Texas’ revamped voter ID law is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday. The judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, issued an injunction, saying it violates the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution. Gonzales Ramos also blocked another Texas voter ID law, which passed in 2011 and took effect in 2013. A number of subsequent legal challenges have largely blocked that law.

The protracted legal battle over Texas and its voter ID laws–among the toughest in the country–represents a larger voter fraud debate, playing out at both at the state and federal levels. Critics of voter ID laws say Republican-controlled states are deliberately stymying minorities from voting, because they are more likely to vote Democratic. Proponents of voter ID laws say voter fraud is rampant and must be kept in check with tougher voting standards.

Gonzales Ramos said Texas’ updated law, which was set to take effect in January, “remains discriminatory because it imposes burdens disproportionately on blacks and Latinos.” She added that the revisions made in the updated law, known as Senate Bill 5, do not “fully relieve minorities of the burden of discriminatory featured” of the 2011 law.

“The court thus issues injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations of federal law and the recurrence of illegal behavior,” she wrote in the ruling.

Gonzales Ramos tossed the 2011 law, Senate Bill 14, in 2014. A circuit court affirmed the decision, but asked Ramos and the District Court for the Southern District of Texas to reexamine its discriminatory purpose. In April, Gonzales Ramos once again ruled that the law intentionally discriminated against minorities.

The original law required Texas voters to show one of seven forms of government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport. Critics contend minorities are less likely to have any of the seven ID options, and thus would be disproportionately barred from voting. The revamped law offered more options for identification, including utility bills or bank statements. Still, Gonzales Ramos found the law to be too restrictive.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has vigorously fought the legal challenges to the voter ID laws over the past few years. In a statement, he called Wednesday’s ruling “outrageous,” and vowed to appeal the decision. He also cited the Justice Department’s support of the law. Paxton added: “Safeguarding the integrity of elections in Texas is essential to preserving our democracy.”

Voting rights activists, civil rights groups, and a number of Democratic politicians cheered the decision. U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX), issued a statement saying, “Republican state leaders’ transparent efforts to make it harder and less likely that some Texans will vote are disgraceful.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Blocks Texas Voter ID Laws…Again appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Kris Kobach, appointed by President Donald Trump to investigate voter fraud, sent a letter to all 50 states, requesting their voter files. Voters’ names, their party affiliation, military status, and other personal information, Kobach wrote, should be handed over to the Election Integrity Commission. In addition, the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers should be provided to the federal government, the letter said.

Within a few days, a majority of states rejected Kobach’s request; many were aghast at his demands. And on Friday, Kobach himself said he could not comply with parts of his own request. Here is what you need to know about the whole situation:

Trump Decries Voter Fraud

Kobach’s effort has its roots in Trump’s repeated claims about voter fraud. Trump has said three to five million people illegally voted in last fall’s election, thus handing the popular vote to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. After the election, in which Trump won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, he tweeted, “in addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

He later pegged the number of illegal votes, in an unsubstantiated and so far unfounded claim, at three to five million. Kobach, during an interview in January, said, “If you take the whole country,” illegal votes were “probably in excess of a million, if you take the entire country for sure.”

In May, Trump created the Election Integrity Commission to investigate voter fraud during the 2016 election, appointing Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state, as the commission’s vice chairman. The commission is chaired by Vice President Mike Pence.

Kobach’s Letter

Last Wednesday, Kobach sent a letter to all 50 secretaries of states–even the ones who are not in charge of their state’s voter information. The letter specifically requested:

Publicly-available voter roll data including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.

Kobach said the information would be made available to the public, and said states had until July 14 to fork over the information to the commission.

“Yet Another Boondoggle”

As of Monday afternoon, at least 27 states have rebuffed all or parts of Kobach’s request–including Kansas, Kobach’s own state. Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia reacted swiftly to the letter, saying he has “no intention of honoring [Kobach’s] request.” He added in a statement: “Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia.”

Alex Padilla, California’s secretary of state, said he “will not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally.” Some states have said they would provide Kobach with “publicly available information” like voter rolls, while questioning the commission’s true intentions.

Voting rights advocates have rejected Kobach’s letter as a “propaganda tool” to justify voter suppression ordinances in the future. Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said:

I have every reason to think that given the shoddy work that Mr. Kobach has done in this area in the past that this is going to be yet another boondoggle and a propaganda tool that tries to inflate the problem of double registration beyond what it actually is.

And on Friday, Kobach himself suggested he could not comply with his own request. In an interview with the Kansas City Star, Kobach said he would not provide the commission with Kansas voters’ Social Security information.

“In Kansas, the Social Security number is not publicly available,” he said. “Every state receives the same letter, but we’re not asking for it if it’s not publicly available.”

Meanwhile, over the weekend, Trump expressed his discontent with the states refusing to comply.

Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Quest to Prove His Claim About Voter Fraud: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from Texas officials who wish to restore their state’s voter ID law, which lower courts ruled unconstitutional and discriminatory against minorities. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the order on the case. In his brief statement, he left open the possibility of hearing the case after it is finished moving through the lower courts.

“Petitioners may raise either or both issues again after entry of final judgement,” Roberts wrote. “The issues will be better suited for certiorari review at that time.” The courtroom tussle over the ID law goes back to 2014, when a federal judge first struck down the bill as “unconstitutional.” Other federal courts took up the case as well; one affirmed the 2014 decision, and another is awaiting trial.

Enacted in 2011, the Texas law requires voters to present photo identification–a Texas driver’s license, gun license, military ID, or passport–at the voting booth. Critics contend that it is specifically aimed at silencing the minority vote; adherents say it is meant to stanch voter fraud. Up until 2013, the Voting Rights Act required states with a history of discrimination, which includes Texas, to get approval from federal authorities before changing a state-level voter ID law.

In 2013 however, the Supreme Court struck down the section of the Voting Rights Act that required federal approval for changes in a states’ voting laws. Texas began enforcing this one. But soon after, the law was challenged in the Federal District Court in Corpus Christi. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found the law to be an “unconstitutional burden on the right to vote,” adding that it has “an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans.”

Texas officials were adamant that the challengers to the law “presented no evidence that the law resulted in diminished minority political participation or prevented even a single person from voting.” The challengers to the law responded, saying it was an “unusually and unnecessarily harsh law, affecting over 600,000 registered voters, and taking aim specifically at minority voters.”

While the National Conference of State Legislatures previously classified the Texas law as a “strict photo ID law,” it now puts it in in the “nonstrict voter ID” category. This includes states that allow voters to sign an affidavit in lieu of a photo ID if they are unable to produce one at the polls. For now, at least, this policy will hold.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rejects Hearing for Appeal to Restore Texas Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

A post-election investigation by The New York Times found that among 49 states (Kentucky would not respond to any requests) and D.C., voter fraud during the 2016 election was virtually nonexistent. Election officials in 26 states and D.C. found “no credible allegations of fraudulent voting,” according to the Times report, while only a handful of states reported fraud claims that required further review.

Claims of voter fraud are hardly new. But from governor races to the presidential election, and from governors who were unseated to the president-elect himself, 2016 has breathed new life into the debate. Tennessee and Georgia reported the most widespread instances of claims that justified further review, at 40 and 25 claims respectively. But a lack of evidence of widespread, election-altering voter fraud should quell most concerns.

Republicans–including President-elect Donald Trump–have largely been behind the push to limit voter fraud by tightening voter ID laws, many of which have been struck down by federal courts. Still, others have questioned the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential race as well, most notably Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Stein challenged the results in three states that were key to Trump’s victory: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which was the only state of the three to move forward with Stein’s recount request. The recount in Wisconsin yielded an even greater margin of victory for Trump.

But the crusade against voter fraud has mainly come from Republicans. On November 27, in response to doubts about the validity and necessity of the Electoral College, and the insistence that he lost the popular vote by over 2.8 million votes, Trump tweeted:

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

Two of Trump’s closest surrogates, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and Trump’s Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, have deflected the president-elect’s claims that “millions of people” voted illegally. In an interview with “60 Minutes” a few weeks ago, Ryan, when pressed about Trump’s comments, said: “I don’t know. I’m not really focused on these things.” And Priebus, when asked the same question in a recent interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” said: “I don’t know that it’s not true…It’s possible.”

Distrust for the legitimacy of some votes didn’t just come from the top of the GOP ticket. In North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory, the incumbent Republican who lost to Democrat Roy Cooper, ordered a weeks-long review into statewide voter fraud. McCrory conceded defeat on December 6, after the Republican-led state and county boards found little evidence of fraud. Out of nearly 4.7 million ballots, 25 were illicitly casted by felons, though that does not mean they knew that doing so was illegal. Some of the “dead voters,” (deceased people who, some Republicans claim, are used by the living to cast ballots) had cast their votes early, and then actually did pass away by Election Day.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Post-Election Review Finds Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

Putting an end to a nearly month-long stalemate on Monday, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina ceded the election to his Democratic opponent, Roy Cooper. McCrory lost the election last month by just over 10,000 votes, among the slimmest margins in the country. But McCrory demanded a recount, despite, as of his concession on Monday, no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

In a video statement on Monday, McCrory said:

Despite continued questions that should be answered regarding the voting process, I personally believe that the majority of our citizens have spoken and we now should do everything we can to support the 75th governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper.

McCrory was elected to his first term as governor in 2012, enjoying support from both sides of the aisle. But in March, McCrory’s attracted national attention, largely negative, for signing H.B. 2, the law that required people in public buildings to use the bathroom that corresponded to the gender listed on their birth certificate. His stock quickly fell. The law ended up costing North Carolina important investments, as artists refused to perform there, and the NBA decided its All-Star game would take place in New Orleans, not Charlotte as originally planned.

McCrory finally conceded the NC governor’s race, proving even the most stubborn stains on our social fabric can be scrubbed out eventually.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) December 5, 2016

With McCrory’s loss, North Carolina’s governorship is one of the few bright spots for Democrats, as Republicans maintained their majority in both chambers of Congress, and President-elect Donald Trump won the White House. The GOP gained two governorships overall on November 8 and now hold 33 in total, up from 31 during the last term. And while Cooper’s win is a boost for Democrats, broadly and in North Carolina, the state legislature is still controlled by Republicans.

Roy Cooper, who has served as North Carolina’s attorney general since 2001, was able to breathe a sigh of relief on Monday. In a statement, Cooper stressed unity moving forward. “It will be the honor of my life to serve this great state,” he said. “While this was a divisive election season, I know still that there is more that unites us than divides us. Together, we can make North Carolina the shining beacon in the south by investing in our schools, supporting working families and building a state that works for everyone.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina Governor Race is Officially Over as McCrory Concedes Defeat appeared first on Law Street.

If Trump loses the election tonight, he’s definitely not going down without a fight. The Republican presidential nominee has already filed a lawsuit against the state of Nevada over an early voting dispute.

The lawsuit accuses Clark County, Nevada, of keeping the polls open “two hours beyond the designated closing time” Friday night. The polling locations closed at 7 PM; however, some polling locations were kept open until 10 PM to accommodate voters waiting in line.

Nevada state law requires that voters be allowed to cast their ballots if they have entered a polling place, or are physically waiting in line to vote at the time of closing.

As it just so happens, the Las Vegas polling places targeted in the suit happen to be home to large Hispanic populations–and Hillary Clinton has a significant advantage over Donald Trump with Hispanic voters.

The Trump campaign called the extended voting times evidence of a “rigged system,” and alleged that Clark Country voting registrar Joe Gloria’s actions “very much appear to have been intentionally coordinated with Democratic activists.”

According to Business Insider, Judge Gloria Sturman denied Trump’s lawyer’s request for Gloria to preserve the names of the poll workers who permitted the late voting–mainly because he is already legally required to do so.

“I don’t get what you’re asking,” Judge Sturman told David Lee, a lawyer with the Trump campaign.

“I can’t obligate [Gloria] to do something he’s already obligated to do,” Sturman said. “This is Election Day. He has other things to be doing.”

Sturman maintained that she would not expose the poll workers to harassment and an army of Twitter trolls, especially when “they’re not here to defend themselves.”

Trump’s lawyers also requested that the votes cast after 7 PM not be “co-mingled” with the other votes, but that request was shot down as well.

While Trump may not have been successful in what very well may be his first attempt at proving voter fraud, it’s very clear that he’s steadfast in disputing the election if the results don’t swing in his favor.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Campaign Sues Nevada For Keeping Early Voting Polls Open Late appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge has ordered the Republican National Committee to provide details on what kind of agreements it has with the Trump campaign for preventing voter fraud and maintaining “ballot security.” The RNC is bound by a decree from 1982 to not engage in voter fraud prevention activities without the consent of a federal court.

The judge also ordered the RNC to give an explanation of what Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and Mike Pence were alluding to when they recently said that their campaign is collaborating “closely” with the RNC to make sure there is no voter fraud going on. The order comes after a lawsuit that the Democratic National Committee filed against the RNC last week, alleging that it is supporting the Trump campaign with ballot security measures that could be illegal.

Trump has been talking at great lengths about how widespread voter fraud is and claiming that the system is rigged. On his website he urges people who see anything “suspicious” going on at the polls to personally intervene or to sign up to become a volunteer “Trump Election Observer.” This is all to prevent Crooked Hillary from rigging the election, of course.

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

At a rally in Cleveland, Trump claimed that there are 24 million registered voters that are “invalid or significantly inaccurate” and 1.8 million people registered to vote who are actually dead. But there is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud in America and Factcheck.org debunked Trump’s statements.

This makes it extra ironic that it was a Trump supporter who was arrested for attempting to vote twice in Iowa last week. Terri Lynn Rote, 55, said that she hadn’t planned on voting twice, it was just a spontaneous idea. “I don’t know what came over me,” she said to the Washington Post. She also told Iowa Public Radio that the polls are rigged, and she was afraid someone would change her Trump vote into a vote for Clinton.

Des Moines woman Terri Lynn Rote arrested for voting twice #voterfraud https://t.co/snE3mz9Tn6 pic.twitter.com/uCS09WQmOp

— Jeffrey Guterman (@JeffreyGuterman) October 28, 2016

The decree that blocks the RNC from engaging in any voter fraud prevention that is not approved by federal authorities came about after the RNC used armed guards at the polls in 1981 to intimidate minority voters. It is set to expire in December of next year, but if the DNC is correct in its suspicions, it could be extended. The RNC has until Wednesday at 5 PM to respond to the judge.

But individual presidential candidates are not bound by the decree, which means the Trump campaign is free to go ahead with whatever plans it has uphold “security” at the polls. And according to Slate, Republican officials all over the country are engaging in illegal measures to prevent Democrats from casting their votes. So why are the Republicans so sure that voter fraud exists? Maybe because in some cases they are the ones behind it.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders the RNC to Explain What it Means by “Ballot Security” appeared first on Law Street.

The presidential election will be rigged, Donald Trump has warned his supporters. He has suggested they man polling sites to screen for any fraud. It’s a charge Trump has been hurling for months, one that he is doubling down on, as election day nears and his poll numbers remain behind Hillary Clinton’s. On the Sunday talk shows, and in interviews with media outlets, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have countered Trump’s “rigged” rhetoric and sought to underscore the importance of trusting America’s democratic promise.

Trump’s latest missive came via Twitter on Sunday:

The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016

Representatives of both parties–including a number of Republican secretaries of state–have renounced Trump’s skepticism. “It is so irresponsible because what he’s doing really goes to the heart of our democracy,” Trey Grayson, a Republican and former secretary of state of Kentucky told The New York Times. “What is great about America is that we change our leaders at the ballot box, not by bullets.”

According to an Associated Press poll conducted earlier this month, some Trump supporters, and registered Republicans in general, are also wary of voter fraud. The survey found that of the Republicans who were polled, 49 percent believe there is a “great deal of fraud” in U.S. elections, while only 11 percent said there is “hardly any fraud.” Those percentages are considerably lower among Democrats: 22 percent think there is a a “great deal of fraud” in U.S. elections, and 36 percent said there is “hardly any fraud.”

Given that Republicans, according to the figures in the AP poll, seem to have less confidence in the coming election, Trump preemptively calling the presidential election “one big fix” and “one big, ugly lie,” could underscore that distrust. Trump’s running mate, Governor Mike Pence (R-IN), sent an assuring message on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, where he said he and Trump “will absolutely accept the result of the election.” Though he also called the election “rigged.”

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

So is there any truth to Trump’s voter fraud claims? Recent studies have shown no evidence to support widespread voter fraud, or even any amount of voter fraud that could sway an election any one way. One study examined 2,068 alleged-cases of voter fraud between 2000 and 2012, and found that only 10 of those were voter impersonation cases. Another analysis, conducted by a professor at Loyola Law School in 2014, found only 31 cases of voter impersonation in over one billion ballots cast in all elections (general, primary, special, and municipal) from 2000 to 2014.

Paul Ryan, who has ceased campaigning with Trump and has all but officially withdrawn his endorsement, is also at odds with his party’s torchbearer on this issue. A statement through his spokeswoman said: “Our democracy relies on confidence in election results, and the speaker is fully confident the states will carry out this election with integrity.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawmakers Seek to Restore Voter Confidence after Trump Tweets about “Rigged” Election appeared first on Law Street.

A particular viral video has been making its away across the blogosphere and has started to creep into mainstream news. What this video purportedly displays is a man committing clear “voter fraud” in Arizona. Here’s the video if you want to watch for yourself:

Although to be completely honest, it’s quite a dull almost nine minutes. All it is is a hispanic man putting ballots into a reader that he carried in in a box. Clear voter fraud evidence, right?

Wrong. It’s actually a man named Ben Marine, who works for Citizens for a Better Arizona. CBA is a progressive group that was actually founded in response to that god-awful “Papers Please” law that Arizona tried to institute a few years back. CBA succeeded in recalling Arizona State Senate President Russell Pierce, who was the driving force behind that law. Since then, CBA has worked as a grassroots-type organization. One of its stated goals is to increase voter participation in the Latino community. One of the ways they’ve done that has included voter drives to try to bring in those who requested absentee ballots.

CBA can legally gather people together to collect their absentee ballots, and deliver those sealed ballots, which have been sent to real people, to the ballot box. Drives like this make it easier for those who work or have other commitments and can’t always make it to the ballot box themselves to vote. Given the fact that elections are on Tuesdays, this is a common problem. Absentee ballots, early voting, and voter drives make it easier for those people to make sure their voices are heard. According to Arizona law, it’s entirely legal. The Arizona elections rules state:

After they have securely sealed the voted ballot inside the early ballot return envelope,
voters may voluntarily give their voted early ballot to a person of their choice for delivery
to the Recorder or a polling place. The designated person shall not tamper with the
envelope or the ballot and shall not deliberately fail to deliver the ballot to the Recorder
or a polling place within the voter’s county of residence.

So, CBA’s ballot collection would be illegal if Marine had tampered with the envelope or the ballot, but there’s literally no evidence to suggest that. All that the video shows is someone working with the CBA dropping off absentee ballots. Furthermore, Marine is actually registered to be able to drop off ballots.

Of course, a few different stories are being told about what actually happened. A.J. LaFaro, who chairs the Maricopa County Republican Committee called Marine  “a vulgar, disrespectful, violent thug that has no respect for our laws. I would have followed him to the parking lot to take down his tag number but I feared for my life.” That must have all happened off camera, of course.

First of all, how stupid would Marine be if he was committing voter fraud in that video? He’s wearing a shirt from the organization he works for, his face is easily identifiable, and he makes no effort to hide what he’s doing. If he was legitimately committing voter fraud, it would be the lamest attempt at doing something illegal I’ve ever seen.

But more importantly it’s this kind of fear-mongering that has led people to believe that voter fraud is actually a legitimate problem, even though there’s been almost no evidence to suggest so. An incredibly extensive study this summer published by the Washington Post found a grand total of 31 cases of voter fraud since 2000. And most of it was done by individuals, not a systemic effort by a group. But when you circulate a video like this with the inflammatory headlines like, “Liberal Activist Caught on Video Stuffing Hundreds of Ballots,” it’s gratuitous clickbait, it’s fear-mongering, and it’s silly. How about we all just concentrate on winning elections by appealing to the public with popular platforms, and changes that will positively impact constituents’ lives? Apparently, I shouldn’t be holding my breath for that.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Denise Cross Photography via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arizona Man Does His Job Dropping Off Ballots, Panic Ensues appeared first on Law Street.

America is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy, but can it possibly live up to that promise if its people don’t vote? This article attempts to explain which Americans vote, which don’t, how Congress can fix the issue, and why they probably won’t anytime soon.

Who votes?

If you are rich, old, white, have a college degree, and go to church often, you probably vote. This is the demographic that is most likely to turn up to the polls on Tuesday. According to the Pew Research Center, whites are disproportionately represented at the polls: 37 percent of white people are voters, as opposed to only 29 percent of non-whites. Forty-two percent of those who are over the age of 50 vote, while only 22 percent of those between 18-29 regularly vote. Almost half of all college degree holders vote, while those without degrees turn out at a measly 28 percent. Strangely enough, attending church makes you eight percent more likely to vote.

While the youth vote is low, it has been on the rise recently. Forty-four percent of young people voted in the 2008 election, the highest turnout since 1972. While that number did go down slightly in 2012, it was a still a higher turnout than 2000.

Find more information about who votes from this infographic couresty of Takepart.com.

Via: TakePart.com

How many Americans vote overall?

Not that many– in the 2012 election, only 58.2 percent of the nation voted for President. To put that in perspective, the turnout in the most recent Afghani election was about the same. Even though, the Taliban was threatening to blow up polling stations and conducted suicide bombings two months before Election Day.

In the 2010 midterm elections, it was even worse with only 41 percent of voter turnout. Less than a majority of American citizens voted for their representation in Congress in 2010.

The United States is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to voter turnout. Between 1945 and 2001, American voter turnout averaged at 66.5 percent. This means we ranked 120 out of 169 countries. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Hungary all had higher voter turnouts than United States.

More embarrassingly, as this video points out, America has the lowest voter turnout amongst developed nations:

Why don’t more people vote?

A plurality of non-voters cite apathy as the main cause. According to the Census Bureau, 26.4 percent of those who did not vote in 2008 chose not to exercise this right because they were uninterested in either candidate. This means that four million registered voters were not going to the polls no matter how easy it was to vote.

However, a significant number of registered voters did not make it to a polling station even though they wanted to vote. Almost 18 percent of registered voters did not cast a ballot because they were too busy, most likely because they were at work that Tuesday.

Why does the Constitution require Election Day to be on a Tuesday?

A video from the appropriately named organization “Why Tuesday” explains this odd rule:

It all goes back to the days of horse and buggy. There was no national electoral date until 1845, when Congress passed a law making it Tuesday. You see, Election Day could not be on Monday, because that would require voters to travel to the polls on horse and buggy on Sunday, which was the Sabbath day. And since Wednesdays were Market Days for farmers, Tuesday was the date that made the most sense.

There have been efforts to change the date, however, there has not been enough support. Rep. Steve Israel (NY-D) has introduced the Weekend Voting Act in multiple Congresses. In the 113th Congress (the current Congress), there has been no meaningful action on the bill and it only has four cosponsors.

So why are no leaders supporting a change? There is a policy explanation and a political explanation.

The policy explanation comes in the form of a study that shows that a change to weekend elections does not significantly improve voter turnout. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), early voting would, at most, improve voter turnout by only four percent. The GAO admitted that reporting on potential benefits and downsides of weekend voting was difficult since there was no American case to study, but they did go over 24 independent studies on the topic.

The report also included quotes from state and local officials expressing concern that they might not be able to find volunteers to work the polls if they have to compete with fun weekend activities.

Of course, like all things in Washington, there is a political aspect to this issue.

Weekend voting would disproportionately help the poor get to the polls. Single parents and those who work multiple would benefit from the move to the weekend. So, what’s wrong with that? Well, poor people tend to vote for the Democratic Party, making Republicans unlikely to pass any legislation that would make it easier for them to vote.

If we can’t change the date of Election Day, how else can we boost turnout?

Make Election Day a holiday

Instead of moving Election Day to the weekend, Congress could just declare Election Day a federal holiday, giving everyone the day off of work so that they can vote.

Rainn Wilson from The Office supports that idea in this weird video featuring a 19th century sharecropper voting in modern day America

On the flip side, making Election Day a federally recognized holiday solves none of the problems associated with moving Election Day to a weekend (makes it difficult to attract poll workers, doesn’t guarantee turnout), and it creates the problem of losing a workday in the middle of the week.

Mandate Voting

Congress could also use its taxing power to mandate voting. Australia, the country that boasts the highest voter turnouts, fines anyone who does not go to the polls. While the fine is only A$20 ($18), that is still enough to convince most people to go to the polls.

Mandated voting could also have the added benefit of forcing candidates to run towards the center of American politics as opposed to attracting radicals. If everyone is voting, it makes little sense to try and appeal to people on the far end of the political spectrum. This phenomenon is explained in this video:

Of course, the American people aren’t the biggest fans of mandates recently, so it is unlikely that this will ever happen.

What other challenges do voters face at the polls?

Speaking of voting not being easy, it has actually become more difficult to vote in just the past few years. Here are a few ways that politicians and judges have curtailed access to the polls.

The Gutting of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to ensure the right to vote for all Americans. The law outlawed poll taxes and literacy tests, but, most importantly, it places the election laws of specific states and counties under the purview of the federal government. A list of these jurisdictions can be found here. That means that, if any of those states or counties passes a law altering their election format, the Department of Justice has the ability to step in and overturn the law if it is found to be discriminatory.

Well, it used to have this ability. In June 2013, the Supreme Court overturned section four of the law, which determined which states and counties had to get their laws approved by the federal government. The majority opinion stated that the country has changed dramatically since 1965 and that racism in election laws is basically over.

As a result, those jurisdictions are now allowed to make their own election laws without the review of the Department of Justice.

This report from SCOTUSblog shows what happened in Pasadena, Texas after this ruling took place.

Voter ID Laws

As a reaction to this ruling, literally days after it was passed down, states across the country started passing and implementing voter ID laws. These are laws that require voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has put together an interactive map that shows which states now require or request a photo ID at the polling booth.

Supporters claim that these laws are necessary in order to fight voter fraud. The problem? A News21 analysis shows that there have only been 10 cases of voter impersonation since 2000. That’s one out-of-fifteen million voters during that time period. This form of vote tampering has impacted exactly zero elections.

Opponents argue that these laws are thinly veiled attempts to stop poor people and minorities from voting. 11 percent of US citizens do not have a photo ID, and 25 percent of African Americans do not have voter ID. Since photo ID requires a purchase in most states, the new law prevents poor voters from voting.

Why is it important to get more people to vote?

I’ll let P. Diddy and then-Senate candidate Barack Obama from 2004 take this one:

Conclusion

Americans currently face many obstacles at the polls, and Congress seems to have little interest or stake in solving them. As long as Election Day is still a workday and states pass restrictive voting laws, voter turnout will remain low.

Resources

Primary

Census: Voting and Registration Information From the Census Bureau in 2008

Congress: The Weekend Voting Act

GAO: Improving Voter Turnout

Additional

Pew: Who Votes and Who Doesn’t?

Child Trends: Trends in Young Vote

IDEA: Voter Turnout Rates From a Comparative Perspective

Washington Post: Census Bureau Findings

NPR: Why Do We Vote on Tuesday?

ABC: Democrats Eye a New Election Day

CNN: Election Day Should be a Federal Holiday

BBC: How Australia’s Voting Mandate Works

Guardian: The Supreme Court Guts the VRA…Since Racism is Over

NCSL: Map of States That Have Voter ID Laws

ACLU: Voter ID Laws

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Elections: Americans Don’t Rock the Vote and Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. District Court in Tampa dismissed a lawsuit filed last year to block Florida’s voter purge program. Two naturalized citizens and a Hispanic advocacy group collaborated on a lawsuit, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund v. Detzner, which claimed that Florida needed to obtain authorization from the federal government in order to remove the names of suspected non-U.S. citizens from the voter registry.

The court determined that the lawsuit was moot after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.  The Supreme Court’s decision eliminated the formula that allowed for the preclearance provision, which the federal government utilized to protect voters.

Florida’s voter purge uses a collection of driver’s licenses and voter registration files in order to create the initial list of voters who may not be citizens, which initially contained 180,000 names.  After comparison with more county records, Florida was able to compile a list of 2,600 registered voters who may not be citizens.  The state also has an agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to use the federal immigrant database in its voter purge efforts.

The obvious issue with Florida’s voter purge program is the unintended removal of suspected non-citizens who actually are citizens, such as Murat Limage and Pamela Gomez, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  In an effort to prevent non-citizens from voting, which may only happen in a relatively small quantity, the state is setting itself up for more trouble if any legitimate citizens are prevented from voting at the polls because they were incorrectly removed from the registration lists.

The state says that it is looking for ‘suspected’ non-U.S. citizens in the voter registry, which leads one to wonder what basis is being used to develop such suspicions.  The most likely explanation is that Florida is unfairly targeting Hispanic voters  suspected of voting illegally.  It is completely unacceptable for the state government to use any racial or ethnic basis in order to purge voter lists, and the Supreme Court’s decision should not change the fact that Florida’s Hispanic community must be protected from any potential violations by the state.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Atomische * Tom Glebel via Flickr]

Sameer Aggarwal

Sameer Aggarwal was a founding member of Law Street Media and he is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Sameer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democracy in Action: Florida Set to Resume Voter Purge appeared first on Law Street.