Federal Court Rejects TX Voter ID Law

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

On August 30, a 3-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., invalidated the Texas law, State of Texas v Holder, 12-cv-128, on government photo-ID at the polls.

This is from the Election Law Blog by Rick Hasen:

1. This is a jurisprudentially significant decision, resolving a number of open questions about how to implement section 5 of the Voting Rights Act following the 2006 amendments. On first glance, it looks like the court resolved many of these issues in a sensible and clear-cut way, and rejected Texas’s alternative arguments as not supported by the text of the Voting Rights Act, congressional intent, or sound practices of experts who work on these kinds of cases.

2. This will not affect the 2012 races, and so I don’t expect an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. I do expect an appeal, which would have to be resolved well before the 2014 primaries.

3. Most striking substantively about the ruling is that although the judges differ a bit on a technical point about what counts as a “crossover” district for purposes of retrogression, they agree unanimously about Texas discriminatory intent when it comes to the congressional redistricting. This part of the ruling seemed especially compelling.

4. The evidence of discriminatory intent is important not just for the likelihood that the Supreme Court will affirm this decision even if it disagrees on some aspects of the retrogression standard. It also serves as some evidence which could be used to argue, in the Shelby County case or elsewhere, that covered jurisdictions still discriminate on the basis of race in making voting-related decisions. (If this was not done to Anglo Democrats, the evidence is even stronger than if it could be explained on the basis of pure partisanship.) The Court was careful to note that Texas did not challenge the constitutionality of section 5 in this case. And the Court rejected a number of Texas’s arguments that it should read section 5 narrowly to avoid a constitutional question. Whether the Supreme Court will agree with the district court on this point is anyone’s guess. Indeed, this case could be mooted if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 (in the Shelby County case or another) before the Court decides this case on the merits.

I wonder if a TX judge can force an injuction for the 2012 election in November?

The ruling comes in the same week that South Carolina's strict photo ID law is on trial in front of another three-judge panel in the same federal courthouse. A court ruling in the South Carolina case is expected in time for the November election.

Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder on Decision in Texas v. Holder

The Attorney General released the following statement on the ruling today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Texas v. Holder, the state’s proposed voter ID law:

“The court’s decision today and the decision earlier this week on the Texas redistricting plans not only reaffirm - but help protect - the vital role the Voting Rights Act plays in our society to ensure that every American has the right to vote and to have that vote counted."

“The Department of Justice opposed preclearance of the Texas voter ID law because of the harm it would cause minority voters across the state of Texas. Under the proposed law, many of those without the required voter identification would be forced to travel great distances to get one – and some would have to pay for the documents they might need to do so. The legislature rejected reasonable efforts to mitigate these burdens. We are pleased with the court's decision to deny preclearance because of these racially discriminatory effects."

“The Justice Department’s efforts to uphold and enforce voting rights will remain aggressive and even-handed. When a jurisdiction meets its burden of proving that a proposed voting change would not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, the Department will not oppose that change -- when a jurisdiction fails to meet that burden, we will object.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state will appeal the panel's rejection to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld voter ID laws as a constitutional method of ensuring integrity at the ballot box,” he said in a statement. “Today's decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana - and were upheld by the Supreme Court. The State will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we are confident we will prevail."









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Who are the independents?

On KALW 91.7 FM, San Francisco, CA., Aug. 25, 2012, had open lines to independents. According to a Gallup poll, more Americans identify as Democrats than as Republicans, 31 percent to 27 percent. Last year, the percentage of Americans identifying as political independents increased to 40 percent. Where do independents fit within the two-party political system? It’s Your Call, with Rose Aguilar and you.

The Guests:

Omar Ali, Associate Professor of African American History at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro and an independent political analyst on CNN. He is editor of The Neo-Independent online and author of the book Independent Black Politics and Third-Party Movements in the United States.

Jason Olson, the Director of IndependentVoice.Org, a political non-profit organization that serves as the California branch of the independent movement.

Use the above link to listen to the broadcast.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Political Reform - A better way to count ballots

There are two new books that try to answer the "One person, One vote" question.

Who's Counting by John Fund, a veteran political journalist and a former member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page staff, and Mr. Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation fellow who was a lawyer in the voting-rights division of the George W. bush administration.

They argue that we need more Voter I.D. laws to prevent the big problem of voter fraud. They discus all the different fraud methods and ways to prevent them. They do recommend that local boards, to prevent majority steamrolling, including an equal number of major party members and at least one nonpartisan or third-party member.

The Voting Wars by Ricard L. Hasen, the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, California, takes a different approach.

Mr. Hasen is against voter I.D. laws and his solution is to make the national government responsible for enrolling every eligible American. Voters would be given as ID card that they would show before voting. They would be given at no cost when you turn 18. They would include an individual voter identification number, allowing you to be tracked and re-enrolled when you move. He calls for nonpartisan, professional election commissions. He suggests other reforms like, requiring uniform national rules for voting machines and absentee ballots.

But both books do not discuss. campaign finance reform, better ballot access for the candidates and the voters with open primaries, and better party's candidate selection process that does not require the state's voters paying for it.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

FL Early Voting

A Federal court just ruled that Florida's Republican Governor Rick Scott's new restrictions on early voting, which target minority groups more likely to cast a ballot before election day, are unfair and illegal. According to the judges, the Republican law runs afoul of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

For political activists, this is an important victory, but we cannot let up. The ruling applies only to five Florida counties, and it is still possible that Republicans will be able to shut the door on voters in the state's other 62 counties.

We kept up the pressure against Florida vote suppression, and our efforts paid off.

Now we need to ensure that every voter in every Florida county or in another battleground state can vote in this year's election.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

AZ Top Two Primary Ballot Initiative

Arizona's Open Government/Open Elections organization has been trying to get Top Two Open Primary as a ballot initiative on the 2012 General Election.

Arizona voters are entitled to decide if they want to scrap the current partisan system of nominating candidates, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In a brief order, the Supreme Court justices overturned a lower court ruling which concluded that the initiative to create a wide-open primary was constitutionally flawed. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain had said it illegally dealt with more than one subject. The justices did not explain their decision, promising details later.

Friday's ruling is a significant victory for proponents of the change which would have all candidates from all political stripes run against each other for statewide, legislative, county supervisor posts, and overrule Tucson's partisan primary for mayor and city council. Then the top two would face off in the November general election.

But the Supreme Court action does not mean the "Open Government/Open Elections" initiative actually will be on the November ballot.

County election officials are still reviewing a random sample of initiative petition sheets to verify that there are at least 259,213 valid signatures to put the issue on the November ballot. And some preliminary numbers from the state's largest county suggest the petition drive could fall short.

Matt Roberts, spokesman for the Secretary of State's Office, said after clearly invalid petitions were removed, that left more than 358,000 signatures. And a 33 percent failure rate, if that proves to be the final number, it would leave just about 240,000 valid signers, short of the 259,213 needed to qualify for the ballot.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NY Online Voter Registration

New York unveiled an online voter registration system that allows residents to become voters from their own computers, and eventually from new electronic devices at Department of Motor Vehicles offices.

New voters can even cast ballots in next month’s primaries if they register and enroll in a party online by Sunday, said Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi. Today is the in-person registration deadline at DMV and Board of Elections offices.

Applicants need a driver’s license or a non-driver’s identification card number to register through the Web site, where they can also change their address and party enrollment.

The DMV will then transfer their information from their systems, including their signature, to the Board of Elections. The board will still have to do their due process to verify the information before they become registered voters. With the transferred signature the voter does not have to be in-person to register and the board will be able to print the poll books with the required signatures.

The board is looking into creating an electronic poll book. This will allow the poll worker to bring up the voter's signature and photo from the DMV database, plus the relevant data to verify the voter is in the right place and gets the correct ballot.

UPDATE
Some call this progress!

To start, when someone fills out a registration form, the DMV will print out the document and snail-mail the paper to the proper board, where clerks will type in the data by hand. This counts as progress because you can register from home.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

NYC Council Meeting About Election Process

Yesterday I attended a 5 hour meeting, Oversight - Assessing the Board of Elections’ Performance in the 2012 Congressional Primary Election and Preparedness for the Upcoming 2012 New York State Primary Election.

The main part of the meeting was a review of what happened in the June 26, 2012 Congressional Primary that resulted in a large change in preliminary votes that showed, Congressman Rangel wining by over 20,000 votes, but after hand counting the ballots, by just under 1,000 votes.

Part of the reason is the archaic hand entering of hand calculated number by the poll worker from optical scanners paper tapes that already have the results on flash 4gb. drives called PDM. Than hand entered by police employees into a database that is transmitted to AP for media distribution.

The new system is just as odd:

1. When the scanner's are closed, they print 3 copies of the result tapes, and write the result to 2 PDMs.

2. A police officer will take one copy of the tape and PDM to one of the 74 local precincts.

3. At the precinct, the PDM would be read into a laptop by BOE employees and transmit the PDM data to police headquarters.

4. At police headquarters, the combined vote totals would then be converted into a XML file format and transmitted to AP over land lines.

For me, this only will get possible incorrect totals to the AP and the public, quicker.

Example, in the Bronx there is a known problem with scanners overheating during the day and not counting votes and with no indication of an error. Currently the poll is instructed to periodically to take scanners off-line to cool down. The error is only found when the paper ballot is hand counted in an audit or court reported hand-count.

So this new report process will take possible bad data on the PDM and get it to AP quicker.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

Interviews by a Black Independent

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

2013 National Conference of Independents in NYC

On Saturday, February 16, 2013, Independentvoting.org will be holding its biennial conference in New York City. It's great timing - as Independent voters are reshaping the political landscape. We have created a new form of organizing --- without a party --- with a vision for reform to limit the power of the parties and increase the power of voters.

Join Independent activists from all across the country at this important event where we will be discussing our accomplishments and our goals for creating a post-partisan America.

Use the above link for early registration.

For more information, to reserve your space now, or to speak about bringing others to the conference:

email - national@independentvoting.org
or call - 1-800-288-2801.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us

AZ Judge Rules Top Two Primary Initiative can not be on Ballot

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

On August 6, Arizona Superior Court Judge Mark H. Brain ruled that the initiative for a Top-Two Open Primary violates the single-subject rule, and therefore cannot be on the November ballot. He found that the portion of the initiative that eliminates elections for party committee members is not the same subject as imposing a top-two primary for public office. The decision is Save Our Vote v Bennett, cv2012-010717.

It is extremely likely that the proponents will appeal this decision to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The question is not whether using public funds to elect party officers is good or bad policy, but whether using public funds to elect party officers is the same subject, or a different subject, that changing the method by which public officers are elected.

This is exactly what I told the "Open Government Committee" not to do when this was being developed. The process I spoke to them about was first, any party can pay for any selection process they want to use to designate their candidate choices. Then these party choices, any other party members, independents, and write-ins would be on the open primary ballot funded by the tax payers. To make this work, the entry to get on the ballot must be as equal as possible.

The open primary voting could result with a winner if a candidate gets 60%+ votes. Otherwise you then go to the Top Two in the General Election. This could make an uncontested candidate still having to convince the electorate, as any write-in could get enough votes to cause the voters' to force a General Election.

Another twist, if the turnout is under a certain % value, there will always be a Top Two General Election.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us