Brief filed by Texas last month.
Voter fraud, ballot tampering, and poll judges soliciting votes are among the violations alleged by witnesses in the 4th and 5th wards. The Chicago Board of Elections is investigating.
Op-Ed in the Nevada Appeal
…This movement has become internationalized with Sweden, Switzerland, Netherland and Ireland all requiring some proof of identification to vote — hardly bastions of racism against black voters! Even our own bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform included a voter ID requirement as part of its recommendations in 2005. The report determined it was one of the “five pillars” that would “build confidence” in the integrity of federal elections and so, many states have followed their recommendations. The commission was co-chaired by notorious right-wing conspirator Jimmy Carter.
Link to story: According to that GAO report, North Carolina may be better off than many other states that have implemented voter ID requirements. With at least 95 percent of voters, and probably more, having appropriate ID, North Carolina voters are better equipped than the national average and other states that were part of the report. “The other thing that’s helped us is they’ve allowed such a long lead time,” said Josh Lawson, a spokesman for the State Board of Elections. North Carolina lawmakers passed the voter ID requirement in 2013 but gave the Board of Elections three years to put the new requirement in place.
The Missouri legislature first must amend the constitution to allow for a voter identification law to be passed. House Bill 30 will implement voter identification restrictions. More at the link.
” The so-called “youth vote amendment” would lower the minimum voting age in Brattleboro, a town of about 12,000 people, to 16 from its current 18, the age minimum for state and federal elections.
The amendment is part of slate of proposals being considered on Tuesday as part of Brattleboro’s annual town meeting.
The idea was put forward by Kurt Daims, a longtime activist in the town, who said lowering the voting age would boost voter turnout and extend rights to a “disenfranchised group.”
Daily Signal: “The Obama administration filed an amicus brief in the case on the side of the redistricting commission and was given time this morning to present its arguments to the Court. However, some of the justices seemed to find the administration’s arguments a bit hard to swallow. For example, Assistant Solicitor General Eric Feigin claimed that the state legislature didn’t have standing to sue because nothing prevented the legislature from “passing a bill that would redistrict the state,” even though he acknowledged that such a law would not be enforceable. As Chief Justice Roberts said, “So you want the legislature to pass a law that’s not enforceable and suggest they don’t have standing to challenge what the referendum has done in this case until they go through that process?”
In fact, Feigin went even further, claiming the legislature doesn’t have “an interest in the enforcement of the laws that they pass,” thus taking the astonishing position that the legislature would have no ability to ever appear in court to contest this referendum. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed surprised by Feigin’s answer, saying that didn’t the legislature “have an interest in the constitutional powers they have?” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy also were clearly concerned over the arguments being asserted by the Justice Department over standing.
Seth Waxman asserted that Arizona defines its legislature to include “the People,” and thus the referendum process, and that the term “Legislature” in the Elections Clause cannot “ignore a State’s definition of its own legislature.” Justice Scalia interrupted Waxman and challenged him to give Scalia “one provision of the Constitution that uses the term ‘legislature’ that clearly was not meant to apply to the body of representatives of the people that makes the laws.” Waxman was unable to answer that question and Scalia admonished him that Scalia had looked through the Constitution and there wasn’t a single provision that “clearly” had the meaning Waxman was trying to subscribe to it.
Justice Kennedy added that “history works very much against” Waxman’s argument on the definition of legislature, citing the Seventeenth Amendment, which changed the Constitution’s original provision that senators were chosen by the legislature. As Kennedy pointed out, “there was no suggestion that this could be displaced” by a state prior to the Seventeenth Amendment.”
“Plaintiffs wanted Superior Court Judge Michael Morgan to strike down the state’s voter ID law as unconstitutional last week. That didn’t happen. The state wanted him to toss out the lawsuit. That didn’t happen either.
But Morgan dismissed two of three grounds for the suit. One asserted that requiring a photo ID to vote is the same as requiring property ownership. Another said it violated the guarantee of free elections. Both of these were a stretch.
What Morgan left intact to be argued at trial this summer was a claim that even providing free IDs creates an undue burden for those who cannot afford the time or expense to obtain them. If true, it would mean the state’s election law violates the principle of equal protection.”
When Voter ID lawsuits are left to argue that some people just can’t manage to find the time to get free ID, those lawsuits have edged toward farce and are likely to be losers.