American Elections

2005

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

A law mandating the possession of voter ID was passed.

2006

Third party registration law overview

Another perspective

A law passed in 2006 significantly restricted the ability of independent organizations to register voters. The organizations must now return completed forms within 48 hours of their acquisition and must register with the state and sign out a specified number of registration forms.

2008

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

The voter ID law passed in 2005 was relaxed.

2012

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/2012_summary_of_voting_law_changes/

Legislation was introduced to require photo ID, make voter registration more difficult, and reduce opportunities for early and absentee voting. All of these measures were shot down in the legislature.

Felon Voting

Felon Voting regulations

Convicted felons are restored their right to vote upon completion of their sentence (including parole/probation).

Hawai’i has been reliably in the Democratic column in presidential voting for much of its history as a state; the last time it voted Republican was 1984 and before that, 1972 (but George McGovern only got the electoral votes of Massachusetts and D.C. in that year). When Linda Lingle was elected governor in 2002, she was the first Republican governor in Hawai’i since 1962. In 2010, Neil Abercrombie (D) became the new governor. On Hawaii’s voting history for governor and president, follow the highlighted links. And Hawaii has a very “blue” legislature. According to an Associated Press story just after the 2010 election, Hawaii just became the nation’s “most one sided state legislature”—“With 88 percent of legislative seats held by Democrats, Hawaii passed Rhode Island as the nation’s most politically monolithic state, according to an Associated Press analysis of National Conference of State Legislatures’ figures.” With this political configuration, it would be rather unlikely to see a concerted move to restrict access to the ballot in recent years. Indeed, Hawai’i has not implemented any new voter identification laws in the period we are examining (2006ff).

Hawai’i makes it rather easy to register to vote. Registration deadlines for the primary and for the general election are a month before the election. There is an online registration form and affidavit. There is even a voter registration form in the phone book!  Because of the Help America Vote Act (see 42 U.S.C. § 15483), it is a federal requirement that first time voters who register by mail provide proof of identity, but this doesn’t have to be a current, valid photo ID. It can also be a current government check, paycheck, bank statement, utility bill, or government document showing name and address. You can show this documentation at your polling place or when you send in your completed absentee ballot if you didn’t provide it when you registered to vote.

A report entitled “Voter Preregistration Programs” by Professor Michael P. McDonald at George Mason University (apparently 2009 but not dated) indicates that Hawai’i and Florida are the only states in the nation to have implemented preregistration programs for students as young as 16, using these programs for more than one election. This statement was on the County of Hawai’i website:
“The Young Voter Registration Program (YVRP) is geared toward Junior and Senior students in high school to increase voter awareness and election information as they become eligible to vote. Each election year, the County of Hawai‘i Elections Division reaches out to public and private schools across the Big Island that are willing to participate.”

Hawaii is one of seven states that requests voters to show a photo ID at the polls; the statute stipulates (Section 11-136 of the Hawai’i Revised Statutes) that a poll worker may request (is not required to request) a photo ID with a signature. However, if the voter doesn’t have one, he/she can sign an affidavit attesting to his/her identity, another voter with a voter ID can attest to the person’s identity, or the voter can provide other forms of personal information. For example, the law provides that the voter can recite date of birth and home address to see if it matches what is in the poll book. It appears that this statute dates from 2005.

Several Republicans introduced HR 1359 in the Hawai’i House in 2011 to amend Section 11-136 of the Hawai’i Revised Statutes to require a strict photo ID. The amendment stipulated that “Every person shall provide identification to a precinct official. The precinct official shall use the identification provided to confirm the identity of the person signing the poll book. Identification provided to a precinct official shall contain a photograph of the person.” (June Watanabe in the Honolulu Star Advertiser, January 20, 2012, Kokua Line column; this is from Lexis Academic, for which there is not a stable URL.) The issue was carried over to 2012, but it is not clear hearings were heard and no action seems to have been taken (at any rate, the law was not amended). The National Conference of State Legislatures has a very nice source where all the state laws and some information on recent changes is presented in tabular form, and this link will take you to Hawaii.  Another source that helped was the Electronic Privacy Information Center: http://epic.org/privacy/voting/photo-identification.html.

According to the Brennan Center report on registration drives and restrictions on those seeking to register voters, Hawai’i has not implemented any new restrictions in the period we are examining. Voter registration forms can be reproduced, but if so, it has to be reproduced in its entirety and in the same size as the original form; no newsprint quality paper or glossy paper is allowed. And such forms can’t be attached to or included in campaign materials. See p. 23 of the Brennan Center for Justice document, State Restrictions on Voter Registration Drives, by Diana Kasdan.

Felony disenfranchisement: Hawai’i restores voting rights to convicted felons as soon as they are released from jail. They do not have to complete probation to have their rights restored.

Hawaii has absentee voting and permanent absentee voting. What permanent absentee voting means is that registered voters can apply to have their ballots mailed to them in future elections. To stay on the Permanent Absentee Voter list, the voter has to keep their voter registration updated, remain registered in the jurisdiction from which they applied for the permanent absentee ballot, and return voted ballots by 6 PM election day in both the primary and general election.

For regular absentee voting, a registered voter who cannot vote at his/her polling place for any reason (it doesn’t have to be absence from the State of Hawaii on election day) can apply for and use an absentee ballot. In addition, that voter can go to an absentee walk-in polling place prior to election day and cast his/her vote. For the primary in 2012, the dates of operation were July 30-August 9, and for the general election, October 23-November 3. The locations of these polling places are publicized on official sites and in the newspaper.

These walk-in polling places serve Hawaii’s early voting system. Early voting is either by mail or walk-in; it is really a system in which your official absentee ballot is taken in or mailed in early.

Pre 2006

Washingtonis a primarily Democratic state, voting Democratic in the last six elections. The state is 77.3% white, with the next largest racial group being Asian, with 7.2% of the population.

Current voter registration requirements:

One must be:

A citizen of theUnited States

A legal resident ofWashingtonState

At least 18 years old by Election Day

Not under the authority of the Department of Corrections

Not disqualified from voting due to a court order

http://www.270towin.com/states/Washington

Currently,Washingtondoes require identification if one is going to vote, but it does not require photo id. At the moment, the list of acceptable identification includes: a driver’s license or state identification card, student identification card, or tribal identification card, a voter’s voter identification issued by a county elections officer, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or government check or other government document. These laws were instated in 2005 and since then, there has not been an amendment to apply stricter photo identification laws.  

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/washington/wa-code/washington_code_29a-44-205

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx#Legislation

http://statutes.laws.com/washington/title-29a/29a-44/29a-44-205

Post 2006

Beginning in 2006 a new set of statutes was set in place for a convicted felon to acknowledge their temporary loss of voting rights, as Washingtondoes renew a felon’s right to vote after the completion of their sentence. Before May 4^th 2009, felons were also required to pay all fees, fines, and restitution. On May 4^th, Democratic Washington Governor Chris Gregoire, approved legislation that removed these requirements.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.64.140

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/pages/voting_rights_restoration_efforts_in_washington

In 2010 the Farrakhan v. Gregoire case came to a close with the Ninth Circuit holding that Washington’s disenfranchisement laws regarding felons in prison, on parole, and probation, are in fact racially discriminating, and in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the first decision of its type in the Nation. In April 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case to be reheard en banc. 

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/farrakhan_v_gregoire/

Alaska

Alaska has traditionally been a conservative state, this can be seen with the voting controversy of Proposition 5 in Anchorage this past spring, which would have created equal employment rights for the LGBT community in Anchorage but appears to have been sabotaged by conservative opponents.  Voting Rights legislation have also been traditionally more conservative, and this is why Alaska was placed on the watch list of the National Government to ensure State government officials were not creating segregated districts.  When looking at key points in voting laws in the contemporary political climate you must consider five key points: 1) Early and Absentee Voting Laws, 2) Registration Drives, 3) Ability to Restore Voting Rights, 4) Photo Identification Laws and 5) Proof of Citizenship Laws.  However, the recent “action” in the changes of voting laws in Alaska are via the Ability to Restore Voting RIghts and Photo Identification.

Ability to Restore Voting Rights

On August 21, 2012 Alaska sued to block enforcement of Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting RIghts Act.  Alaska claims that they cannot make even the slightest change on the voting in Alaska without prior consent from the Department of Justice and that this slows down the voting processes.  This was brought to the court by Alaskan Natives, however the case was dropped when the Department of Justice stepped in and gave its preclearance.  The link below discusses this in more detail.  The second link below is more detail on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120821/us-alaska-voting-rights-lawsuit/

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/about.php

Photo Identification Requirements

Legislation on Photo Identification was proposed and then blocked in Alaska, much to the surprise of many conservative supporters.  This was because of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which is also the primary reason the lawsuit mentioned above was initiated.  As can be seen from the lawsuit, many people feel that Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act are no longer necessary, however many others feel as if there are more necessary now than ever to help keep conservative groups from suppressing minority voters.  This is discussed further in the article from the Alaska Dispatch.  The second link below is a good reference when beginning to do research on Photo Identification Requirements.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/why-section-5-voting-rights-act-so-controversial

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/2012_summary_of_voting_law_changes/

California

California is progressive when it comes to voting laws, however, there is also pushback against liberalization of access. When looking at key points in voting laws in the contemporary political climate you must consider five key points: 1) Early and Absentee Voting Laws, 2) Registration Drives, 3) Ability to Restore Voting Rights, 4) Photo Identification Laws and 5) Proof of Citizenship Laws.  However, the recent “action” in the changes of voting laws in California is via Registration Drives, Ability to Restore Voting Rights, and Photo Identification Requirements.

Registration Drives

Recently there have been several efforts to limit election drives in California.  A bill introduced in February of 2011 attempted to make it a crime to pay people for the number of voters registered.  However, this bill was vetoed in October of the same year.  Advocates of this bill said that this would reduce the number of fraudulent voters, however many agree that although fraudulent voters is a problem restricting registration drives in this way would not be the most efficient way of reducing this crime.   The first site below is a useful link to identify voter registration laws by site, the second link is a description of the law that was drafted, and the third is a guide distributed by the California Secretary of State.  

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_rights_in_2011_a_legislative_round-up/

-http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_205&sess=CUR&house=B&author=correa

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/guides/guide-to-vr-drives.pdf

Furthermore, in June of 2012 California changed the pre-registration of voter requirements.  The state used to require a 15 day gap period before any election, to same day voter registration.  This now allows individuals who could have not register prior to the election to register on the same day as the election. This passed the State Assembly with a 47-26 vote.  Governor Brown, Democrat, signed this into effect.  Governor Brown also signed Senate Bill 397 (Yee) which allowed Californians the ability to register to vote online.  The link below is a copy of the bill AB 1436 (Feuer).  The second link is an article by thinkprogress.org in which tells of the triumphant passing of this bill. However, the third link is an article by the Los Angeles Times that discusses the impact this bill may have on the voting in California. They assert that this will make voting easier for Californians and that this law also increases penalties for voter fraud.   Furthermore, the fourth link is a release from Brown’s office of the reasons he signed this AB 1436 and Senate Bill 397.  

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1436_cfa_20120323_172127_asm_comm.html

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/01/493486/california-election-day-registration/

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brown-bills-20120925,0,6613329.story

http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17748

Ability to Restore Voting Rights

California has typically been a progressive state in which the right to vote was protected.  However, as of recently, the growing Latino population in California has been seriously under-represented in the government.  This can be seen in the case in which the city of Compton was being sued for not representing the latino population on the city board even though ⅔ of the population is Latino. The case was settled out of court this put the possibility of district elections on the ballot in June of 2010.  This would allow places with a large number of minorities, to have more influence in the election of their representative.  This case is discussed in more detail in the first link below.  These districts were formed in 2011 and can be seen in the second link below.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/compton-latino-voting-rights-lawsuit-settlement.html

http://www.calvoter.org/voter/maps/index.html

Photo Identification Requirements

In 2011, Voter Identification legislation was considered but never enacted.  It is popular consent in California that Voter Identification requirements are not being passed to impede voter fraud, but rather to keep certain groups of individuals from voting.  This can be seen in the Los Angeles Times article below.  According to calwatchdog.com, Bob Huff (Republican) drafted this bill and it would require first time voters to show their Photo I.D. at the polls, however it lost 3-2 in the state senate.

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2010/01/12/new-voter-id-bill-disenfranchised/

Overview

Anyone who has seen a DC license plate knows that representation is still a sore subject for many residents (http://www.dcvote.org/images/dclicenseplate.jpg) Since the founding of the capital, people have been fighting over the issue of voting rights within the federal territory. Although residents can vote in presidential elections, they are not represented in the Senate. And while DC is entitled to one delegate in the House of Representatives (http://norton.house.gov/), the delegate is not permitted to vote on the House floor. Given that DC residents are still subject to federal taxes, the issue of representation continues to be hotly debated throughout the nation’s capital (although it should be noted that some residents think DC should just give up the voting rights demands and settle for smaller compromises- http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-is-dc-willing-to-give-to-get-local-budget-autonomylocal-budget-autonomy-what-is-dc-willing-to-give-to-get-itlocal-budget-autonomy-what-is-dc-willing-to-give-to-get-it/2012/09/14/3f03e2b2-fddd-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_story.html.)

Opponents of DC voting rights point to Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution as an indicator that the federal district would be automatically precluded from representation in Congress: “representatives … shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers” (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec2.html.) Voting rights advocates counter that under the District Clause, Congress has exclusive legislative authority over DC and can therefore grant representation to DC residents (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html.)

For a more in-depth discussion of the constitutional provisions that pertain to DC, check out the transcript from this conversation on NPR in which two constitutional experts go head to head: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101372123.

Since the only actual change in DC voting law involves pre-registration, I have devoted most of this post to the Voting Rights Act of 2009, which represented a major potential change in DC voting law.

Voter Pre-Registration 

In 2008, DC officials changed voting regulations to allow 16 year olds to register to vote while in high school. The increased registration of young voters in 2008 will likely affect the portion of the DC electorate who participate in this year’s presidential elections (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090301241.html.) For the updated pre-registration requirements, check out the DC Board of Elections and Ethics website: http://www.dcboee.org/faq/voter_reg.asp.

Voter ID

DC requires voters to show ID. The ID policy has not been changed in recent years. For information on acceptable forms of ID, the Brennan Center provides details: http://www.brennancenter.org/pages/student_voting_guide_district_of_columbia

Absentee Voting / Early Voting

DC residents can request absentee voting for any reason, but they must request the absentee ballot at least seven days before the election. Voters may participate in early voting seven days prior to the election. Absentee ballots and early voting procedures have not been changed in recent years. For more information on early voting and absentee voting, scroll to the bottom of the Brennan Center’s student voting guide: http://www.brennancenter.org/pages/student_voting_guide_district_of_columbia

The 2009 DC Voting Rights Act

On January 6th, 2009, delegate Eleanor Holmes introduced the DC House Voting Rights Act (H.R. 157), while Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced the DC House Voting Rights Act (S.160) in the Senate (for the full text, see: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.160.) The language of the two bills was identical to the bills that were proposed two years before, but I chose to focus on the 2009 proposals because the Senate actually passed S.160 on February 26th, 2009. For details on why the bill was more likely to pass in 2009, check out this Washington Post article, which was published three days before the Senate voted on S.160: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/23/ST2009022300681.html. Given the Democrats’ expanded majority in the House, as well as new Democrats elected to the Senate since 2007, Sheridan anticipated a likely victory for the bill. She also spelled out the reasoning behind adding a House seat for Utah in the bill as a means of placating the Republicans.

In order to understand why the bill ultimately failed, one should first read up on the unrelated amendment attached to the bill,which threatened to stop D.C. officials from limiting firearm use through the elimination of DC’s strict firearm laws: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s160/show(scroll down to the bill summary.) Although some House Democrats were fully supportive of DC voting rights, many supporters refused to accept the pro-gun amendment attached to the bill, which ultimately delayed the House vote (http://civilrights.org/voting-rights/dc-voting-rights/.) For more details about why the 2009 Voting Rights Act became entangled with the issue of gun control, I would suggest this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36665822/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/dem-no-vote-dc-voting-rights-act-year/#.UGEmMjvPXhI.I was surprised to read that almost half of the DC city council would have rejected the bill with any pro-gun amendments attached. This article shows how quickly the debate shifted from the core issue- DC voter enfranchisement- to the unrelated issue of DC’s gun prohibition laws.

Overview

This year, Virginia has emerged as one of the key battleground states in the presidential election. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first democrat to win Virginia in 44 years, and many predicted that it would be a swing state in this election. The democrats’ presidential victory, however, did translate to the statewide legislative races: Republican candidates have won every statewide election since Obama took office (www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/07/13/156741555/why-new-swing-state-of-virginia-may-determine-presidency.) Outside of the presidential race, the state has also been the battleground for one of the most heated senate races featuring former governors Tim Kaine and George Allen (who has yet to live down the Macaca moment, given that every article on the race seems to mention it.) For a quick side-by-side comparison of the two candidates, check out this article on NPR:http://www.npr.org/2012/05/16/152827431/virginia-senate-race-battle-of-the-former-governors.

Voter ID

On May 18th, Virginia’s governor approved an amendment to the state’s  ID requirements that eliminated the option of signing an “affidavit of identity” for those who did not have identification. The affidavit is essentially a notarized legal document that lists your personal information (social security, home address, birthday, etc.) Before this change in the law was proposed, one could use an affidavit of identity when voting in lieu of an ID, but now voters without proper ID will have to cast provisional ballots.

Here is the official summary of the law from the Virginia General Assembly website, along with a summary of all the votes and amendments that happened between the prefiling in December 2011 and when it was approved by the governor in May 2012: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+sum+SB1. For the text of the final version, go to this site: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+SB1ER2 (Under section B, the affidavit of identity provision has been crossed out.)

In her blog post, Laura Vozzella reports on Governer Robert McDonnell’s statement regarding the approval of the new voter ID requirements by the DOJ officials (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/justice-department-upholds-virginia-voter-id-law/2012/08/20/76d609f6-eb2a-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_blog.html) I included this post because I think Vozzella provides a clear explanation of how the affidavit provision has been changed under the new law, and what this will mean for voters without an ID. Those who would have signed an affadavit can only cast a provisional ballot under the new requirements, and the ballot will only be counted if the voter later provides identification “by fax or email” within three days of the election (for more information on provisional ballot requirements scroll down to the “Virginia” column on this site http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx.) This newly complicated requirement puts the onus on the voter to submit evidence of an ID that they may not have possessed in the first place. However, Vozzella mentions that this restriction is counteracted by other changes in the law, given that it expands the types of acceptable ID.

 Early Voting/Absentee Ballots

Unlike other  states,  Virginia does not allow early voting. Only those casting an absentee ballot can vote before November 6th, and the absentee ballot policy has not been changed recently from what I can tell (see: http://your4state.com/fulltext?nxd_id=274672.)

Overview:

Texas has truly been a Republican stronghold in the United States since the 90s. This is for a few reasons: 1) In the 1980s, many Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party, significantly decreasing their hold on the state; 2) Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992 without winning any of Texas’ electoral votes, leading Democratic party leaders and strategists to believe that they can win without Texas, and thus do not need to focus their energy in supporting Texas Democrats, removing much of their clout; 3) In 1994, Ann Richards lost the governorship to George W. Bush, reversing the tide of Democrat-controlled governorship for over 120 years. 4) In the early-mid 00′s, Texas Republicans sought to aggressively redistrict the county lines in order to create a partisan advantage (gerrymandering) giving the party considerable power in the state.

Voter Registration:

On August 2nd, U.S. District Judge Gregg Costa blocked the Texas legislature from enforcing five provisions of a new voter registration law that would prevent large voter registration drives, many of which reach the African American, Latino, and other minority communities in droves. Critics of the Texas legislature view this new voter registration law as an attempt at voter suppression for that very reason. Under the ruling, Texas no longer requires that deputy voter registrars to live in Texas, they can’t prevent registrars from registering voters who live outside the county, nor prevent organizations from promoting or firing employees based on the number of people they register or making photocopies of voter registration for their records.

Voting Districts:

On August 28th, the U.S. District Court in Washington found evidence of discrimination in the redistricting the Republican-controlled Texas legislature did last year. State prosecutors failed to show Texas lawmakers didn’t draw districts “without discriminatory purposes,” and, as a result, didn’t comply with the Voting Rights Act. It keeps in place the current voting districts, but the GOP will likely appeal as the Supreme Court has been sympathetic of Republican redistricting in the past. The ruling does not apply to the interim maps drawn by the San Antonio federal court that will be used this November.

Voter ID Laws:

On August 30th, a three-judge panel in Washington ruled that the Texas voter ID law, which would require voters to present voter IDs come election day, would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,” and would disproportionately affect racial minorities as a result. Under the provisions of Texas Senate Bill 14, a voter must present one of five forms of ID or an election-identification certificate, which can be obtained for free at the Department of Public Safety but would still have to verify their identity, “in some cases paying $22 for a certified copy of their birth certificate.” While conservative supporters of the law still say that it is an attempt to prevent voter fraud, liberal critics on the other hand say that voter fraud is very rare and this is an attempt to suppress voters who are more likely to vote Democrat.

Voter Rolls:

Last Thursday, a Texas judge temporarily blocked part of the state’s efforts to remove the deceased from the voter rolls after the recent voter purge allowed for thousands of people “receiving letters asking them to prove they are alive.” Election officials sent out 80,000 notices to both deceased and potentially deceased voters and were told to provide evidence that they were alive in 30 days. A new state law last year “requires the state to use information from the Social Security administration to evaluate the rolls,” leading to many “weak” matches, such as the people who have the same date of birth and same last four digits of their Social as a dead person.

• North Dakota has had no significant voting law changes since 2008
• However North Dakota was among the first states in the early 2000’s to implement a voter ID law. It’s a non-strict, non-photo ID law meaning that voters will be asked for identification but they can also provide things such as utility bills or simply an affidavit registering them as a challenged voter[1]
• North Dakota is also the only state in the nation that has no voter registration. Voter registration was repealed in ND in 1951.[2]

• In Minnesota a voter ID law is on the ballot currently scheduled for election day
• The voter ID Amendment already passed 3 committees of the GOP controlled legislature but House Republicans feared a veto from Gov. Mark Dayton.[1] While the bill has passed committee on a party line vote, it has been introduced as a ballot measure in an attempt to circumvent the governor.[2][3] As of September 12^th the amendment, which would require voters to show a photo ID, seems likely to pass.[4]
• It is important to note that if passed the amendment would not take effect until the 2014 election cycle[5]

Even though Vermont is well-known now as a blue state, Vermont voted republican in every election between 1854 (the founding of the ‘modern’ Republican party) and 1988, except for 1964 (Johnson & Goldwater). Ever since Clinton, Vermont has been riding the Democratic ticket, and in 2008 Barack Obama won Vermont’s 3 electoral votes by a margin of almost 70% .

Reference Sites

Vermont Voter Bill of Rights- Includes provisions for the homeless and the invalid!

Overview of 2008 Presidential Election 

• Obama won every county, with a 67.5% popular vote throughout the whole state
• Obama fundraised almost $2m more than Biden

News

Sept. 22, 2012: Absentee voting starts, ends Nov. 6; Early in-person ends Nov. 5. Vermont, of course, is adopting it’s true blue hue.

Feb. 2012- Vermont allows 17 year olds to vote in presidential primaries, providing that they will be 18 by November. This kinda makes sense, because why if you’re going to vote in a presidential election, you might as well get to vote in the primaries.

June 2006- Court Voids Vermont’s Election Law: In 1997, Vermont appealed to the supreme court and overturned a 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo restricting campaign contributions. The 76 ruling imposed extreme limitations for campaign contributions ( $200 per two-year election cycle — primary and general elections included — for state House candidates, to $400 for statewide candidates.), which was in 2006 found to be way too low, (the federal limit was $1000) and no longer unconstitutional.

Maine Voting Laws since 2006

November 2011- 2-day voter registration law is overturned
In literally every county of maine, the majority voted to overturn a section of Chapter 399 of the Public Laws of 2011 (passed in june) which required new voters to register to vote at least two business days prior to an election. LD 1376 also banned absentee voting two days before Election Day, which has gone unchallenged by state democrats.
-“Maine voters sent a clear message: No one will be denied a right to vote,”

September 2012. -Maine never seriously considered voter ID laws.
“in nearly 40 years, Maine has recorded only two cases of voter fraud, Adams said, suggesting that tough registration requirements such as photo IDs are needless”

September 2012- Student Disenfranchisement

“Unless she met certain bureaucratic regulations like registering for a Maine driver’s license, Summers’s letter said, Demers would have to revoke her  residency or be in violation of a law that could mean up to six months in jail.”

Maine Recount Laws

Overview of State Politics

The State of Oklahoma is a consistent Republican Stronghold of seven electoral votes. Despite losing a congressional seat in the 2000 census, Oklahoma still stands as a sizable benefit to Republican presidential candidates, voting Republican in every election since 1968. Indeed, in 2008 Oklahoma was the only state to carry McCain in every county throughout the state. Additionally both US senators, four of five Congressmen and the Governor identify as Republican. Likewise, on the state level, republicans control both houses by a two thirds majority.

Photo ID laws

In 2009 Republican legislators passed a law requiring photo ID to vote at polling stations. When then Democratic Governor, Brad Henry vetoed the bill, Republicans responded by submitting the same law as a legislatively referred ballot question. In 2010 Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly passed State Question 746, requiring residents to show acceptable photo ID. The measure was first implemented during this years Republican presidential primary.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120904_16_A1_OKLAHO151257

Changes to Ballot Law

In 2010, voters in Oklahoma approved Measure 750, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The amendment changes the formula that determines the number of signatures one needs to get a measure on the ballot. Under the old system, in order for a ballot measure to be certified, proponents needed to collect a number of signatures based on turnout in the most recent election. The new amendment changes the signature requirement to reflect turnout from the most recent gubernatorial election. Essentially making it easier for citizens to place measures on the ballot. As State Question 746 demonstrated, this type of referendum action can have powerful consequences.

Changes in Absentee Voting

In April 2012 Republican legislators acted to limit the number of absentee ballots a notary public may acknowledge. Now capped at twenty, unless the secretary of the county election board offers written approval, notaries will be forced to turn away legitimate ballots . It also requires that a notary keep a log of all absentee ballot affidavits they notarize for at least two years after a given election. Given that Democratic voters use absentee ballots at a greater rate than Republicans, this action quietly disenfranchises the few liberal voters left in Oklahoma.

http://atlasproject.net/daily-blog/election-law-changes-june-2012-update/

Indiana is considered by many to be one of the most conservative states in the Midwest.  Until the 2008 election, the state had not voted for a democratic presidential candidate since 1964.  Indiana’s conservatism can be seen clearly in recent changes to voting rights within the state.

In 2006, Indiana was among the first states to enact a voter ID law.  To this day, the law remains one of the strictest voter identification laws in the country.  The law requires that a voter must have a government-issued photo ID that has the name and photo of the individual to whom it was issued, as well as an expiration date.  If a voter cannot produce such an ID, then he or she is allowed to cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if the voter produces ID or an affidavit stating that the voter cannot obtain proof of identification by noon on the Monday after Election Day.  It was argued that the law would prevent voter fraud, despite the fact that no significant cases of voter fraud had taken place in the state.

In 2008, the voter ID law was tried in the Supreme Court in the case Crawford v. Marion Country Election Board.  The court ruled that the voter ID law was in fact constitutional, and that it did not place an undue burden on the franchise.  Paramount to the final ruling was the fact that, in Indiana, government photo IDs are free.  The final decision stated that, “Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”  Furthermore, the court stated that even the possibility of voter fraud created legitimate grounds for the voter ID law. This ruling regarding the Indiana law has created a precedent for all voter ID cases since 2008.

Because the majority of citizens who did not have photo IDs in Indiana were impoverished minorities, it was thought that the law would decrease turnout amongst these (typically democratic) groups in the 2008 election.  However, election data shows that this was not the case.  Nonetheless, analysts attribute this to the fact that Barack Obama was the democratic candidate, and minority voters went to extreme lengths to help elect the first African American president.

Other than the 2006 voter ID law, Indiana has experienced several other changes to voting rights in recent history.  Absentee voting is allowed with no excuses beginning 29 days before the election, but the forms now require a signed affidavit that restricts third party handling of forms.  Additionally, in 2008, Indiana built a Statewide Voter Registration System that identifies duplicate or inactive voter registration as well as allows “vote anywhere” convenience in some counties.

Indiana also played a key role in the assault on ACORN voter registration drives.  Republican Secretary of State, Todd Rokita, was unabashed in his attack on what he believed to be their fraudulent voting practices.  While there have been no legislation changes in the state due to the ACORN incident, Rokita did submit a belligerent report to the U.S. attorney about 1,438 supposedly fraudulent voter registration forms submitted by the ACORN group.

Overview of State Politics

New Hampshire holds a unique position in American politics, while offering only four electoral votes, its status as the first primary of the year makes New Hampshire a major political battleground. Furthermore New Hampshire stands firmly in neither the Republican nor Democratic camps. Currently Republicans control both the State Senate and House of Representatives by three fourths majorities, yet the Governorship is controlled by Democrat, John Lynch. Likewise, New Hampshire has one Republican and one Democratic U.S. Senator and often shifts allegiance between parties during presidential election years. As a result it is no surprise New Hampshire has hosted more disenfranchising election changes than almost any other state.

Photo ID Laws

In 2011 Republican legislators passed S.B. 129 requiring residents to present photo identification in order to vote. Democratic Governor, John Lynch vetoed the bill on June 27th, 2011 and Republican legislators were unable to override him.

http://atlasproject.net/daily-blog/election-law-changes-june-2012-update/

Then, exactly one year after Governor Lynch vetoed the bill, Republican legislators introduced S.B. 289, essentially affirming the same photo ID standards established in the earlier bill. Once again Lynch vetoed the bill, but this time the Legislature overrode him. The law went into effect September 5, 2012 following the Department of Justice granting preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

On September 1, 2013 the law will become even more stringent as student IDs and expired passports are disallowed as acceptable forms of identification.

http://brennan.3cdn.net/5cecd812e827c20c2f_3nm6bnebn.pdf

Proposed Citizenship requirements

In 2011 Republicans in the State House proposed requiring Americans to possess and show documentation of their citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers as a prerequisite to registering to vote. While the bill never made it out of the lower chamber, it is nonetheless indicative of a desire on behalf of many Republican legislators to disenfranchise the poor, the young, the minority, and the elderly voters of New Hampshire from accessing the polls.

Proposed Changes in Registration

In 2011 Republicans proposed H.B. 223 eliminating election day registration. Realizing Democrats take advantage of same day registration at rates far higher than Republicans, many in the statehouse saw this as an easy way to disenfranchise their vote. After receiving opposition from all across the state however, the bill died in the House.

Even more blatantly anti-Democrat, Republican Legislators proposed H.B. 176, a bill that would prohibit military personnel from registering at the bases where they are stationed and students from registering at the university addresses where they reside. While this bill failed as well, Republican Speaker of the House, Bill O’Brien, was not shy about stating, “The Kids [are] coming out of the schools and basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is voting as a liberal. They don’t have life experience, and they just vote their feelings, and they’re taking away the town’s ability to govern themselves; it’s not fair.” While the bill ultimately failed, it is worth noting the blatant rhetoric with which Republican legislators challenge a voters right to register based solely upon their political standings.

http://www.protectingthevote.com/

Still Classified as a swing state, it is unclear who will win New Hampshire and to what extent these changes will affect the outcome. But as we learned in the 2000 election, despite having only four electoral votes, New Hampshire has the potential to make a large impact.

The controversy surrounding the 2004 election in Ohio, while not as notorious as Florida’s role four years previously, nonetheless shaped much of the debate over changes in election law in the years since. Ohio is characterized less by individual laws restricting the voting process than by broad trends: a number of reforms which removed of restrictions on voting in the period between the 2004 and 2008 elections, and a weakening of these reforms from the 2008 election to present.

2006-2008

In response to criticism following the 2004 election, the state in 2006 removed a requirement that voters submitting absentee ballots also submit a reason for doing so. This period marked a gradual removal of restrictions on voting, allowing for easier early voting and longer polling hours. In the 2008 election, turnout was high, especially among minority voters, who in Cuyahoga County formed 56% of all in-person early voters (but were only 28% of the population), and in Montgomery County formed 52% (20% of the population).

(http://prospect.org/article/why-partisans-and-election-law-shouldnt-mix-see-ohio)

Then-Ohio Secretary of State (Republican) Kenneth Blackwell bore the brunt of the criticism of Ohio’s handling of the 2004 election, and accusations of vote suppression spurred the reforms of the next few years.  Jennifer Brunner, his replacement in Ted Strickland’s (Democratic) administration, similarly sparked controversy by allowing citizens to register (to vote) and then vote on the same day. Ohio Republicans took her to court over this issue, and the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Brunner’s actions.

(http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/01/ohio-gets-green-light-on-same-day-registration-and-voting/)

Republicans also argued that election observers were necessary during early voting periods, and while a district court  (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio) agreed,  an appellate court overturned the lower court’s decision.

2009-2011

H.B. 260 and S.B. 8, both of which were later amended, still reflected a desire to remove restrictions on voting in Ohio. Both sought to simplify the process, largely by reducing the number of reasons a voter would be required to submit a provisional ballot (from 13 to 3) and limit the grounds on which a voter can be challenged to a short list of specific concerns, such as voters submitting ballots in incorrect precincts. Of the two, S.B. 8 was the more limited, largely passed by Republicans, while H.B. 260 was broader in scope and had bipartisan support.

(http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/d89c445a99f438cdc0_30m6bxzdq.pdf)

In 2010, concerns of voter suppression began to arise throughout the state. Chief among them was the argument that disenfranchisement of voters who submitted ballots in the wrong precinct would unfairly penalize ignorant voters, particularly when poll workers give incorrect information  or voters submit ballots at the right polling building, but an incorrect table (“right church, wrong pew” phenomenon). Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted responded by arguing that such incorrect information is given out less than 1% of the time, which he called “pretty darn good.”

(http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201207281511/NEWS/307290025)

H.B. 159, containing a photo ID requirement, passed in the Republican-controlled Ohio House of Representatives in 2011.  Republicans attempted to pressure the Senate to approve this photo ID requirement in state election law, but the Senate refused to do so, and even the more conservative members of the Ohio Senate argued for provisional ballots that would require voters to provide their social security number, but not a photo ID. Summarized Secretary of State Husted, “a photo ID bill should include alternatives.”

(http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/06/29/house-approves-election-bill.html)

Meanwhile, criticism of the proposed photo ID requirement increased among accusations of vote suppression, with the left-leaning think tank Policy Matters Ohio composing a detailed report of the costs of such a requirement.

(http://www.policymattersohio.org/voter-id-apr2012)

2012

(http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012/#scribd)

It is important to note that several proposed changes in Ohio election law were either repealed or overturned by courts in 2012.

H.B. 194, signed by Governor John Kasich in July 2011 (repealed May 2012) would have reduced the time permitted for in-person absentee voting from 35 days prior to the election, to 17 days prior, and would have limited polling hours to 8 AM-6 PM on weekdays (8 AM-12 PM on Saturdays).

Poll workers in Ohio are required by state law to inform voters of which precinct they should be voting in; this responsibility would have been eliminated under H.B. 194.

(http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_SB_295_EN_N.html)

Perhaps most notably, and certainly attracting the most national attention, was H.B. 224, which would have ended the early voting period the Friday prior to Election Day for all voters except absentee ballots from overseas military personnel. H.B. 224 was enjoined by a federal court on August 31, 2012.

While Ohio has fewer restrictions than many other states, many election law changes still stand, with potential to suppress rather than direct disenfranchisement.

Felony Disenfranchisement

(http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286)

Ohio does not permit its felons to vote via absentee ballot during their incarceration, nor does it enfranchise felons on probation or parole. Ohio does permit ex-felons to vote once their sentence has been completed; however, the Brennan Center notes that ex-felons are not required to be notified when the vote is restored to them.

(http://www.brennancenter.org/content/pages/voting_rights_restoration_efforts_in_ohio)

Background:

Pennsylvania has voted for the Democratic candidate in each presidential election since Bill Clinton won the state in 1992. Many of those Democratic victories were by narrow margins, such as John Kerry’s 2.5% margin of victory. Pennsylvania has been widely perceived as a swing state in the 2012 presidential election, whose electoral outcome could swing on small changes in voter turnout.  While Democrats have recently enjoyed presidential election victories in Pennsylvania, the composition of the state General Assembly has been more mixed. From 2006 through 2010, Democrats held the governorship and the house, while Republicans held the Senate. In 2010, the Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly and Republican Tom Corbett was elected governor. The Republicans currently enjoy a 30-20 majority in the Senate, and a 112-90 majority in the house.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law:

The divided state government from 2006 to 2010 prevented major changes in Pennsylvania voting law. The 2010 Republican capture of both legislative chambers and the governorship allowed Pennsylvania Republican to introduce voter ID legislation. On March 4 2011, Daryl D. Metcalfe introduced HB 934 to the Pennsylvania House. HB 934 required strict photo identification in order to vote in elections held after September 17 2012. HB 934 passed the Pennsylvania House in June 2011 and in the Senate in March 2012, and on March 14 2012, Governor Corbett signed the bill into law as Act 18. The bill passed both houses along party lines: no Democrat in either the Pennsylvania House  or Senate  voted for the bill.

Act 18 requires that voters have photo identification issued by Pennsylvania or the U.S., or a valid U.S. passport, or a student, employee, army or assisted living facility photo ID. Act 18 requires the State to provide photo ID at no cost if the applicant has no other valid form of identification and requires identification to vote. People without IDs must produce an original social security card as well as a birth certificate, citizenship certificate,naturalization certificate or passport.  Act 18 authorizes voters to cast provisional ballots if they do not have the requisite identification, but states that the ballot will not be counted unless the voter appears before the County Board of Elections within 6 days after the election.

On May 1 2012, Vivienne Applewhite and nine other plaintiffs represented by the legal firm Arnold & Palmer, petitioned for an injunction restraining enforcement of the photo ID law. Ms. Applewhite, a 92 year old woman, did not have a driver’s license or birth certificate and as such seemed likely to be disenfranchised by the law. The suit was supported by the ACLU, the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, among other interests groups. The petition argued that the photo ID law presented burdens of documentation, travel and bureaucracy. It argued that the law disproportionately burdened the elderly, the disabled, the poor, women and minorities among other groups. Accordingly, the petition argued that the law impinged upon the fundamental right to “free and equal” elections found in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

In June 2004, GOP House Majority leader Mike Turzai aroused controversy when he openly revealed the partisan motivations of the bill. In a statement to a Republican State Committee, Turzai celebrated the passage of a bill which would have partisan impact on the 2012 Presidential elections, saying ”Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

On July 2010, the Civil Rights division of the U.S. Justice Department began an investigation of the voter ID law. On July 23, the Justice Department requested the full state voter registration list and the Department of Transportation list of those with driver’s licenses and nondriver photo IDs in order to evaluate the Corbett administration’s claim that 99% of state voters had the identification necessary to vote.

Pennsylvania responded to the ACLU legal challenge by announcing plans to simplify the process of obtaining a photo ID. On July 20 2012, less than a week before the beginning of hearings on the PA Voter ID Law, Pennsylvania election officials announced the release of a new photo ID card that would serve as voter identification. The new card would require less documents to acquire. Instead of having to produce a birth Now, instead of having to produce a birth certificate and social security card, voters could now demonstrate their identification with a Social Security number, a birth date, and two proofs of residence.

On August 15 2012, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson,who was elected as a Republican, denied relief to the challengers of the voter ID law. Simpson held that the petitioners’ facial challenge to the voter ID law did not establish that “disenfranchisement was immediate or inevitable.” Rejecting strict scrutiny, Simpson applied the federal flexible standard applied by the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and found that the photo ID requirement was a “reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden.”

The petitioners appealed to the PA State Supreme Court, which is composed of three Democrats and three Republicans. The court’s 4-2 decision vacated the Commonwealth Court ruling and remanded the case to the Commonwealth Court for consideration of the question of whether it is realistic to expect that PennDOT  will be able to supply “liberal access” to ID cards to in time for the election. Two of the court’s Democrats dissented, arguing that the onerous burden that the statute would present was already evident.

On October 2, Robert Simpson issued a partial preliminary injunction against the voter ID law. The injunction will allow people to vote without an ID without a provisional ballot, extending the transitional period of Act 18 beyond this year’s election. Simpson noted that he “expected more photo IDs to have been issued by this time” and “accepted Petitioners’ argument that in the remaining five weeks before the general election, the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed.” Thus, he was not convinced that there would be no disenfranchisement issuing from the implementation of the photo ID law in the 2012 election and was compelled to issue the injunction.

Other Pennslyvania Voting Law:

Pennsylvania Voter ID law has been the only important area of Pennsylvania voting law to change since 2006. Pennsylvania voter ID law is relatively restrictive in most other areas. Pennsylvania does not allow early voting and or excuse free absentee ballots. It does not allow online registration, or same day registration. While you have the right to bring an interpreter with you, Spanish language ballots are provided only in Philadelphia, Lehigh and Berks counties. However, Pennsylvania felony disenfranchisement law is relatively liberal. Pennsylvania disenfranchises felons in prison, but not probationers, parolees or those who have completely served their sentences. This ACLU brochure contains a summary of PA voting rights.

Nevada is firmly in the swing state groups in the 2012 election. Currently, the vast majority of polls suggest a leaning to Obama. Nevada has been a hotly contested state historically though, voting for Clinton, Bush twice and then Obama most recently.

http://www.270towin.com/states/nevada

Nevada does not require that voter registration drives be registered with the state. This is part of its avoidance of disenfranchising at any cost. In the case of registering a large amount of people, a simple mail-in form must be sent. In many ways, mass registrations are encouraged by and seen as fundamentally necessary to the state of Nevada.

http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/webfm_send/85

Voter registration is made even more available in Nevada, as they allow an entirely online registration system (using an on-file signature to fill the form out!).  An extremely recent program furnished by the Help America Vote Act at a relatively cheap price, Nevada stands strictly on the idea that access to the democratic system falls squarely in the state’s responsibilities.

http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/169050016.html

http://atlasproject.net/daily-blog/election-law-changes-june-2012-update/#_ftn21

An online voting apparatus has followed this online registration. Liberalization by Nevada has been met favorably, and the Democratic Party –who generally opposes restrictive measures nationwide – will be rewarded duly in the polls.

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Voter-Registration-Push-in-Nevada-Favors-Democrats-171053311.html

President Obama covets the Latino vote in Nevada. This vote, however, is the subject of several proposed legislative purges of the voter rolls in advance of Election Day. The Republican Party sees this potential purge as a way to weaken an overwhelmingly Democratic base, but it is largely not anticipated to pass. President Obama has been a large amount of time in Nevada, shoring up his presumptive advantage with the Latino vote.  The use of Spanish-language media promotions by both campaigns and the reticence of Romney to concede the Latino vote (contingent on dismay at the economy and same sex marriage) place this electorate very much in flux. Romney did win the Nevada Caucus.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/45167

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54512839-78/county-vote-soriano-gonzalez.html.csp

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/11/152445019/obama-romney-in-the-ring-for-nevadas-latino-vote

Absentee voting is allowed to any registered voter barring a very liberal qualification of documentation.

http://nvsos.gov/index.aspx?page=77

There is a wide notice that Nevada is one of the last states that vehemently denies the need to have a voter photo ID requirement. There have been movements by Republican representatives in the Nevada house to introduce an ID requirement, but they have been met largely with opposition.

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/voter-photo-id-124338014.html

The Nevada state legislature passed a bill in 2003 that restored the right to vote for certain felons. Two conditional resolutions – NRS 213.155 and then NRS 213.157 provide the right to vote to felons who have either been honorably discharged or served out the duration of their sentence. There must be present, at the time of registration documents to prove that these former felons had indeed been released.

http://nvsos.gov/index.aspx?page=86

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286#nevada

In 2011, the Republican Governor, Brian Sandoval, denied continuing any further with this felon liberalization to the polls. The bill was brought before him by a Brennan Center attorney and was supposed and passed in a bipartisan way through the Nevada House. It would grant parolees the right to vote. When Assembly Bill 301 came before Sandoval with the opportunity to expand liberalization to this currently contingent type of felon re-enfranchisement, Sandoval fervently vetoed saying, “The right to vote is a privilege that should not lightly be restored to those few individuals who commit the most egregious crimes.” Currently, some felons cannot get back the right to vote, but this is surely a hot-button topic for the state. There continues to be confusion with the 2003 liberalization to certain felons.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/17/sandoval-vetoes-bill-moves-toward-annual-legislati/

http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/a_missed_opportunity_in_nevada/ http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/winter-2012/voter-id-laws-and-blocking.html

Colorado is a swing state for the 2012 election. The growing Latino vote has pushed the electorate considerably towards the Democratic Party. Obama is currently leading in many of the polls in Colorado, who voted for him in 2008. The Republican candidate, however, carried the previous three elections. Colorado is often seen as the one Democratic state in its part of the nation.

http://www.270towin.com/states/colorado

Governor John Hickenlooper is Democratic in a newly republican House. He has been an extremely popular governor and has successfully pursued bipartisan measures.

Hickenlooper has signed several recent bills on liberalization and transparency for the election cycle. In 2011, he signed House Bill 1219 protecting the rights of overseas military votes, and providing for a more efficient absentee structure. That same bill allows for online voting and ADA compatible measures for other citizens.

http://www.thecitizencenter.org/storage/VetoLetters5.28.pdf

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_21553554/colorado-hickenlooper-governors-approval-rating-at-almost-60-percent

http://coloradosenate.org/home/press/governor-hickenlooper-signs-two-bills-by-senator-newell

Hickenlooper and Colorado have taken a progressive stance to allow all voters efficient access to the processes; despite urgings from Republicans that transparent access to voter records allows certain parties undue access. HB 1036 allows for access to election results and documentation by interested parties earlier than to the average citizen. In so doing, power is given to county courts. The bill was passed with significant pressure that it would create a dual and undue strain on the population between interested parties and others.

http://coloradoindependent.com/120499/controversial-colorado-open-records-bill-draws-calls-for-veto

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/F910975289BD2B1D87257981007F3A47?open&file=1036_enr.pdf

Colorado has an incredibly activist Republican Security of State Scott Gessler. He has liberalized donation rates up significantly. Additionally, Gessler has sought to keep “inactive” voters off the roles. Largely predating Democrats and absentees, Gessler has been met with several lawsuits to curb the scope his visions.

http://atlasproject.net/daily-blog/election-law-changes-june-2012-update/

Perhaps as a counter to Gesslers activism, on the ballot this coming election day is an amendment seeking to curb campaign spending on local and state elections. Colorado is highly contested, and has been the site of much national presidential campaign spending. The role of the super PAC may stay a huge determinant in election politics but Colorado is largely trying to curb that influence in the state through non-binding referenda.

http://www.inewsnetwork.org/posts/amendment-65-limit-election-campaign-contributions-and-spending/

Colorado has sufficiently low barriers to entry in the voting realm. You can register online and fairly efficiently given a drivers license.

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/vote/VoterHome.html

in 2003, Colorado passed a very lenient ID law required for voting. The list of acceptable forms of ID is long – including drivers’ and pilots’ licenses – and so was perceived to not impose undue burden on the electorate. This law was amoing the first wave, and it is interesting to see the popular conceptions as different from those toward the PA voter ID license. Note that provisiotnal ballots can be cast without ID. In April 2011, a more restrictive voter ID law was offered and quickly killed off. To crystallize the debate, the Republican Senate proponent said, “It is unfortunate that the Senate Democrats refused to ensure the integrity of Colorado’s election process.”

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

http://www.coloradosenatenews.com/?q=content/democrats-reject-mitchell’s-voter-id-bill

Colorado, however, has a large Latino population who have increasingly voted as a solid Democratic block. As a result, there arises various plans for voter purges based on citizenship of previously registered voters. Gessler has led this initiative which could disfranchised recently naturalized citizens. The incongruity between driver license lists (obtained while still immigrants by many) and citizen rolls will create this missed population. The Advancement Project contends that “In Colorado, eligible Latino voters are twice the 2008 Presidential margin of victory, while unregistered Latino citizens alone exceed the margin of victory.” This purge has lead to serious media coverage. Subject to partisan ideologies, conservatives in Colorado and across the nation have inflicted grave penalties on Democratic-sympathizers in the name of voter fraud.

http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/18ff5be68ab53f752b_0tm6yjgsj.pdf

http://www.businessinsider.com/voter-id-laws-hispanic-latino-fraud-suppression-2012-9

Overview of State Politics

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is home to just over six and a half million people and 12 votes in the electoral college. Located in the heart of New England, Massachusetts is arguably the most Democratic state in the nation. Democrats comprise 133 out of 160 seats in the State House of Representatives and 35 out of 40 seats in the State Senate. Moreover, between 1960 and 2008, Reagan was the only Republican to win the state of Massachusetts and Senator Scott Brown was the first Republican senator since 1978. Additionally all ten U.S. Representatives from Massachusetts belong to the Democratic Party

The Governorship is the one exception to the pattern.While Massachusetts has had a Democratic governor since 2007, many Republicans, including current Republican Presidential Nominee, Mitt Romney, have held the position over the years.

It is widely predicted President Barack Obama will carry Massachusetts again in 2012.

Proposed Proof of Citizenship Requirement

In 2011 Republicans in state legislature proposed legislation requiring requiring Americans to possess and show documentation of their citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers as a prerequisite to registering to vote. While the bill was overwhelmingly blocked by Democratic representatives, it is still worth noting as part of a larger national trend.

As the Brennan Center Reported, African Americans are more than three times more likely to lack ID proving citizenship than whites. Those making under $25,000 a year are more than twice as likely to lack proof of citizenship as their wealthier counterparts. And as many as one third of all women in this country lack citizenship documentation with their current legal name. Given that each of these groups traditionally favor Democratic candidates, such laws would have a massively disparate impact on Democratic voters.

http://www.protectingthevote.com/

Proposed Voter ID Laws

Similar to proposed citizenship legislation, in 2012 Republicans introduced H.B. 1115 which would require all voters to show specific types of photo I.D.s as a prerequisite to voting. The bill has been referred to Committee and is unlikely to move beyond that stage.

http://brennan.3cdn.net/5cecd812e827c20c2f_3nm6bnebn.pdf

Overview-

West Virginia has voted Republican in the last three presidential elections but state politics are dominated by the Democratic Party. Both U.S. Senators, one of the three U.S. Representatives, both houses of the state legislature, and the governor are Democrats. West Virginia is predicted to be easily won by the GOP in the 2012 election and that may be the reason why no changes to its very lenient voter identification laws are expected.

Identification to Vote-

West Virginia is one of seventeen states that currently have no voter identification laws enacted. In 2011 and 2012 bills that would have changed the law to incorporate some form of voter identification were considered but because of strong disapproval the current system was not changed.

http://www.statejournal.com/story/17035644/voter-id-bill-draws-support-opposition

Absentee Voting-

The absentee voting rules are relatively lenient in West Virginia. To apply for an absentee ballot one must: be working or travelling on Election Day, live in another place part of the year, have a health problem or disability, have the polling place be inaccessible, or go to school away from home.

Early Voting-

West Virginia has enacted a new law that shortens the window on early voting. WV S.B. 581 changes the window for early voting from twenty days before Election Day ending three days prior to thirteen days before Election Day ending three days prior. This bill, passed in 2011 effectively cut the early voting period from seventeen days to ten days.

The state of Idaho recent passed an election law making primaries closed. This means that in a primary only registered party members can vote for their representatives. The party has the option of opting to open the primary. In 2012, the Republican party had closed primary elections, while the Democrats chose to open their primary to all Idaho citizens, save registered Republicans. It is believed that this new law is to blame for a record low voter turnout in Idaho primaries in 2012.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/09/05/2258206/controversy-simmers-over-idahos.html

http://atlasproject.net/daily-blog/election-law-changes-june-2012-update/

Voter identification laws were passed in 2010, requiring Idaho citizens to show photo id when voting. Similarly to other states, this law was largely pushed through by the Republican Party. Again, the majority of Idaho Democrats opposed the law, claiming that in Idaho there is virtually no evidence of voter fraud.

http://www.idahoreporter.com/2010/legislature-approves-voter-id-requirement/

Here is a good website that chronicles recent voter id changes, and compares states. Although Idaho requires photo id to vote, its laws are not as strict as those in Pennsylvania.

Wyoming has not seen any recent changes to voter and election laws:

http://atlasproject.net/daily-blog/election-law-changes-june-2012-update

It requires identification to vote. However, a citizen of Wyoming has many options in this area including a driver’s license, a state issued identification card, a passport, a birth certificate, or social security card. This law is much more lax than the wave of voter id laws affecting other states.

Here is a link to voter id regulations that pertain to students:

http://www.brennancenter.org/pages/student_voting_guide_wyoming

The following link pertains to election laws in Wyoming. Although there have not been any recent changes in election laws, the article notes some problems with the system of voting in Wyoming. To participate in the Republican nominating caucus before a Presidential general election to be held on November 4, 2008, a Wyoming voter must have been a registered Republican on December 16, 2007. To vote in the general election, a voter would only need to show up to the polls on Election Day. To voters accustomed to Election Day registration, it is unlikely that they would have taken the time to register in advance of the party caucuses. They therefore do not get to vote in the party nomination process. The Democrat’s process is more direct, but still presents the same sorts of problems. The article suggests that the early registration deadline for voting affects voter turnout and suppresses the votes of citizens of Wyoming.

http://www.uwyo.edu/law/_files/docs/wy%20law%20review/v12%20n1/9%20lenhart.pdf

Background

Arizona is, as a general rule, a solidly Republican state. It has gone Republican in all but six presidential elections, three of which involved Franklin Roosevelt. Since the 1950s, only Bill Clinton has carried the Democrats to victory in the state. Although some areas of the state trend more to the center – such as the 8th district formerly represented by Gabrielle Giffords – the overarching attitudes of the state are conservative.  Due to this political climate in Arizona, there is little doubt that Romney will sweep the state this November.

Only one area of voting rights has shifted recently in Arizona, and it is in regards to citizenship and IDs at the polls. However, you can read more Arizona’s steady policies on re-instating the civil rights of ex-felons here.

Voting Laws Currently in Effect

Arizona currently requires the following to be provided to cast a ballot at the polls:

• ONE form of identification that features the voter’s name, address, and photograph
  OR
• TWO forms of identification that feature the voter’s name and address

If a voter goes to the polls without the required form of ID, they will receive a provisional ballot. This ballot will be counted if they provide valid ID at the county recorder’s office within the specified time period (5 days for elections involving a federal office, 3 for other elections).

Full list of acceptable forms of ID

Timeline

November 2004 - Prop 200, aka the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act (full text)

Prop 200 requires that in order to register to vote one must prove they are a US citizen. Any application for registration that is not accompanied by the proper form of (citizenship-confirming) ID would be rejected under Prop 200. The proposition also required that identification is required to cast a ballot at the polls.

Prop 200 differs from other voter ID laws since it was motivated not only by perceived voter fraud but by the “economic hardship” put on the state by illegal immigrants.  In addition to aiming to weed out fraudulent voters, the law is meant to stop illegal immigrants from accessing public benefits.  It could be viewed as a predecessor to AZ’s controversial immigration law, commonly known as SB1070.

May 2006 - Gonzales v Arizona: Challenging Prop 200

Registered voters and various voting rights groups challenged Arizona’s new law on the grounds that it a) did not receive clearance to change mail-in registration practices and b) disproportionately affected Latinos.  The challengers argued that members of the Latino community were less likely to possess the forms needed to register.

In September, the Court denied the motion for injunction, which led to the new voter restrictions being applied to both 2006 and 2008 elections.

Additional details on challenges to Prop 200 (such as court documents and outside analysis) can be found at Moritz College of Law’s Election Law resource.

October 2010 - Gonzales v Arizona: Take 2

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Prop 200′s proof of citizenship requirement was indeed superseded by the NVRA, contrary to what courts had previously decided. This meant voters registering by mail would not have to prove their citizenship in order to be register, but would still have to provide ID at the polls.

Full text of the Court’s decision can be read here.

June 2012 - Supreme Court denies hold on 9th Circuit Decision

The US Supreme Court denied the state of Arizona’s application to put a hold on the Ninth Circuit’s latest ruling on Prop 200.  The state could still seek a formal review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, but this denial from the Supreme Court makes a overturn of the decision look unlikely.

Of course, this only applies to the citizenship portion of the law. There are no serious challenges to the ID portion of the law at the moment.

What This Means for 2012

Those opposed to the Arizona voter ID law did win a victory with the Ninth Circuit Court decision on citizenship documentation, but there has been no real progress when it comes to the requirement of ID at the polls.  The added fact that non-photo IDs – such as utility bills, bank statements, or tribal enrollment cards – can be substituted for a more traditional photo ID makes any efforts to prove that the law poses an undue burden more difficult than in states with stricter requirements.

Since 2010 Connecticut has had a Democratic governor, Dannell Malloy. The state legislature is heavily Democrat with 114 Democrat state representatives and only 37 Republicans. In the Senate there are 24 Democrats and 12 Republicans. Before 2010, the state legislature was still very Democrat but had a Republican governor, Jodi Rell.  As of today, at polls, voters will be required to show a document that has the voter’s name and either the voter’s signature, address, or photograph. Showing a license or Social Security card is also permitted.

http://www.brennancenter.org/pages/student_voting_guide_connecticut 

2002:

On the first day of 2002, Connecticut passed an act restoring voting rights to convicted felons on probation. The law applied to all of those who had been in prison or on parole by submitting written proof of citizenship. This law did not apply to citizens who were confined to a correctional facility or community residence.

http://www.ct.gov/doc/lib/doc/PDF/VotingRightsEnglish.pdf

2008:

In 2008, an election which Democrats won big in Connecticut, voters decided to allow 17-year-olds to vote so long as they turn 18 in time for the general election. In 2012, this law was expanded so that 17 year olds were allowed to vote in primaries as well.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/connecticut.html

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/x1364622670/17-year-olds-voting-in-Connecticut-GOP-primary

2012:

On may 5, 2012, the Connecticut state legislature passed a law proposed by governor Dannell Malloy and Secretary of State Denise Merill that would allow for online voting registration and same day voting registration. This law had previously passed the Connecticut House of Representatives and will go into effect in July of 2013 and January of 2014. This law came at a particularly interesting time considering most of the other states in the union are restricting the right to vote. In Connecticut, the right to vote has been expanded.

http://www.demos.org/press-release/ct-passes-election-day-and-online-voter-registration

Overview-

Kentucky has long been recognized as a Republican stronghold and has gone red in seven of the last ten presidential elections. Only southern governors Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have been able to win Kentucky as Democrats since 1972. Kentucky‘s two Senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, are also Republicans and four of Kentucky’s six Representatives are members of the GOP. However, at the state level, the Senate is 60% Republican but Democrats hold a slight edge with almost 60% of the House seats as well as a Democratic governor, Steve Beshear. This split in state government and the Republican stronghold on national elections have held the state’s voting laws relatively unchanged.

Identification to Vote-

Kentucky’s does have a voter identification law but not a  strict voter ID law like those that have been passed in the last three years by states like Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee. A voter in Kentucky must present a state issued driver’s license, social security card, or credit card and the election officer must validate identification by personal acquaintance or by the said documents.

Absentee Ballots-

Kentucky’s absentee voter rules are relatively lenient. Reasons to apply for an absentee ballot are: advanced age, illness, disability, military personnel, student outside the county, voter who temporarily resides outside the state, incarcerated but not convicted of a crime, or employed outside the county at all hours of the open polls.

Early Voting-

You can vote early in Kentucky but a valid excuse is necessary. All of the reasons for an absentee ballot are accepted as well as being an election volunteer working in a different precinct on Election Day.

For being such a prominent swing state, Iowa has relatively liberal laws regarding voter registration and early voting.  However, in recent years, these lenient laws have been under attack by the Republican Governor and Secretary of State.

Registered voters in Iowa can vote on Election Day without presenting any form of identification.  In 2011, a voter ID law passed in the republican-controlled Iowa House of Representatives.  However, the law did not make it through the democratic Senate.  In early 2012, republican Secretary of State, Matt Schultz, introduced another voter ID bill.  Schultz’s bill was unique in that it would have allowed one voter to vouch for another in place of a photo ID.  This bill, though otherwise similar to the first, failed even to pass through the House.

While there has been much talk of restricting early and absentee voting in Iowa, the state maintains one of the longest early voting periods in the country.  Iowans are allowed to vote absentee without an excuse and are able to begin early voting in late September.  Additionally, the state allows Election Day registration.

Recently, lists of registered voters have come under great scrutiny by Schultz.  He is attempting to identify all non-citizens who might be registered to vote by comparing voter registration rolls with lists of legal residents who are not citizens.  So far, Schultz has identified 3,582 potentially ineligible voters, though it is not likely that he will be able to take any actions to prevent them from voting in the November election.  Schultz has not yet gained access to a federal database that will officially decide voters’ eligibility, and the date for removing names from the list of eligible voters has already passed.

Perhaps the greatest controversy in Iowa regarding voting rights is about felon disenfranchisement.  In 2005, Executive Order 42 restored voting rights to felons who had completed their sentences.  However, earlier this year the new Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, rescinded this order.  Furthermore, he established a fee that felons must pay in order to have their voting rights reinstated.  This causes permanent disenfranchisement of felons in Iowa for all intents and purposes, and has caused uproar amongst many parole support groups.  Iowa is currently one of only two dates who has rescinded an executive action that made it easier for felons to become enfranchised.

Background information:

Alabama is a predominantly white southern state that has voted Republican since 1972, except for native Jimmy Carter in 1976. As of the 2010 census, Alabama will remain at 9 electoral votes for the next 3 presidential elections. The 68.5% white population still shows some signs of racism, in 2004, voting against a proposed amendment to the 1901 Alabama constitution that would have removed laws, currently ruled unenforceable, forcing schools to be racially segregated, citing issues such as tax increases. While the movement to remove them was backed by many business and civil and educational leaders, including the current republican governor, the white majority in the electorate voted against the amendment.

http://www.270towin.com/states/Alabama

http://www.protectcivilrights.org/pdf/voting/AlabamaVRA.pdf

In 2003 Alabama Governor Riley approved Act 2003-381. The law was precleared on August 7^th and was put into effect on September 9^th 2003. 

This act required voters to have current, valid photo identification, or one of many more accessible documents, such as a paycheck made out to the voter.

Without one of these a voter is only able to:

1. Vote a challenged or provisional ballot

2. Vote, if he or she is identified as a voter on the poll list who is eligible to vote by two poll workers and both poll workers sign the voting sign-in register by the voter’s name

http://www.sos.state.al.us/Elections/VoterID.aspx – A list of formerly valid ID is listed here

2006:

Act 2003-381 is amended to include absentee ballots, now requiring that the absent voter to submit a copy of their identification with the ballot (photocopies are accepted).

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/17/9/17-9-30  - A list of formerly valid ID is listed here

2011:

Bill HB 19 is passed by legislation. The bill is set to be set into effect in 2014. Simply put, the bill requires voters to present ID to vote and limits what was previously set as ID in Act 2003-381, removing documents such as gun licenses from the list of valid ID.

http://votesmart.org/bill/12959/35710 – A list of valid ID is listed here

http://brennan.3cdn.net/5cecd812e827c20c2f_3nm6bnebn.pdf  – A list of valid ID is listed here

With the new bill, voters without ID can Vote a provisional ballot or vote a regular ballot if they are identified by two election officials as an eligible voter on the poll list, and both election workers sign a sworn affidavit stating that the voter in question is a legitimate voter.

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

Bill HB 56 now requires potential voters to present proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/resources/alabama

http://brennan.3cdn.net/5cecd812e827c20c2f_3nm6bnebn.pdf – A list of valid evidence of citizenship is listed here

ACLU challenges Alabama:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of Alabama filed a lawsuit claiming that Alabama’s felon disenfranchisement system is unconstitutional. Alabama had the right to disenfranchise felons that committed a crime involving moral turpitude, a not clearly defined term according to the ACLU. A person convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude can apply for their voting rights to be restored by the Board of Pardons and Paroles as long as the applicant has paid all fines, court costs, fees and restitution associated with their sentence according to Alabama Law. According to the ALCU, this is considered discriminatory as there are some felons not able to pay these fees, and therefore the law would be discriminatory on the basis of wealth.

http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-challenges-alabama-voter-disenfranchisement-laws-court

As of 2010, Alabama has defined a crime of moral turpitude in the Definition of Moral Turpitude Act, adding another section to Chapter 3 of Title 17 of the Code of Alabama 1975.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2010rs/bills/sb257.htm

Shelby County Case:

Shelby County is currently in a case with the U.S. Justice Department, stating that the 25-year renewal of the Voting Rights Act is punishing states such as Alabama, which have had a notorious history of disenfranchisement, arguing that this is no longer the case. The county is specifically noting two sections, 5 and 4b, which requires local governments to request permission before amending their election systems, and determines which areas in the countries are affected by section 5, respectively. However, looking at cases such as the proposed 2004 constitutional amendments still point out that racism and discrimination still plays a large part in Alabama politics and elections.

http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/07/us_supreme_court_expected_to_h.html

http://www.protectcivilrights.org/pdf/voting/AlabamaVRA.pdf

January 2003
-Help America Vote Act of 2002 is implemented in New Jersey and henceforth, if you have never voted in a federal election in the county before you must provide identification or if you did not provide I.D. when you originally registered to vote you must provide identification at the polling location. Other than those scenarios, New Jersey’s voter I.D. requirements are very relaxed. If you need to show I.D. it can either be photo I.D. or one of a number of personal documents and statements proving identity.

http://www.brennancenter.org/pages/student_voting_guide_new_jersey#_ftn15

http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/voting-information-voting.html

July 2009
-In July of 2009, New Jersey enacted a “vote by mail” ballot, in which the voter can either mail in the ballot so that the county clerk receives the request 7 days before the election or it may be delivered in person the day before the election at the county clerk’s office.

http://ucnj.org/government/county-clerk/vote-by-mail/

Absentee Voting
-All voters are eligible to vote absentee in New Jersey. There is no-excuse needed for absentee voting.
-Permanent absentee status is available

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx#a

Registration
-Registration must be completed at least 21 before the election.
- Cannot register to vote or vote if you are serving a sentence, on parole, or on probation for conviction of a federal or state law
-Ex-felons are permitted to vote

http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/voting-information.html

Early Voting
-There is no in-person early voting in New Jersey

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx#a

-Handbook of Voting Rights in NJ

http://www.state.nj.us/counties/mercer/commissions/pdfs/boe_voterrightshandbook.pdf

Other
-Overall, over the past decade or so, there haven’t been any major changes in New Jersey voting laws or requirements. The below site shows any changes in voting laws within each of the fifty states.

http://atlasproject.net/daily-blog/election-law-changes-june-2012-update/

The state of South Carolina is currently engaged in an extremely protracted battle over the potential passing of a new, stricter voter ID law.  While South Carolina is predominantly Republican, and reaffirmed this during the 2008 election by awarding its electoral votes to McCain, it seems voter suppression efforts are underway regardless.  South Carolina’s current law, §7-13-710, allows voters to present either a South Carolina driver’s license, a South Carolina Dept. of Motor Vehicles photo ID card, or the written notification of voter registration.  Furthermore, voters without a valid ID are allowed to cast a provisional ballot, but this vote may or may not count depending on the commissioners of that particular county.

However, South Carolina’s proposed voter ID law stipulates that voter registration forms cannot be used as valid identification on Election Day.  Instead, the new law would require voters to present a driver’s license, Dept. of Motor Vehicles ID, a passport, military ID, or “south Carolina voter registration card with a photo.”  The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has classified South Carolina’s proposed law in the “Strict Photo ID” category, along with Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.  Moreover, under the proposed legislation, provisional ballots would not count in any county, unless the elector presented valid ID to the county board of elections before the results were certified.  Among those also currently trying to pass strict voter ID laws include Mississippi, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Though the law was to take effect in December 2011, it was denied preclearance by the Department of Justice, with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez citing violations of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as past failures on the part of South Carolina to protect the voting rights of minorities, who many feel will be disproportionately disenfranchised by the proposed legislation.  Moreover, Thomas Perez found the law redundant, writing in the letter denying preclearance. “…the state showed no evidence that voter fraud existed that couldn’t be addressed by current state laws.”  Attorney General Eric Holder agreed with Thomas Perez, issuing a fiery speech calling for federal review of voter ID laws while in Austin, in a clear attempt to call to mind LBJ’s signing of the Voting Rights Act in the same city.  Many other individuals and organizations such as the NAACP, issued statements and held rallies in opposition to the proposed law, citing civil rights violations.

While many feel that the voter ID law is discriminatory, others believe that denying the law preclearance is an affront to voters.  State Senator Dan Patrick of Houston, fearing that Texas’ law would be denied in accordance with the South Carolina ruling, said that “I think this is another example of an extremely overly aggressive Justice Department under the Obama administration that continues to try to overrule the will of the people and the legislatures of states across this country.”  Clearly undeterred by the denial of preclearance, South Carolina applied to have the law reconsidered by the Federal District Court of Washington, D.C., and the court went to case this August.  Arguing that Crawford v. Marion County Election Board upheld a very similar voter ID law, proponents of the law felt this precedent was ignored by the Department of Justice in their decision.

The closing arguments in the case (SC #2012-203) are to be heard Monday, September 24^th, marking the near-end of an extremely contested and hotly debated issue.  Indeed, the law passed in 2011 (though not yet in effect), represents the third incarnation of a voter ID bill, the first of which “triggered a walkout by all but one African-American in the South Carolina House,” and the second of which was killed by a Democratic filibuster in 2010. Although the decision in this case would likely be appealed to the Supreme Court no matter which way the decision went, South Carolina holds that it would implement the law immediately, should the judge uphold it. Though proponents of the law claim that it will reduce in-person voter fraud, they were unable to produce a single example of this type of voter fraud.

Legal arguments against the law have asserted that it is discriminatory in nature, a view given great weight after an email from South Carolina Rep. Alan Clemmons leaked, in which he sympathized with a racist sentiment that likened “potentially disenfranchised South Carolinians to ‘a swarm of bees going after a watermelon.’”  Similarly, Senator John Scott of South Carolina, the only Democrat and African-American on the committee that finalized the law, said “I really and truly do.  I believe that [Republican legislators intended to suppress the black vote].”  Finally, opponents of the law attacked the claim that a loophole allowing those with “reasonable cause” for not having an ID to vote made the law more palatable, pointing out that the notary fees required for those without an ID equated to a modern-day poll tax.  In the NAACP’s official statement regarding the original decision to deny the law’s preclearance, NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous noted, “South Carolina’s voter ID law was little more than a 21^st Century poll tax…While some may quibble over the intent, there is no doubt the effect of this law would disproportionately block black South Carolinians from voting.”  Together, these arguments promise a tense and partisan end to this extremely protracted legal battle.

Also notable is the fact that South Carolina prevents all those serving a prison sentence, on probation, or on parole, from voting.

Overview of State Politics-

Traditionally a solid southern red state, North Carolina has, as of late, seen a shift leftward. Republicans carried the state in every presidential election from 1968 to 2004 (with the exception of Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976). But in 2008, it voted for Barack Obama in what was one of his most surprising state victories. Indeed, North Carolina, with Virginia, is considered a new southern swing state.

Its congressional delegation is relatively evenly divided, with one Democratic senator and one Republican senator and seven Democratic members of the House of Representatives to six Republican members. On the state level, government is also divided, with Democrat Bev Perdue holding the governor’s mansion, but Republicans controlling substantial majorities in both the state senate and state house.

This has led to interesting changes in voting law and procedure, or rather, attempted changes.  As one would expect for a state with divided government, it has been marked by attempts at voter suppression that have been blocked by the governor.

But beyond the typical story of photo ID requirements, North Carolina has a number of interesting election procedures that make voting slightly easier, and with them, attempts to take such procedures away.

Trying for Photo ID, and the Subsequent 2012 State Election Drama-

In 2011, the General Assembly passed a bill that would have required photo ID. But Governor Bev Perdue, vetoed the legislation.

Photo ID has become a prominent issue in the upcoming gubernatorial election, which pits Democrat Walter Dolton and Republican Pat McCrory. Unsurprisingly, McCrory has said he would sign into law a photo ID requirement if elected. Perhaps what’s more surprising is that while Dolton has said he would not permit a blanket photo ID law, he would support the mandated limited application of some voter identification. Spokesman Schorr Johnson said “Walter Dalton has supported measures to require ID to register to vote and to provide ID at the polls for first-time voters who register by mail.”

But for the 2012 election, voters in North Carolina will be able to vote without presenting identification. What will happen afterwards remains to be seen.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/23/3552591/voter-id-battles-churn-in-key.html

One-Stop Early and Absentee Voting Program and Further Attempts at Suppression-

North Carolina has a form of same-day registration and early voting in its one-stop voting program. This allows any registered voter to cast an in-person absentee ballot on certain days before Election Day. In addition, it allows individuals who missed the registration deadline to register in person and vote at a one-stop absentee voting site during the early-voting period.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=135

North Carolina also permits mail-in absentee ballots. There are no restrictions in North Carolina as to who may vote absentee.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=132&s=132

However, in 2011, legislation was introduced in North Carolina to end same-day registration and early in-person voting. It failed to become law.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0372.htm

2010 Implementation of a Pre-Registration Program-

In 2010, a new law took effect in North Carolina which permitted 16 and 17-year olds to pre-register to vote. North Carolina requires election officials to hold annual voter registration drives in high schools.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20120923/ARTICLES/120929857?p=2&tc=pg

In addition, 17-year olds may vote in a primary if they will turn 18 by the general election.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=142

Voter Registration Drives-

North Carolina has few restrictions or requirements on who may conduct voter registration drives. No licensing is required, no training is necessary, and the group is not required to register as a political action committee. Failure, however, to submit registration forms at least 25 days before the election can be punished as a class 2 misdemeanor.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=142

Furthermore, the state requires that the board of elections makes voter application forms available throughout the state for distribution to government and private organizations. It places a particularly strong emphasis on making such forms available for voter registration drives.

http://brennan.3cdn.net/f7aa10de5668ff7b44_ldm6bvtn7.pdf

Failed Electoral Reform-

Similarly, North Carolina has had several failed efforts to liberalize its electoral proceedings. A 2009 bill called the Electoral Freedom Act, which aimed to reduce the number of signatures necessary for a third party or unaffiliated candidate to gain ballot access was introduced to the state legislature, but died. A second 2011 bill with similar aims faced a similar fate.

http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=hb32&submitButton=Go

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/bill_would_increase_ballot_access

Voting Rights Act and Pre-clearance-

Much of North Carolina is covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965’s preclearance provisions. But North Carolina is one a few states with currently challenging aspects of the law in courts.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/10/160899032/id-laws-bring-new-attention-to-voting-rights-act

For example, in 2008, the town of Kingston, North Carolina attempted to move towards nonpartisan elections, but was blocked by the Justice Department, which found it would reduce the power of black voters. The city sued, and even though the Justice Department reversed its decision and a federal appeals court in Washington through out the suit, Nix v. Holder, and the city’s challenge to section five of the Voting Rights Act, is now before the Supreme Court.

 http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/17/3537650/1965-voting-rights-act-faces-challenge.html

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/section-5-challenges-reach-court/

Felon Disenfranchisement-

In North Carolina, felons are disenfranchised, and voting rights are not restored until the completion of prison, parole, and probation.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_48642.pdf

Instant Runoff Voting: Testing New Election Techniques-

North Carolina, in 2007, tested instant runoff voting in an election in Cary, North Carolina. Instant runoff voting allows voters to mark their first, second, and third choice candidates in a race, allowing for an instant runoff if a runoff is needed.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/1886176/

In 2010, they utilized it for a statewide judicial election. It is the first state to do so in a statewide election.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/24/north-carolina-tries-instant-runoff-voting.html

Voting Equipment and Help America Vote Act Problems-

Like many other states, North Carolina has had its fair share of problems with electronic voting machines. In Craven County, for example, a voter reported that for four consecutive tries, a voting machine misread his ballot in the 2010 election. He needed to have election workers come over and help him with the machine to have his ballot correctly read.

http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/machine-91656-screen-voter.html

In addition, efforts to utilize Help America Vote Act funds have run into partisan issues. While this year, the state House of Representatives was able to allocate the state money that was necessary to unfreeze the $4 million dollars in HAVA funds, the state Senate has yet to follow it’s lead. Republican lawmakers have protested and questioned the need for and use of federal funds.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/11/3309601/plaudits-to-nc-house-for-vote.html

Text of Entire State Election Law-

Election laws are available here:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0163

Overview of the State’s Politics-

With over 19 million inhabitants and 29 electoral votes, New York State is the third most populous state in the country. It is also one of the most reliably Democratic. Both its senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, are Democrats. The state’s congressional delegation is overwhelmingly made up of Democrats.

More important to election law, the state government is generally dominated by the Democratic Party. The state’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, is one of the party’s rising stars, and Democrats have more than twice the number of seats in the State Assembly then do Republicans. The most notable exception is the New York State Senate, where Republicans have a slim majority.

Stopping Voter Suppression and Voter ID-

As a result, national trends of voter suppression, which have manifested most notably in vote ID requirements, have largely not affected New York. Two bills were introduced to the state legislature that would require government-issued photo ID to vote, one in 2012 and one in 2011. But both are now pending before committees from which it is unlikely they will escape. Even if they did, the chance that the State Assembly would pass the laws is extremely low, and the chance that Governor Cuomo would sign them even lower.

http://brennan.3cdn.net/5cecd812e827c20c2f_3nm6bnebn.pdf

Bucking the Trend-

Indeed, in many ways, New York State is doing the opposite of what is occurring in much of the country and making it easier for minorities and those who might otherwise be discouraged from casting a ballot to vote. After all, making the franchise accessible to immigrants and ethnic or religious minorities has, for the better part of American history, been an ongoing process (and sometimes ongoing struggle) in immigrant and minority heavy New York City.

For example, the state recently made it easier for those who speak Russian but not English to cast a ballot. Russian is the fourth most spoken language in New York City, behind English, Spanish, and Chinese. However, New York City while provided voting materials in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Korean, it failed to do so in Russian.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/bloomberg_blamed_russian_ballot_failure

That changed with the passage of new legislation in 2009. Election law in New York State was changed to require the board of elections to provide the same information it provides in languages that are not English on its website in Russian in cities where the population is more than one million people (which is just New York City). On top of that, the board of elections was required to produce and distribute a booklet throughout the city that has a voter registration form in English but with Russian instructions. It is also now required to produce Russian instructions for the criteria and process of applying for and receiving an absentee ballot. Finally, it is also required to have a part of the book that contains general voter information in Russian and answers to frequently asked questions in Russian. The modification specified that “such board may include other languages on its website and in such booklet.”

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/law/2012NYElectionLaw.pdf

Recent Evolution of Felon Disenfranchisement-

New York, like most states, disenfranchises many felons. Individuals in prison or on parole for a felony may not vote in the state of New York, although those on probation, misdemeanants, and pretrial detainees are permitted to vote. New York has, even in modern times, gone as far as to illegally suppress the right of ex-convicts to vote. A 2006 Brennan Report found, for example, that one third of New York State counties illegally refused to allow those on probation to register, even though they were legally allowed to. There has been a great deal of misinformation and thus confusion in the state about the right of ex-convicts and felons to vote.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/erika_wood_before_the_new_york_state_senate_elections_committee/

But New York has taken small steps to expand the franchise to ex-convicts. In July 2010, New York passed A.B. 9706, a public safety bill that included a provision requiring correctional facilities to notify people that they have the right to vote upon their release from prison. The bill mandates criminal justice agencies distribute voter registration application forms to eligible former inmates upon completing a maximum sentence.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/pages/voting_rights_restoration_efforts_in_new_york

Voting Machines, 2010 Election Day Issues, and the Ongoing Struggle-

While New York has resisted voter suppression, it has run into difficulty updating its voting equipment and voting day procedures. The Help America Vote Act, signed into law in 2002, aimed to replace lever-voting systems throughout the country. This had a particularly strong impact on New York, which had been reliant on lever-based voting systems for generations. In accordance with HAVA, New York, in 2008, adopted a two-phase plan to implement and introduce new voting systems to New York.

http://www.vote-ny.com/english/overview.php

However, making new systems and ballots work has been easier said then done. Primaries for the 2010 elections in New York City were marked with difficulties. Sites did not open on time, some scanners did not work, and individuals were concerned by the lack of privacy. There was a large amount of criticism, including from mayor Michael Bloomberg, about these issues and the performance of the Board of Elections in dealing with them. The board of elections promised that the general election would run smoother.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/problems-reported-with-new-voting-machines/

By most accounts, the November 2^nd general election did run more smoothly, with far fewer complaints regarding equipment failure and fewer privacy concerns. But there were other complaints. Voters voiced concerns about the confusing instructions and very small type of the ballots, which made voting difficult. So difficult, in fact, that magnifying sheets were available to help read the ballots.

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/nov/02/election-day-has-less-problems-small-font-and-double-faced-ballot-still-confuse-ny-voters/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22critic.html

In addition, new voting systems, which replaced New York’s classic lever based voting systems, continued to come under criticism. A coalition of organizations that advocate for minorities and those who are disadvantaged sued to prevent a voting machine configuration that they argued would result in the loss of thousands of votes. Their argument centered on the fact that the voting systems would not notify voters if they were about to cast an overvote before submitting their ballot.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/naacp_new_york_state_conference_et_al._v._new_york_state_board_of_elec/

On February 10, 2012, both the plaintiff and the defendant reached a settlement in which the board of elections would put an overvote message into the machines. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed at the request of the plaintiff.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/1:2010cv02950/306069/41

Efforts to improve the small-type ballots have been less successful. Governor Andrew Cuomo seemed to be nearing a deal with state legislators to redesign the ballots, but a partisan dispute in the state senate froze any action.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/us/voting-systems-plagues-go-far-beyond-identification.html?pagewanted=all

Absentee and Early-Voting-

New York State does not have early voting, and requires an excuse for absentee ballots (e.g. away from home on election day, sick or physically unable to make it to the polls, in prison for a reason other than a felony).

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/law/2012NYElectionLaw.pdf

Voting Registration Drives-

New York State does not have any specific regulation of community-oriented voter registration.

http://brennan.3cdn.net/f7aa10de5668ff7b44_ldm6bvtn7.pdf

Pre-Registration-

New York State permits 17 year olds who will be 18 on or before the election date to pre-register to vote.

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/law/2012NYElectionLaw.pdf

Text of Entire New York State Election Law-

New York State’s entire election law code is available here:

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/law/2012NYElectionLaw.pdf

Background:

Montana’s Governor since 2005 has been Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat. Montana has a bicameral legislature composed of a lower-chamber, the House of Representatives, and an upper-chamber, the Senate. Both chambers have tended to alternate frequently in party control. Since 2011, both chambers have been controlled by Republicans, though from 2009-2010 in House and 2007-2008 in the Senate the Democrats have held legislative control. In terms of federal politics, since 2006 Montana’s senators have been Republican Conrad Burns (2006), followed by Democrat Jon Tester (2007-present) and Democrat Max Baucus (2006-present). Montana, with its 3 electoral votes, has voted Republican in every Presidential race since 1996.

N.B. The Montana Legislature only meets for a 90-day session on odd-numbered years (for this period, 2007, 2009, and 2011)

2007

• Absentee Ballots: Legislation passed in April to “revise mailing requirement for address confirmation forms for absentee ballots (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=443&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20071)
• Polling Place Accessibility: Legislation passed in April clarified standards for polling place accessibility (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=502&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20071)
• Polling Places Open Times: Legislation passed in April specified that precincts with fewer than 400 (previously 200) registered voters must close immediately after all registered voters have voted. Because Montana has Election Day Registration (EDR), this legislation potentially disenfranchises voters in more precincts who want to register on election day, particularly those who get out of work late and cannot get to the polls earlier (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=517&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20071)

2009

• Voting Machines: Legislation passed in March required post-election audits of vote-counting machines (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=155&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20091)

2011

• Voter ID: On May 5, Governor Schweitzer vetoed HB 152 (text), which would have enacted a “strict” voter ID law that would require voters to have valid forms of photo ID present at the polls in order to have a ballot that could be counted as normal on election day. Instead, Montana retained its pre-existing voter ID from 2003 (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx) that requests that a voter present some form of photo ID or non-photo identification (i.e. a bank statement or utility statement with the voter’s name and current address). If the voter does not have such ID, he/she may still cast a provisional ballot which is counted as long as the signature on it matches the voter’s signature from registration (Mont. Code Ann. § 13-13-114(1) and § 13-15-107(2)).
• Election Day Voter Registration: Montana currently allows Election Day Registration (EDR), though a bill to get rid of it was introduced in the Montana Legislature in 2011, which was then vetoed by Governor Schweitzer on March 4 (http://brennan.3cdn.net/9c0a034a4b3c68a2af_9hm6bj6d0.pdf).
• Absentee Ballots: Legislation passed in April changed procedures for voters whose absentee ballots were lost or damaged in the mail (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=99&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20111)
• Absentee Ballots: Legislation passed in April legally clarified that absentee ballot requests have to be done annually and are not permanent  (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=484&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20111)
• Military Voters: In April the Montana Legislature implemented the provisions of the federal Military and Overseas Empowerment Act (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=55&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20111)

2012

• Independents on the Ballot: In May, a U.S. District Court Judge ruled, in Kelly v. McCulloch, in favor of the ACLU-litigated party seeking a later registration deadline for independent candidates to get on the ballot. The suit, which was filed in 2008, was in regards to the previous May 25 deadline for independent candidates to file, now since deemed in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-montana-wins-voting-rights-case).

In the past several elections, Louisiana has alternated between Republican and Democrat governors (Democrat in 2004, Republican in 2008).  The state has one Democratic senator and one Republican senator and six Republican House members and one Democratic House member.

2011: The US Department of Justice doesn’t approve of District 5′s redistricting plan, “because proposed changes lower the percentage of black people in population, the voting age and the number of registered voters in the district significantly.”

http://theadvocate.com/news/995838-64/redistricting-plan-nixed-by-justice.html

2011: The Department of Justice filed suit against Louisiana, accusing the state of going against “the NVRA by failing to provide voter registration services at offices providing public assistance and serving persons with disabilities in Louisiana.” Particularly violating the Voting Rights Act is that Louisiana has “not routinely offered voter registration forms, assistance and services to the state’s eligible citizens who apply, recertify or provide a change address for public assistance or disability services, or benefits.”

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/July/11-crt-908.html

More information on Department of Justice vs. Bobby Jindal: http://www.voteguards.org/info-feed/how-doj-nvra-lawsuits-start

2012: US Attorney General Eric Holder speaks at Tulane University against voter ID laws.  In Louisiana, “a photo ID is requested, but voters without it can still vote after answering identifying questions and signing an affadavit.” (voter ID laws have existed since 1998)

http://uptownmessenger.com/2012/02/u-s-attorney-general-challenges-voter-id-laws-in-tulane-speech/

2012: Voter ID laws in other Southern states provoke Louisiana’s delegates at the Democratic National Convention.  “We’re going to do everything we can in Louisiana … to make sure that people know their rights and exercise their right to vote,” Norton [a Louisiana delegate] said. “We as Democrats, and we as Americans, should do all that we can do to make sure that our rights as citizens are not taken away.’

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120911/NEWS01/209110329/Voter-ID-laws-rile-Democratic-delegates

2012: Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler speaks out against motor voter laws.  In 2011, Obama’s Department of Justice filed suit against Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal and his administration, claiming that “the state failed to provide eligible voters with sufficient opportunities to register.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/24/la-secy-of-state-doj-abusing-motor-voter-law-for-political-agenda/

Mississippi:

2011:

Mississippi’s case is a little bit complicated. Though as of right now there is no voter ID requirement in the state, “  the strict photo ID amendment [was] passed by citizen initiative in November 2011 requires both implementing legislation and pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act before it can be implemented” (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx)

Like in Georgia, Mississippi’s proposed law is justified by claiming to halt voter fraud. And like Georgia, the law has created a lot of controversy, especially amongst democrats and minority, who “ argue it suppresses voting, particularly among young people, non-whites and those of low income” (http://www.voxxi.com/voter-id-laws-state/#ixzz26Bt0MRFN)

Mississippi’s pending voter ID law is very curious. The law “includes a measure allowing Mississippians to get free voter ID cards if they present a birth certificate. But Mississippi law also requires its residents to show valid photo identification in order to get a copy of their birth certificate. Most applicants for voter ID cards are presumed to be seeking them because they don’t have another acceptable form of photo ID. In other words, no birth certificate, no voter ID — but also no photo ID, no birth certificate. This can be a huge issue as a reported 10% of Mississippians are not currently in possession of a state driver’s license

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/mississippi-voter-id-law_n_1653664.html)

As of right now, however, the law is still pending.

South Dakota is a Republican state, with 10% more Republicans than Democrats.  The last time it voted for a Democratic presidential candidate was 1964, and the last Democratic governor was in 1978.

2003: South Dakota was among the first states to impose voter ID laws.  Although not among the strictest voter ID laws, the law (codified §12-18-6.1 and 6.2) mandates that “When a voter is requesting a ballot, the voter shall present a valid form of personal identification.”  Acceptable personal identifications include a South Dakota driver’s license or nondriver identification card, a US passport, a photo ID issued by an agency of the U.S. government, a tribal card (including a photo), and a student ID card (including a photo) issued by an accredited South Dakota school.  Without an acceptable form of ID, the voter can fill out “an affidavit in lieu of the personal identification.  The affidavit shall require the voter to provide his or her name and address. The voter shall sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury.”

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx#sd

2004: In 2004, a federal court ruled that South Dakota violated the Voting Rights act by creating a redistricting plan that suppressed the voting rights of Native Americans.  Rather than having two districts with a Native American majority, South Dakota gerrymandered and created one district with a Native American supermajority.  The ACLU, which represented four Native Americans and filed the case in 2001, claimed that “packing the two reservations into one district disenfranchises Indian voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits abridging the right to vote on account of race or ethnicity.”  In a 2012 census, American Indian and Alaska Native made up nearly 9% of the South Dakota population.

http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/federal-court-rules-south-dakota-violated-voting-rights-native-americans

2004: Also in 2004, the voter ID law created controversy, as people, particularly Native Americans, argued that they “were not allowed to vote in the June primary when they could not produce photo identification, as is required for all voters under a recently passed South Dakota law. Although poll workers were also required by law to offer such voters affidavit ballots, they did not do so and simply turned them away.”

http://tcf.org/commentary/2004/nc655

2011: In 2011, South Dakota created a law (codified  § 12-4-18) that further eliminated voting rights of South Dakota citizens with felony convictions.  The law said that, in addition to prohibiting anyone with an incomplete prison or parole term from their voting rights, anyone on probation also cannot vote.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/2012_summary_of_voting_law_changes/

2012: The felon law, which was passed in 2012, stirred some controversy.  Organizations such as the ACLU argued that such a law was a form of vote suppression, since minorities (especially Native Americans) are overrepresented in the criminal justice system in South Dakota.  “The people on probation, they’re taxpayers.  They’re caring for their families. They’re members of our society and take away the right to vote, it’s unconstitutional,” Bill Muller of the ACLU of South Dakota said.

http://www.keloland.com/News/newsdetail6375.cfm/reaction-to-felon-voting-bill/?id=128108

A comparison of South Dakota’s felony convictions on voting rights and federal felony convictions on voting rights: http://sdsos.gov/content/viewcontent.aspx?cat=elections&pg=/elections/electionprocess_felon.shtm

2012: In January, members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe sued the state for giving “tribal members [...] only six days of early voting, when the rest of the state has 46 days to cast early ballots in the primary and general elections.”  The members contended that the 14th Amendment and Voting Rights Act are both violated.

https://100r.org/2012/01/south-dakota-indians-sue-for-early-voting/

Background:

Michigan’s Governor since 2011 has been Rick Snyder, a Republican. Form 2003-2010, Democrat Jennifer Granholm served as the State’s governor. Michigan has a bicameral legislature composed of a lower-chamber, the House of Representatives, and an upper-chamber, the Senate. Since well before 2006 and through the present, the Senate has been Republican controlled. From 2007 (following the 2006 elections) through 2010, the State House of Representatives was controlled by Democrats, and has since 2011 has been Republican controlled. In terms of federal politics, Michigan’s senators, since before 2006, have been the Democrats Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. Michigan had 17 votes in the Electoral College until the 2012 Presidential election, in which it has been reduced to 16. Michigan voted Democratic in every Presidential election since 1992.

2007

• Voter ID: On July 18, 2007, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Michigan’s voter ID law (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 168.523(1)) was constitutional (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/090507_Voter_Id_QA5_209294_7.pdf). The Voter ID law was actually passed by the Michigan Legislature in 1996, but was deemed unenforceable by then-State Attorney General Frank Kelly, claiming that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Ammendment (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/20/360246/-Michigan-Voter-ID-Law-Upheld-by-State-Supreme-Court). The law, still not enforced, was renewed in 2005 by the State Legislature, prompting the legal debate that brought it to the Court which finally enacted it as enforceable in 2007.
• In terms of the actual content of the law, the Michigan Department of State stipulates that, in acccordance with the law, election officials must request photo ID from a voter, the following types of which are legally acceptable (http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-29836-182649–F,00.html)
• • Michigan driver’s license or state-issued ID card
  • Driver’s license or personal identification card issued by another state
  • Federal or state government-issued photo identification
  • U.S. passport
  • Military ID with photo
  • Student identification with photo from a high school or accredited institution of higher learning
  • Tribal identification card with photo
• However, a photo ID is NOT required to vote (according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, this is a “non-strict” requirement). According to the Department of State, if a voter does not have a valid photo ID (or is simply not in possession of it at the polls), he/she can still vote – a voter has to only sign an affidavit stating that he/she is not in possession of a valid photo ID, and the voter can then vote on a standard ballot that will be counted with all other standard ballots on Election Day.

Illinois Overview

The state of Illinois, home both to Presidential incumbent, Barack Obama, and the third largest city in the country, Chicago, is considered to be a stronghold for the Democrats.  Most of the state’s population is concentrated in the the greater Chicago metropolitan area giving considerable electoral weight to these strongly liberal regions.  Outside of the city, however, suburban and rural areas across northwestern, central, and southern Illinois have a strong conservative contingent.  This generally manifests in votes for Republican candidates in these regions, but the rural southern tip of the state is characterized by working-class whites who tend to vote Democratic.  This dynamic is well illustrated by the provided electoral map of the 2010 Illinois Senate election.  Note that, by geography, a considerable majority of the state appears to be Republican. There is currently a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate of the Illinois General Assembly.  The current Illinois governor, Pat Quinn is also a Democrat.

Given that most restrictive voting laws have been passed in Republican-controlled states in order to suppress the poor, young, elderly, and minority voters that tend to vote Democratic, Illinois has seen very little of this pattern of suppression.

2010

Illinois was declared to be in full compliance with the Help America Vote Act by the State Planning Committee.

2011

On June 3, 2011, the controversial Senate Bill 1177 became law by a purely partisan vote.  The bill, pushed by Democrats, altered the Illinois electoral map to strongly favor Democratic candidates.  The new map draws long thin districts radiating out from the city of Chicago.  These districts help to spread the liberal reach of the city out to the more conservative suburbs.  The changes will force several Republican candidates to run against each other while ensuring safe seats for Democratic candidates.  Illinois republicans challenged the measure in the courts, but the map was upheld.

2012

In early 2012, Republican members of the General Assembly proposed voter identification laws that raised the possibility of voter suppression in the upcoming election.  House Bill 3903, sponsored by Dwight Kay (R), and Senate Bill 2496, sponsored by Kyle McCarter (R) and others, each sought to make the presentation of a current government-issued photo ID a requirement for voting.  These measures incited backlash from communities concerned that the new law would target low-income and other voters.  Given Illinois’ Democrat-dominated legislature, these efforts gained little traction and died in committee.

 Felon Voting

In accordance with the suffrage and election provisions in the Illinois state constitution, felons cannot vote for the duration of their prison terms, but suffrage is automatically restored upon release.  Individuals on parole or probation can vote.

Voting Technology

Illinois elections use almost exclusively optical voting methods.  Most precincts use either the M100 produced by Electric Systems and Software or the Accuvote produced by Diebold.  Optical voting machines are generally lauded as one of the most reliable voting methods.  The only reported issue with the voting systems occurred when slightly oversized ballots were distributed in 25 counties durring the Presidential primary.  This incident slowed the voting process, but did not prevent the inclusion of any votes.

Early Voting

In order to voter early in Illinois, a voter must present a valid government-issued ID with a photograph.  There are no special eligibility requirements for early voting.

Absentee Voting

All Illinois voters can request to vote absentee.  Absentee ballots can be deliver by hand or mail and require only name and address information.

Illinois Voter Requirements

• 18 years of age at the time of the election
• Residence requirement of 30 days
• Registration facilities close 27 days before the election.  Registration is still possible but must be performed online.
• Registration information and materials are available in English and Spanish.

Sufficient ID for Voting

• A valid and current Illinois driver’s license
• A valid and current state ID issued by the Illinois Secretary of State
• A copy of a current and valid photo ID
• A current utility bill with name and address
• A current bank statement with name and address
• A recent government check with name and address
• A recent paycheck with name and address
• A recent government document that shows the name and address
• A current college ID card

Index of Illinois Voting Laws

In 2003, legislative action was passed in South Dakota that “requests or requires” photo ID.  This law (Codified Law §12-18-6.1 and 6.2) stands to this day, and holds that “When a voter is requesting a ballot, the voter shall present a valid form of personal identification.”  This ID may be a South Dakota driver’s license or state-issued ID, a US passport, military ID card, tribal ID card, or student ID card.  Because of the fact that South Dakota’s law does not necessarily require proof of residency in the state, as opposed to proposed legislation in states like Pennsylvania, the law is not classified as “strict” by the NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures).  Moreover, in the event that an ID is unavailable or inaccessible, “the voter may complete an affidavit in lieu of the personal identification.  The affidavit shall require the voter to provide his or her name and address.  The voter shall sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury.”  Thus, although it is important to consider the repercussions of a perjury charge should a voter misunderstand or misread the affidavit, South Dakota’s voter ID law does allow exceptions for those who find themselves without acceptable photo identification.  States with similar laws in place include Florida, Hawai’i, Idaho, Louisiana, and Michigan.

National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx#sd

In terms of enfranchisement regression, South Dakota passed a law in early 2011 (Codified Law § 12-4-18), which greatly tightens voting restrictions on convicted felons, but it only took effect this past summer on July 1, 2012.  Prior to July 1^st, all those convicted of felonies at the state and federal level were entitled to vote upon completion of their sentence, even if they were on parole.  However, under the new law, South Dakota prohibits all felons on parole from voting, a highly restrictive measure that could prevent voting for years after a felon has been released from jail.  Particularly interesting is the fact that the rules have not changed for those convicted of federal felonies, meaning that those on parole for a federal felony are allowed to vote, while those convicted of a state felony in South Dakota will be barred within state limits.  In this regard, the felon disenfranchisement regulations appear to be far stricter than those concerning voter ID.  Accordingly, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU classifies South Dakota’s felony conviction restrictions as “making it harder to restore the right to vote.”  On May 4^th of this year, the ACLU submitted the following letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, claiming that the attempts to bar felons on parole and probation from voting was a violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because Native Americans are disproportionately represented in the penal system of South Dakota, thereby making the attempt to disenfranchise them an attack on the “Suspect Class” of Native Americans.  The ACLU and Native American community has yet to hear back from the D.O.J., though official legal action has not yet been taken.  The following local news story also highlights local dissent against the law.

Website of Jason M. Grant, South Dakota Secretary of State:

http://sdsos.gov/content/viewcontent.aspx?cat=elections&pg=/elections/electionprocess_felon.shtm

Brennan Center for Justice: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voter_id_laws_passed_in_2011/

So far as controversy is concerned in South Dakota, the pushback against voter ID requirements has been relatively contained, likely because of the affidavit loophole that allows those without photo IDs to vote.  However, the electoral process in South Dakota has experienced its fair share of controversy regardless.  In 2004, a federal court struck down an attempt to redistrict South Dakota’s 31 districts in a way that combined two heavily Native American districts into one, giving tribe members a 90% supermajority in one of the districts, while nearly obliterating their majority in the other.  This act of gerrymandering was found to have “violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires jurisdictions to get federal approval before making changes to any election laws or procedures to ensure that states do not disenfranchise voting populations that have experienced a history of discrimination” (ACLU).  Therefore, because Native Americans qualify as a “suspect class” of voters, their disenfranchisement was subject to great scrutiny at the federal and judicial level, ultimately reversing the redistricting that had occurred.

ACLU Briefing: http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/federal-court-rules-south-dakota-violated-voting-rights-native-americans

Court Decision: http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/boneshirt.pdf

District Map in South Dakota: http://sdsos.gov/content/html/elections/electvoterpdfs/LRE_09272011_Statewide%20Final.pdf

1900

In 1899, the state legislature passed an amendment that was ratified by popular vote in 1900 that allowed for statewide initiative and referendum. Utah was the second state to establish this. However, it took until 1960 for the first Utah initiative to be approved by voters.

• http://iandrinstitute.org/Utah.htm

2009

In 2009, the legislature of Utah passed a law requiring all voters to present ID at the ballot box. However, the law is relatively relaxed. A photo ID is not required, and in the absence of government issued ID’s such as passports, driver’s licenses, or tribal IDs, other proofs of residency such as utility bills and fishing licenses may be used. A small number of legislatures attempted to introduce a bill requiring a photo ID, but it was quickly shot down.

• http://www.voteutah.org/voter-information/voter-id-laws?page=1

2012

Current law regarding voting:

• http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/title20A/title20a.htm

Absentee Voting

Any registered voter can request an absentee ballot.

Pre-registration

Pre-registration has not been implemented by the Utah state government.

Early Voting

Early voting is allowed and fairly common, but the laws have not changed recently.

Background

Since 1988 Wisconsin has voted Democrat in the presidential elections, but there has always been a close Democratic/Republican split in state.  (http://www.270towin.com/states/Wisconsin)  In 2010 Scott Walker (Republican) was elected as governor of Wisconsin, and recalled in 2012.  He survived the recall election and remains as governor. (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/scott-walker/)  He is an influential part of the recent election law changes.

Election Changes

In 2011 Act 23 was passed while the state was under a Republican majority.  Act 23 had several changes to make voting requirements stricter.  There are three main changes that were made; the signing of a polling book, voter registration changes, and a photo ID requirement.

It became mandatory to sign one of the two poll books at each polling site.  The only exceptions are if there is a disability that prevents a person from being able to sign.  They just have to state that to one of the election officials, who will right exempt next to their name.

The residency requirements also lengthened from 10 days to 28 consecutive days at a residence in order to vote.  Documentation must be presented to prove residency, a corroborating witness no longer can be used.  A person also cannot register the Saturday, Sunday, or Monday before an election.

The Photo ID portion is the most controversial.  A government issued ID must be presented to vote.  That includes Military ID, or a Student ID from a state accredited college or university if it includes a photo, signature, issuance date, and expiration date along with proof of attendance.  Absentee ballots must be accompanied by a photo copy of the ID.  People hospitalized must send their ID with the agent picking up their ballot.  If you cannot provide an approved photo ID then your ballot becomes provisional.  ( http://www.cityofmadison.com/election/documents/NewElectionLawsBrochure.pdf)

There is a lot of controversy surrounding the photo ID section of Act 23 because many see it as an unnecessary burden.  There are a lot of Wisconsin residences that do not have an acceptable ID and would need to acquire one before the election.  In Wisconsin about 180,00 retirees, 55% of African American men, 49% of African American women, 46% of Hispanic men and 59% of Hispanic women do not have a photo ID that meets state requirements.  This new provision would keep many minorities from voting. (http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/press/diverse-voices-register-opposition-to-unneeded-voter-identification-bill.html)

March 6, 2012 Judge David Flanagan issued a temporary injection against the Photo ID section of Act 23.  A week later in a separate case Judge Richard Niess issued a permanent injunction against it.  The injunctions only applied to the Photo ID section of Act 23 and all the other restrictions that are part of the bill remain in effect.  The Wisconsin Attorney General has tried to appeal the injunctions, but pending the appeals, the state election officials cannot enforce the photo ID requirement. (http://atlasproject.net/daily-blog/election-law-changes-june-2012-update/)

One of the reasons that there was an injunction on the Photo ID law was because it was a condition for voting.  It was seen as being an undue restriction on the population. (http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id)

There have been no recent voting law changes in Nebraska. Though Douglas County, which is near Omaha, NE, has attempted to close 150 of the counties 357 voting locations and could disproportionately affect voters who are impoverished, of color, or old, this is not due to changes in the law or any systematic attempt to disenfranchise voters, but rather one election commissioner. This is the only such case reported and it is under investigation.

However, after Obama split Nebraska’s Electoral College votes in 2008 by winning the Omaha district, the state legislature is considering changing back to a winner-takes-all model. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that are not winner-takes-all. Since Nebraska appropriates two of its votes to the overall state winner and then one vote in each of its three districts to the winner of the district.

This provision is stuck in committee and is unlikely to be enacted before the 2012 elections.

Kansas is a largely conservative state that has voted Republican since the 1964 election. All political analysts place Kansas firmly in the Republican camp for the 2012 election with the most recent projections showing Romney winning 60% to 38%. In the wake of Obama’s election and the appearance of the Tea Party, a notable shift toward increased conservatism in the Kansas political landscape has appeared. In 2008, Kansas elected former Senator Sam Brownback to the office of Governor. Known for his Tea Party views, Governor Brownback has enacted many of these principles while in office. Additionally, four of Kansas’s six congressmen either hold close ties with the Tea Party or are members of the Tea Party caucus.

At the state level, the Kansas Legislature has also has made a turn toward conservatism. Republicans currently hold 32 of 40 seats in the Kansas Senate and 92 of 125 seats in the House. The elections of 2012 are unlikely to change this figure. Nate Silver, author of the New York Time’s FiveThirtyEight blog, wrote a recent post about the political landscape of Kansas and its shift away from moderation toward conservatism.

The Republican dominated Legislature has easily passed laws that change voter requirements in the state. Championed by Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State, these laws are directly targeted at preventing illegal immigrants from voting in Kansas. Governor Sam Brownback signed the Secure and Fair Elections Act into law in April 2011. The new law requires new voters to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote and requires registered voters to show photo identification when participating in elections. For the purpose of registration, the state requires a driver’s license, birth certification, U.S. passport, U.S. naturalization documents, and other such documents. For registered voters on Election Day, the requirements include a driver’s license, nondriver ID card, concealed carry license, U.S. Passport, Kansas College ID, U.S. military ID, and others.

While the law requiring proof of citizenship for registration will not go into effect until January 1, 2013, Secretary Kobach tried to push that date forward to before the 2012 election with additional legislation. However, the State Senate blocked the new measures.

Kansas has taken steps to make receiving photo identification easier by making it free to obtain a birth certification and nondrivers identification card. The process requires filling out three forms and then having the paperwork processed and the card made at a Department of Motor Vehicles office.

An opinion piece in the Wichita Eagle, the largest newspaper in Kansas, noted the disproportionate effect on Wichita residents. Wichita is home to the highest concentration of people of color and poverty in the state. Wichita also only has one location that issues IDs. This location serves over 160,000 eligible voters, is known for long lines, and is largely inaccessible without a car.

While these laws are unlikely to have any real effect on federal elections in 2012, the identification requirements may give Republicans an edge in Democratic districts with a high concentration of impoverished people or people of color. The results of the citizenship provision will remain unknown.

2009

-Modeled after a 2005 law that was blocked, legislation was introduced in 2007 requiring third-party voter registration groups to meet a ten-day deadline to submit registration forms to election officials (regardless of the registration deadline). It imposed hefty fines for each form submitted after that time, but it excluded political parties from the restrictions. Although it was challenged (by groups like the League of Women Voters of FL), it has been in effect ever since 2009 when the lawsuits were settled. (Page 22)

-Florida passed a voter ID law, but it is not “strict.” Although a photo ID is required, people who cannot present one can cast a provisional ballot. It will be counted  if the signature on the provisional ballot matches voter registration records. (The law can be seen here).

2011

-Signed into office by Gov. Rick Scott in May, 2011, a new law tightens registration drive requirements even more. It requires voter registration groups to pre-register with the state before holding registration drives, requires every volunteer and employee of the group to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury listing all criminal penalties for false registration and mandates that every registration form collected be received by county officials within 48 hours of signatures or face strict penalties and fines. Groups must also track precise numbers of voter registration forms that are collected and submit the figures to the state every month. (Page 21*)
This has made groups like the Florida League of Women Voters discontinue voter registration activities in the state. The law is being considered by a federal court for pre-clearance because five of Florida’s counties are covered by the Voting Rights Act. A federal lawsuit is also being brought against the law. A federal district judge in Florida also “temporarily blocked the law in May because it was unconstitutional and announces that he plans to issue a permanent injunction” (See this article for more info).
“…the number of registered Democrats had increased by only 11,365 from July 1, 2011, to Aug. 1, 2012, a sharply lower figure than in the same periods during the past two presidential races. In 2004, nearly 159,000 new Democrats were registered in that period. In 2008, the number was nearly 260,000.” (See this article for more info).
This article is very interesting too, and gives examples of people that missed the deadline by an hour and received thousand dollar fines for it.

-This same law also has a provision that cuts down early voting from 14 days prior to election day to no more than 8 days (Page 30) and eliminates early voting on the last Sunday before Election Day, heavily affecting the voters that are taken with their church groups to vote (See this article for more info).  In 2008, “3.2% of those who voted early on the last Sunday before Election Day were African American and 23.6% were Hispanic, whereas African Americans constituted just 22.7% of all early voters for all early voting days, and Hispanics just 11.6%” (Page 24*)
The five counties covered by the Voting Rights Act will stick with 12 days of early voting after a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

-Florida has a longstanding policy of allowing voters who changed their address before an election to update their new address at the polls on Election Day. The bill eliminates this right, which could potentially disenfranchise a significant number of voters, especially the ones that move and are unaware of the change in law or who move within the state after the registration deadline. (Page 28*)

-Prior to 2007, laws had Florida’s ex-felons permanently disenfranchised. In 2007, Gov. Charlie Crist amended the state’s clemency rules to restore voting rights for some individuals with non-violent convictions. The voting rights of 150,000 Floridians were restored. Rick Scott, however, returned Florida to permanent disenfranchisement for all citizens convicted of felonies by executive action. 87,000 persons who were waiting for restoration of their voting rights will not get them restored. The changes make Florida the “most punitive state” in the country in terms of felon disenfranchisement. (Pages 34-35*)

*Brennan Center for Justice’s “Voting Law Changes in 2012″

Note
Florida  allows 16-year-olds to pre-register to vote. This law is still in place. For comprehensive list of registration requirements, click here.

2007

• House Bill 410 was passed to create a new municipal election code for the state of Delaware.  The bill requires each municipality to appoint a Board of Elections, establishes a complaint procedure, establishes standards for posting notices regarding a municipality government election, requires voters to show proof of identity and address at the polls, establishes standards for declaring candidacy, provides that rules for absentee voting are those in Title 15 of Delaware Code, establishes standards of conduct for the election, and establishes standards for recounts and certification of elections.  The bill was signed into law on June 30, 2006 but went into effect July 1, 2007.
  • Overview of the bill: http://www.greglavelle.com/news.asp?NewsID=136; http://www.ipa.udel.edu/localgovt/training/dilgl/18th_content/DelawareElections.pdf
  • House Bill 410: http://www.elections.delaware.gov/information/elections/pdf/HB%20410.pdf
• Passed on June 26, 2007, House Bill 120 was passed in accordance with House Bill 410.  HB 120 amends existing law regarding absentee voting in municipal elections to allow voting by non-residents of a municipality where permitted by that municipality’s charter.  For example, many who own second homes in Delaware’s beach communities can now vote by absentee ballot in those elections.  HB 120 allows towns to define who is qualified to vote and who is allowed to request an absentee ballot beyond the reasons allowed by state election law.
  • Overview of the bill from a local standpoint: http://www.coastalpoint.com/content/legislators_pass_absentee_ballot_amendment
  • House Bill 120: http://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga144/chp052.shtml#TopOfPage

2008

• On July 9, 2008, a bill was passed to amend Delaware election law regarding write-in candidates.  The bill requires that only votes cast for a pre-declared write-in candidate would be counted.  This means that a person interested in running as a write-in candidate would have to declare so before the election so that votes for them would count.
  • Senate Bill 164: http://legis.delaware.gov/lis/lis144.nsf/2bede841c6272c888025698400433a04/7ba30742f34a5357852572fa00542e40?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,title,15

2009

• A bill was passed on July 10, 2009 amending municipal election code to state that only those absentee ballots received prior to the close of polls on election day would be counted toward vote totals.
  • Senate Bill 152: http://legis.delaware.gov/lis/lis145.nsf/2bede841c6272c888025698400433a04/4a1e0858c233cbf8852575ae004dd9bd?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,title,15

2010

• In May 2010, Delaware established permanent absentee status for disabled voters and those eligible to vote under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voters Act (UOCAVA).  The law also required the state to comply with the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act by providing more time between the withdrawal deadline and the date of the primary.  Delaware created an internet site for absentee voters to determine the status of their ballots.
  • Senate Bill 225: http://legis.delaware.gov/lis/lis145.nsf/2bede841c6272c888025698400433a04/9888a711acb5bcdb852576f0006f0844?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,title,15
• Delaware passed an amendment on September 8, 2010 to election law to allow 16 year-olds to register to vote at the Department of Motor Vehicles at the time they first apply for a driver’s license.  However, they would still not be able to vote until they turn 18 by the time of an election.
  • House Bill 381: http://legis.delaware.gov/lis/lis145.nsf/2bede841c6272c888025698400433a04/045de83ced7ffa118525770d006fa7c3?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,title,15

2012

• There are currently many bills in the works in Delaware, one of which involves the voting rights of convicted felons.  House Bill 9, known as the Hazel D. Plant Voter Restoration Act, would amend the state constitution to eliminate the five-year waiting period for reinstatement of voting rights.
  • ACLU information regarding HB 9: http://www.aclu-de.org/news/expand-voting-rights/2012/05/23/; http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/2065/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7241
  • News about the future of the bill: http://www.wgmd.com/?p=61725
• In August of this year, the governor of Delaware signed three bills into law that update the state’s campaign finance laws.  The legislation includes House Bill 300, also known as the Delaware Elections Disclosure Act, which closes a loophole for campaign advertisements and requires greater disclosure from those who spend money to influence the outcome of elections.  This bill does not go into effect until January 1, 2013.  House Bill 310 increases penalties for those who file election disclosure reports late; this bill is effective immediately.  Finally Senate Bill 185 requires more disclosure regarding lobbyists.  It mandates lobbyists to disclose a bill, resolution or regulation on which they are lobbying within five days of contact with a public official.
  • House Bill 300: http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS146.NSF/vwLegislation/HB+300?Opendocument
  • House Bill 310: http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS146.NSF/vwLegislation/HB+310?Opendocument
  • Senate Bill 185: http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS146.NSF/vwLegislation/SB+185?Opendocument
  • General information regarding the bills: http://news.delaware.gov/2012/08/16/governor-signs-first-major-update-to-delaware-campaign-finance-laws-in-more-than-20-years/

Arkansas currently has a non-photo voter ID law.  Voters are required to present:

“a current and valid photo ID or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.”

For further information on the documentation need to register to vote and cast a ballot in Arkansas check the Arkansas Secretary of State’s website.

http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/Pages/votingInArkansas.aspx

The Arkansas legislature has considered passing a stricter voting ID law.  However, such efforts have been met with limited success.   Arkansas is one of three southern states that has not passed a stricter voter ID law since 2010.  The little movement in Arkansas can most likely be accounted for by Arkansas’ democratically controlled legislature, which dates back to reconstruction.  However, Arkansas’ Democratic legislature and Governor find themselves under increasing pressure as the 2012 election approaches.

Missouri currently has a loose voter ID law.  A voter may use a variety of photo IDs, including Missouri state government issued IDs, US passports, student IDs issued by a higher education institution, and out of state driver’s licenses.  Additionally, a voter may use non-photo IDs, such as a utility bill, a bank statement, a paycheck, or a government check.

For further information on the documentation need to register to vote, obtain an absentee ballot, or vote at your local polling place see the Missouri secretary of state’s voting website:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/goVoteMissouri/default.aspx

Missouri’s relatively lax voter ID requirements have not been without controversy, however.  Support for a stricter voter ID requirement has fallen largely along party lines, with Republicans in support of a stricter law and Democrats opposed.  With a Republican majority in the state House and Senate and Republican governor, a strict photo-ID voting law was signed into law in June 2006.  For further details on the 2006 voter ID law see:

http://www.senate.mo.gov/06info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=83706

However, in October of 2006 the Missouri State Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling striking down the strict voter ID law.  The 6-1 vote asserted that the voter ID law would constitute “a heavy and substantial burden on Missourians’ free exercise of the right of suffrage” and violate Missourians’ right to equal protection under law.  For the full text of the Supreme Court decision see:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-supreme-court/1361417.html

Despite the setback in the courts, advocates of a stricter voter ID law pressed on.  The Missouri General Assembly passed another strict voter ID law in 2011.  However, Missouri’s Democratic Governor Jay Nixon vetoed the law, arguing that it would strip lawful voters of access to the franchise.  For coverage of Nixon’s veto see:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/nixon-vetoes-missouri-photo-id-legislation/article_1219dc24-9908-11e0-bf91-0019bb30f31a.html

Facing a Democratic Governor who vowed to veto all strict voter ID laws and an unsympathetic judiciary, Missouri Republicans sought to institute a new voter ID law through a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot.   The proposed ballot measure asked:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to adopt the Voter Protection Act and allow the General Assembly to provide by general law for advance voting prior to election day, voter photo identification requirements, and voter requirements based on whether one appears to vote in person or by absentee ballot?”

The measure was approved by the General Assembly in Spring 2011 for placement on the Fall 2012 general election ballot.  However, a Missouri circuit court found the language of the ballot measure to be deceptive, as the constitutional amendment being considered contained no “Voter Protection Act.”  Therefore, the measure was struck from the ballot.  For the circuit court’s decision and the St. Louis Post Dispatch editorial board’s reaction see:

http://www.colecountycourts.org/Rel%20119%20Docs/Voter%20Ballot.pdf

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-it-s-pitch-perfect-that-voter-id-measure-tossed/article_44afed8c-d617-5f65-a205-e8e037a610c0.html

Thus, despite six years of political maneuvering, Missouri retains a loose voter ID law.

Tennessee: Changes in Voter Laws Since 2006

“Tennessee has perhaps the most irrational and confusing felony disenfranchisement laws in the nation. People who were convicted before July 1, 1986, must petition a court for restoration of voting rights, and various prosecutors are given an opportunity to object. People convicted after June 30, 1996, are subject to the same rules, except that those convicted of murder, rape, treason, or voter fraud are permanently disenfranchised. These exceptions pertain also to people convicted between July 1, 1986 and July 1, 1996, but others convicted during that period may petition for administrative restoration of rights, without a potentially adversarial court hearing.”  (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/pages/voting_rights_restoration_efforts_in_tennessee)

Tennessee has a Republican Governor, Bill Haslam, and a Republican-controlled Legislature.

“In Tennessee in 2009, a voter ID bill passed the Senate, but died in the House.” (Brennan Center 2012 Report)

As of 2010, photo IDs were “requested but not required” for voting.  (Brennan Center 2012 Report)

After the 2011 legislative session, photo ID became required for voting.  (Brennan Center 2012 Report)

Proof of citizen legislation was also passed.  (Brennan Center 2012 Report)

On January 1, 2012, the following became Tennessee law:

“Voter must supply “evidence of identification,” defined as:

• Tennessee driver’s license;  
• Valid photo ID issued by Tennessee, any other state government, or U.S., provided that such ID contains a photograph; except a student ID card issued by institute of higher learning, which is specifically excluded; 
• Valid non-driver ID card issued by Tennessee Department of Safety; 
• Valid U.S. passport; or 
• Valid U.S. military photo ID that contains a photograph [.]

“The photo ID law does not apply to:

• Voters in nursing homes who are eligible to vote at their facility per existing law; or
• Voters eligible to cast an emergency absentee ballot due to hospitalization under existing law.

“A voter who meets the following conditions may execute an affidavit of identity at the polls on Election Day and shall be permitted to vote:

• A voter who has a religious objection to being photographed;
• A voter who is indigent and unable to obtain proof of ID without payment of a fee.

“Early/Absentee Voting ID Requirements

The photo ID requirements apply to all persons voting early. The photo ID law did not change absentee voting rules. Under preexisting Tennessee law, first-time voters who register to vote by mail cannot vote by absentee ballot; they must vote in person.

“Free IDs

• A voter may obtain a free ID at one of 48 Drivers Service Centers across the state. To obtain the ID, voters must show proof of citizenship and two proofs of Tennessee residency.

“Public Education Requirements

No public education requirements are specified by statute.” (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voter_id_laws_passed_in_2011/)

Bill Haslam endorsed Mitt Romney for President on January 11, 2012. (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jan/11/gov-bill-haslam-endorses-romney-for-president/)

In addition, “early voting periods were reduced.”

(http://www.thenation.com/blog/169709/voter-suppression-confederacy-rises-again#)

“In June, Governor Bill Haslam signed S.B. 923249 which shortens the early voting period by two days.”  (Brennan Center 2012 Report)

Student IDs are not acceptable identification. (Brennan Center 2012 Report)

Handgun licenses are acceptable identification.  (Brennan Center 2012 Report)

“Tennessee [specifies] that free IDs will be available only to those who swear an affidavit saying they need the ID for voting purposes and do not have other qualifying photo ID.”  (Brennan Center 2012 Report)

“Beginning on Jan. 1 of this year, all residents of the Volunteer State must now present both proof of citizenship and a photo ID when they show up at the polls. Are you a college student? Sorry, your college ID won’t cut it. Absentee voters are an exception to the rule — but that’s assuming you’re able to vote absentee. Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed S.B. 923 in June, which shortens the amount of time you have to register as absentee by two days. If there’s any “bright” side to these restrictions, it’s that Tennesee’s [sic] proof-of-citizenship requirement applies only to residents already considered to be potential noncitizens [sic]. The process of determining a potential noncitizen might be a whole other can of worms, of course.” (http://current.com/shows/the-war-room/blog/the-three-worst-cases-of-restrictive-voting-laws)

2006

• In compliance with the Help America Vote Act, Maryland developed and implemented a database of registered voters, called MDVOTERS, in 2006.
  • http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/25ind/html/30electf.html
• The city of Takoma Park, MD, adopted an instant runoff voting system in 2006.  This voting system allows voters to rank their choices on the ballot instead of selecting one candidate for a particular position.  In a race in which a candidate does not receive a majority of the votes, election judges would be able to eliminate the lowest-ranked candidate and have an ‘instant runoff’ between the remaining candidates.  This runoff would result in a candidate receiving a majority of the vote rather than a plurality of the vote.  This type of runoff voting is used only in races with three or more candidates.  The instant runoff voting system debuted in a special election for city council in February 2007.
  • http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1695&articlemode=showspecific&showarticle=925
  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020700985.html
• In December 2006, the Maryland Court of Appeals interpreted a law regarding 17 year-old registration to mean that voters would have to be 18 to vote in both the primary and the general election.  Initially, 17 year-olds could vote in a primary if they would turn 18 by the general election.  This decision reversed that interpretation and resulted in the termination of registering 17 year-olds to vote.
  • http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=8075&sr=BYLINE(Daniel)%2Bw%2F3%2BDe+Vise)%2BAND%2BHLEAD(One+teen’s+campaign+to+restore+voting+rights)%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B2008-01-21

2007

• Beginning July 1, 2007, those convicted of a felony that have completed serving a court-ordered sentence of imprisonment, including parole or probation, became eligible to register to vote.  However, those convicted of buying or selling votes do not qualify to register.
  • http://www.elections.state.md.us/voter_registration/restoration.html
• The Maryland General Assembly approved a constitutional amendment that gave the General Assembly authority to enact legislation authorizing voting before Election Day (early voting).  The amendment was put on the ballot and was approved by the voters of Maryland.
  • http://www.elections.state.md.us/voting/early_voting.html
  • Bill from the Maryland Legislative Session of 2007: http://mlis.state.md.us/2007rs/billfile/sb0001.htm
  • Question as it appeared on the ballot for the constitutional amendment: http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2008/questions/statewide.html
  • Results of the ballot question: http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2008/questions/general/Statewide_Ballot_Question_Results.html

2008

• On December 20, 2008, the Maryland state election board moved to restore voting rights of 17 year-olds to vote in primary elections that had been revoked in 2006.  Election officials now register 17 year-olds and they can vote in a primary if they will turn 18 by the general election.
  • http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=8075&sr=BYLINE(Daniel)%2Bw%2F3%2BDe+Vise)%2BAND%2BHLEAD(One+teen’s+campaign+to+restore+voting+rights)%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B2008-01-21

2009

• After the passage of an amendment to authorize early voting, legislation was enacted in 2009 to define the requirements for early voting and required that it begin with the 2010 elections.
  • http://www.elections.state.md.us/voting/early_voting.html
  • Bill from the Maryland Legislative Session of 2009: http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/billfile/hb1179.htm

2011

• In correspondence with the Help America Vote Act, Maryland enacted a law allowing the State Board of Elections to exchange voter registration data from the MDVOTERS database with other states in order to improve the accuracy of voter registration lists.
  • http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/25ind/html/30electf.html
  • Chapter of Senate Bill 765 regarding exchange of voter data: http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/chapters_noln/Ch_288_sb0765E.pdf
• On May 19, 2011, Governor Martin O’Malley approved House Bill 93, entitled Election Law-Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications-Reporting.  This law restructured the definition of “independent expenditure” and gave the State Board of Elections the power to audit independent expenditure reports.  It also required corporations to file an independent expenditure report after making an expenditure of more than $10,000 in an election cycle for public communication campaign materials.
  • Summary of the important changes: http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&newsletter=8&id=7230
  • House Bill 93: http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/bills/hb/hb0093e.pdf
• On August 8, 2011, Laurel (MD) City Council members voted to amend a law that required candidates to submit to extensive background checks and prevented those who had served time in jail from running for local office.  Candidates will still be screened to determine whether or not they owe back taxes to the city.
  • http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/howard/news/ph-ll-election-law-amended-0811-20110811,0,3760616.story

2012

• Regarding the current trend of Voter ID laws: Maryland Republican lawmakers have sponsored bills to require voters to present identification, but none of these bills have made it out of committee.  Restrictive laws requiring birth certificates, proof of citizenship, and other practices are not permitted in Maryland.
  • http://marylandreporter.com/2012/06/11/voter-fraud-or-voter-suppression-right-and-left-clash-over-election-laws/
• As of July 2012, the Maryland State Board of Elections has put online an Online Voter Registration (OVLR) System.  With this website, voters can register to vote in federal, state, county, and local elections in Maryland.  They can also update their registration to reflect a change of name, address, or party affiliation.
  • OVLR System website: https://voterservices.elections.state.md.us/onlinevoterregistration
  • http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/maryland-rolls-out-online-voter-registration/?page=all

Georgia

2004)

New voter ID laws were passed in Georgia tightened an existing voter ID law to require photo ID

In Georgia’s case, “If you show up to vote and you do not have one of the acceptable forms of photo identification, you can still vote a provisional ballot.  You will have up to three days after the election to present appropriate photo identification at your county registrar’s office in order for your provisional ballot to be counted”. Acceptable ID includes :

• Georgia driver’s license, even if expired
• ID card issued by the state of Georgia or the federal government
• Free voter ID card issued by the state or county
• U.S. passport
• Valid employee ID card containing a photograph from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority or other entity of this state
• Valid U.S. military identification card
• Valid tribal photo ID

(http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx)

Georgia’s ID law was implemented in 2004. A new law named SB581 was passed in May 2011 to shorten the early-voting period to 13 days. The reason, or justification, given was that this law would save the state some money (http://thegrio.com/2012/04/03/the-complicated-history-of-the-voter-id-law-in-georgia/)

Georgia’s law has been in place since 2004 and as a result, has been a model for other states’ restrictive voter ID laws. Even though proponents of the law believe that the law reduces fraud and does not affect turnout rates, affected minority groups think differently. “Certainly what we have seen…borne out in Georgia is that African-American, Hispanic and Asian communities have been disproportionately affected,” said Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, “What we want is to make sure of is that nobody is denied their right to vote.”(http://www.voxxi.com/voter-id-laws-purges-ploys/)

2006)

 ”On October 27, 2006, the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction barring Georgia from enforcing its photo ID law.  The injunction was issued a week earlier by a U.S. District Court judge.  Georgia’s voter ID requirement was reinstated by a federal judge in mid-2007.” (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx#ga)

2008)

§ 21-2-417. By 2008, the law began tightening its grip and become even more repressive. This law deals with the presentation of identification to poll workers; form of proper identification; swearing of statement when unable to produce proper identification; provisional ballots for those; penalty for false statement under oath

( http://www.sos.ga.gov/electionconnection/pdf/21-2-417.pdf) –> this is a link to the actual law

Furthermore, after the implementation of these strict ID requirements, proponents of the law:” thought they had found their magic bullet: turnout in Georgia and Indiana was higher in 2008 than in 2004, despite the implementation of strict ID laws in the interim. But the proponents of these laws did not realize that correlation does not imply causation. In fact, by comparing to its neighbor North Carolina, which does NOT have restrictive voter ID laws, it is easy to see the harmful effect of the law. “Relative to 2006 black turnout, North Carolina’s level of black turnout in 2010 represented a 40.2% increase”. Yet “relative to its 2006 black turnout, Georgia’s level of black turnout in 2010 constituted just a 17.5% increase”.

(http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/proponents_of_voter_id_laws_need_a_statistics_lesson/)

2010)

O.C.G.A. 21-2-417.1 (2010)
21-2-417.1. This law, passed in 2010 under heavily Republican legislation. This law talks about the detail of the Georgia Voter Identification Card- i.e the process of getting one, etc..

(http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-21/chapter-2/article-11/part-1/21-2-417-1/)–> this is a link to the actual law

2011)

In March 7^th, 2011 the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the “ the Georgia law requiring voters to show valid photo ID at the polls.” Not surprisingly, the lone dissent was provided by Justice Robert Benham, the first African American elected to the high court bench. (http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/03/07/georgia-supreme-court-upholds-state-voter-id-law/)

A new law named SB581 was passed in May 2011 to shorten the early-voting period to 13 days. The reason, or justification, given was that this law would save the state some money 

(http://thegrio.com/2012/04/03/the-complicated-history-of-the-voter-id-law-in-georgia/)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, both Senators from Georgia are Republicans. Hence, the new Georgia law requiring voters to show valid photo ID at the polls was passed in a heavily republican legislation. Over the past eight years, Georgia State law regarding voter ID has become progressively more strict and has been seen as the bench mark of voter suppression laws!

2011 (http://usliberals.about.com/od/StateVotingLaws/a/Florida-Voting-Law-Changes-For-

2012-Elections.htm):

-Cutting early voting from 14 days prior to election day to no more than 8 days. It also limits
early voting on the Sunday before election day
-This law is now being challenged by US Representative Corrine Brown of Jacksonville
-It also has not taken effect in five counties where changes in election laws must be
“approved by the Justice Department or federal court because of past racial
discrimination” (judges might allow law if the counties extend hours over those 8 days, 4
of 5 election supervisors in those counties agree with the compromise)

(http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11072&Itemid=331)

-Restricting voter registration drives by cutting down the number of days from ten to two
between the time a voter registers and that registration is submitted to the County Registrar’s
office.
-”…the number of registered Democrats had increased by only 11,365 from July 1, 2011,
to Aug. 1, 2012, a sharply lower figure than in the same periods during the past two
presidential races. In 2004, nearly 159,000 new Democrats were registered in that period.
In 2008, the number was nearly 260,000.”
-The changes were barred in the five counties that are covered by the Voting Rights Act
of 1965.
-A federal lawsuit is being brought against the law

(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/us/judge-to-block-changes-in-florida-voter-
registration.html)