Voter Suppression ((Supreme Court Just . . .))
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
source: Think Progress
13 GOP Pennsylvania Senators Introduce New Plan To Rig The Electoral College For Republicans
Earlier this year, Republican National Committee Chair urged Republican lawmakers in states “that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” — i.e. blue states with Republican legislatures and governors — to enact a plan rigging the Electoral College so that it would be almost impossible for a Democrat to win the White House. Under these plans, a large chunk of blue state electoral votes would be allocated to the Republican candidate even if the Democratic presidential candidate won the state as a whole. Although some state lawmakers in key blue states such as Wisconsin or Michigan endorsed versions of this plan, the election rigging plans were widely derided as exactly what they are — cheating — and soon, even top Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) or Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wanted nothing to do with election rigging. The plans to rig the Electoral College appeared dead.
Except, that is, for Pennsylvania.
Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA) was one of the earliest supporters of rigging the Electoral College, backing a plan to do so as early as 2011. Republican state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi was one of the leading supporters of election-rigging the and late this week, he — along with a dozen other co-sponsors — introduced a new plan to rig the Electoral College votes in his blue state of Pennsylvania. Under this legislation, a large chunk of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes would be awarded to the Republican candidate even though Pennsylvania is a solid blue state that has supported the Democratic candidate for president in every election since 1992.
Of course, while the Republican election-rigging plan calls for blue states to give away electoral votes to Republicans, red states like Texas or South Carolina will continue to award 100 percent of their electors to the Republican:
The 13 co-sponsors on Pileggi’s bill amount to exactly half of the 26 votes he needs to pass the bill through the state senate. According to state Rep. Mike Sturla (D-PA), now that Pileggi has introduced his election-rigging plan, Republicans could conceivably ram it through both houses of the state legislature and have it on Corbett’s desk in just four days.
13 GOP Pennsylvania Senators Introduce New Plan To Rig The Electoral College For Republicans
Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Domini Pileggi (R)
Earlier this year, Republican National Committee Chair urged Republican lawmakers in states “that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” — i.e. blue states with Republican legislatures and governors — to enact a plan rigging the Electoral College so that it would be almost impossible for a Democrat to win the White House. Under these plans, a large chunk of blue state electoral votes would be allocated to the Republican candidate even if the Democratic presidential candidate won the state as a whole. Although some state lawmakers in key blue states such as Wisconsin or Michigan endorsed versions of this plan, the election rigging plans were widely derided as exactly what they are — cheating — and soon, even top Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) or Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wanted nothing to do with election rigging. The plans to rig the Electoral College appeared dead.
Except, that is, for Pennsylvania.
Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA) was one of the earliest supporters of rigging the Electoral College, backing a plan to do so as early as 2011. Republican state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi was one of the leading supporters of election-rigging the and late this week, he — along with a dozen other co-sponsors — introduced a new plan to rig the Electoral College votes in his blue state of Pennsylvania. Under this legislation, a large chunk of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes would be awarded to the Republican candidate even though Pennsylvania is a solid blue state that has supported the Democratic candidate for president in every election since 1992.
Of course, while the Republican election-rigging plan calls for blue states to give away electoral votes to Republicans, red states like Texas or South Carolina will continue to award 100 percent of their electors to the Republican:
The 13 co-sponsors on Pileggi’s bill amount to exactly half of the 26 votes he needs to pass the bill through the state senate. According to state Rep. Mike Sturla (D-PA), now that Pileggi has introduced his election-rigging plan, Republicans could conceivably ram it through both houses of the state legislature and have it on Corbett’s desk in just four days.
Supreme Court guts landmark civil rights law
Circa 1965: Participants, some carrying American flags, marching in the civil rights march from
Selma to Montgomery, Alabama in 1965 (Photo by Buyenlarge/Getty Images, File
The Supreme Court has ruled that a key part of the Voting Rights Act—the landmark civil-rights law protecting racial minorities from discrimination at the polls—is unconstitutional in its current form.
The 5-4 decision, announced Tuesday morning, invalidates—at least for now—Section 5, a crucial tool for fighting racial discrimination in voting, and comes at a time of rising concern over efforts to restrict access to the ballot box. It represents a victory for conservatives, and a blow to the voting rights of millions of non-white Americans.
“The Supreme Court has effectively gutted one of the nation’s most important and effective civil rights laws,” said Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Minority voters in places with a record of discrimination are now at greater risk of being disenfranchised than they have been in decades. Today’s decision is a blow to democracy. Jurisdictions will be able to enact policies which prevent minorities from voting, and the only recourse these citizens will have will be expensive and time-consuming litigation.”
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires that certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination, including most southern states, submit any changes to their election systems to the U.S. Justice Department for “pre-clearance.” The Justice Department is empowered to block changes that could reduce minority voting power. In the decision announced Thursday, Shelby County v. Holder, the court ruled that the formula used by Congress to decide which jurisdictions are covered under the law, known as Section 4b, violates the Constitution.
“We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority. “Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.”
That means that if Congress were to pass new legislation changing the formula, Section 5 could be revived. And voting-rights advocates inside and outside Congress told MSNBC before the ruling that they’ve already begun discussions toward that goal. But given the partisan nature of the issue, and the current level of congressional gridlock, it figures to be a very heavy lift.
HOW THEY VOTED
The court’s four other conservatives, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy, joined Roberts in the majority.
The four liberal justices dissented.
In a rare step, Justice Ginsburg read her dissent form the bench, arguing that it was the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act in stopping race discrimination that had doomed Section 5. ”In the Court’s view, the very success of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy."
Lawyers for Shelby County, Ala. argued that the south has made progress on race relations since the 1960′s, meaning Section 5 in its current form is no longer needed, and violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. But in 2006, Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, finding that voting discrimination remains a problem in covered areas. And as the Justice Department noted, in recent years the provision has been used to block a slew of election changes in covered areas—including strict voter ID laws passed in 2011 by Texas and South Carolina, a Texas statewide redistricting plan that was found to have intentionally discriminated against minorities, and cutbacks to early voting in several Florida counties. And North Carolina—much though not all of which is covered under Section 5—passed a voter ID bill in April, which had appeared likely to be challenged under Section 5. All those measures were pushed by Republicans, and opposed by Democrats.
Still, restrictions on voting have not been confined to areas covered under Section 5. Since 2010, numerous states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have taken steps to make voting more difficult. The courts have blocked some though not all of those changes from taking effect.
Intentional racial discrimination in voting is still prohibited under a different part of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2. But voting-rights advocates say Section 2 is a far less effective tool than Section 5, because it puts the burden of proof on victims of discrimination, and forces them to sue after the fact—by which time an election might already have been held. Section 5, by contrast, requires the jurisdiction to affirmatively show that minority voting power won’t be set back, before the change it seeks to make can go into effect.
“Section 5 is the great stop sign, the great protector,” Barbara Arnwine, the president of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, said in February as the Supreme Court was preparing to hear the case. “There is no other tool in the Voting Rights Act that is the equivalent of Section 5.”
Conservatives had set their sights on Section 5 after Congress’s 2006 re-authorization. In a 2009 case brought by a Texas municipal district seeking to “bail out” from Section 5, the court avoided ruling on the provision’s constitutionality, but several of the conservative justices had appeared to encourage future challenges.
SOURCE
“Voting discrimination still exists, no one doubts that,” . . . “but the court today terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that discrimination.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reading dissent from the bench.
It's like I'm surprised and not surprised at the same time.
Amazing they could come to this decision in the aftermath of blatant voter suppression tactics by Republicans, often in those very same states.
I guess Roberts and Co had to do their part to help out in 2014 and '16.
Amazing they could come to this decision in the aftermath of blatant voter suppression tactics by Republicans, often in those very same states.
I guess Roberts and Co had to do their part to help out in 2014 and '16.
Given the usual 5-4 breakdown, I was never optimistic -- but I tried to remain hopeful. Interestingly, not only were there the blatant suppression tactics employed in the some of the very jurisdictions covered by the Act in the election just past, a town located in Shelby County, Alabama, the plaintiff in today's ruling, had itself recently been guilty of discriminatory conduct:
"In 2006, the City of Calera, which lies within Shelby County, enacted a discriminatory redistricting plan without complying with Section 5, leading to the loss of the city’s sole African-American councilman, Ernest Montgomery. In compliance with Section 5, however, Calera was required to draw a nondiscriminatory redistricting plan and conduct another election in which Mr. Montgomery regained his seat."
The VRA contains "Opt Out" or "bailout" provisions -- whereby a covered entity could be removed from coverage by showing that it has changed its ways. Shelby County never even attempted to opt or bailout. Hence, even if the factual argument can be made that some jurisdictions have changed, Shelby County, which has not even sought to be removed by showing it has "changed" -- is arguably not the proper plaintiff to justify todays "the county has changed" ruling.
My question is: how fast will the republicans/conservative/right wing move to take advantage of the SCOTUS strike down of section 4 of the 1965 Civil Rights Act?
Last edited:
No, we don't need the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Times have changed!
Last edited:
Didn't speak soon enough!
source: TPM
Texas Advances Voter ID Law After Supreme Court Strikes Down Voting Rights Act
Texas is wasting no time capitalizing on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act.
Shortly after the high court issued a sweeping 5-4 decision Tuesday striking down a centerpiece of the historic 1965 law, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott vowed to immediately implement a controversial voter ID law in the Lone Star State that was blocked last year by the now-gutted preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act.
“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott said, according to the Dallas Morning News. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”
The provocative move is the first in what could be a series of clashes between the Justice Department and state and local governments after the Supreme Court’s ruling. The court invalidated the section of the law specifying which state and local governments (all with a history of racial discrimination) are required to receive federal pre-clearance before making any changes to their voting laws. Texas was one of those states.
Shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its decision, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder warned in a televised speech that the Justice Department will take “swift enforcement actions” against any efforts to exploit the ruling and enact discriminatory voting laws. But the DOJ will have one less tool to do so.
Abbott fired off a series of tweets promising to move forward with the voter ID law, one of which declared that “Eric Holder can no longer deny [voter ID] in [Texas].”
That was the most amazing part to me. Seeing how the JD had to use Section 5 dozen of times since 2000 (as reported on Chris Hayes show yesterday), how could they, going just by the facts, come to that decision?
Politics at it's most naked. This is one more HUGE brick in the voter suppression wall they Republicans are building.
2 hours. Texas made sure to get to the front of the line. Seats are filling up quickly on this bus.
source: Think Progress
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act into law.
Six States Already Moving Forward With Voting Restrictions After Supreme Court Decision
Less than 48 hours after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, six of the nine states that had been covered in their entirety under the law’s “preclearance” formula have already taken steps toward restricting voting.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court’s five conservative justices ruled Tuesday that the formula, which required states with a history of racial discrimination to “preclear” changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice or a federal judge before enforcing them, was unconstitutional. Since then, these six states have already started moving on restrictions, many of which have adverse effects on the abilities of minorities, young people, and the poor to exercise their right to vote:
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act into law.
Six States Already Moving Forward With Voting Restrictions After Supreme Court Decision
Less than 48 hours after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, six of the nine states that had been covered in their entirety under the law’s “preclearance” formula have already taken steps toward restricting voting.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court’s five conservative justices ruled Tuesday that the formula, which required states with a history of racial discrimination to “preclear” changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice or a federal judge before enforcing them, was unconstitutional. Since then, these six states have already started moving on restrictions, many of which have adverse effects on the abilities of minorities, young people, and the poor to exercise their right to vote:
- Texas: The Lone Star State saw its strict voter ID law and redistricting plan blocked by the DOJ and federal courts last year. Just two hours after Tuesday’s decision came down, the state’s attorney general issued a statement suggesting both laws may go into effect immediately. On Wednesday, Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed slightly modified congressional maps into law, apparently deciding not to veto them and reinstate the more blatantly discriminatory maps blocked by the court. These new maps will not be screened by the DOJ. And Thursday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated two federal court decisions that had relied upon the VRA in blocking the voter ID law and redistricting plan.
- Mississippi: The state legislature approved a voter ID scheme in 2012, but it has not received DOJ clearance. Despite the restrictions, Mississippi’s secretary of state said Tuesday they would proceed with implementing the voter ID law and that “We’re not the same old Mississippi that our fathers’ fathers were.“
- Alabama: In 2011, the state passed a law requiring photo ID to vote, but never cleared it with the DOJ. Both the attorney general and the secretary of state said Tuesday they believed their plans could now be implemented in time for the 2014 elections.
- Arkansas: In April, the Arkansas legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto to pass their voter ID legislation. With preclearance out of the way, the state law can now be implemented without DOJ review.
- South Carolina: The Palmetto State passed a similar voter ID law in 2012, but DOJ at least succeeded in delaying its implementation. South Carolina’s attorney general issued a statement following the decision, lauding the Court for allowing the preclearance states to “to implement reasonable election reforms, such as voter ID laws similar to South Carolina’s.”
- Virginia: Unlike several of the other states, Virginia’s voter ID plan was not scheduled to be implemented until July 2014 anyway. But unless Congress replaces the preclearance formula before then, Virginia will also likely be able to move forward with its plan.
source: Think Progress
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act into law.
Six States Already Moving Forward With Voting Restrictions After Supreme Court Decision
Less than 48 hours after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, six of the nine states that had been covered in their entirety under the law’s “preclearance” formula have already taken steps toward restricting voting.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court’s five conservative justices ruled Tuesday that the formula, which required states with a history of racial discrimination to “preclear” changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice or a federal judge before enforcing them, was unconstitutional. Since then, these six states have already started moving on restrictions, many of which have adverse effects on the abilities of minorities, young people, and the poor to exercise their right to vote:
- Texas: The Lone Star State saw its strict voter ID law and redistricting plan blocked by the DOJ and federal courts last year. Just two hours after Tuesday’s decision came down, the state’s attorney general issued a statement suggesting both laws may go into effect immediately. On Wednesday, Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed slightly modified congressional maps into law, apparently deciding not to veto them and reinstate the more blatantly discriminatory maps blocked by the court. These new maps will not be screened by the DOJ. And Thursday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated two federal court decisions that had relied upon the VRA in blocking the voter ID law and redistricting plan.
- Mississippi: The state legislature approved a voter ID scheme in 2012, but it has not received DOJ clearance. Despite the restrictions, Mississippi’s secretary of state said Tuesday they would proceed with implementing the voter ID law and that “We’re not the same old Mississippi that our fathers’ fathers were.“
- Alabama: In 2011, the state passed a law requiring photo ID to vote, but never cleared it with the DOJ. Both the attorney general and the secretary of state said Tuesday they believed their plans could now be implemented in time for the 2014 elections.
- Arkansas: In April, the Arkansas legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto to pass their voter ID legislation. With preclearance out of the way, the state law can now be implemented without DOJ review.
- South Carolina: The Palmetto State passed a similar voter ID law in 2012, but DOJ at least succeeded in delaying its implementation. South Carolina’s attorney general issued a statement following the decision, lauding the Court for allowing the preclearance states to “to implement reasonable election reforms, such as voter ID laws similar to South Carolina’s.”
These moves mean that of the nine preclearance states, only Alaska, Arizona (which just had its own voter ID law struck down), and Georgia (whose own voted ID law was likely ruled unconstitutional in the same decision) have not moved to restrict the right to vote in less than two days since the ruling. The Court’s majority held that the formula for determining which states are subject to federal oversight is outdated, leaving the law without any jurisdictions requiring preclearance. If these states are any evidence, they may have just opened the door for massive disenfranchisement.
- Virginia: Unlike several of the other states, Virginia’s voter ID plan was not scheduled to be implemented until July 2014 anyway. But unless Congress replaces the preclearance formula before then, Virginia will also likely be able to move forward with its plan.
And, while the Supreme Court has re-energized their efforts, lets not forget their intent:
- "I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."- Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation
- "The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates," Greer told the Post. "It's done for one reason and one reason only...'We've got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us.'"-Jim Greer, former chairman of the Florida Republican Party
- "I'm going to be real honest with you. The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote if they are going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats." - Ken Emanuelson, Dallas Tea Party activist
- "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania? Done!" - Mike Turzai, Republican state representative from Pennsylvania
Top Pennsylvania Republican Admits
Voter ID Helped Suppress Obama Voters
Last year, Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) admitted that voter identification efforts were designed to suppress Democratic votes, telling a Republican Steering Committee meeting that Voter ID “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”
Romney ended up losing the state, but Republicans still believe that they successfully kept Democrats from supporting President Obama. As Pennsylvania’s GOP Chairman Rob Gleason told Pennsylvania Cable Network earlier this week, the party “cut Obama by 5 percent” in 2012 and “probably Voter ID had helped a bit in that.” Watch it:
Romney ended up losing the state, but Republicans still believe that they successfully kept Democrats from supporting President Obama. As Pennsylvania’s GOP Chairman Rob Gleason told Pennsylvania Cable Network earlier this week, the party “cut Obama by 5 percent” in 2012 and “probably Voter ID had helped a bit in that.” Watch it:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/XreSZvgdZwA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The constitutionality of law is now being challenged before the state Supreme Court, where statistician Bernard Siskin testified on Monday that the measure would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of registered voters, disproportionately affecting “Democrats and members of minority groups.” “By his calculations, Democrats are three times as likely as Republicans and minorities are about twice as likely as whites to lack a valid ID,” the Huffington Post’s Saki Knafo reported.
In December, Republican strategist Scott Tranter acknowledged that “a lot of us are campaign professionals and we want to do everything we can to help our sides. Sometimes we think that’s voter ID, sometimes we think that’s longer lines, whatever it may be.” The Romney campaign’s Wisconsin co-chair, state Sen. Alberta Darling (R), also suggested that the Massachusetts governor would have won Wisconsin but for the fact that the state’s voter ID law was declared unconstitutional by a state court.
Although the laws’ supporters claim that they are necessary to combat in-person voter fraud, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">a voter is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit fraud</span>. One study found that 0.0002 percent of votes are the product of such fraud.
In December, Republican strategist Scott Tranter acknowledged that “a lot of us are campaign professionals and we want to do everything we can to help our sides. Sometimes we think that’s voter ID, sometimes we think that’s longer lines, whatever it may be.” The Romney campaign’s Wisconsin co-chair, state Sen. Alberta Darling (R), also suggested that the Massachusetts governor would have won Wisconsin but for the fact that the state’s voter ID law was declared unconstitutional by a state court.
Although the laws’ supporters claim that they are necessary to combat in-person voter fraud, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">a voter is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit fraud</span>. One study found that 0.0002 percent of votes are the product of such fraud.
SOURCE
source: Raw Story
North Carolina poised to massively restrict voting access for poor and minority voters
North Carolina’s Republican-heavy General Assembly will consider a bill on Wednesday that would impose multiple restrictions on the voting process, including both state-mandated photo identifications and the curtailing of both early voting and same-day voter registration.
WTVD-TV reported that the bill would also increase the maximum individual campaign contribution from $4,000 to $5,000, and was the subject of a demonstration on Tuesday by voter advocacy group Democracy NC, which placed several pink flamingos near the state legislature to symbolize its fear GOP lawmakers were duplicating voter suppression efforts in Florida, saying the measure “redefines and restricts who can vote, where they can vote, how they can vote, and when they can vote, while it also releases more money to come into the political process.”
The bill, which was passed by the state Senate rules committee on Tuesday, would cut the early voting period by a week while also eliminating same-day voter registration and state voter registration drives, while not allowing 17-year-olds to register in advance of their 18th birthday. Student or local government identifications would not be accepted at the polls, and “poll observer” groups could have more latitude to challenge voters’ legitimacy, since they would only have to be registered in the same county as their targets and not the same precinct.
“There have been a number of complaints in a number of places about some aspects of the early voting — the length of the early voting,” state Sen. Phil Berger (R) told WTVD. “We’re just trying to look at where we are with the kinds of problems that we’ve had with some of the reforms that took place over the past several years, and try to make improvements.”
But according to the Associated Press, state Democrats countered that argument by saying that their own analysis found only two cases of voter fraud at the polls over the course of the last six state elections, compared to more than 30 million accurate votes cast. The bill would also likely have a disproportionate effect on poor, elderly or African-American voters, who are less likely to have the state identifications.
“This is the single worst bill we have seen introduced since voter suppression bills began sweeping the country two years ago,” Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law president and executive director Barbara Arnwine said in a statement Wednesday morning. “With all of the stories and images depicting long lines around the country during the 2012 election, it is stunning that North Carolina has intentionally gone to such extremes to restrict access to voting.”
Watch WTVD’s report, aired Tuesday, below.
<EMBED id=otvPlayer height=268 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=400 src="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/static/flash/embeddedPlayer/swf/otvEmLoader.swf?version=fw1000&station=wtvd§ion=&mediaId=9182485&cdnRoot=http://cdn.abclocal.go.com&webRoot=http://abclocal.go.com&configPath=/util/&site=" allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
[h/t Think Progress]
North Carolina poised to massively restrict voting access for poor and minority voters
North Carolina’s Republican-heavy General Assembly will consider a bill on Wednesday that would impose multiple restrictions on the voting process, including both state-mandated photo identifications and the curtailing of both early voting and same-day voter registration.
WTVD-TV reported that the bill would also increase the maximum individual campaign contribution from $4,000 to $5,000, and was the subject of a demonstration on Tuesday by voter advocacy group Democracy NC, which placed several pink flamingos near the state legislature to symbolize its fear GOP lawmakers were duplicating voter suppression efforts in Florida, saying the measure “redefines and restricts who can vote, where they can vote, how they can vote, and when they can vote, while it also releases more money to come into the political process.”
The bill, which was passed by the state Senate rules committee on Tuesday, would cut the early voting period by a week while also eliminating same-day voter registration and state voter registration drives, while not allowing 17-year-olds to register in advance of their 18th birthday. Student or local government identifications would not be accepted at the polls, and “poll observer” groups could have more latitude to challenge voters’ legitimacy, since they would only have to be registered in the same county as their targets and not the same precinct.
“There have been a number of complaints in a number of places about some aspects of the early voting — the length of the early voting,” state Sen. Phil Berger (R) told WTVD. “We’re just trying to look at where we are with the kinds of problems that we’ve had with some of the reforms that took place over the past several years, and try to make improvements.”
But according to the Associated Press, state Democrats countered that argument by saying that their own analysis found only two cases of voter fraud at the polls over the course of the last six state elections, compared to more than 30 million accurate votes cast. The bill would also likely have a disproportionate effect on poor, elderly or African-American voters, who are less likely to have the state identifications.
“This is the single worst bill we have seen introduced since voter suppression bills began sweeping the country two years ago,” Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law president and executive director Barbara Arnwine said in a statement Wednesday morning. “With all of the stories and images depicting long lines around the country during the 2012 election, it is stunning that North Carolina has intentionally gone to such extremes to restrict access to voting.”
Watch WTVD’s report, aired Tuesday, below.
<EMBED id=otvPlayer height=268 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=400 src="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/static/flash/embeddedPlayer/swf/otvEmLoader.swf?version=fw1000&station=wtvd§ion=&mediaId=9182485&cdnRoot=http://cdn.abclocal.go.com&webRoot=http://abclocal.go.com&configPath=/util/&site=" allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
[h/t Think Progress]
source: Think Progress
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act into law.
Six States Already Moving Forward With Voting Restrictions After Supreme Court Decision
Less than 48 hours after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, six of the nine states that had been covered in their entirety under the law’s “preclearance” formula have already taken steps toward restricting voting.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court’s five conservative justices ruled Tuesday that the formula, which required states with a history of racial discrimination to “preclear” changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice or a federal judge before enforcing them, was unconstitutional. Since then, these six states have already started moving on restrictions, many of which have adverse effects on the abilities of minorities, young people, and the poor to exercise their right to vote:
- Texas: The Lone Star State saw its strict voter ID law and redistricting plan blocked by the DOJ and federal courts last year. Just two hours after Tuesday’s decision came down, the state’s attorney general issued a statement suggesting both laws may go into effect immediately. On Wednesday, Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed slightly modified congressional maps into law, apparently deciding not to veto them and reinstate the more blatantly discriminatory maps blocked by the court. These new maps will not be screened by the DOJ. And Thursday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated two federal court decisions that had relied upon the VRA in blocking the voter ID law and redistricting plan.
- Mississippi: The state legislature approved a voter ID scheme in 2012, but it has not received DOJ clearance. Despite the restrictions, Mississippi’s secretary of state said Tuesday they would proceed with implementing the voter ID law and that “We’re not the same old Mississippi that our fathers’ fathers were.“
- Alabama: In 2011, the state passed a law requiring photo ID to vote, but never cleared it with the DOJ. Both the attorney general and the secretary of state said Tuesday they believed their plans could now be implemented in time for the 2014 elections.
- Arkansas: In April, the Arkansas legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto to pass their voter ID legislation. With preclearance out of the way, the state law can now be implemented without DOJ review.
- South Carolina: The Palmetto State passed a similar voter ID law in 2012, but DOJ at least succeeded in delaying its implementation. South Carolina’s attorney general issued a statement following the decision, lauding the Court for allowing the preclearance states to “to implement reasonable election reforms, such as voter ID laws similar to South Carolina’s.”
These moves mean that of the nine preclearance states, only Alaska, Arizona (which just had its own voter ID law struck down), and Georgia (whose own voted ID law was likely ruled unconstitutional in the same decision) have not moved to restrict the right to vote in less than two days since the ruling. The Court’s majority held that the formula for determining which states are subject to federal oversight is outdated, leaving the law without any jurisdictions requiring preclearance. If these states are any evidence, they may have just opened the door for massive disenfranchisement.
- Virginia: Unlike several of the other states, Virginia’s voter ID plan was not scheduled to be implemented until July 2014 anyway. But unless Congress replaces the preclearance formula before then, Virginia will also likely be able to move forward with its plan.
Holder Targets Texas in New Voting-Rights Push
Justice Department Wants to Scrutinize State
for Potential Discrimination
Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday that, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in June knocking down a key piece of voting-rights law, he would aggressively use other surviving parts of that law to continue scrutinizing states to see if they are making it harder for minorities to vote.
At a speech in Philadelphia, Mr. Holder said the Justice Department would seek to continue close examination of election law in Texas—using a legal fight over the drawing of that state's voting districts as justification.
The move is likely to anger conservatives who have long argued that the law has outlived its usefulness and punishes certain states—particularly in the South—based not on their current conduct, but on their past.
Texas marks the first such decision by the Justice Department since the Supreme Court ruling. "It will not be our last,'' Mr. Holder said, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">signaling the department was also likely to move against some states that have passed new voter-identification laws that critics call discriminatory</span>.
At issue is a process called preclearance, which is part of the 1965 Voting Rights Law. The Supreme Court knocked down a formula that determines which jurisdictions must receive federal preclearance of voting changes, a key part of that law.
Mr. Holder and others have decried that ruling, saying there was still ample need for laws to safeguard minority voting rights. But in Thursday's speech, he signaled the beginning of a new legal approach to try to continue much of the Justice Department's enforcement on the issue.
For states that are subject to preclearance, the Justice Department can move to block any changes to voting rules or procedures with either a discriminatory purpose or effect.
When the Supreme Court effectively nullified Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by ruling the formula used to identity jurisdictions that must receive preclearance isn't constitutionally valid, it effectively ended the longstanding preclearance standard for a host of states, including Texas.
Now, Mr. Holder said, the Justice Department will use a different section of the law to try to keep Texas subject to preclearance, based in large part on a case last year in which a federal court concluded congressional districts drawn by the Texas state Legislature were discriminatory to Hispanics. He said government lawyers would ask a judge to require that state to obtain prior approval from either the department or a federal court before implementing voting-rule changes.
At a speech in Philadelphia, Mr. Holder said the Justice Department would seek to continue close examination of election law in Texas—using a legal fight over the drawing of that state's voting districts as justification.
The move is likely to anger conservatives who have long argued that the law has outlived its usefulness and punishes certain states—particularly in the South—based not on their current conduct, but on their past.
Texas marks the first such decision by the Justice Department since the Supreme Court ruling. "It will not be our last,'' Mr. Holder said, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">signaling the department was also likely to move against some states that have passed new voter-identification laws that critics call discriminatory</span>.
At issue is a process called preclearance, which is part of the 1965 Voting Rights Law. The Supreme Court knocked down a formula that determines which jurisdictions must receive federal preclearance of voting changes, a key part of that law.
Mr. Holder and others have decried that ruling, saying there was still ample need for laws to safeguard minority voting rights. But in Thursday's speech, he signaled the beginning of a new legal approach to try to continue much of the Justice Department's enforcement on the issue.
For states that are subject to preclearance, the Justice Department can move to block any changes to voting rules or procedures with either a discriminatory purpose or effect.
When the Supreme Court effectively nullified Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by ruling the formula used to identity jurisdictions that must receive preclearance isn't constitutionally valid, it effectively ended the longstanding preclearance standard for a host of states, including Texas.
Now, Mr. Holder said, the Justice Department will use a different section of the law to try to keep Texas subject to preclearance, based in large part on a case last year in which a federal court concluded congressional districts drawn by the Texas state Legislature were discriminatory to Hispanics. He said government lawyers would ask a judge to require that state to obtain prior approval from either the department or a federal court before implementing voting-rule changes.
SOURCE
Yeah, it's going down here in NC. They've been running Moral Mondays in Raleigh in protest for weeks.
I've been closely watching/following the Moral Monday activities and the actions of the North Carolina Legislature in general. I know some of those with practices in the voting rights field believe that lessons from North Carolina might have application elsewhere.
source: Think Progress
Justice Ginsburg Reacts To Epidemic Of Voter Suppression Laws: Told Ya So
“I didn’t want to be right,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says about her prediction that striking a key prong of the Voting Rights Act will lead to a wave of minority voter suppression, “but sadly I am.” In an interview with the Associated Press’ Mark Sherman, Ginsburg reiterated one of the core points of her dissent from the five Republican justices’ voting rights decision — “The notion that because the Voting Rights Act had been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn’t make any sense to me,” Ginsburg said. “And one really could have predicted what was going to happen” once the law was struck down.
What has happened is a rush of voter suppression laws in states once subject to federal supervision under the provision gutted by Ginsburg’s Republican colleagues. Just two hours after the decision was announced, Texas’ attorney general announced that a common voter suppression law would take effect in Texas — and several other states are right behind Texas. In Arizona, Republicans want to redraw district lines to make them less “competitive,” now that federal supervision of the state’s redistricting has lifted. North Carolina Republicans are on the verge of enacting the worst voter suppression law in the country.
In her dissent, Ginsburg warned that “the evolution of voting discrimination into more subtle second-generation barriers is powerful evidence that a remedy as effective as preclearance remains vital to protect minority voting rights and prevent backsliding.” One month later, it’s already clear that Ginsburg was right.
Justice Ginsburg Reacts To Epidemic Of Voter Suppression Laws: Told Ya So
“I didn’t want to be right,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says about her prediction that striking a key prong of the Voting Rights Act will lead to a wave of minority voter suppression, “but sadly I am.” In an interview with the Associated Press’ Mark Sherman, Ginsburg reiterated one of the core points of her dissent from the five Republican justices’ voting rights decision — “The notion that because the Voting Rights Act had been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn’t make any sense to me,” Ginsburg said. “And one really could have predicted what was going to happen” once the law was struck down.
What has happened is a rush of voter suppression laws in states once subject to federal supervision under the provision gutted by Ginsburg’s Republican colleagues. Just two hours after the decision was announced, Texas’ attorney general announced that a common voter suppression law would take effect in Texas — and several other states are right behind Texas. In Arizona, Republicans want to redraw district lines to make them less “competitive,” now that federal supervision of the state’s redistricting has lifted. North Carolina Republicans are on the verge of enacting the worst voter suppression law in the country.
In her dissent, Ginsburg warned that “the evolution of voting discrimination into more subtle second-generation barriers is powerful evidence that a remedy as effective as preclearance remains vital to protect minority voting rights and prevent backsliding.” One month later, it’s already clear that Ginsburg was right.
This was from a few days ago, break down of the NC law that passed:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ssembly-takes-back-100-years-of-voters-rights
It is done.
Last night, the Republican supermajority in both the N.C. House and N.C. Senate voted in the most sweeping erasure of voters' rights in the past century. Despite fervent, fact-laden, data-driven, and passionate debates from Democratic lawmakers, both houses of the N.C. General Assembly passed HB589: The House vote was 73-41, along party lines, and the Senate vote was 33-14, also along party lines.
The House version of HB 589 started out earlier this year as a two-page voter-ID bill. After the May crossover to the N.C. Senate, the bill came back as a 57-page piece of legislation that would:
- Cut North Carolina's early-voting period from 17 to 10 days, although counties would still be required to provide the same number of hours for early voting -- an unfunded mandate that provides no resources or funds for counties to meet this requirement.
- Prohibit counties from extending early voting hours on the Saturday before Election Day to accommodate crowds.
- End early voting on the Sunday before Election Day, thereby outlawing the widely popular "souls to the polls" get-out-the-vote effort.
- Eliminate same-day voter registration during early voting.
- Eliminate pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, who currently can register to vote before they turn 18 (though, of course, they cannot vote).
- End a civics education program that teaches high school students about voting.
- Outlaw paid voter registration drives.
- Eliminate straight-ticket voting.
- Eliminate provisional voting if someone shows up at the wrong precinct.
- Prohibit counties from extending poll hours by one hour on Election Day in extraordinary circumstances, such as in response to long lines. Those in line at closing time would still be allowed to vote.
- Allow any registered voter of a county to challenge the eligibility of a voter, rather than just a voter of the precinct in which the suspect voter is registered.
- Move the presidential primary to first Tuesday after South Carolina's primary if that state holds its primary before March 15. That would mean North Carolina would have two primaries during presidential elections.
- Study electronic filing for campaign returns.
- Increase the maximum allowed campaign contribution per election from $4,000 to $5,000. The cap will be adjusted for inflation every two years, starting in 2015.
- Loosen disclosure requirements in campaign ads paid for by independent committees.
- Repeal the publicly funded election program for appellate court judges.
- Repeal the requirement that candidates endorse ads run by their campaigns.
These provisions were added to the bill by the N.C. Senate above and beyond the requirement that all voters must present a state-issues photo ID card in order to vote. The Senate also prohibited various types of photo identification from use as a valid ID -- including college/university IDs, photo IDs provided as a service by banks and credit unions, and other types of photo IDs. (Even photo IDs provided by state-run colleges and universities would be inadequate identification.)
Opposition to the bill was strong and heartfelt. In some cases, lawmakers tearfully related stories of older relatives who had fought threats and violence in order to cast their ballots. Other lawmakers brought forward statistics on the numbers of North Carolinians who might be disenfranchised from voting under the terms of the bill.
Many legislators even brought up the fact that Republicans rely on early voting, straight-party ballots, and "souls to the polls" transportation programs.
Some legislators even brought up the point of pride: Why would House members accept the fact that they sent a two-page bill to the Senate and got back a 57-page document that they had only a few days to review and that substantially perverted the initial House bill?
None of it mattered. The votes came along party lines, as expected.
In North Carolina, we mourned last night. We mourned.
But today we awoke to take back our state from the moneyed interests that have placed a price tag (tied to the Consumer Price Index, no less) on the rights of North Carolinians.
The N.C. House, having received back its HB 589 for a vote long after 8 p.m. last night and allotting only two hours to debate the 57-page travesty before passing it, was forced to meet again this morning to finish up the bills before it before adjourning until May 2014. The N.C. Senate had already adjourned last night, the work of its majority party done and relevant backs slapped.
Now we begin. Forward together. Knocked back a few steps, perhaps, but we will not be dissuaded from our destination of voter protection and full voting rights to all citizens of our fine state.
UPDATE
We have avid interest in US Attorney General Eric Holder's plans to mess with Texas and its own new draconian voter-suppression law.
This development hasn't escaped the keen eyes of North Carolina state leaders, though. Our own NC Attorney General Roy Cooper warned the governor not to sign the voter-suppression bill. Which is why the legislature quickly rick-rolled a last-minute attachment into a health-care transparency bill passed by the House and the Senate last night. The new provision allows the Speaker of the NC House and the President Pro Tem of the NC Senate to intervene on behalf of the NC Attorney General on any legal challenge to any North Carolina law.
Cooper has been a terrific attorney general for North Carolina with a sterling reputation for protecting North Carolinians from everything from predatory lending (oh, wait, the GA passed a bill allowing that) to consumer protection (whoops -- the ag-gag bill passed, too) to safeguarding the environment (uh ... Halliburton's secret fracking chemicals are protected in that other new bill ... ).
It's going to be quite a fight indeed.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ssembly-takes-back-100-years-of-voters-rights
It is done.
Last night, the Republican supermajority in both the N.C. House and N.C. Senate voted in the most sweeping erasure of voters' rights in the past century. Despite fervent, fact-laden, data-driven, and passionate debates from Democratic lawmakers, both houses of the N.C. General Assembly passed HB589: The House vote was 73-41, along party lines, and the Senate vote was 33-14, also along party lines.
The House version of HB 589 started out earlier this year as a two-page voter-ID bill. After the May crossover to the N.C. Senate, the bill came back as a 57-page piece of legislation that would:
- Cut North Carolina's early-voting period from 17 to 10 days, although counties would still be required to provide the same number of hours for early voting -- an unfunded mandate that provides no resources or funds for counties to meet this requirement.
- Prohibit counties from extending early voting hours on the Saturday before Election Day to accommodate crowds.
- End early voting on the Sunday before Election Day, thereby outlawing the widely popular "souls to the polls" get-out-the-vote effort.
- Eliminate same-day voter registration during early voting.
- Eliminate pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, who currently can register to vote before they turn 18 (though, of course, they cannot vote).
- End a civics education program that teaches high school students about voting.
- Outlaw paid voter registration drives.
- Eliminate straight-ticket voting.
- Eliminate provisional voting if someone shows up at the wrong precinct.
- Prohibit counties from extending poll hours by one hour on Election Day in extraordinary circumstances, such as in response to long lines. Those in line at closing time would still be allowed to vote.
- Allow any registered voter of a county to challenge the eligibility of a voter, rather than just a voter of the precinct in which the suspect voter is registered.
- Move the presidential primary to first Tuesday after South Carolina's primary if that state holds its primary before March 15. That would mean North Carolina would have two primaries during presidential elections.
- Study electronic filing for campaign returns.
- Increase the maximum allowed campaign contribution per election from $4,000 to $5,000. The cap will be adjusted for inflation every two years, starting in 2015.
- Loosen disclosure requirements in campaign ads paid for by independent committees.
- Repeal the publicly funded election program for appellate court judges.
- Repeal the requirement that candidates endorse ads run by their campaigns.
These provisions were added to the bill by the N.C. Senate above and beyond the requirement that all voters must present a state-issues photo ID card in order to vote. The Senate also prohibited various types of photo identification from use as a valid ID -- including college/university IDs, photo IDs provided as a service by banks and credit unions, and other types of photo IDs. (Even photo IDs provided by state-run colleges and universities would be inadequate identification.)
Opposition to the bill was strong and heartfelt. In some cases, lawmakers tearfully related stories of older relatives who had fought threats and violence in order to cast their ballots. Other lawmakers brought forward statistics on the numbers of North Carolinians who might be disenfranchised from voting under the terms of the bill.
Many legislators even brought up the fact that Republicans rely on early voting, straight-party ballots, and "souls to the polls" transportation programs.
Some legislators even brought up the point of pride: Why would House members accept the fact that they sent a two-page bill to the Senate and got back a 57-page document that they had only a few days to review and that substantially perverted the initial House bill?
None of it mattered. The votes came along party lines, as expected.
In North Carolina, we mourned last night. We mourned.
But today we awoke to take back our state from the moneyed interests that have placed a price tag (tied to the Consumer Price Index, no less) on the rights of North Carolinians.
The N.C. House, having received back its HB 589 for a vote long after 8 p.m. last night and allotting only two hours to debate the 57-page travesty before passing it, was forced to meet again this morning to finish up the bills before it before adjourning until May 2014. The N.C. Senate had already adjourned last night, the work of its majority party done and relevant backs slapped.
Now we begin. Forward together. Knocked back a few steps, perhaps, but we will not be dissuaded from our destination of voter protection and full voting rights to all citizens of our fine state.
UPDATE
We have avid interest in US Attorney General Eric Holder's plans to mess with Texas and its own new draconian voter-suppression law.
This development hasn't escaped the keen eyes of North Carolina state leaders, though. Our own NC Attorney General Roy Cooper warned the governor not to sign the voter-suppression bill. Which is why the legislature quickly rick-rolled a last-minute attachment into a health-care transparency bill passed by the House and the Senate last night. The new provision allows the Speaker of the NC House and the President Pro Tem of the NC Senate to intervene on behalf of the NC Attorney General on any legal challenge to any North Carolina law.
Cooper has been a terrific attorney general for North Carolina with a sterling reputation for protecting North Carolinians from everything from predatory lending (oh, wait, the GA passed a bill allowing that) to consumer protection (whoops -- the ag-gag bill passed, too) to safeguarding the environment (uh ... Halliburton's secret fracking chemicals are protected in that other new bill ... ).
It's going to be quite a fight indeed.
Read The Entire Book
ebook download epub & mobi
Code:
https://www.rapidshare.com/files/1670478374/TCHLD_13.zipChapter 6- The Voter Suppression Project
The Voter-Suppression Project
It was the biggest open secret in politics: To win and keep power, Republicans felt they had to hold down turnout among young people and minorities, who tended to vote Democratic. With demographic trends moving against them, the task took on a new urgency.
But the GOP had a problem in 2012. Many Americans saw voting as both a right and a rite, a core value and an almost sacred tradition. So Republicans needed a cover story. They embraced the convenient fiction that massive vote fraud threatened the integrity of the ballot box. This became writ within the party. Any Republicans admitting the truth—that fixing voter fraud was a solution in search of a problem—risked being ostracized. Their insecurity about attracting voters trumped their faith in democracy. Few stopped to think of the backlash should their obvious motive—voter suppression—become widely recognized among those whose rights they sought to violate.
Suppressing the vote was hardly a new feature of American political life. In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth, Southern Democrats imposed literacy tests, “grandfather clauses” (citizens could only vote if their grandfathers had, which was impossible for blacks), and poll taxes designed to disenfranchise African Americans. Many of these Jim Crow–era abuses survived past midcentury, well within the living memory of black voters.
Republicans, who thought of themselves as the party of Lincoln, didn’t take up suppression tactics until after the 1960 election, when they charged that Mayor Daley had stolen votes for John F. Kennedy in the “river wards” of Chicago. (In fact Kennedy would have won even without Illinois’s electoral votes.) In 1964 the Republican National Committee launched “Operation Eagle-Eye,” ostensibly to guard against vote fraud. Volunteers were dispatched to inner-city precincts as poll watchers. Among them was William Rehnquist, a future Supreme Court justice, who was alleged to have taken part in efforts to discourage African American voters in Phoenix in the early 1960s, though he later denied it.
Over the next two decades, a combination of the Voting Rights Act and the decline of big-city political machines led to much cleaner American elections. As reformers in both parties stamped out most genuine vote fraud, all that remained were scattered anecdotes that, even if true, amounted to less than 0.001 percent of ballots cast.
But the GOP was determined to use “ballot security” to suppress the black vote. Since 1982 the Republican National Committee has been operating under a federal consent decree (stemming from racist ballot suppression in New Jersey) that prevented the party from backing efforts by its activists to police the polls. When the RNC tried to get the consent decree lifted on the peculiar grounds that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder were black, a U.S. District Court judge called the argument “offensive” and the Supreme Court agreed.
By this time a new and more pervasive form of voter suppression was making headway. The twenty-first-century efforts to restrict the franchise came not from racists or grubby aldermen but from extremely wealthy men who saw a chance to bend the political system to their will.
THE MODERN ERA of corporate power in the political realm began in August 1971 with a thirty-four-page “confidential memorandum” to the Chamber of Commerce entitled “Attack on American Free Enterprise System.” The author was Lewis F. Powell Jr., a prominent Richmond, Virginia, lawyer who two months later would be appointed by President Nixon to the Supreme Court. Powell began by arguing, “No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack.” The attack from college campuses, the pulpit, the media, liberal politicians, and consumer advocates like Ralph Nader was “quite new in the history of America.” Business, Powell wrote, had responded, if at all, by “appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem.”
Powell, who today would be characterized as a moderate Republican, was right that American liberal discourse in the early 1970s routinely denigrated business and ignored the importance of entrepreneurship. But it wasn’t accurate even then that “few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman [and] the corporation.” Nowadays, thanks in part to the movement that Powell kicked off, the opposite is closer to the truth.
The memorandum’s recommendation of a “more aggressive attitude” toward generating conservative books, articles, institutes, and television programs bore fruit beyond anything Powell could have imagined. It led, directly and indirectly, to the creation of more than a dozen conservative legal foundations and think tanks. William Simon, treasury secretary under Nixon, convinced the Coors, Scaife, and Olin families to establish the Heritage Foundation in 1973. This kicked off an effort to subsidize the spread of conservative ideas that dwarfed anything on the left.
Within a decade of its founding in 1982 as a student organization at prestigious law schools, the Federalist Society and its impressive alumni had already moved the American legal system in a conservative direction. Two billionaire brothers, Charles and David Koch, alone funded 150 programs at colleges and universities to promote their libertarian ideas.
Over the years Heritage helped fuel conservative domination of the intellectual debate, with some significant ironies. It was at Heritage in the early 1990s that a health policy expert named Stuart Butler first popularized the idea of a “mandate” on employees, requiring them to buy health insurance. This was seen as a conservative alternative to a government-run health care system and a way of dealing with the “free riders” who received treatment at hospitals without paying for it.
Politicians ranging from Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama would eventually adopt Heritage’s proposal.
The transition of these institutions from right-leaning think tanks to political outfits was best exemplified by the case of the Cato Institute, founded in 1974 by Charles Koch and Edward Crane to spread libertarian ideas. After the death of Chairman Emeritus William Niskanen in 2011, a court fight erupted over control of the foundation, with Crane charging that Koch was trying to turn Cato into “some sort of auxiliary of the GOP.”
It was a cofounder of Heritage, Paul Weyrich, who in 1980 first argued to Republicans that the long-term demographic trends of the country were moving against them. Weyrich addressed a conference in Dallas headlined by Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan. “I don’t want everyone to vote,” Weyrich told the crowd. “As a matter of fact, our leverage in elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
In the 1970s Weyrich was also a cofounder, with Representative Henry Hyde, of one of the most influential, and least known, of all conservative organizations: the American Legislative Exchange Council, a bland-sounding outfit originally called the Conservative Caucus of State Legislators. ALEC sponsored forums that brought together corporate lobbyists and state representatives to write model bills that could be used to advance conservative causes in state capitals. Jack Kemp, Jesse Helms, John Kasich, and many other prominent conservative politicians have been associated with ALEC, which worked closely with donors to state campaigns. The bylaws of ALEC’s closed-door meetings gave corporate lobbyists an equal vote with legislators on which model bills to introduce, with the practical effect that Republican-controlled state legislatures were often rubber stamps for corporate interests. Thousands of cookie-cutter state laws on everything from tax cuts and deregulation to the “Stand Your Ground” legislation that figured in the 2012 case of Trayvon Martin (an unarmed teenager shot and killed in Florida) began as ALEC model bills. In 2002 ALEC began to explore ways of changing state election laws to help Republicans and their corporate backers.
AS REPUBLICANS SOUGHT to curtail turnout, Democrats were busy making the country’s changing demographics work for them. In 1993, after Clinton was elected president with the help of first-time voters, Democrats passed the “Motor Voter” bill, which required states to offer voter registration at departments of motor vehicles. While the Democrats’ partisan motive for expanding turnout was as plain as the Republicans’ partisan motive for restricting it, the effect of Motor Voter and other such bills was to expand democracy without any discernible rise in corruption.
After Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that shut down the Florida recount of the 2000 election and assured Bush’s victory, Democrats became convinced that Republicans had stolen the election. It took years of recounts and investigations, but proof finally arrived in 2004, when it turned out that a list of fifty thousand ex-convicts purged from voter rolls included about twenty thousand voters who weren’t felons, half of them black in a state that was just 15 percent African American. The improperly purged names added up to more than enough votes to give Gore the presidency. The experience was seared into the psyche of Democrats—especially minority voters—in ways that would prove relevant in 2012.
The Florida recount put pressure on Washington to upgrade election procedures, but the 2002 Help America Vote Act did little more than banish punch-card ballots and the infamous chads that hung from them. Karl Rove, by then President Bush’s chief political adviser, saw an opening. With attention focused on fixing the system, he gave speeches and interviews claiming that the real problem was vote fraud. Bush’s new attorney general, John Ashcroft, placed the issue near the top of his agenda and hired a savvy conservative activist from the Florida recount, Hans A. von Spakovsky, to head the voting rights section of the Justice Department—an insult to civil rights activists who trusted Justice to guarantee voting rights, not restrict them. Several career staffers quit in protest after von Spakovsky, a member of the Federalist Society, overruled them in backing a photo ID law in Georgia (later invalidated by a judge as “akin to a Jim Crow–era poll tax”) that became a national model for conservatives.
From the White House, Rove pushed career prosecutors to win convictions for vote fraud. When U.S. attorneys in New Mexico and Seattle appointed by Bush couldn’t make cases, they were fired for disloyalty, a politicization of law enforcement so blatant that it led Rove to be subpoenaed by Congress.I After five years of investigations and prosecutions, the Bush Justice Department acknowledged in 2007 that no evidence existed of a widespread problem with vote fraud. In a nation of more than 200 million citizens of voting age, fewer than fifty people were convicted of voting illegally, almost all of whom offered convincing explanations that they had done so unintentionally. In the climate of prosecution created in Washington, however, several were rewarded for their confusion with prison or deportation.
This did nothing to dampen enthusiasm on the right. Von Spakovsky, whose nomination by President Bush to be a member of the Federal Election Commission was derailed in 2007 by Senator Barack Obama, cowrote a book with the conservative journalist John Fund that claimed vote fraud by convicted felons delivered Minnesota’s Senate seat to Al Franken in 2008. Because Franken’s race against Norm Coleman was so close, it was exhaustively investigated by authorities in Minnesota, who found “zero evidence of fraud.” Nonetheless von Spakovsky helped spread the word among Republican state legislators in 2011 that they should introduce “election reform” bills that could take effect before the 2012 election.
Fox News helped. After the 2008 campaign, the network blew up small, isolated voting irregularities in Milwaukee and South Bend, Indiana, into national “scandals.” When two members of the New Black Panther Party showed up at a polling place in Philadelphia, not a single actual voter there complained of intimidation. But the name of the group and the fears it conjured in viewers fueled weeks of the stories in the conservative media. Fox News reporter Eric Shawn launched a weekly “Voter Fraud” segment that publicized any random accusation, even if minor and unconfirmed. Stories of forged ballot access petitions, on which volunteers would list celebrities or phony obscene names as a goof, were covered on Fox as major crimes, even though no referenda made the ballot or ineligible persons voted as a result. The shenanigans of a media provocateur, James O’Keefe, brought down the left-wing ACORN organization for alleged offenses unrelated to vote fraud. But in 2008 ACORN had self-reported a few bogus registration forms it collected (with names of cartoon characters and NFL players put on the forms by petition passers), which added to the GOP’s momentum.II So did Norquist’s baseless claim that Obama campaign workers had promised Democrats they could get jobs in the post office if they voted for Obama in 2008.
Norquist, von Spakovsky, and Fund then began arguing with only minor anecdotal evidence that vote-by-mail systems adopted by thousands of counties across the country led to widespread vote fraud. Their examples of absentee vote fraud, which Fund called “the easiest and most pervasive kind,” made their arguments seem to be backed by facts. But because absentee ballots in many states favor Republicans (who are more likely to travel out of town on Election Day on business), most of the hundreds of “election reform” bills introduced by Republicans in state legislatures in early 2011 did little to change the rules on them.
Without good evidence of vote fraud convictions to bolster their case, ALEC and the Republicans pushed hard on von Spakovsky’s idea of requiring photo IDs. On the surface, showing ID before voting seemed reasonable; the idea enjoyed strong public support from voters required to provide proof of identity to cash checks or get on an airplane. But the only reason to move hastily to change the law would be if there were widespread evidence of voter fraud, which there wasn’t. Lawyers for Republicans could come up with only nine anecdotal cases of in-person voter impersonation (the only crime that photo IDs guard against) in the entire country in the past quarter-century, none of which led to prosecution.
Nonetheless, in 2008 the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board upheld Indiana’s state photo ID requirements. The Court’s reasoning was that because the IDs were free, they didn’t constitute an unconstitutional poll tax. Although the state of Indiana failed in its brief to produce a single case in the history of Indiana of in-person voter impersonation, ALEC and other backers of photo ID laws invoked the decision to advance their argument in state capitals. After Crawford the Democrats miscalculated. Instead of using their majorities in several battleground states to compromise on commonsense photo ID bills, Democrats dug in against any changes in those laws, a decision that almost sank them when so many states went Republican in 2010.
IN 1998 A quiet movement began that would change the way much of the country voted. That year Oregon, under a visionary secretary of state named Phil Keisling, became the first vote-by-mail state in the country, a move that boosted participation in presidential elections to more than 80 percent of registered voters. Whether citizens voted by mail or in person, the convenience of voting early spread quickly to hundreds of counties in dozens of states. After 2004, when John Kerry lost Ohio and thus the election at least in part because of extremely long lines at polling places, voting by mail and voting early became a priority for the Democratic Party, and many Republican election officials agreed that it was the right thing to do for harried voters who often couldn’t get time off from work on Election Day. By 2008 nearly a third of the American electorate voted early. Because Democrats more often took advantage of the convenience of early voting, the change helped Obama in Ohio, Florida, and other states.
Then came the midterms. With so many statehouses and state legislatures suddenly in Republican hands, it wasn’t hard to roll back the small d democratic victories of Democrats. Starting in early 2011, the GOP, often using ALEC model bills, launched quiet voter-suppression campaigns in forty-one states. It was the most systematic and pervasive effort to discourage voting in almost a century. GOP state legislators introduced 140 bills to restrict voting, and by mid-2012 sixteen states had approved legislation, including the battleground states of Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Through the beginning of 2012 there was little publicity about these suspiciously timed efforts, but Democrats were under no illusions about what was happening. The White House believed the GOP was trying to rig or at least tilt the election. Bob Bauer, the president’s longtime attorney, called it “a remarkable piece of concerted execution.”
Not every state enacted every provision in the ALEC model bills, but the similarities in many of the measures were striking. It was an open secret within the GOP that Republican governors were racing to see who could be the first to sign far-reaching election “reform.” Republican secretaries of state, egging each other on at conservative conferences, recognized that their ticket to higher office was proving to donors and party officials that they would use their power to hold down Democratic turnout.
The GOP’s goal was to require state-issued photo ID; to curtail voter-registration drives (which register minorities at twice the rate of nonminorities); to cut back on early in-person voting; to repeal “same-day” (Election Day) registration, used by many college students; and to intensify citizenship challenges against those suspected of being ineligible to vote. All of these changes were aimed at suppressing turnout by the minorities and young voters who make up the base of the Democratic Party. Almost all of the bills were effective in the 2012 cycle, which, as former RNC chairman Michael Steele later acknowledged, further confirmed that the goal was less to improve the system over time than to defeat the president and other Democrats.
If racism was involved in the GOP-backed bills, it was a secondary factor. The new laws also discriminated against students, the elderly, and anyone who didn’t drive.
FLORIDA WAS TYPICAL of what happened behind closed Republican doors. On New Year’s Day 2011, Emmett “Bucky” Mitchell IV, the attorney responsible for the notorious list of purged “felons” in 2000, called a meeting with several political consultants and state officials. Jim Greer, the state party chairman, soon to plead guilty in a corruption scandal, said later that Mitchell’s meeting disturbed him. “I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting,” Greer testified in a deposition. Republicans charged that the accusations were concocted to bolster the defense in his case, but three other former GOP officials backed Greer up in interviews with the Palm Beach Post and the Tampa Bay Times.
At the New Year’s Day meeting, Mitchell, who had been elevated to general counsel to the Florida GOP, took on the assignment of writing the vote fraud bill to be introduced in Tallahassee. Passed in May 2011, the radical overhaul of election laws cut early voting days from fourteen to eight, made it more difficult to change registration to a different county (affecting African Americans, who move more often than other voters), and placed crippling restrictions on voter-registration efforts. Florida’s new law effectively ended all voter-registration drives, an activity the League of Women Voters had undertaken in the state for nearly a century. The statute required voter-registration volunteers to go to the county office and take an oath agreeing to be personally liable for thousands of dollars in fines if they didn’t deliver completed forms without the slightest error within forty-eight hours, among other restrictions.
Republicans in Michigan went even further, requiring that voter-registration volunteers attend training sessions but providing no funds or other provisions for such training—a state-sanctioned Catch-22. The League of Women Voters had no choice but to suspend its operations in Florida and Michigan and join with Rock the Vote and other organizations to file suit.
In Ohio, where control of state government had also moved to the Republicans, the aim was to reverse the conditions that existed in 2008. That year John McCain polled 263,000 more votes on Election Day than Obama but lost the state by 4.6 points. The difference was early voting, which Obama won overwhelmingly. In a new tradition called “Souls to the Polls,” more than 119,000 African American Obama supporters were bused directly from church to polling places on the Sunday before the 2008 election. Like the Florida statute, Ohio’s new law, signed by Republican Governor John Kasich, ended that practice. The bill was so sweeping that the Obama campaign calculated it would put them at a crippling 400,000-vote disadvantage in 2012.
Fortunately for Obama, Ohio state law allowed for a petition campaign to place a repeal measure on the state ballot in November 2012. If such a repeal initiative were put before the voters, it would mean that the new election law would not be in effect for the presidential election. But the 231,000 signatures necessary for a ballot initiative wouldn’t be easy to obtain, especially with Ohio unions and other Democratic allies busy trying to repeal Governor Kasich’s union-busting bill. For much of 2011 it wasn’t clear whether Ohio would even be in play for the Democrats in the presidential election.
Ohio’s secretary of state, Jon Husted, a Republican and ALEC alumnus elected in 2010, used every lever he had to reduce turnout. Under Ohio law, county boards of elections are evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, with the secretary of state empowered to break the tie on rules governing elections. In urban Democratic counties, Husted broke the tie in favor of shorter voting hours, even though he knew that this would lead to more long lines like those Ohio experienced in 2004. The racial disparities in Ohio were disturbing. In 2010, according to a lawsuit, 94 percent of new African American voters were challenged at the polls, compared to 16 percent of new white voters.
Normally the legislative process is excruciatingly slow. But not this time. It seemed as though every week in 2011 and early 2012 brought word of another Republican-controlled state moving to restrict voting. Iowa’s new Republican governor, Terry Branstad, took executive action that made it difficult for anyone with a criminal record to have his or her voting rights restored. Wisconsin and New Hampshire passed restrictive voter ID laws that made it harder for students who didn’t have a driver’s license to vote. William O’Brien, New Hampshire’s Republican speaker of the house, explained the logic of the bill to a Tea Party audience. “Voting as a liberal, that’s what kids do,” O’Brien said. “They just vote their feelings and they’re taking away the town’s ability to govern themselves, it’s not fair.”
Colorado’s secretary of state, Scott Gessler, a Republican, was determined to outdo Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state who helped Bush win Florida in 2000. Gessler didn’t have a Republican governor and legislature to help him suppress Democratic turnout, so he acted unilaterally by making a list of what he considered suspicious voters, then mailing threatening letters to thousands of Coloradans, most with Latino surnames, whom he wrongly accused of being noncitizens. He estimated that 11,805 noncitizens were registered to vote but later admitted that the number was less than two hundred and only thirty-five of them may have voted. Gessler also refused to send mail-in ballots to residents of the heavily Democratic Pueblo and Denver counties, whom he considered “inactive voters” because they hadn’t voted in 2010—the midterm election that many 2008 Obama voters sat out.
In 2012, Gessler spoke on a panel at CPAC where he accused Democrats of subjecting ineligible voters to the risk of criminal prosecution by registering them, a questionable appearance for a sitting secretary of state duty bound to be a neutral supervisor of state elections. Soon it came out that Gessler had billed the state for travel to a meeting of the National Republican Lawyers Association and to the Republican National Convention with the explanation that he was discussing Colorado voter fraud there.
Pennsylvania’s bill had a bring-me-the-witch’s-broomstick quality. It required state department of transportation photo IDs; photo IDs issued by counties, cities, or regional transportation authorities were not valid. As in several other states, the new law disallowed student IDs unless they contained an expiration date, which few of Pennsylvania’s colleges provided on the cards; this meant that students must go to their school’s bursar’s office for a new card before they could vote, which would dramatically reduce youth turnout, as intended. Republicans claimed the law was aimed only at increasing efficiency and ballot security, but when it was signed in early 2012, the Pennsylvania house majority leader, Mike Turzai, let the cat out of the bag at a Republican State Committee meeting about the party’s legislative accomplishments. “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: done,” Turzai told the applauding crowd.
The Republican secretary of state assured the public that 99 percent of registered voters already had the proper state-issued photo ID. But it turned out that 750,000 registered voters lacked a driver’s license and were thus in danger of losing their right to vote. Even if that number was inflated, as the Obama team thought, the new law made voting a hassle for between 5 and 10 percent of the Pennsylvania electorate. Obama eventually had two hundred paid staff on the ground in Pennsylvania, and the Obama campaign thought it could keep the state blue even if the new law stood. Some Pennsylvania Democrats weren’t so sure.
By mid-2012 nineteen states had approved new legislation restricting voting, including seven of the nine battleground states in the general election. The total number of electoral votes potentially affected, 212, was more than three-quarters of the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency.
FOR MONTHS THE GOP’s effort to suppress the vote had the wind at its back. Opinion polls showed overwhelming public support for requiring photo IDs in order to cast ballots. It wasn’t long before Tea Party activists in several states decided that they wanted in on voter-suppression efforts. A Texas Tea Party group called King Street Patriots, funded by the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, began in 2010 to use new software to check voter registration lists against driver’s licenses and other records. In Houston they descended on African American precincts to challenge voters who had changed addresses or had typos in their voter files. In 2011 the group renamed itself True the Vote and launched chapters in thirty states. Republican secretaries of state from around the country attended their forums. In the recall election of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, True the Vote volunteers used bogus identity checks to slow down student voting at Lawrence University in Appleton. The group’s founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, promised that one million True the Vote activists would descend on polling places in the 2012 general election. At the group’s 2012 summit in Boca Raton, Bill Ouren, the national elections coordinator, told recruits that their job was to make voters feel like they’re “driving and seeing the police following [them].”
The months ahead would bring hand-to-hand legal combat, with every battleground state except Nevada embroiled in a struggle over voter eligibility. Lawyers for state parties with help from the Obama campaign and nonprofits like the NAACP and the Brennan Center for Justice handled most of the litigation for those challenging the new laws. Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, told the White House that the Republicans were “trying to steal the 2012 election in 2011.” He needed Bob Bauer to leave his position as White House counsel to become the campaign’s lawyer. Bauer found himself consumed by the legal threats to victory across several states. He felt as if he were fighting not just for his friend and longtime client Barack Obama, but for American democracy.
For years political operatives have understood that Democrats win by addition and Republicans by subtraction. Now the GOP, embracing Lewis Powell’s “more aggressive attitude,” was poised to subtract roughly five million votes from an American election. In a close contest, that would be enough to tip the balance against the president.
Last edited:
source: The Raw Story
Florida Governor Rick Scott plans to resume state’s voter purge effort
MIAMI (Reuters) – Florida Governor Rick Scott is planning a new effort to purge non-U.S. citizens from the state’s voter rolls, a move that last year prompted a series of legal challenges and claims from critics his administration was trying to intimidate minority voters.
Voter protection groups identified a number of errors in the state’s attempt to identify people who are not American citizens on Florida’s voter lists months ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November 2012.
The search also sparked several lawsuits, including one by the U.S. Justice Department, which claimed the effort violated federal law since it was conducted less than 90 days before the election.
“We were recently informed that the State plans to continue their efforts to remove non-citizens from Florida’s voter rolls,” Miami-Dade Elections Supervisor Penelope Townsley said in a statement.
In a letter sent to Florida election supervisors last week, Maria Matthews, Florida’s director of elections, said a renewed effort to “ensure due process and the integrity of Florida’s voter rolls” was being planned.
“This is all part of our ongoing and continuing efforts to identify potentially ineligible registered voters,” Matthews said.
Scott, a Republican, is preparing to run for re-election next year. He has repeatedly said the aim of any purge is to protect the integrity of the voter rolls.
Advocacy groups called the review of non-citizens a thinly veiled attempt to disqualify Hispanic and African-American voters, who tend to vote for Democratic candidates. A disproportionately large number of those identified in 2012 were either Hispanic or black, the groups said.
Last year, Florida officials said they had drawn up an initial list of 182,000 potential non-citizens. But that number was reduced to fewer than 200 after election officials acknowledged errors on the original list.
In identifying potential non-citizens, Florida officials sent their information to county election supervisors who then mailed letters to voters requesting proof they were U.S. citizens. If no response was received, the voter was dropped from the rolls.
The effort, which angered some county election supervisors, was the subject of lawsuits from five voter protection groups and at least two individual plaintiffs.
Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he expected many county election supervisors to press the state to offer precise documentation that a voter may not be a U.S. citizen in any forthcoming review.
“If it will be a fairer process this time, it will be because the County Supervisors of Elections got burned last time and are more skeptical now,” he said.
Florida Governor Rick Scott plans to resume state’s voter purge effort
MIAMI (Reuters) – Florida Governor Rick Scott is planning a new effort to purge non-U.S. citizens from the state’s voter rolls, a move that last year prompted a series of legal challenges and claims from critics his administration was trying to intimidate minority voters.
Voter protection groups identified a number of errors in the state’s attempt to identify people who are not American citizens on Florida’s voter lists months ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November 2012.
The search also sparked several lawsuits, including one by the U.S. Justice Department, which claimed the effort violated federal law since it was conducted less than 90 days before the election.
“We were recently informed that the State plans to continue their efforts to remove non-citizens from Florida’s voter rolls,” Miami-Dade Elections Supervisor Penelope Townsley said in a statement.
In a letter sent to Florida election supervisors last week, Maria Matthews, Florida’s director of elections, said a renewed effort to “ensure due process and the integrity of Florida’s voter rolls” was being planned.
“This is all part of our ongoing and continuing efforts to identify potentially ineligible registered voters,” Matthews said.
Scott, a Republican, is preparing to run for re-election next year. He has repeatedly said the aim of any purge is to protect the integrity of the voter rolls.
Advocacy groups called the review of non-citizens a thinly veiled attempt to disqualify Hispanic and African-American voters, who tend to vote for Democratic candidates. A disproportionately large number of those identified in 2012 were either Hispanic or black, the groups said.
Last year, Florida officials said they had drawn up an initial list of 182,000 potential non-citizens. But that number was reduced to fewer than 200 after election officials acknowledged errors on the original list.
In identifying potential non-citizens, Florida officials sent their information to county election supervisors who then mailed letters to voters requesting proof they were U.S. citizens. If no response was received, the voter was dropped from the rolls.
The effort, which angered some county election supervisors, was the subject of lawsuits from five voter protection groups and at least two individual plaintiffs.
Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he expected many county election supervisors to press the state to offer precise documentation that a voter may not be a U.S. citizen in any forthcoming review.
“If it will be a fairer process this time, it will be because the County Supervisors of Elections got burned last time and are more skeptical now,” he said.
<param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=52824176&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc94a19d" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=52824176&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/...ictions-are-going-to-backfire-on-republicans/
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday warned fellow Republicans that voting restrictions designed to reduce the turnout of minorities, young people and seniors were “going to backfire” on the party.
Powell told CBS host Bob Schieffer that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn part of the Voting Rights Act had been followed by states “putting in place procedures and new legislation that in some ways makes it a little bit harder to vote, you need a photo ID.”
“And they claim there is widespread abuse and voter fraud, but nothing documented, nothing substantiates that,” he pointed out. “There isn’t widespread abuse. And so these kinds of procedures that are being put in place to slow the process down and make it likely that fewer Hispanics and African-Americans might vote, I think, are going to backfire because these people are going to come out and do what they have to do in order to vote. And I encourage that.”
Powell added that he wanted to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt that they wanted to improve the voting system, “but when they start to say, let’s restrict the number of voting hours or make it harder for students to vote, then I have to get a little bit suspicious of it.”
“Here’s what I say to my Republican friends: The country is becoming more diverse. Asian-American, Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans are going to constitute a majority of the population in another generation. You say you want to reach out, you say you want to have a new message, you say you want to see if you can bring some of these voters to the Republican side. This is not the way to do it.”
“The way to do it is to make it easier for them to vote,” Powell insisted. “And then give them something to vote for that they can believe in. It’s not enough just to say, we have to have a new message. We have to have a new substance to that new message.”
Watch this video from CBS’ Face the Nation, broadcast Aug. 25, 2013.
I couldn't get the video to embed. It's about 3-4 min long@ the source link.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday warned fellow Republicans that voting restrictions designed to reduce the turnout of minorities, young people and seniors were “going to backfire” on the party.
Powell told CBS host Bob Schieffer that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn part of the Voting Rights Act had been followed by states “putting in place procedures and new legislation that in some ways makes it a little bit harder to vote, you need a photo ID.”
“And they claim there is widespread abuse and voter fraud, but nothing documented, nothing substantiates that,” he pointed out. “There isn’t widespread abuse. And so these kinds of procedures that are being put in place to slow the process down and make it likely that fewer Hispanics and African-Americans might vote, I think, are going to backfire because these people are going to come out and do what they have to do in order to vote. And I encourage that.”
Powell added that he wanted to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt that they wanted to improve the voting system, “but when they start to say, let’s restrict the number of voting hours or make it harder for students to vote, then I have to get a little bit suspicious of it.”
“Here’s what I say to my Republican friends: The country is becoming more diverse. Asian-American, Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans are going to constitute a majority of the population in another generation. You say you want to reach out, you say you want to have a new message, you say you want to see if you can bring some of these voters to the Republican side. This is not the way to do it.”
“The way to do it is to make it easier for them to vote,” Powell insisted. “And then give them something to vote for that they can believe in. It’s not enough just to say, we have to have a new message. We have to have a new substance to that new message.”
Watch this video from CBS’ Face the Nation, broadcast Aug. 25, 2013.
I couldn't get the video to embed. It's about 3-4 min long@ the source link.
Thanks a lot for posting the voter restriction article. Here's that video, from a different source:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/talKWxIgFtg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Thanx for the assist...I appreciate it. The original story had an embed link, but when I tried it it gave the video image and message video not found.
Thanx for the assist...I appreciate it. The original story had an embed link, but when I tried it it gave the video image and message video not found.
No problem. I ran into the same problem as you but luckily someone else had that vid, without the impediments.
Looking forward to reading more from you !