Estelle Rogers

  • May 10, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Estelle Rogers, Legislative Director, Project Vote


    The civil rights movement lost a hero yesterday:  Nicholas Katzenbach, whom I was privileged to know for more than 20 years. Even his name said a lot: Nicholas deBelleville Katzenbach. A son of privilege. Exeter and Princeton, a distinguished stint in World War II, then back to Yale Law School and a Rhodes at Oxford. He could have done anything – and indeed, he did a lot of things, including many years as General Counsel of IBM. 

    But we should remember him as the man who accompanied James Meredith when he enrolled in Ole Miss, who faced down George Wallace at the University Alabama door (pictured), who put the power of the U.S. Justice Department behind the fight for racial equality, and who co-authored the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was a very large man. (The Katzenbach-Wallace confrontation must have been particularly gratifying for the federal marshals to watch.) He was an even larger presence.

    I first met Nick Katzenbach the way I’ve met a lot of terrific people: I cold-called him and asked him to do something for the greater good. In this case, it was an amicus brief on another civil rights issue, the right to abortion. He said yes. The brief was to be filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of a large legal organization, and it was a delicate drafting job, overseen by a committee. I will never forget a particular conference call after he had circulated the first draft. I felt a little sheepish and expressed discomfort at critiquing a brief by the former Attorney General of the United States. “Oh, forget it!” he said. “My partners do it all the time.” He had an ego, no doubt about it, but he also knew when to put it aside.

    After serving as Deputy Attorney General to Bobby Kennedy, and then as attorney general in the early years of the Johnson administration, he took a demotion to become undersecretary of State. He wanted to end the Vietnam War, and at that he was a failure. It may have been his only one.

  • November 23, 2011

    by Jonathan Arogeti

    In fewer than 12 months, millions of Americans nationwide will head to the polls for the 2012 election. With the presidency, 33 Senate seats, all 435 House seats, 11 state governorships, and more than 80 percent of state legislature seats on the ballot, some are considering it to be the among the “most important election[s].”

    But a spate of new restrictive state voting laws threatens to limit voter participation during this election, as documented by a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice. During a forum convened by leading Democratic congressmen, several prominent voting rights experts lamented the abrupt “shift” in momentum away from expanding the franchise. Laws that require photo identification or proof of citizenship, reduce registration opportunities and limit early voting could “make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters” to cast ballots in 14 states, the report estimates. And these estimates do not even take into account the potential consequences of proposed measures states that have not yet passed in at least 24 other. Click here for video of the forum.

    “These new laws threaten to silence the voices of those least heard and rarely listened to in this country -- the poor, the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities, the young and the differently abled. Now is the time to act,” said League of Women Voters President Elisabeth MacNamara during the forum.  

    This month has also seen calls by leading Democratic congressmen for a hearing in the House on new state restrictions on voting, and a letter signed by more than 200 House members urges all 50 state secretaries of state to oppose these laws.

  • November 20, 2009
    The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) has sputtered in removing hurdles to voter registration and the Obama administration and state election officials must renew their efforts to bolster the law, writes Estelle Rogers in an Issue Brief released by ACS.

    Congress passed the NVRA, in part, to increase voter registration and to prod government to encourage voting. When it was enacted, the NVRA was "heralded as a landmark law that would usher in a new era of universal or nearly universal, enfranchisement and political participation," Rogers states in "The National Voter Registration Act: Fifteen Years On."

    But Rogers, the consulting attorney at Project Vote, maintains that while the law has produced some successes, it is hobbled by poor implementation and execution of some its key provisions.

    Rogers writes:

    Without question, the least successful provision of the NVRA is the requirement that social service agencies and offices serving the disabled provide voter registration services similarly to motor vehicle offices. While this requirement was a promising way of reaching out to citizens who didn't interact with DMVs, such as those too impoverished to drive or own cars, the reality has not measured up to the promise. This disappointing track record is due to widespread non-compliance with the mandates of Section 7 and a failure of enforcement by the Department of Justice, particularly in recent years, not with any lack of clarity in the statute itself.

    Section 8 of the NVRA states, "Each state shall insure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote ... and conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters." But Rogers, says that provision has also been hampered by officials.

    "The registration administration provisions of Section 8 are, for the most part, drafted clearly but nevertheless have been widely ignored," she writes. "Significantly increased awareness and enforcement of these provisions is necessary to fulfill the potential of Section 8."

    Federal and state officials' leadership is needed to improve the NVRA, Rogers maintains. The Justice Department, in particular, must "provide much needed guidance and enforcement of sections 7 and 8." And state election officials, she writes, must aggressively approach "their responsibilities under the NVRA." For example, Rogers says that states' top election officials should ensure that election administrators "do not impose unreasonable restrictions on registration drives, and that motor vehicle, disability, and social service agencies consistently fulfill their duties under NVRA."

    Download a pdf version of Rogers' Issue Brief here and for additional analysis of the law, see her ACS guest blog here

  • July 29, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Estelle Rogers, Consulting Attorney, ProjectVote

    The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) has been a disappointment. When the statute was passed in 1993, the civil rights community hailed it as the capstone of the "voting rights revolution" begun by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a new report from Project Vote, "The National Voter Registration Act at Fifteen," voting rights attorney Estelle Rogers hones in on several of the most important provisions of the NVRA and finds their impact far less dramatic than expected. Despite the promise of the NVRA, voter registration problems were frequently cited as THE ISSUE marring the 2008 election, just as hanging chads were in 2000 and long lines in 2004.

    The NVRA was enacted in response to the shocking statistic that 44 percent of the eligible electorate did not vote in the 1992 presidential election. The legislation's sponsors believed that making it easier to register would eliminate one major barrier to low participation in the future. The primary means Congress chose to increase the number of registered voters was to mandate that registration be offered at places not generally used for that purpose, such as motor vehicle offices and public assistance and disability agencies. Actually, "motor voter" was the original concept. Other agencies were only added later, at the urging of voting rights advocates, who recognized that a broad swath of the American public-particularly low income and minority citizens-does not interact with the DMV at all.