Last week, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced new disclosure requirements for “dark money” nonprofits. The proposed rules would require 501(c)(4) organizations that spend money on politics in New York State to reveal the donors behind their spending.
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.
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.
An elite class of wealthy donors who have gained mounting influence in campaigns now has the ability to exert even greater sway.
A Supreme Court decision Wednesday to do away with an overall limit on how much individuals can give candidates and political parties opens a new spigot for money to flow into campaigns already buffeted by huge spending from independent groups. [...]
The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued its crusade to knock down all barriers to the distorting power of money on American elections. In the court’s most significant campaign-finance ruling since Citizens United in 2010, five justices voted to eliminate sensible and long-established contribution limits to federal political campaigns.
Any doubts about the determination of an activist United States Supreme Court to rewrite election rules so that the dollar matters more than the vote were removed Wednesday, when McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission was decided in favor of the dollar. [...]
In the past four years, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has made it far easier to buy an election and far harder to vote in one. [...]
The Supreme Court on Wednesday released its decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the blockbuster money-in-politics case of the current term. The court's five conservative justices all agreed that the so-called aggregate limit on the amount of money a donor can give to candidates, political action committees, and political parties is unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, April 2, the United States Supreme Court ruled that any cap on the overall amount a person can spend to influence an election is unconstitutional. Following on the heels of the court's previous decision in Citizens United, the McCutcheon ruling will allow unlimited spending to influence our nation's political process. [...]
