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.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a North Carolina voting law on Friday, concluding that it was passed with clear “discriminatory intent.”

The ruling forcefully reversed a district court finding that did not acknowledge the law’s intent to discriminate. In the ruling, Circuit Court Judge Diana Gibbon Motz writes,

In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.

Motz, also writing for judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd, goes on to note that the sequence of events that led to the law provides sufficient evidence to conclude that the law intentionally sought to restrict voting rights of African American voters in clear violation of the Voting Rights Act.

While many argue that voting laws like the one in North Carolina are passed for partisan reasons–by focusing on minority communities that traditionally vote for Democrats, Republican legislators may be seeking an electoral edge–the way this law in particular targeted race amounts to racial discrimination. And yes, challenges to these laws could also be considered partisan efforts on behalf of the Democrats as well, but the racial focus here appears to take it a step further.

A Quick Look at the Voting Rights Act

To understand this case in North Carolina, it’s important to understand the Voting Rights Act. Congress passed the VRA in 1965 to ensure that African Americans and all minority voters would not be discriminated against at the polls.

The law took a particularly active approach to dealing with an enormous challenge. It created a formula to identify states and locales where voting was polarized by race and then added additional safeguards to changing voting laws there. Section 4 of the law created that so-called “coverage formula,” and coupled it with a preclearance requirement in Section 5. That requirement mandated that state and local governments falling within the coverage formula get explicit approval from the Department of Justice before changing voting laws.

The law also maintains provisions to ensure that race-based discrimination does not happen and places redistricting requirements on states to ensure minority representation, among other protections. But the preclearance requirement and coverage formula took the center of attention in an infamous Supreme Court ruling in 2013. That case, Shelby County v. Holder, struck down the coverage formula and ended the preclearance system as it existed at the time. Justice Roberts, who wrote the 5-4 opinion, concluded that the law employed “extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem,” but that those measures are no longer needed. He went on to argue that the coverage formula used to determine which areas require preclearance now violates states’ rights and equal sovereignty as laid out in the 10th Amendment.

Since that ruling, governments have been free to change their voting laws as they see fit without the need for preclearance from the Justice Department. And that brings us to the recent challenge in North Carolina.

The North Carolina Ruling

Judge Motz notes in the ruling that between 2000 and 2012–a period when preclearance was needed for to all statewide and many local voting law changes in North Carolina–registration and participation surged among black voters. By 2012, black voter registration had increased by about 50 percent and turnout nearly reached parity with that of white voters, at about 70 percent. But shortly after the Supreme Court issued its Shelby County ruling, the state assembly began the process to overhaul its voting laws. According to the ruling, the new law would have several effects on black voters in the coming November election:

In this one statute, the North Carolina legislature imposed a number of voting restrictions. The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used.

In cases like this, it is particularly difficult to prove that a legislature acted with discriminatory intent, but the court concluded that there was enough evidence to indicate that race was central to the new law. That holds true, according to Motz, even if it was done for partisan reasons and not outright racial hatred or racism. The ruling notes that almost immediately after the Shelby County opinion came down in June 2013, the North Carolina legislature began drafting new voting restrictions. It also notes:

Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

This indicates that shortly after the state did not need preclearance to pass a new voting law, it looked into how certain voting practices related to race, and then passed a new law limiting certain practices. Based on that sequence of events, the court ruled there was clear intent to discriminate based on race.

Going Forward

While the ruling effectively struck down the law, the court declined to use another section of the Voting Rights Act to impose a preclearance requirement on North Carolina after finding discriminatory intent. Essentially, it chose not to reinstate the preclearance requirement on the state using a different part of the VRA. As Rick Hasen–a law professor at University of California, Irvine–notes in a blog post, the state can still appeal the ruling to the Fourth Circuit en banc, which means that all of the judges, not just the original panel of three judges, would review the case. It could also appeal to the Supreme Court, but as Hasen notes, the court may not decide to hear the case given its current eight justice makeup and the Circuit Court’s decision not to implement a preclearance requirement.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why A Circuit Court Struck Down North Carolina’s Discriminatory Voting Law appeared first on Law Street.

A Texas law that critics see as a discriminatory measure against minorities and supporters see as a bulwark against voter fraud was reviewed by a federal appeals court on Tuesday. A decision to uphold, strike down, or tweak the law is expected by July at the latest.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard arguments Tuesday morning in New Orleans. Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller testified in favor of the law while Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund argued against it.

SB 14–the law in question–was passed in 2011 with a signature from then-Texas Governor Rick Perry. A number of states have enacted more stringent voting laws since the last presidential election in 2008, with SB 14 being the toughest in the nation. It requires one of six forms of identification–driver’s license, personal ID, military ID, an official birth certificate, a passport, or a gun license–that some civil rights groups and Democrats see as purposefully limiting the rights of black, Hispanic and low income voters. College IDs do not suffice. 

The appeals court is under pressure by the U.S. Supreme Court to finalize a decision by July, as it’s one of a number of such cases that the high court is seemingly hopeful will be settled by the November election.

“If, on or before July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals has neither issued an opinion on the merits of the case nor issued an order vacating or modifying the current stay order, an aggrieved party may seek interim relief from this court by filing an appropriate application,” the Supreme Court said in an order in April.

In the early stages of the appeal process, there seems to be little indication SB 14 will be repealed or significantly amended, though the judges did raise the question of why the law did not include any provisions that would act as a plan B in case a voter could not procure any of the six identifying documents.

In 2012, a federal court in Washington struck down the law, one of three courts to do so, though the Texas legislature has refused to act. Judge David S. Tatel wrote the opinion at the time: “That law will almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty.”

How the appeals court will act on this issue could affect other fights involving voting rights throughout the country. With the November election fast approaching, this is an important case for voters in Texas and beyond.

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 Texas Voter ID Law Reviewed by Federal Appeals Court appeared first on Law Street.

British comedian John Oliver is back with a new set of “Last Week Tonight” episodes, and this weekend, he chose to take on the contentious voter ID laws that have been sweeping much of the nation for the last few years.

The 14-minute-long clip gives a pretty good rundown on a number of common-sense arguments against voter ID laws, including how difficult it can be for some people–particularly minority voters–to gain a photo ID if they don’t already have one.

Most importantly, Oliver pointed out that there’s really very little evidence to suggest that voter fraud is a problem. While estimates vary, multiple studies and surveys have come to same conclusion: voter fraud is so rare as to be negligible. In a large study conducted by Justin Levitt, a professor at the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, only 31 cases of voter fraud were found from 2000-2014. That’s 31 cases, out of over a billion votes cast in that time period.

So what do voter ID laws really do? There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that they just keep people from voting, particularly minority voters. A new UC San Diego study looked at states that have recently put voter ID laws into effect, and found that minority participation saw a serious downturn. According to the Latin Post:

The study revealed Latino turnout decreased by an average of 9.3 points and black turnout by 8.6 points during primary elections where a strict voter ID law had been enacted.

The arguments made by Oliver in the first portion of the clip are all arguments that we’ve heard before, and while it’s admirable that John Oliver is bringing them up once again–given that various states don’t seem to be getting the message and keep passing totally unnecessary voter ID laws–he then veers off to point out hypocrisy on the part of the legislators in a wonderfully unexpected way.

Oliver delves into the practice of “ghost voting,” essentially when legislators cast votes for each other in sessions. Sometimes this means that legislators vote twice, or that others are voting for them–and they certainly don’t need to show any ID to do so. News Channel 5 in Tennessee looked into Oliver’s claims, to show how “ghost voting” can actually happen:

So, as Oliver pointed out, the same people who are concerned about individuals committing voter fraud aren’t so squeaky clean when it comes to voting accurately themselves. Oliver’s claims certainly add yet another ironic facet to the voter ID battle that threatens to continue in 2016. 

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 Last Week Tonight is Back: John Oliver Demolishes Voter ID Argument appeared first on Law Street.

The passage of voter identification laws has been a popular political fire-starter in recent years. At their core they make sense–you should have to be who you say you are in order to vote. But in practice there are significantly more nuances, problems, and historical concerns that accompany voter ID laws. Read on to learn about the complicated arguments over voter ID laws.

What is a Voter ID Law?

At its core it’s pretty much exactly what it sounds like–a law requiring that photo identification is shown before a citizen votes. It is used to confirm that the person voting is who she says she is, and that she is in fact registered to vote. Voter ID laws have taken a few different forms in the United States. The National Conference of State Legislatures delineated several different categories of these laws.

Strict voter ID laws that require photo ID: At least seven states have strict voter ID laws that require photo identification in 2014, including Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. This type of law require that a voter show some sort of government-issued photo ID, usually from a list of acceptable options provided by the state. These laws also usually allow a voter who doesn’t have an approved form of identification to cast a provisional ballot, but require the voter to take extra steps after the ballot has been cast, such as return with an ID a few days later.

Strict voter ID laws that don’t require photo ID: At least three states have strict voter ID laws not requiring photo identification in 2014, including Arizona, North Dakota, and Ohio. Although these laws don’t require a voter to show photo identification, they do require an approved ID of some sort, such as proof of address or a birth certificate. Again, these lists are curated by the states themselves; however, if that form of identification is not provided, a voter in these states would have to return with it at some point.

Less-strict voter ID laws that require photo ID: At least eight states have this level of photo ID at the polls in 2014, including Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. While states in this category do require photo ID, there are ways around showing it. For example, some states allow a voter to sign an affidavit proving his identity, or to send a letter confirming who he is.

Less-strict voter ID laws that don’t require photo ID: At least 13 states have this level of photo ID at the polls in 2014, including Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington. Voters are required to bring some form of non-photo identification; however, if they don’t they can still vote by signing an affidavit attesting to their identities.

No ID law at all: At least 17 states do not require ID to vote, including California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Some of these states, however, have enacted or are working to enact voter ID laws for future elections.

Voter ID laws are now in 17 more states than they were in 2000. http://t.co/HaPbgUZnnz pic.twitter.com/jop0rVD8Qz

— FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) November 1, 2014

What is the argument for voter ID laws?

The Rock the Vote campaigns have lost a little bit of their edge as voter identification laws are increasingly enacted across the country. Supporters of voter ID laws argue that certain measures of identification are necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure the sanctity of the election process. They also argue that requiring a government-issued ID in order to cast a ballot is not too much too ask, as everyone has some sort of government identification on his or her person at all times.

Voter ID laws have traditionally received support from conservative politicians. As Mitt Romney put it in 2011:

I find it extraordinary that [US Attorney General] Eric Holder is, one more time, making a very serious error [in challenging a South Carolina law that requires a photo ID to vote]… The idea that people should not be able to be identified as they vote so that we can know that they are not voting multiple times. I mean, that’s the purpose here of course. We don’t want people voting multiple times and you can get a photo ID free from your state. You can get it at the time you register to vote…That’s one more lawsuit I’d end if I were president of the United States.

 What’s the argument against voter ID laws?

Those against the bill argue that voter ID laws prevent college students from going to the polls and therefore suppress youth voting, which is already an issue that many organizations work to combat. College students and other young people often don’t have government-issued photo IDs that contain their current addresses, because their permanent residence is often different from where they live during college. There are also allegations that these laws are passed merely for the sake of being passed. Some of the most controversial provisions of the bills seem to be included without much thought and even go unread by those signing them into law.

Some elected officials argue that voter ID laws prevent minority and elderly voters who lack the means to comply with them. Others argue that the laws are American conservatives’ means to subtly discriminate against minority voters. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as much as seven percent of Americans don’t have proof of citizenship, and as much as 11 percent don’t have a government-issued photo ID. The reasons for this are myriad–the Brennan Center points out that married women disproportionately don’t have anything to prove their citizenship, because they’ve changed their last names. In addition, the elderly, the poor, and those who don’t have the funds to drive are unlikely to have government-issued photo ID.

Conclusion

In a political landscape that can only possibly be described as polarized, who can vote in an election is certainly at issue. While the idea of voter ID laws makes sense in theory, there are certainly valid questions as to the actual functionality of the laws. It is as much a political issue as an ethical one–it will be interesting to see which of those two competing interests ends up winning out.

Resources

Primary

US House of Representatives: House Bill 589 – Voter Information Verification Act

Additional 

Guardian: Felon Voting Rights Have Bigger Impact Than Voter ID Laws

The New York Times: States Rush to Enact Voting Laws

The New York Times: Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

CNN: Civil Rights Struggle Far From Over

Philly: Voter ID’s Fate Now In Judge’s Hands

Brennan Center: Citizens Without Proof

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voter ID Laws: Are They Necessary? 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 Justice Department is gearing up to take aggressive legal action in a string of voting rights cases across the country. This is an attempt to soften the impact of the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling on Voting Rights that invalidated section five of the act, which protects minority voters by requiring certain states with a history of discrimination to be granted court approval before making voting law changes.

In the coming weeks, the Justice Department will use other sections of the Voting Rights Act to bring lawsuits preventing states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present identification in order to vote. The department will attempt to force some states to receive approval or preclearance before they change election laws. Their first step will support lawsuit a in Texas concerning the state’s redistricting plan. Additionally, Attorney General Eric Holder is asking a federal judge to require Texas to submit all voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval for a ten-year period because of its history of discrimination.

[The Washington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [SEIU via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Battle Royal: Justice Department Challenges States on Voting Rights Laws appeared first on Law Street.