In a 4-2 decision issued yesterday, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court vacated a lower court’s ruling that would have allowed the state’s controversial voter ID law to go into effect for this November’s elections.
The ruling, which sent the case back to the lower Commonwealth Court for further consideration, is not the end of the legal fight over Pennsylvania’s Voter ID laws, but the decision is being celebrated as an important step in the right direction.
Republicans cite the measures as protection against voter fraud, while Democrats and voting rights groups say the bills would disproportionately keep away young people and minorities, and say they are aimed at blocking ballot access for core Democratic voters.
In 2008, for example, Barack Obama relied on college students to bolster his base during the primaries. Under several proposals, an out-of-state student would no longer be able to use a school photo ID as proof of identity, but would have to make an effort to get state identification.
One report shows that nearly 12,000 voters were disqualified statewide from October 2008 to November 2010. Another shows that nearly 6,200 were disqualified from 2006 to 2010. The Election Division wasn't able to explain the discrepancy.
The sheer number of potential voters swept up by the law is another concern, said Brenda Wright, director of the Democracy Program at Demos, a nonpartisan organization that focuses on public policy research and advocacy.
Senate Republicans are suing the Department of Corrections as well as LAT-FOR, the task force on redistricting & reapportionment over a new law sponsored last year by Eric Schneiderman while he was still in the State Senate — the law changes where prisoners are counted. Today we will hear both sides of the argument beginning with Brenda Wright of Demos, a non partisan public policy research and advocacy organization… And then Senator James Seward, one of the people filing the law suit.
The suit is against LATFOR and DOCS. They will be defended by the state attorney general's office. AG Eric Schneiderman was a senator last year, and sponsored legislation to count prisoners at their former homes. Proponents of the law argue that prisoners should count in the communities they were a part of, not ones where they can't vote.
In this report, Dēmos and Southern Coalition for Social Justice expose a crisis in North Carolina's democracy and its voter rolls, and share commonsense policy solutions to fix it.
Voting rights advocates are girding for a series of crucial battles that will play out over the next twelve months in Congress, in the courts, and in state legislatures. Victories could go a long way to reversing the setbacks of the last year. Defeats could help cement a new era in which voting is more difficult, especially for racial minorities, students, and the poor.
Georgia Republicans are pushing a bill that would dramatically shorten early voting for city elections. The effort is the latest to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling last year on the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which made it easier for certain areas to change election rules in ways that hurt racial minorities.
North Carolina’s recent voting law changes will disproportionately affect black voters in the state, according to a study published Wednesday by Dartmouth University.
“The study provides powerful ammunition for the pending legal challenges,” says Brenda Wright, a voting rights expert with the liberal think tank Demos. “It shows that virtually every key feature of North Carolina’s election legislation will disproportionately cut back on registration and voting by African Americans in North Carolina as compared to whites.”
People who challenge ballots at polling places would have to outline their reasons for a challenge in an affidavit, under a bill from state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Under state law, any registered voter can challenge the validity of another person's voting status at the ballot box if there's an issue with their signature or they are suspected to be living out of state. When a challenge is raised, the challenged voter then has to recite an oath declaring they are legally able to cast a ballot before they are allowed to vote. [...]
The good folks at Demos, led by the redoubtable Liz Kennedy, have produced yet another study, this one outlining strategies to roll back the laws passed out in the country aimed at restricting the franchise of groups of people that conservatives and Republicans would rather not have voting, thank you very much.
Carter adopted an emerging technique in the 1970s, hiding references to whites behind talk of ethnic subpopulations, and he also presented blacks as trying to preserve their own segregated neighborhoods. Notwithstanding these dissimulations, few could fail to understand that Carter was defending white efforts to oppose racial integration, and many liberals criticized Carter for doing so.
New York is on the cusp of adopting a campaign finance reform that would amplify small donations with matching funds, reducing the power of big special interest money over the state's politics. It would also allow New Yorkers to claim the mantle of the first state to take back their democracy in the era of Citizens United and unprecedented campaign spending.
But adopting Fair Elections would accomplish something else badly needed in our democracy: more diverse representation in our political leadership.
The Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this spring in McCutcheon v F.E.C., which increased the amount of money donors can contribute to political campaigns for federal office, has added new fuel to an 80-year-old debatebetween those who contend that the Supreme Court decides cases on the basis of abstract principles of law and those who argue
Juneteenth isn't just about celebrating freedom — it's a reminder of the moral consequences of power-hoarding systems and what communities can do for themselves. Learn why that lesson matters more than ever today.
"These cuts to lifesaving safety net programs and critical infrastructure, are not meant to improve the lives of everyday Americans, but instead to subsidize tax giveaways for the wealthiest elite."
The Trump Administration's latest string of attacks on immigrant communities represents an extreme overreach of federal power, violates our fundamental rights, and threatens to undermine our democracy.
Regardless of where one’s political views lie, elected officials should be able to do their jobs and constituents should be able to make their voices heard freely and without fear. We categorically condemn all acts of political violence, in any form.
