0
   

Congressional hearing sought over voter ID laws sweeping states

 
 
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 10:02 am
October 31, 2011
Congressional hearing sought over voter ID laws sweeping states
By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Does requiring a photo ID to vote return America to the days when poll taxes and literacy tests made it hard for minorities to cast ballots? Are state lawmakers trying to make it harder for people to vote?

Two top House Judiciary Committee Democrats want to know, and on Monday they asked Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to hold hearings on those laws, which have been adopted or are pending in 37 states.

The chairman is reviewing the request, and he had no immediate comment.

"As voting rights experts have noted, the recent stream of laws passed at the state level are a reversal of policies, both federal and state, that were intended to combat voter disenfranchisement and boost voter participation," said Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Conyers is the committee's top Democrat. Nadler is the top Democrat on its Constitution subcommittee.

They're concerned about new laws in 13 states that they say will curb access to the ballot box.

The changes require voters to present government-approved identification cards, curb voter registration drives by third-party groups, curtail early voting, end same-day registration and overturn rules that give convicted felons who've served their time the right to vote.

Twenty-four states are considering similar measures, according to New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, which issued a report on the topic in October.

Others maintain there's no evidence that a systemic effort is under way to intimidate voters. Some maintain that voter ID laws are popular and can help boost confidence in the system.

"There's not a great deal of evidence of voter fraud" through impersonation, said John Samples, the director of the Center for Representative Government at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.

Passing voter ID laws, he said, is unlikely to affect turnout. "There's not much evidence that requiring voter IDs will change things or deter people from voting," he said, citing other studies in recent years. "When people are sufficiently mobilized to vote, they turn out."

Still, Conyers and Nadler want the issue examined more thoroughly.

The changes in state laws, they contend, "raise serious constitutional concerns." For example, they said, "requiring citizens to expend significant funds to obtain a photo ID to vote runs afoul of the prohibition on poll taxes."

Poll taxes often were used to intimidate black voters in the South.

The courts, Nadler and Conyers said, also have ruled that "elderly persons born out of the state, persons with economic limitations, homeless people and even people with religious objections to being photographed may be burdened by photo ID laws."

The Brennan study found that more than 21 million people lack government-issued photo IDs. Hilary Shelton, the director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau, estimated that one-fourth of African-Americans don't have the proper documentation to meet ID requirements.

Critics of the voter ID laws maintain that it's the drive to enact such laws is motivated by partisanship, an effort to keep supporters of President Barack Obama away from the polls.

During the Bush administration, political appointees in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division aggressively pursued positions on voting rights laws that critics charged were designed to aid Republican candidates by curbing the turnout of Democratic-leaning minority and poor voters.

The effort intensified as President George W. Bush's popularity waned and the GOP risked losing control of Congress in 2006, which it did. Charging that election fraud was widespread, the administration backed proposals to toughen state and federal voter ID laws that would most affect these groups.

McClatchy reported that Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he discussed voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, highlighting the importance of about a dozen election battleground states.

A study issued last week by the liberal People for the American Way Foundation concluded that voter ID laws today have similar motives.

"Their clear target is driving down Democratic turnout and installing in office people who will do the bidding of the right wing and their Republican allies," charged Michael Keegan, the foundation's president.

Former Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., who lost a bid for governor last year, argued otherwise. In an opinion piece in The Montgomery Advertiser in October, Davis maintained, "Demanding integrity in voting in neither racist, nor raw party politics."

Davis, who was a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said he now supported his state's voter ID laws.

(William Douglas and Greg Gordon contributed to this article.)

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/31/128823/congressional-hearing-sought-over.html#storylink=omni_popular#ixzz1cTCnSFFr
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,408 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 10:10 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Voting Law Changes in 2012
By Wendy R. Weiser and Lawrence Norden
10/03/11

Ahead of the 2012 elections, a wave of legislation tightening restrictions on voting has suddenly swept across the country. More than five million Americans could be affected by the new rules already put in place this year -- a number larger than the margin of victory in two of the last three presidential elections.

This report is the first full accounting and analysis of this year's voting cutbacks. It details both the bills that have been proposed and the legislation that has been passed since the beginning of 2011.

Download the Report (PDF)
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012

Download the Appendix (PDF), a compilation of potentially vote-suppressing legislation proposed in the 2011 legislative sessions.

Download the Overview (PDF), a four-page summary with key findings.

Read the Executive Summary

View the Report
Executive Summary

Over the past century, our nation expanded the franchise and knocked down myriad barriers to full electoral participation. In 2011, however, that momentum abruptly shifted.

State governments across the country enacted an array of new laws making it harder to register or to vote. Some states require voters to show government-issued photo identification, often of a type that as many as one in ten voters do not have. Other states have cut back on early voting, a hugely popular innovation used by millions of Americans. Two states reversed earlier reforms and once again disenfranchised millions who have past criminal convictions but who are now taxpaying members of the community. Still others made it much more difficult for citizens to register to vote, a prerequisite for voting.

These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Based on the Brennan Center’s analysis of the 19 laws and two executive actions that passed in 14 states, it is clear that:

These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.
Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering new restrictions.

States have changed their laws so rapidly that no single analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves. Although it is too early to quantify how the changes will impact voter turnout, they will be a hindrance to many voters at a time when the United States continues to turn out less than two thirds of its eligible citizens in presidential elections and less than half in midterm elections.

This study is the first comprehensive roundup of all state legislative action thus far in 2011 on voting rights, focusing on new laws as well as state legislation that has not yet passed or that failed. This snapshot may soon be incomplete: the second halves of some state legislative sessions have begun.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 10:23 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
I have a driver's license and I've had one since I was 18. These voter ID laws are not an attempt to foil voter fraud but to clearly discourage AND EVEN PREVENT certain demographic groups from voting.

Say, a state decides to initiate a voter ID system. Gives everyone who doesn't have one a free card. What will stop them (now that this precedent) has taken place from moving on and requiring two forms of ID for voting: eg. driver's license and credit card; voter ID and credit card; while of course driver's license and credit card will not be accepted?

And that many of these ID laws will charge a small amount of money for the card. What of an elderly person on a fixed income? Perhaps mostly housebound but without anyway to travel to the post office or where they need to go to get their photo taken and register for this card?

Getting a voter ID for this population will be a challenge (and clearly not considered in the push for voter ID's).

Thanks BBB for continue to bring this very important political issue up here.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 10:35 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
October 31, 2011
US seeks injunction to block South Carolina immigration law
By Noelle Phillips | McClatchy Newspapers

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The U.S. Department of Justice has challenged South Carolina's new immigration law in federal court, saying it undermines federal authority.

The Justice Department has asked for an injunction that would prevent the state's law from taking effect in January. The lawsuit argues that the U.S. government is the only entity that can implement immigration policy and the state's immigration law could result in the harassment and detention of foreign visitors, legal immigrants and U.S. citizens.

"The Justice Department has many important tasks and two of the most important tasks it has are defending the Constitution and ensuring equality for all citizens," said U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has vowed to defend the state's immigration law to the Supreme Court if necessary. On Monday, his office said the attorney general could not comment on the lawsuit because it had not received it.

South Carolina's new law, which was signed by Gov. Nikki Haley in June, requires all police officers to verify the immigration status of anyone they detain whether it is for a speeding ticket or a murder charge. The law also creates a statewide Illegal Immigration Enforcement Unit under the supervision of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, which also oversees the Highway Patrol.

The law also allows state residents to file suit against public officials whom they believe are not enforcing the law. And it creates a felony charge for people who are in the country illegally.

The Justice Department believes those provisions in South Carolina's law pre-empts the federal government, which has jurisdiction over immigration, said U.S. Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

"It crosses a constitutional line," West said.

In a conference call, West used Haley's words from her bill-signing ceremony in June to support his case for the lawsuit. During the ceremony, Haley said one intent of the law was to make sure illegal immigrants find another state to go to.

However, West said that was not sound immigration policy.

"A patchwork of state and local immigration laws and policies simply is not the answer," he said. "A patchwork creates more problems than it solves."

Similar lawsuits have been filed by the Justice Department in Arizona and Alabama. In Alabama, a federal judge denied most of the Justice Department's injunction. However, a federal judge in Arizona upheld Justice's request in that state.

South Carolina lawmakers have said the law does not violate federal civil rights policy because it prohibits racial profiling. During the last legislative session, they said they were compelled to strengthen the state's immigration laws because the federal government has failed to act.

Last month, a coalition of immigration groups filed a federal lawsuit against the state. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center and some national immigration advocacy groups are providing the legal muscle behind the suit.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/31/128851/us-seeks-injunction-to-block-south.html#ixzz1cTLGMhga
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2011 10:37 am
@tsarstepan,
See above for the answer to your request.

BBB
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Congressional hearing sought over voter ID laws sweeping states
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 11:49:18