Voting Rights Act

(Difference between revisions)Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act.  Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial.  But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures.  This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act.  Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial.  But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures.  This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5.  Sections 4 and 5 are being challenged in ''Shelby County v. Holder'', to be decided by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2013.Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5.  The formula was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case ''Shelby County v. Holder''The Act also outlawed literacy tests that once limited the right to vote in some areas to those who could read, as well as so-called "Grandfather Clauses".The Act also outlawed literacy tests.

The National Voting Rights Act of 1965[1] authorized, and in some areas required, federal oversight of elections. Many (but not all) of these areas were in the Democratically controlled South. The Act gave the Department of Justice the power to approve or reject any change in a voting law in certain districts where less than 50% of the population were registered to vote in 1964.

Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial. But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures. This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.

Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5. The formula was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case Shelby County v. Holder

The Act also outlawed literacy tests.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over strong opposition within the Democratic Party. President Lyndon Johnson asked Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen for help [2] in breaking the Democratic filibuster. Dirksen spoke on the Senate floor,

The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!

Under Johnson, the Senate had not been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a Civil Rights Bill. With Republican support, the final count showed 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting to end the filibuster, with 23 Democrats and only 6 Republicans opposed. The formal Senate vote on the bill took place on June 19, 1964. It passed overwhelmingly, 73-27.

The final Senate vote on August 4 was 49 Democrats and 30 Republicans in favor, one Republican and 17 Democrats opposed. Segregationists who voted against the Voting Rights Act were J. William Fulbright [3], awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, Sr., father of Democratic Presidential Nominee Al Gore.

In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court found that Bill Clinton had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of fact in Clinton vs Jeffers [4] that the Arkansas governor and future Democratic president violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court Justices wrote,

Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas. In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.

The court concluded these series of laws passed under Clinton

represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot.

And most pointedly the

inference of racial motivation is inescapable.

Although the Act is over 40 years old and addresses issues from the early 1960s and before, in 2006 Congress passed a 25-year extension without meaningful debate. 33 House members opposed the 25-year extension, primarily because of the imposition of multilingual balloting. Not a single senator, however, voted against it, and President George W. Bush signed it into law.

The law now imposes a complex system of regulations that include forcing local governments to print multilingual ballots at their own expense, in many different foreign languages. It requires federal registration of voters in regions where less than 50% of minorities are registered.

In recent years it has enabled liberals in Washington, D.C. to block reforms such as voter ID sought by local jurisdictions in 16 states. However, it should be noted that Georgia's voter ID law was precleared and that a three-judge panel allowed South Carolina's voter ID law to take effect (albeit modified by a state interpretation during the trial).[5] The entire State of Texas was subjected to ongoing federal control of its elections until it successfully bails out of being a covered jurisdiction in part because Texas once printed its ballots in English rather than Spanish. Texas has also had more objections to changes in its voting procedures from 1966 to 2004 than any other covered state.[6]

? 42 U.S.C. § 1973-1973aa-6? Everett McKinley Dirksen's Finest Hour: June 10, 1964, The Peoria Journal Star, June 10, 2004, retrieved from The Dirksen Congressional center 05/20/07.? Picking the Team, TIME Magazine, December 12, 1960.? Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in Clinton vs Jeffers No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).? South Carolina v. United States (D.D.C. 2012)? Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Mukasey 573 F.Supp.2d. 221, 281 (D.D.C. 2008)

View the original article here

Voting Rights Act

(Difference between revisions)Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act.  Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial.  But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures.  This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act.  Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial.  But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures.  This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5.  Sections 4 and 5 are being challenged in ''Shelby County v. Holder'', to be decided by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2013.Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5.  The formula was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case ''Shelby County v. Holder''The Act also outlawed literacy tests that once limited the right to vote in some areas to those who could read, as well as so-called "Grandfather Clauses".The Act also outlawed literacy tests.

The National Voting Rights Act of 1965[1] authorized, and in some areas required, federal oversight of elections. Many (but not all) of these areas were in the Democratically controlled South. The Act gave the Department of Justice the power to approve or reject any change in a voting law in certain districts where less than 50% of the population were registered to vote in 1964.

Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial. But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures. This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.

Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5. The formula was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case Shelby County v. Holder

The Act also outlawed literacy tests.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over strong opposition within the Democratic Party. President Lyndon Johnson asked Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen for help [2] in breaking the Democratic filibuster. Dirksen spoke on the Senate floor,

The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!

Under Johnson, the Senate had not been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a Civil Rights Bill. With Republican support, the final count showed 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting to end the filibuster, with 23 Democrats and only 6 Republicans opposed. The formal Senate vote on the bill took place on June 19, 1964. It passed overwhelmingly, 73-27.

The final Senate vote on August 4 was 49 Democrats and 30 Republicans in favor, one Republican and 17 Democrats opposed. Segregationists who voted against the Voting Rights Act were J. William Fulbright [3], awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, Sr., father of Democratic Presidential Nominee Al Gore.

In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court found that Bill Clinton had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of fact in Clinton vs Jeffers [4] that the Arkansas governor and future Democratic president violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court Justices wrote,

Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas. In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.

The court concluded these series of laws passed under Clinton

represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot.

And most pointedly the

inference of racial motivation is inescapable.

Although the Act is over 40 years old and addresses issues from the early 1960s and before, in 2006 Congress passed a 25-year extension without meaningful debate. 33 House members opposed the 25-year extension, primarily because of the imposition of multilingual balloting. Not a single senator, however, voted against it, and President George W. Bush signed it into law.

The law now imposes a complex system of regulations that include forcing local governments to print multilingual ballots at their own expense, in many different foreign languages. It requires federal registration of voters in regions where less than 50% of minorities are registered.

In recent years it has enabled liberals in Washington, D.C. to block reforms such as voter ID sought by local jurisdictions in 16 states. However, it should be noted that Georgia's voter ID law was precleared and that a three-judge panel allowed South Carolina's voter ID law to take effect (albeit modified by a state interpretation during the trial).[5] The entire State of Texas was subjected to ongoing federal control of its elections until it successfully bails out of being a covered jurisdiction in part because Texas once printed its ballots in English rather than Spanish. Texas has also had more objections to changes in its voting procedures from 1966 to 2004 than any other covered state.[6]

? 42 U.S.C. § 1973-1973aa-6? Everett McKinley Dirksen's Finest Hour: June 10, 1964, The Peoria Journal Star, June 10, 2004, retrieved from The Dirksen Congressional center 05/20/07.? Picking the Team, TIME Magazine, December 12, 1960.? Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in Clinton vs Jeffers No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).? South Carolina v. United States (D.D.C. 2012)? Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Mukasey 573 F.Supp.2d. 221, 281 (D.D.C. 2008)

View the original article here

Supreme Court justices hint at striking Voting Rights Act provision

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared likely to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights law designed to protect minority voters from discrimination.

The court’s conservative justices were at times hostile to the law’s requirement that states with a history of discrimination gain “preclearance” from the federal government before changing their voting procedures.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the policy an example of “racial entitlement” — a comment that seemed to strike a nerve with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, underscoring the delicate racial politics at play in the case.

Democratic lawmakers, civil rights leaders and hundreds of activists rallied outside the court Wednesday, arguing that the Voting Rights Act is still a necessary tool to fight discrimination. Some lawmakers had to duck out of the arguments halfway through in order to help unveil a statue of Rosa Parks across the street in the Capitol.

“I am proud to stand with my colleagues today to send a clear message to the public and to the court that the right to vote is not a matter of race, entitlement or partisanship,” said Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

But inside the court’s chambers, lawyers arguing in favor of the Voting Rights Act clearly struggled to convince skeptical conservatives that the preclearance requirements are still needed.

Congress has reauthorized the Voting Rights Act several times, most recently in 2006, but it has not changed the criteria for determining which states and municipalities must get clearance before changing their voting procedures. States bound by the preclearance rules say the outdated rules intrude on their right to set their own election laws.

Scalia suggested that Congress could not be trusted to scrap preclearance requirements when they become outdated. He noted that each time the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized, it has passed by a wider margin in the Senate. Lawmakers might simply be too timid to vote against it, he said.

“I think it is very likely attributable to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement,” Scalia said. “It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who attended part of the oral arguments, said Scalia’s comment was “unfortunate.” Equal voting rights are indeed an entitlement, he said — and have been since 1870, when Congress passed the 15th Amendment to the Constitution.

Sotomayor also seized on Scalia’s comments, asking a lawyer arguing against the Voting Rights Act, “Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement” and “Do you think racial discrimination has ended?”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s traditional swing vote, compared the preclearance requirement to previous acts of Congress that worked well in their time but are no longer relevant.

“The Marshall Plan was very good, too — the Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Act — but times change,” Kennedy said.

Chief Justice John Roberts pursued the same point, pressing Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who represented the Obama administration, to explain why the preclearance requirements are still necessary.

Verrilli defended the 2006 reauthorization as a “cautious choice” supported by a rigorous set of congressional findings. Some specific forms of discrimination that existed in 1965 are extinct, such as literacy tests, he said, but the point of preclearance is to prevent states from devising new methods of voter suppression.

States and municipalities subject to the Voting Rights Act had to file 3,700 preclearance requests in 2005, but the Justice Department only objected to one proposed change, Roberts said.

He also said the biggest discrepancies in voter turnout and registration are in states that do not have to file preclearance requests.

“Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?” Roberts asked Verrilli.

The court’s more liberal members questioned lawyers challenging the preclearance requirements about the lingering specter of racial discrimination, and also questioned whether Shelby County, Ala., which brought the lawsuit, should be able to get itself out of the preclearance requirements by citing improvements in other states.

“Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?” Sotomayor asked.

Alabama’s voting practices have been successfully challenged more than almost any state in the country, Justice Elana Kagan said, making the state a bad messenger for scrapping the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirements.

“I mean, you’re objecting to a formula, but under any formula that Congress could devise, it would capture Alabama,” she said to Bert Rein, the attorney representing Shelby County.

Even before Wednesday’s oral arguments, there were signs that Section 5 might be in trouble. The Supreme Court expressed “serious misgivings” about the provision in a 2009 case, saying the requirements intruded into an area that has traditionally belonged to state and local governments.

The court avoided a broad ruling on constitutional grounds in that case, but its decision to take up the issue again four years later was seen as a strong indication that those misgivings had grown.

President Obama also seemed to signal last week that a loss at the Supreme Court was possible, if not likely. Obama said in a local television interview last week that losing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would not cause people to lose their right to vote.

“People will still have the same rights not to be discriminated against when it comes to voting,” Obama said. “You just won’t have this mechanism, this tool, that allows you to kind of stay ahead of certain practices.”

A ruling is expected in late June or early July.

— Updated at 8:23 p.m.

View Comments

View the original article here

Why We Still Need The Voting Rights Act: Perspectives From Supreme Court Spectators

The US Supreme Court heard a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act today, attracting hoards of voting rights advocates, speakers, and a massive line of people vying for a spot in the courtroom. Today’s argument could lead to the elimination of Section 5, which protects minority voting rights in states with historically discriminatory election laws. Though Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 by overwhelming margins of of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House, many Republicans are now calling for the Supreme Court to strike it down, claiming the protections are obsolete in the post-Jim Crow era. In the last election cycle, however, the Justice Department used Section 5 to block new voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina, early voting restrictions in Florida, and racially gerrymandered redistricting maps in Texas. The courts agreed that these laws would suppress minority voting power.

ThinkProgress spoke to five individuals waiting in line outside the Supreme Court. While the attorneys made their case inside the court, these supporters gave their own oral arguments for why the Voting Rights Act is still needed:

“There are unfortunately some people who don’t want all Americans to have the right to vote for the person of their choice. And I believe that every American, no matter what you look like or what your background is, if you want to vote you should be allowed to vote for the person of your choice. It doesn’t matter what party you’re in. I think everyone should have that right. And I have grandchildren, and I want them to be able to have that same right wherever they live.” — Priscilla

“I think we need to keep moving forward. I think it’s fair the way it is. I was part of voter registration this year and some of the people I got registered, when I went down to vote, there was no record of them. It was very upsetting. They gave them a form to fill out and said they would get credit for voting, so I don’t know exactly how that turned out. But it was an effort to not let everyone vote. The Voting Rights Act is still very necessary. You can see some of the setbacks, even today.” — Emma

“I was in the Capitol yesterday. We have a record amount of women senators here, but when you look down at the floor, it’s basically an old men’s club with white hair. White men with white hair. To me, that’s just the proof right there that maybe voting rights aren’t as democratic as they should be in this country. I think it’s important. The voting restrictions today maybe aren’t as overtly racial, but there’s still many restrictions to voting.”

“I think the Voting Rights Act, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are timeless. They have to be protected. I’ve read both sides of the argument, but if there’s any, any evidence at all that this would disenfranchise someone, then Section 5 needs to keep being renewed. That’s my personal feeling. As long as we have racism and bigotry in our country, then we need to protect those who can’t speak out for themselves.”

“Sometimes I really feel like there’s been a change [in racism at the ballot box], but at the same time, when you try to manipulate things and not let the public be aware of it… We’re voters, too. We need to have knowledge to what is going on on the boundary lines. Our city council didn’t even have a clue that particular thing had be done, but they did it, and next thing we know they manipulated it to the point of bringing someone else in. And we didn’t have a clue! It’s very important. Even though it started in Shelby County, this is a nationwide kind of event. It could happen anywhere.”

“I consider myself a “super voter” because I vote all the time, every election, even for dog catcher. It’s important to understand that voting is a fundamental, bottom-line, foundational right of any citizen, and it shouldn’t be impugned or even exempted from anyone. Voting and voting rights, as an African-American of course, has a tremendously significant role, being a part of this American citizenry. What we see from those who are trying to strike down voting rights is that there’s a realization of how powerful the vote is. So if you can restrict it, then obviously you can say it has some power to it. So being under attack by those who want to change it and have used things now with this new gerrymandering that’s going on, this locking votes in, is very, very important to understand that it is under attack. So those that believe in it have to defend it. That’s why I’m here today.”

View the original article here

Indiana Lawmaker Proposes Unconstitutional Bill To Take Away Voting Rights From Out-Of-State College Students

In 1977, the Supreme Court upheld a decision holding that it is unconstitutional to treat college students any differently than other voters in terms of residency requirements to vote. Three and a half decades later, some Republican lawmakers are still trying to prevent college students from voting.

The latest instance is in Indiana, where a state lawmaker just introduced legislation that would prevent students from considering their campus address as their place of residency. Instead, the bill would only allow students to claim the address where they grew up.

The Indianapolis Star has more:

Under House Bill 1311, students who pay out-of-state tuition would not be able to vote in Indiana.

Rep. Peggy Mayfield, the Martinsville Republican who filed the bill, said she’s trying to resolve an issue about determining who is an Indiana resident.

“We’re having people who are not necessarily residents voting in our elections,” she said.

Indiana’s constitution only requires that a voter establish residency for 30 days prior to an election in order to be eligible. Passing a bill that would impose a unique requirement on college students clearly violates the constitutional protections affirmed in Symm v. United States.

Over the past few years, Republicans have made a habit of trying to disenfranchise college students. In Maine, then-Secretary of State Charlie Summers sent a threatening letter to hundreds of college students in 2011 implying that many of them were illegally registered to vote simply because they had grown up out of state. The same year, then-New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien tried to discourage students from casting a ballot because he feared they’d vote “liberal.”

One Indiana Republican is already speaking out against Mayfield’s bill. State Rep. Randy Truitt (R) opposed the measure on the grounds that it would depress turnout among students. “We worked so hard on making the students a part of our community,” Truitt said. “And whether they’re there for a short period of time or not, from my perspective, they’re part of our community, and I’m just not in favor of disenfranchising them.”

Indeed, young Americans already vote at lower rates than the rest of the electorate. Even if this bill weren’t unconstitutional, it’s primary effect would be to drive down turnout among students.

View the original article here

Rick Scott’s Secretary Of State Says Florida Should Restore Early Voting

Florida Secretary of State Rick Detzner

Because Gov. Rick Scott (R) and his legislative allies spent much of 2011-2012 filling up the November ballot with complicated and unnecessary ballot questions and pushing through measures aimed at suppressing voter turnout, Florida voters had to wait in lines for up to six hours. Now, Scott’s handpicked Secretary of State has released a report recommending that Florida expand early voting and limit the length of future ballot questions.

Secretary of State Rick Detzner, who in the days after the November elections said he had no regrets about the Scott administration’s handling of the election, acknowledged in the report that there was widespread frustration with “the length of lines at polling places, which were believed to have been caused by the record number of voters, a shortened early voting schedule, inadequate voting locations and a long ballot.” He makes no mention of the reasons for those factors — Scott’s unwillingness to extend early voting hours, a Scott-signed law shortening early voting, and an effort by the Republican legislature to load the ballot up with complicated ballot measures sure to slow down voters at the polls.

But, he encourages Scott and his fellow Republicans not to repeat the same mistakes in future elections, recommending Florida:

Extend the early voting schedule from a minimum of 8 days to a maximum of 14 days, while also allowing supervisors of elections the flexibility to offer early voting on the Sunday immediately prior to Election Day.Expand the allowable locations of early voting sites at government owned, managed or occupied facilities to include the main or branch office of a supervisor of elections, a city
hall, courthouse, county commission building, public library, civic center, convention center, fairgrounds or stadium.Set a word limit for proposed legislative amendments.Repeal statutes allowing the full text (stricken or underlined) of a constitutional amendment or revision to be placed on a ballot.Allow mail ballot elections for candidates in certain elections.

While the 14-day period would be an improvement over the eight days currently provided by Florida law, it would represent a return to where things were before Scott took office.

It remains to be seen whether Florida acts on these recommendations. In November, Gov. Scott defended his suppression tactics as having done “the right thing” and a month later blamed the legislature for the early voting limits he himself signed into law. But last month, he endorsed re-expanding the early voting he limited.

View the original article here

Florida Governor Now Wants To Expand The Early Voting Days He Cut

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) became one of the most notorious figures of the 2012 election after he slashed the period for early voting and enacted a number of other vote suppressing election laws. As a result of these laws, Florida voters were forced to wait in lines for up to 6 hours and as late as 1 am. After the election, several top Republicans admitted these election laws were designed to keep Democrats and minority voters away from the polls.

As his public image sinks, the governor has tried to distance himself from his own laws, blaming the Legislature and even denying to a group of black lawmakers Tuesday that the early voting law was his. On Thursday, Scott went even further and endorsed major election reforms–including a reversal of his early voting restrictions.

Scott now supports increasing the number of early voting days, reducing ballot length, and widening the range of polling places:

The proposal calls for extending early voting once again to a maximum of 14 days from 8, including adding back the Sunday before Election Day, a popular day among black voters; increasing voting hours to 168 hours from 96; allowing votes to be cast at locations beyond election offices, city halls and libraries; and making sure that ballots are kept short. Any change in the law must be approved by the Legislature, which convenes for its one-month session in March.

Mr. Scott’s endorsement comes on the same day as the release of a new report concluding that black and Latino voters were most affected by the 2011 changes. Of the more than 1.17 million ballots cast by black voters, nearly half were during early voting.

If early voting days are restored, the state could avoid a repeat of the 2012 fiasco, in which thousands of Floridians were disenfranchised.

View the original article here

GOP-Controlled Virginia House Committee Kills Voting Rights Restoration Proposals

Convicted felons in must petition to the governor for voting rights clemency

The Virginia House of Delegates subcommittee with jurisdiction over constitutional amendments killed a series of proposals Monday that would have restored the civil rights of persons convicted of a felony who have completed their sentences. This move come days after Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) endorsed changing the Virginia constitution to automatically allow non-violent felons to regain their voting rights after serving their time.

Virginia is one of a handful of states that prohibits all citizens convicted of felonies from voting, even after they serve their terms, unless they are granted clemency by the governor. A series of proposals by Democrats and Republican members of the Virginia House of Delegates were rejected, en mass, by the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. The subcommittee’s four Republicans unanimously voted to kill all of the proposals, Democrats Algie Howell (D) and Johnny Joannou (D) were the only votes in favor of any of the measures.

Both McDonnell’s Secretary of the Commonwealth Janet Vestal Kelly and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) attended the hearing to speak in support automatic restorations. Had any of the bills passed through the Virginia General Assembly this year and again next year, it would have gone to a statewide referendum.

Deputy House Majority Leader C. Todd Gilbert (R), a former prosecutor who does not sit on the committee, told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that he opposed automatic restoration because felons already get off too easy. “These are not people we ask of much … All we ask them is to show a little personal responsibility and fill out a simple application [for rights restoration].” Far from just simple procedural act, applying for clemency is no guarantee that whoever is governor will grant the clemency request.

View the original article here

Study: Rick Scott’s Long Voting Lines Cost Obama A Net 11,000 Votes In Central Florida

Credit: Joe Skipper/Reuters

Thanks in large part to a law signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), which cut early voting opportunities in that state, many Florida voters endured six hour lines simply to cast a ballot. These lines did not wind up costing Obama Florida’s electoral votes, but, according to an Ohio State University study, they reduced the President’s margin of victory by thousands of votes in central Florida alone:

[A]s many as 49,000 people across Central Florida were discouraged from voting because of long lines on Election Day, according to a researcher at Ohio State University who analyzed election data compiled by the Orlando Sentinel.

About 30,000 of those discouraged voters — most of them in Orange and Osceola counties — likely would have backed Democratic President Barack Obama, according to Theodore Allen, an associate professor of industrial engineering at OSU.

About 19,000 voters would have likely backed Republican Mitt Romney, Allen said.

This suggests that Obama’s margin over Romney in Florida could have been roughly 11,000 votes higher than it was, based just on Central Florida results. Obama carried the state by 74,309 votes out of more than 8.4 million cast.

In the wake of the long lines triggered in the wake of Rick Scott’s law, several top Republicans admitted the entire purpose of this law was to keep Democrats from the polls. Indeed, one GOP consultant explained that “cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day [from early voting] was one of their targets only because that’s a big day when the black churches organize themselves.” African-American voters overwhelmingly favored President Obama last November.

View the original article here