Monthly Archives: September 2011

Voter ID coming to New Hampshire?

If you recall in June 2011, this Reuters article reported that New Hampshire Democratic Governor John Lynch vetoed a bill passed by the Republican New Hampshire legislature to require voters to present photo identification before casting a ballot.  Months later, it seems that his veto is not the end of the story with the Legislature now saying “not so fast” and moving to potentially override the veto.  According to local media, the state Senate is expected to vote Wednesday.  The political make-up of the New Hampshire Senate suggests the override should not be too difficult; however it is much easier to trip up a bill than to pass one that meets everyone’s needs and desires.

What is particularly interesting about this debate is that neither the $10 dollar free voucher provided to voters to cover the cost of any non-drivers identification nor the provisional ballot provision has appeased opponents of the bill.  With the significant role that New Hampshire plays in Presidential nomination politics, it would be interesting to see what any requirement for voter id plays in the larger political debate over the issue.   

League of United Latin American Citizens meets with Justice Department

From Hispanic Ohio:  “Advocates for LULAC that included former Congressman Ciro D. Rodriguez, National LULAC Counsel Luis Roberto Vera, Jr., Maverick County Judge David Saucedo and John Tanner, former Department of Justice Voting Rights Section Chief, and LULAC attorney and expert George Korbell, presented LULAC’s objections to the Texas redistricting maps to the voting rights litigators from the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973c, LULAC argued that the DOJ should object to Texas request for preclearance of the state’s redistricting plans. LULAC met with the voting rights litigators to convince them that under Section 5 there is “retrogression” under the new plan, which means that this plan puts Latinos in the worst position for voting.”

A curious paragraph from the same story, given this is not an entirely accurate statement:

“In 2004 LULAC filed a suit against the State of Texas for the exact same issues that are present in this case; and LULAC successfully argued that case to the Supreme Court in LULAC v. Perry.”

Texas Redistricting Trial Begins Today

More here.


“More than a dozen lawsuits were filed. Several have been consolidated into the case in San Antonio. At the same time, the state of Texas requested that a Washington, D.C. federal court assess whether the new maps are in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Traditionally, state officials have gone directly to the U.S. Justice Department to get federal clearance.

Judges in the two main federal cases are expected to rule later this year but legal wrangling could stretch into 2013 if either case is appealed to the Supreme Court.District Judge Orlando Garcia confirmed this week that the San Antonio trial will begin Tuesday and conclude by Sept. 16.

The congressional and state Senate plans are drawing the most attention with North Texas districts playing a prominent role in the legal back and forth.

Regarding the Senate map, much of the debate is focused on District 10, represented by Davis. Critics allege that Democratic-leaning minority communities were moved out of the district and into ones where their votes will be drowned out to ensure a Republican can defeat Davis next year.

Last month, Davis and Veasey received permission to intervene in the federal pre-clearance review of the state Senate plans in Washington, D.C.

“They basically have a seat at the table,” Davis spokesman Anthony Spangler said. “They can call witnesses. They can file motions.”

Davis sat on a conference call with Department of Justice officials about redistricting this week, Spangler said. She had planned to fly to Washington, D.C. for an in-person meeting but her flight was canceled due to Hurricane Irene, he said.”

Alamance County (NC) won’t release voter fraud suspects

 The Times News:  On Feb. 22, 637 letters were mailed to registered voters statewide to inquire about their U.S. citizenship status. Follow-up letters were sent on April 6 to those voters who did not respond to the first mailing.

Those voters identified as non-citizens were notified of their registration removal and a voter registration form was attached to their notice so that they may re-register if they become a U.S. citizen at a later time. The notice also made it clear that it was illegal for non-citizens to register to vote.


The state DMV and State Board of Elections reported that 253 people statewide had not responded to the two mailings and that 53 of these people had voted in a previous election. These registered voters will be removed from the voter registration rolls.


Seventy-eight of those targeted in the mailings had their letters returned by the post office as undeliverable. A mailed response is needed to determine whether these individuals are a United States citizen and are properly registered. According to the State Board of Elections, 18 of these voters had voted in a previous election. These voters will also be removed from the voter registration rolls.