Author Archives: ELECTIONLAWCENTER.COM

No “demonstrated situation” where Voter ID laws have disenfranchised people, says Pennsylvania Rep.



State Rep. Warren Kampf suggested that Pennsylvania’s new Voter ID law won’t interfere with the ability of voters to cast their ballots and, contrary to opponents’ speculation, might actually boost turnout, if Georgia’s experience is any indication:


 


“Georgia has a very similar law. They’ve had it for six years. And they had it in 2008 and in those communities which often are said to have been impacted by voter ID laws, the turnout was actually far greater than it should have been demographically… There isn’t a demonstrated situation where these sorts of laws have disenfranchised people.”


 


More here.


Democrat Elections Inspector Says He Won’t Enforce Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law



So at Pennsylvania polling places, county elections officials can decide which state election laws they choose to follow?


 


Even as the fate of Pennsylvania’s new voter-identification law plays out in a Harrisburg courtroom, an election official in Delaware County is vowing not to enforce it.  Christopher L. Broach, a Democratic inspector of elections in the tiny borough of Colwyn, said he would not ask voters to prove who they are on Election Day.


 


More at Philly.com.


New Tennessee Voter ID Law “Not a Problem”



According to Anderson County Election Administrator Mark Stephens:


 


In Anderson County, only one person cast a provisional ballot in the March primaries because she didn’t have proper ID [she later produced ID, so her vote counted], and no one had to do so during the early voting period that ended Saturday.


 


“We don’t want to disenfranchise anybody,” Stephens said. “The law is to protect the integrity of the ballot.”


 


Election Integrity-1, Disenfranchisement-0.
                                                                                                  

Another Section 5 Bailout: Merced County, California


 


After 37 years and $1 million in compliance costs, a county with no history of voting discrimination is set to be released from the Voting Rights Act’s Section 5 preclearance requirements:


 


County Counsel James Fincher said that over the past decade, the county has spent about $1 million in legal costs and fees related to Section 5. “Yes, we’re certainly pleased that the DOJ agreed with us that Merced County doesn’t belong under the act,” Fincher said, noting that the county has heard those words before, but now has them in writing.


 


County officials have said Merced County undeservedly fell under Section 5 oversight in 1975 because the military population skewed the figures for required voter registration.   


 


The Merced Sun-Star has the full story.


Three Florida Supreme Court justices above the law, refuse service on lawsuit

The Southeastern Legal Foundation said Friday that it has
been frustrated trying to serve subpoenas to 14 court employees as part
of its case against Justices Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince. A Supreme Court marshal has refused to allow a process server deliver the subpoenas inside the courthouse.

.. court staff walling off the Supreme Court building from legal process
servers underscores the power of the justices in the matter, Goessling
said. Lewis has not ruled on any of the matters before him — including a
bid to block the subpoenas of court personnel. Until then, process
serving should go on as usual, she said.   Link to full story.

The missteps of the three Florida justices up for a vote of the people in November continue to amaze observers.  Every day in this country, candidates, including judicial candidates, have to defend themselves in all types of ballot eligibility or access challenge cases as a result of qualifying mistakes and other miscues in the process to get on the ballot.  In this case, three Florida justices apparently believe they are above the laws applicable to mortal candidates.  By using staff to block subpoena servers in an ongoing legal case, the justices are obstructing the fair administration of justice in allowing the legal system to determine if they are properly qualified to stand as a candidate for office.  Imagine the outrage if judicial candidates or political candidates in Florida or around the country used their staff or police to hinder the service of subpoenas on a properly filed suit challenging the eligibility or access of candidates to the ballot. 

Federal Court Concludes DOJ Official May Have Lied in New Black Panther Testimony



Internal DOJ documents “contradict” and “cast doubt on the accuracy” of AAG Perez’s testimony to the Commission on Civil Rights when asked if the decision to dismiss the NBPP case was political.


 


Hans von Spakovsky reports via PJ Media:


 


In a little noted decision on July 23, a federal district court judge concluded that internal DOJ documents about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case “contradict Assistant Attorney General [Thomas] Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in” the decision to dismiss the case.  In other words, the sworn testimony of Perez, the Obama political appointee who heads the Civil Rights Division, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was apparently false. . .


 


. . . what is most disturbing about this court order is that it strongly suggests that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez essentially lied in sworn testimony… When the statements of Perez are compared to the documents that Judicial Watch forced DOJ to release in the FOIA lawsuit, it is clear Judge Walton was polite when he said they are contradictory and “cast doubt on the accuracy” of Perez’s account.


A less diplomatic judge might have said that Perez testified falsely in his hearing testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights. In other words, he may have committed perjury if he knew his statements were false when uttered.

Florida Dems File Suit to Block “Discriminatory” Changes to Early Voting – Which Only Began in 2004


 


U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown and her Democrat co-complainers are not simply outraged that Florida voters will have “only” 10 early voting days instead of the previous 15 days (16 states don’t have any early voting at all, nor did Florida before 2004), Brown claims that African-American voters specifically will be MORE “disenfranchised” by the changes than any other voters:


 


While offering no supporting evidence, Brown said, “Early voting has worked extremely well for all Floridians and especially for African American voters.  In fact, more than any other racial or ethnic group, African Americans have come to rely on early voting.”


 


Anything to gin up the base in a swing state.  More here.