The Post’s Carded at the Polls calls the law "a bad solution to a nonproblem." The editorial begins:
IT’S LIKELY that yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Indiana’s voter ID law will spur debate in other states about whether to adopt similar provisions. The short answer is, they should not. And if they do, they should not use the Indiana law as a template.
Click here to read the entire Washington Post editorial.
The New York Times’ The Court Fumbles on Voting Rights opens by calling Democracy "the big loser in the Supreme Court on Monday," and continues, saying:
The court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law, which solves a nearly nonexistent problem by putting major barriers between voters - particularly minorities - and the ballot box. Worse, the court set out a standard that clears the way for other states to adopt rules that discourage disadvantaged groups from voting. It is a sad reversal for a court that once saw itself as a champion of voting rights.
Click here to read the entire New York Times editorial.
IN OTHER NEWS
The Lawyers’ Committee’s Voting Rights Project has joined other voting rights organizations in a lawsuit against the state of Missouri to enforce compliance with the National Voting Rights Act. Click here to read a story from a local news organization.