League of Women Voters

  • March 15, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA, also called the “motor voter” bill) was enacted to make it easier for people to register to vote. It promotes voter registration drives and requires states to permit people to register to vote via a simple postcard when they obtain or renew their drivers’ licenses or through the mail.

    But some states have chosen to move in the opposition direction. For example, Florida in its overhaul of voting procedures not only attempted to limit early voting, it sought to make it onerous for groups like the League of Women Voters to conduct voter registration drives. Arizona enacted a law that would make it more difficult for people to register through the mail, by demanding more proof of citizenship.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has already heard oral argument in a case challenging the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires certain states and towns – those with a clear history of past problems – to obtain “preclearance” of any changes they make to their voting procedures to ensure they do not discriminate against voters because of race. Several of the high court’s right-wing justices appeared ready to strike the preclearance provision in Section 5 of the law. If that were to happen it would deal a significant blow to one of the nation’s most powerful tools to combat racial discrimination in voting.

    On Monday, the high court will hear oral argument in another case challenging the federal government’s constitutional power to protect the right to vote. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the justices will consider an opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that invalidated the Arizona law, saying the NRVA cannot be undermined by the states.

    In a friend-of-the-court brief lodged with the Court, the League of Women Voters urges the justices to hold that the NVRA overrides states’ attempts to restrict voting.

    “States should not be allowed to play politics with the voter registration process, the key entry point for political participation in our democracy,” the League’s President Barbara Klein said in a press releaseannouncing the group’s brief.

    The Brennan Center and the Constitutional Accountability Center have also weighed in with an amicus brief urging the court to support the federal government’s constitutional authority to protect the right to vote.

     

  • June 21, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Unless the Department of Justice and civil rights groups are able to block or greatly minimize Florida’s onerous new restrictions on voting and kill the state’s tawdry attempt to purge voter rolls, the constitutional right to vote for many will face serious obstacles in the sunshine state.

    Florida is by no means the only state bent on making the right to a vote a major pain. Wisconsin, South Carolina, Texas, and other Republican controlled states have been working feverishly to ensure that turnout among Latino voters, African American voters, low-income voters, the elderly, and college voters is greatly reduced in this year’s general election. Because Florida is deemed a swing state by political reporters, it garners more attention than some of the other state actions. But Fla. Gov. Rick Scott has also helped attract attention with his staunch defense of the voter suppression tactics.

    The DOJ and a string of civil rights groups, such as the Advancement Project, the Brennan Center for Justice, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the League of Women voters, and others, are fighting the purge and the state’s onerous new voter restrictions.  

    Co-Director of the Advancement Project Judith Browne blasted Gov. Scott’s purge as a partisan effort to “suppress the vote.”

    Ryan P. Haygood, director of the Political Participation Group at NAACP Legal Defense Fund, in a press statement about a lawsuit challenging changes to Florida’s voting laws, said his group is battling an attempt to “discourage political participation” especially of the state’s minority voters.

    “Implementation of these additional discriminatory changes to Florida’s voting laws would be devastating for Black and other minority voters in the state,” Haygood said.

    The groups’ efforts may irk the state’s right-wing politicians and their apologists in the media, but they are likely the only hope for salvaging the right to vote for scores of Latinos, African Americans, the elderly and many others.

    The Brennan Center for Justice and the League of Women Voters, among other groups, have sued to scuttle portions of Florida’s new voter suppression law, such as the rigid requirements on voter registration drives and stringent requirements for voter identification. As noted here they have had some success with a federal judge blocking the provision against third-party voter registrations.

  • June 1, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott remains adamant that his government is not seeking to suppress the vote of minorities, college students, the poor, and others not inclined to support a right-wing agenda. As noted earlier this week, Florida is among a slew of Republican-controlled states claiming that onerous new voting restrictions are needed to combat widespread voter fraud.

    Of course these lawmakers are unable to cite much evidence supporting voter fraud because it’s a nonexistent problem.

    As Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program said recently, “You are more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit in-person voter fraud.”

    In a forthcoming ACS Issue Brief on efforts to suppress voter turnout, Loyola Law School Professor Justin Levitt also notes the paltry evidence in support of voter fraud. Levitt says that a logical explanation for the “extraordinary rarity of reported impersonation fraud at the polls is that such fraud is extraordinarily rare. It is an extremely inefficient means to influence an election. For each act of in-person impersonation fraud in a federal election, the perpetrator risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine under federal law, in addition to penalties under state law. In return, the perpetrator gains at most one incremental vote. It is understandable that few individuals believe such a trade-off worthwhile.”  

    Nonetheless, right-wing politicians continue to raise voter fraud as a reason for their outlandish efforts to suppress the vote.

    But yesterday a federal judge provided a setback to Gov. Scott’s (pictured) efforts by blocking a portion of Florida’s onerous new voter law aimed at making it nearly impossible for organizations to conduct voter registration drives. U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Hinkle wrote, “Allowing responsible organizations to conduct voter registration drives – thus making it easier for citizens to register and vote – promotes democracy.”

    The lawsuit was brought by the League of Women Voters in Florida, and joined by other civil rights groups, such as the ACLU. The League of Women Voters has been conducting registration drives for decades but stopped the operation in Florida following enactment of the new restrictions on such drives.

    Deirdre Macnab, president of the Florida League of Women Voters told The New York Times the group was “eager to get back to its core work of brining eligible citizens on to the Florida’s voter rolls.”