Yesterday, People For the American Way Foundation , on behalf of its Young People For program, joined with Demos and several other civil rights groups to submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court urging it to reject a new requirement in Arizona that requires people to show certain documents proving citizenship when they register to vote. As Demos explains in its press release about the brief, this requirement could severely hamper grassroots voter registration efforts:

The brief filed today details the real-world negative impact that Arizona’s extreme documentation requirements have on the ability of community-based voter registration organizations to register eligible citizens to vote, particularly through registration drives.  Proposition 200 requires that a potential registrant produce a post-1996 Arizona driver’s license, a current U.S. passport, a birth certificate, naturalization documents, or selected Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal identification documents.  Many eligible citizens do not possess these narrow forms of documentation required by the law and, of those who do, many  do not carry them while conducting their daily affairs.  Community-based registration efforts overwhelmingly rely on approaching individuals who did not plan in advance to register at that time or location and who are thus unlikely to be carrying a birth certificate, passport, or other documentation.  Even when a potential registrant does happen to be carrying one of the required documents, logistical hurdles—ranging from an inability to copy documents on the spot to an unwillingness to hand over sensitive identification documents to registration drive volunteers—greatly hinder the ability of community-based organizations to register people in Arizona.  In short, community-based voter registration efforts are made more difficult, less effective, and more expensive as a result of Proposition 200’s citizenship documentation requirements.

The case in question, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, is one of two critical voting rights cases that the Supreme Court will hear this year. The Court will also be considering a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states and counties with a history of voting discrimination to get any changes to voting laws pre-cleared by the Justice Department or a federal court before they can go into effect. That law has helped to deflect numerous challenges to voting rights, including in the lead-up to the 2012 election. In fact, the Arizona law at issue in this case is a perfect example of why our federal voting rights protections should be expanded rather than eliminated.

Young People For fellows across the country worked last year to register and get young voters to the polls.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held an important hearing this morning on the tremendous impact the Supreme Court will have on whether the American people will be allowed to retain control of our own democracy. Testimony focused on the Court's decision in Citizens United and the role the Court will play in upcoming cases in preserving individual citizens' voting rights.

Professor Anthony Johnstone of the University of Montana School of Law testified about Montana's experience with out-of-state corporations corrupting that state's elections. He also contrasted the Court's deep skepticism of the legislature in Citizens United to its deference in Crawford, the case that upheld a strict voter-ID law that strips Americans of their right to vote. Elisabeth MacNamara, president of the League of Women Voters, testified on the nationwide assault on voters that threatens to silence targeted communities through strict voter-ID laws, inaccurate voter purges, restrictions or elimination of early voting, proof-of-citizenship requirements, and outrageous barriers to voter registration drives. As she noted, fair and just courts are the key to protecting the right to vote that our democracy is based on.

The third witness, invited by committee Republicans, was litigator Michael Carvin. Carvin defended Citizens United and harshly criticized that part of the Voting Rights Act that requires federal approval of voting law changes in areas with a history of racial discrimination. Personally, my favorite part of the hearing was when he essentially said that corporations were sitting this election out:

Notwithstanding recent uniformed and irresponsible speculation, corporate expenditures and speech in the wake of Citizens United have not overtaken the political marketplace or drowned out speech by individuals acting alone. To the contrary, recent election cycles have seen an explosion of political participation and contributions by individual voters, and no cognizable uptick in corporate political activity.

I am not aware of any major, for-profit corporation running a single political advertisement in its own name. And the data from the 2012 Republican Presidential primary elections completely refutes the overheated rhetoric that corporations are taking over the political world. Each of the eight leading Republican Presidential candidates was supported by an independent expenditure-only committee—the so-called Super PACs. Notwithstanding the fears of some that wealthy for-profit corporations would dominate politics, we now know from the disclosures filed with the FEC that not a single one of the Fortune 100 companies contributed a single cent to any of these eight Super PACs.

Left unsaid is that corporations are spending their money in secret to make sure voters don't know what they're up to. For instance, an informative article in The Nation last week pointed out the enormous amounts being spent to affect our elections by 501(c)(6) trade associations and 501(c)(4) issue-advocacy groups. Whether it's PhRMA, Big Oil, or the Chamber of Commerce, the last thing that corporate interests are doing this year is sitting out the election. In many parts of the country, the airwaves are being blanketed by propaganda that they have paid for.

Whether it's corporate-bought elections, or corporate-supported elected officials gaming the system to prevent disfavored Americans from voting, our democracy is facing a grave threat.

UPDATE: The California legislature has passedAB 1436 and sent the bill to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature. Governor Brown has not publicly stated his position, but he has been supportive of voting rights in the past. Kathay Feng, California Common Cause: "Politicians in other states have been pushing new restrictive laws and campaigns to manipulate election results for their political gain. Governor Brown can take a stand for free and fair elections by signing Election Day Voter Registration into law." Assuming it becomes law, it will not take effect until 2015 when the state’s new voter registration database is expected to be certified.

With the right to vote under attack, it is refreshing to see positive electoral reform making its way from the east coast to the west.

In California, the Assembly-passed AB 1436 provides for Election Day Registration. Where current law requires voters to submit an affidavit at least 15 days prior to an election, the new proposal would allow voters the ability to register as late as Election Day. Ballots would be cast provisionally and counted upon verification of registration. It would take effect in 2016.

Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-42), the bill’s sponsor:

This bill helps assure all eligible Californians will have the chance to determine who speaks for them in Washington, Sacramento and their home towns. I’m pleased that the Assembly has recognized the importance of increasing voter turnout in our state.

While waiting for the Senate to take action, be sure to visit our friends over at Demos for more information.

UPDATE: Secretary of State Ken Detzner says that Florida, which expects imminent access to the SAVE database, will resume the purge and complete it prior to the November election. The Department of Justice is moving forward with its legal challenge.

8/3/2012: New developments continue to shed light on the purge and its far-reaching impact. An article in the Atlantic details the possibility that it could lead to a 2000-style fiasco. A woman who is most certainly alivewas removed from the rolls twice because the state thinks she is dead. The Guardian has profiled several other voters who are battling to preserve their rights. Thankfully, there is some good news, as despite being granted access to the SAVE database, it now looks like county election supervisors won’t be removing more voters from the rolls before the August 14 primary. Officials are being encouraged to proceed cautiously since the state may not be able to settle its ongoing disagreement with the federal government over the purge. In other news, Congresswoman Corrine Brown has filed a lawsuit to try to stop early voting cutbacks.

The federal government has granted Governor Rick Scott and Secretary of State Ken Detzner access to the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, further fanning the flame under their voter suppression fire. The move followed last month's ruling that the purge did not violate the National Voter Registration Act.

Voting rights supporters remain concerned about the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters – and rightfully so.

Jonathan Brater, Brennan Center for Justice:

No matter what database Florida has access to, purging voters from the rolls using faulty criteria on the eve of an election could prevent thousands of eligible voters from exercising their rights. Florida must use a more transparent and accurate process, and must leave enough time for voters targeted for removal to be notified and correct errors.

Ion Sancho, Leon County Supervisor of Elections:

[T]hose who have been here in 2000 and 2004 realize that if you produce a list that’s highly inaccurate, in all probability what you’re going to do is disenfranchise legal voters.

Further litigation is expected and also remains underway regarding HB 1355, the Florida law commonly referred to by voting rights supporters as the Voter Suppression Act. Last week, Judge Hinkle’s injunction blocking most of its worst provisions was appealed. HB 1355 was originally sponsored by Representative Dennis Baxley, who has ties to ALEC.

Click here and here for more information, and be sure to check out The Right to Vote under Attack: The Campaign to Keep Millions of Americans from the Ballot Box , a Right Wing Watch: In Focus report by PFAW Foundation.