Restore The Voices Of The Excluded

After more than two years stymied by congressional inaction on voting rights, House Democrats this week renewed their efforts to Restore The Voices Of The Excluded – to #RestoreTheVOTE.

The new legislative mobilization is designed to drive more support to the Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill introduced this June to restore what the Voting Rights Act of 1965 lost when the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 in Shelby County v Holder, and to make additional, critical updates to the landmark law.

Representative Terri Sewell:

My hope is that by launching #RestoreTheVOTE we gain grassroots support for restoring the right of every American to vote. In order to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act we must get everyday Americans to care and demand congressional action to protect voting rights. We cannot silence ANY voices within our electorate.  We must RESTORE THE V.O.T.E. — the VOICES OF THE EXCLUDED!

Want to get involved?

Sign the PFAW petition telling Congress to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Make sure that your Representative is on H.R. 2867 and that your Senators are on S. 1659.


House Judiciary Committee Takes Up Planned Parenthood Witch Hunt, Women And Voting Rights Suffer

Earlier today the House Judiciary Committee opened its fall session with the first public hearing in its investigation into Planned Parenthood, placing a one-sided, far-right smear campaign as a clear priority over a full and fair examination of the facts. Or as PFAW Senior Researcher Miranda Blue put it, "one piece of the larger far-right effort to not only shutter Planned Parenthood’s critical women’s health services but to end legal abortion entirely."

Take the title of the hearing – Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining the Horrific Abortion Practices at the Nation's Largest Abortion Provider. Ranking Member John Conyers called it "one-sided." Representative Jerrold Nadler of the Constitution Subcommittee agreed that it was a "farce" for having stated the Committee's conclusion at the outset.

Then there's the witness list – Not one majority witness with direct knowledge of current Planned Parenthood practices, nor any who could speak with authority on the Center for Medical Progress. Representative Nadler pointed out that if the majority had any confidence in CMP's David Daleiden that they "would have bought him here to testify before this committee." In fact, as James Bopp twice testified, he was told by the majority that the videos were not the subject of their investigation. A further line of questioning pressed by Representative David Cicilline made clear just how little consideration the Committee has for CMP and its own practices.  

Finally the discussion itself – An overwhelming amount of energy spent rehashing decades of settled law and Supreme Court precedent at the expense of women who seek not only abortion services from Planned Parenthood, a very small portion of their work, but a wide range of reproductive and preventive healthcare.

Don't forget the discussion that they aren't having – As they take up Planned Parenthood, Congress is more than two years past due in restoring what the Voting Rights Act lost in 2013 through the Supreme Court's damaging Shelby County v. Holder decision. They should instead be holding a hearing on the Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Many of you stood up to Tell House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte: Focus on Restoring the Voting Rights Act, Not Attacking Women with Planned Parenthood Witch Hunt.  

Your petition signatures were hand-delivered to the Committee prior to its hearing.

PFAW petition drop for Planned Parenthood and the Voting Rights Act


House Judiciary Committee Investigates Planned Parenthood But Still Refuses To Hold VRA Hearing

On Wednesday the House Judiciary Committee announced the first public hearing in its investigation into Planned Parenthood.

Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Subcommittee Chair Trent Franks set the tone:

Planned Parenthood and its executives must answer for the alleged atrocities brought to light in the videos by the Center for Medical Progress. For the past two months, the House Judiciary Committee has been investigating the alleged acts of Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, and now the American people will have a chance to understand just how horrific these practices are to the unborn.

As PFAW recently explained, the Center for Medical Progress is linked to far-right activists such as Live Action founder Lila Rose, who has launched similar “sting” operations against Planned Parenthood in the past. Operation Rescue head Troy Newman, who runs a website listing personal information and photographs of abortion providers and once publicly celebrated the death of a provider, serves on CMP's Board.

PFAW Senior Researcher Miranda Blue:

It’s important to see the latest attacks for what they are: one piece of the larger far-right effort to not only shutter Planned Parenthood’s critical women’s health services but to end legal abortion entirely.

The Committee is putting its commitment to this far-right smear campaign ahead of its commitment to democracy. As they take up Planned Parenthood, Congress is more than two years past due in restoring what the Voting Rights Act lost in 2013 through the Supreme Court's damaging Shelby County v. Holder decision. They should instead be holding a hearing on the Voting Rights Advancement Act.

PFAW called for the Advancement Act's passage back in June.

Two years after the Shelby County ruling gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act, voters in cities and states that were once protected by federal oversight are facing laws that make it harder to vote – laws that disproportionately affect people of color. This is unacceptable. Voting discrimination is still a very real, pervasive problem, even if some members of Congress choose to ignore it.

Some members – led by Chairman Goodlatte.

PFAW supporters have spoken loud and clear in favor of restoring the VRA and standing with Planned Parenthood.


John Roberts, Calling Strikes and Strikes

In 2005, when John Roberts was seeking to persuade the Senate that he should be confirmed as Chief Justice, he famously (and misleadingly) likened Supreme Court Justices to baseball umpires, simply calling balls and strikes. To use his analogy, last week's ruling on voter ID in Texas showed just how far the umpire will go to rig the game.

Earlier this month, district court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos ruled that the voter ID law could not be enforced. Her careful consideration all of the evidence presented at trial led her to conclude that the Texas statute didn't simply have a racially discriminatory impact (as if that wasn't bad enough), but that state lawmakers had actually intended to make it harder to Latinos and African Americans to vote. She found that the law violated the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, and the 24th Amendment (prohibiting poll taxes).

Not surprisingly, Texas wants to enforce the law during this year's election, while its appeal is pending. After all, if a law designed to obstruct people of color from voting isn't allowed to be enforced during the election, then what's the point? Less than a week after Judge Ramos issued her ruling, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit granted Texas's request for a stay. The two George W. Bush-nominated judges on that panel wrote of the irreparable harm to Texas if its law were not enforced, with little concern about the irreparable harm to the law's targets if it were enforced.

So voting rights advocates asked the Supreme Court to vacate the appeals court's stay. But last week, over the dissent of at least three Justices, the Roberts Court denied that request, meaning that Texas can enforce the law during the current election. Although the Court did not provide its reasoning, they presumably believe that the state's interest in enforcing a law found to be intentionally discriminatory is greater than the interests of those targeted by the law.

What a terrible message the hard-right conservative judges are sending Latinos and African Americans: We just don't think your rights are important.

Using the baseball metaphor, even when the pitcher intentionally beans the batter, Umpire Roberts and his conservative colleagues will call it a strike. The umpire takes sides, and tough luck if you're on the wrong team.

But this isn't a baseball game, and Americans can do more than just boo from the stands: We can vote, and we can get our friends, family, coworkers, neighbors, and anyone else we know to vote. When we vote for Senate, we're picking the people who will vote on whether to confirm or block the next Supreme Court nominee. What better to way to prove to the Roberts Court that we all matter?

PFAW Foundation

Fifth Circuit's Voter ID Decision Shows the Attitude of Bush's Judges

Last week, a federal district court judge concluded that Texas's strict voter ID law (SB 14) violated both the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Judge Nelva Ramos concluded that the law was passed with illegitimate motives:

This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas Legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law's detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Unites States Constitution.

Nevertheless, yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas can hold this fall's elections under the voter ID law anyway. Although the ruling was unanimous, the two Bush-43 judges on the panel (Edith Brown Clement and Catherina Haynes) took a very different approach to the case than did the Obama nominee.

Judge Gregg Costa, the court's newest member, wrote in his short concurrence:

The district court issued a thorough order finding that the Texas voter ID law is discriminatory. We should be extremely reluctant to have an election take place under a law that a district court has found, and that our court may find, is discriminatory. … I agree with Judge Clement that the only constant principle that can be discerned from the Supreme Court's recent decisions in this area is that its concern about confusion resulting from court changes to election laws close in time to the election should carry the day in the stay analysis. … On that limited basis, I agree a stay should issue.

Those recent Supreme Court actions Judge Costa cites are hard to interpret, since they came with no explanation. But they also didn't involve a judicial finding of intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Constitution, which we have in this case.

While Costa's concurrence was only a paragraph, the Bush judges' opinion went on for many pages. Judge Clement (joined by Judge Haynes) wrote that Texas will be irreparably harmed if the stay is not issued: "When a statute is enjoined, the State necessarily suffers the irreparable harm of denying the public interest in the enforcement of its laws."

But what is the public interest in enforcing a law that a district judge concluded was passed with the intent to make it harder for African Americans and Latinos to vote? What interest does Texas have in enforcing a law that violates the Constitution?

The two Bush-43 judges also stated critically that Judge Ramos didn't give a reason for applying the injunction so close to the beginning of an election, even though Texas warned it would disrupt the election process.

Perhaps "disrupting the election process" is warranted when that process has been intentionally designed to disenfranchise targeted groups.

While all three judges agreed to stay the district court's ruling and allow Texas to enforce its voter ID law, the different approach taken by Bush and Obama judges is notable.

PFAW Foundation

Texas Judge Could Teach the Roberts Court a Thing or Two

Late yesterday, federal district Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos struck down Texas' restrictive voter ID law. Judge Ramos found that it creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect on African Americans and Latinos, and is an unconstitutional poll tax. Most importantly, a careful analysis of the record led her to conclude that the law was passed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.

This is a terrific development for those who care about the right to vote. And the fact that the discrimination was intentional triggers Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, which permits Judge Ramos to subject Texas to the same type of preclearance conditions it was subject to under Section 5, before the notorious Shelby County decision. She is expected to decide whether to pursue that course of action within the next few days.

This is a textbook case of why courts matter, and why it matters who sits on those courts. Texas citizens' right to vote was being threatened by their own state government, in clear violation of the law. The federal courts have now stepped in to make sure the promises of the U.S. Constitution are kept.

The opening of Judge Ramos' opinion makes clear that she recognizes the preeminent importance of the right to vote:

The right to vote: It defines our nation as a democracy. It is the key to what Abraham Lincoln so famously extolled as a "government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people." The Supreme Court of the United States, placing the power of the right to vote in context, explained [in 1964]: "Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized." [footnotes removed]

She could teach a thing or two to the five conservatives on the Roberts Court, whose Shelby County ruling gave the green light to politicians in Texas and elsewhere eagerly seeking to make it harder for certain people to vote.

PFAW Foundation

It's Been a Pretty Great 36 Hours for Voting Rights Advocates

Hawaii update: HB 2590 still has to be signed by Governor Neil Abercrombie in order for it to become law. Voting rights advocates believe that he will approve the measure but will be working through the next week to ensure that he does.

PFAW has been keeping you informed about what has gone right for voting rights at the state level in 2014. In the last 36 hours alone, Hawaii, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have added new entries to the "win" column.

Thanks to the passage of HB 2590, Hawaii will likely have same-day registration for early voting in 2016 and add it for Election Day in 2018.

The measure (HB 2590) aims to encourage voting in a state where turnout is often dismal. Once the nation’s highest, Hawaii’s voter turnout cratered at 44.5 percent, the nation’s lowest, in the 2012 election, according to the U.S. Elections Project.

[ . . . ]

“It’s about making elections relevant to the modern world,” Rep. Kaniela Ing, D-Kihei, Wailea, Makena, the bill’s introducer, said in a statement. “Today’s policy decisions will impact young people for decades to come, and it doesn’t make sense to exclude them because of arbitrary registration deadlines based on technological limitations that no longer exist.”

Hawaii Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago said in written testimony supporting the measure that any qualified person who wants to vote should be able to register and vote.

In Minnesota, after the online voter registration system launched by Sectary of State Mark Ritchie was forced to shut down, legislators acted quickly, and Governor Mark Dayton signed into law its replacement.

Gov. Mark Dayton signed the Minnesota Legislature’s revival of online voter registration on Tuesday, just one day after a judge had ordered the system shut down, ruling that Secretary of State Mark Ritchie overstepped his authority in creating it last year.

“I am very pleased that this bill passed with bipartisan support in both bodies, and I look forward to signing it into law today,” Dayton said in a statement, soon after the Minnesota Senate gave the measure final approval.

The quick action means that Minnesotans’ access to Web-based voter registration, which more than 3,600 voters have used since September, will continue unimpeded. With Dayton’s signature, Minnesota officially joins about half of the states in offering some form of voter registration online.

In Wisconsin, US District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled against the state's voter ID law, saying that "it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes."

From the American Civil Liberties Union:

"This law had robbed many Wisconsin citizens of their right to vote. Today, the court made it clear those discriminatory actions cannot stand," said Karyn Rotker, ACLU of Wisconsin senior staff attorney.

"This is a warning to other states that are trying to make it harder for citizens to vote,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “This decision put them on notice that they can't tamper with citizens' fundamental right to cast a ballot. The people, and our democracy, deserve and demand better."

We can win, and let's not forget that.

Check out PFAW’s website for more voting rights updates.


Voting Rights Advocates Rack Up More Wins

Earlier this month, PFAW reported on what has gone right for voting rights at the state level in 2014. While there is much more work to be done to enact needed reforms and to step up and counter threats when the right to vote is under attack, states like Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina have shown that we can win.

Now we've uncovered even more evidence of why we can and should keep fighting the challenges that lay before us.

Voters themselves will get to decide what voter empowerment means in Illinois. House Speaker Michael Madigan's constitutional amendment providing "that no person shall be denied the right to register to vote or to cast a ballot in an election based on race, color, ethnicity, status as a member of a language minority, sex, sexual orientation, or income" passed both chambers and will be on the November ballot. A similar effort is afoot in Ohio.

Native American voters in Montana have seen two encouraging developments. In Jackson v. Wolf Point School District, an agreement was reached that will provide for five-single member school board districts in addition to one at-large representative, as opposed to the existing multimember districts that heavily favored the area's white population. Wandering Medicine v. McCullough, which challenges the availability of late registration and early voting for residents of the Crow, North Cheyenne, and Fort Belknap Reservations, will proceed following a failed motion to dismiss the case.

In Washoe County, Nevada, home to Reno and the state's second most populated county, voters have come to expect 14 consecutive early voting days. This year, though, county commissioners planned to eliminate the two optional Sundays that fall within that period. The American Civil Liberties Union and other allies organized quickly, sending a letter to Chairman David Humke and providing testimony at a commission meeting. Thankfully at that same meeting Chairman Humke announced that Sunday early voting was back on and warrants further study.

Tod Story, ACLU of Nevada Executive Director, said:

Early voting allows more people to participate in our democracy, and weekend voting is necessary for many hardworking Nevadans. Weekends are especially important days for voting drives, including for communities of faith

US District Judge Nelva Ramos told Texas legislators, much like US Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake did in North Carolina, that their emails must be disclosed – albeit confidentially – in the ongoing Voting Rights Act challenge to the 2011 Texas voter ID law.

Huffington Post:

The United States argued that the emails could be the only existing candid evidence about the purpose of the legislation because Texas Republicans coordinated their talking points on the bill and refused to publicly engage with the concerns of minority legislators. If any of the emails reveal discriminatory intent, the U.S. will still have to argue to get them admitted as evidence during the trial phase of the lawsuit.

Finally, Utah is taking Election Day Registration for a test drive. Governor Gary Herbert has signed HB 156, which sets up an opt-in pilot program for counties and municipalities. The state will keep an eye on how they do and report back to the legislature for possible further action.

We can win, and let's not forget that.

Check out PFAW’s website for more voting rights updates.


Applying McCutcheon's Logic to Voter ID Laws

The Chief Justice's opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC striking down aggregate campaign contribution limits dismisses several scenarios put forward to describe how funds can be rerouted to bypass the existing base limits on contributions:

The dissent concludes by citing three briefs for the proposition that, even with the aggregate limits in place, individuals "have transferred large sums of money to specific candidates" in excess of the base limits. But the cited sources do not provide any real-world examples of circumvention of the base limits along the lines of the various hypotheticals.

The dearth of FEC prosecutions, according to the dissent, proves only that people are getting away with it. And the violations that surely must be out there elude detection "because in the real world, the methods of achieving circumvention are more subtle and more complex" than the hypothetical examples. This sort of speculation, however, cannot justify the substantial intrusion on First Amendment rights at issue in this case. (emphasis added)

Yet exactly this sort of speculation is routinely used by the far right to justify the substantial intrusion on the right to vote caused by strict photo ID laws. As Hans von Spakovsky and Peter McGinley recently wrote for the Heritage Foundation:

A favorite claim made by those who oppose voter ID is that voter fraud is a rare occurrence. On the surface, this argument may have some appeal, because it is not very often that huge voter fraud conspiracies dominate the national headlines. But, by its very nature, voter fraud is hard to detect.

Unfortunately, despite the absence of evidence of the in-person voter fraud they allegedly are intended to prevent, a number of voter ID laws have been upheld despite their obvious impact on the right to vote.

If only the courts were as solicitous of the right to vote in elections as they are of the right to purchase them. The "Money In / Voters Out" approach to elections has got to stop.

PFAW Foundation

Voting Rights – We Can Win

The New York Times and NPR recently shared somewhat different takes on where voting rights stand now and what the picture might look like come Election Day 2014.

It is true, as suggested by The Times:

Pivotal swing states under Republican control are embracing . . . bills, laws and administrative rules — some of them tried before — [that] shake up fundamental components of state election systems, including the days and times polls are open and the locations where people vote.

It's also true, as quoted by NPR from its interview with the Brennan Center's Myrna Pérez:

We've seen a lot of real momentum in 2014, thus far, towards improving our elections both at the states and nationally[.]

PFAW thought it would be good to take a step back and look at what has gone right at the state level in 2014 – and why we can and should keep fighting the challenges that lay before us.

Florida has an especially troublesome history with voter purges, but now the trouble is headed back toward the chief architects. On April 1, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that Gov. Rick Scott’s voter purge of suspected non-citizens in 2012 violated the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), because systematic removal programs are barred within 90 days of a federal election. This came just days after Secretary of State Ken Detzner did an about-face and called off his 2014 plans.

In the final hours of its legislative session, thanks to a flaw in the bill language, Georgia looked poised to take the early voting days for municipal elections down to ZERO. Because staunch advocates like the League of Women Voters closely monitored the bill and sprang into action when that fatal flaw was discovered, the session adjourned on March 20 with early voting intact. As the League's Kelli Persons noted:

The message here is that it's very important . . . to pay attention to what's happening at the local level[.]

Even in North Carolina, where the Moral Mondays movement began and challenges to voting reach far and wide, there's been a victory of sorts. On March 27, US Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake ruled that lawmakers must release correspondence related to the formation of the state's new voter ID law, saying that though some records might be shielded, many are considered public. We need transparency as this case moves forward.

There is much more work to be done to enact needed reforms and to step up and counter threats when the right to vote is under attack – but we can win, and let's not forget that.

Check out PFAW’s website for more voting rights updates.