“Purging voter rolls, however, can. Yet when the State Board of Elections took steps last year to clean up the voter rolls and asked localities to remove names of those no longer eligible from the rolls, the state Democratic Party sought an injunction to stop the process, and Chesterfield’s registrar, Lawrence Haake, declined to participate, citing inaccuracies. Haake might have been justified, and the board might have pushed too hard to execute what should be a painstaking process. But when those particular concerns are set aside, the general point stands: Localities should keep their voting rolls as up to date as reasonably possible.”

Link

Signs point to no.  National Review:

“Will Eric Holder, Mark Herring, or Commonwealth attorney Raymond Morrogh do anything about this voter fraud? Or will they ignore it like both Holder and Morrogh did before? After all, Holder claims that efforts to curb voter fraud are merely attempts to deprive individuals of their right to vote — or in this case, their right to vote twice.”

Washington Post.

Washington Times.

Hawaii.  Link.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline has this piece on Davis v. Guam and the arguments before the 9th Circuit this week:

“Therefore, Davis claims that this racial prerequisite for registering to vote violates the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and other federal civil rights statutes. However, a district court ruled against him on the theory that he suffered no injury from the statute that excludes him, on racial grounds, from registering to vote because the election has not been scheduled and may not occur,

Try to imagine the reaction to this argument if it were applied to defeat the claim of a black prohibited by law from registering to vote in a prospective election due to his race.

Mr. Davis is represented by, among others, Christian Adams of the Election Law Center, Terry Pell of the Center for Individual Rights, and Doug Cox of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. All three, I’m proud to say, are friends of Power Line. . . .

Guam tried to defend its race-based voting requirement on the theory that Guam represents a special case because its native population was never polled as to whether it wanted to become part of the United States. Chief Judge Kozinski countered that “native inhabitants” have never been polled when the United States claimed their land as American territory. In general, he seemed unconvinced by Guam’s arguments.”

The arguments before the 9th Circuit in Davis v. Guam are now available in audio format here.  Judge Kozinski has some choice moments making it worth listening to.  Guam restricts voting registration on the basis of race and ancestry for a status election.  Plaintiff is challenging the restriction on the right to vote (aka voter suppression to some).

From the Auburn Plainsman:

Dowdell also said there was voter fraud. He claimed a woman named Ann Torbert was turned away because someone had already voted in her name.

Torbert, when reached by phone, claimed someone with the name Tarbert had voted in her place.

“The poll worker had scratched out my name and respelled it,” Torbert said, “And there wasn’t even a Tarbert anywhere else on the list.”

Despite the irregularity Torbert said she was allowed to cast a vote.

David Dorton, director of public relations for Auburn, confirmed that a poll worker had crossed out the wrong name, but both voters were registered to vote.

After the vote was announced at city hall, a female Dowdell supporter confronted Byrd’s wife and shouted at her. The supported was removed from city hall by police, and Dowdell left with her.

“A much longer argument took place in the second oral presentation involving the Arnold Davis v. Guam case, during which Kozinski posed a number of questions for the government’s counsel.

At one point, Kozinski even expressed dissatisfaction on hearing the government counsel’s response to one of his questions, pertaining to Guam’s political reality as different from other states and territories.

Kozinski said the fact that there was a denial of registration is like holding a plebiscite and answers are only intended to come from a particular portion of the citizenry.

“Mr. Davis may think that ‘They have a poll and they don’t care about my opinion,’” said the chief circuit judge in one of his comments on the case yesterday.

Davis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is appealing the District Court’s dismissal of his action alleging discrimination in the voting process by Guam and by Guam officials in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case is in relation to the proposed Guam political status plebiscite, which he contends is open to Chamorros only.”

Full story here.

The Election Law Center press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 26, 2014

Dave Davis Asks Ninth Circuit to Recognize That Racially Exclusive Plebiscite Registration Injures Citizens on Guam 

Asks appeals court to reverse dismissal of challenge to plebiscite

The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will be hearing arguments today, August 27, 2014, in Arnold Davis v. Guam at 10 a.m. (ChST) in the 4^th floor courtroom at the federal courthouse in Hagatna, Guam. (The hearing will take place at 8 p.m. EDT on August 26, 2014).

Arnold “Dave” Davis tried to register for the Decolonization Registry so he could vote on a future status plebiscite regarding Guam’s relationship to the United States. His attempt to register to vote was denied because Davis could not trace his ancestry to a native inhabitant of Guam. Guam law prohibits those who do not have the correct ancestors from registering to vote for the status plebiscite. According to an expert report by Davis’ expert, nearly every single ancestor who would vest the modern right to register to vote was of the Chamorro racial group.

Davis has challenged the racially exclusive voter registration as a violation of the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, a violation of the Voting Rights Act, the 1957 Civil Rights Act and other federal civil rights statutes.

Davis has appealed the decision of the United States District Court that a citizen suffers no injury when a state passes a racially discriminatory voter registration law and is excluded from registering to vote because of his race when the election is to take place at some point in the future. The case was filed by J. Christian Adams of the Election Law Center along with the Center for Individual Rights in Washington D.C. Mun Su Park serves as local counsel on Guam.

“All American citizens are allowed to register to vote regardless of their race or who their grandfathers were,” said J. Christian Adams. “Guam cannot classify some voters as second class, not worthy to vote on the important issue of Guam’s status.”

Scott P. Martin of Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, LLP, will be arguing the case in Guam. The brief authored by Douglas Cox, Martin and other lawyers can be obtained here. (http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/Guam_Ninth_Cir_Brief.pdf). Davis asks the appeals court to reverse the District Court’s dismissal.

More information can be found at http://www.cir-usa.org/cases/davis_v_guam.html