Tennesseans shatter early voting records (with photo ID law)

“For the last year, our Division of Elections has conducted an unprecedented voter outreach effort,” Secretary of State Tre Hargett said. “This campaign was launched to help educate people about Tennessee’s new photo ID law. Not only have election officials at the state and the county level done a good job in informing people about that law, but they have also raised awareness about this year’s elections. We see that reflected in these record early voting numbers.”  Link

But, But, But the New York Times calls it the Great Suppression.

Tennesseans shatter early voting records (with photo ID law)

“For the last year, our Division of Elections has conducted an unprecedented voter outreach effort,” Secretary of State Tre Hargett said. “This campaign was launched to help educate people about Tennessee’s new photo ID law. Not only have election officials at the state and the county level done a good job in informing people about that law, but they have also raised awareness about this year’s elections. We see that reflected in these record early voting numbers.”  Link

But, But, But the New York Times calls it the Great Suppression.

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.


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.


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.
                                                                                                  

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.


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.