Strom Thurmond’s son loses the GOP runoff for the First Congressional District to Tim Scott. The district has been represented by a Republican for decades. This is more evidence that the new south is very different from the old south. The Post and Courier has more.
The Department of Justice issued guidance to the states about how to carry out list maintenance responsibilities under Section 8 of the NVRA. The guidance, which we posted here , very clearly informed states when they may NOT strike a voter from the rolls. One may debate the motivation behind this emphasis, but for now, we will only point out some omissions in the guidance regarding when a state must strike a federal felon from the rolls. For the published guidance is not as complete as it could have been.
One place where the guidance omits important information regards striking felons convicted in Federal court. The Civil Rights Division did not provide any guidance, possibly because the law is so clear, but perhaps not.
The NVRA is clear that the US Attorney shall give written notice to the chief State election official and that official (usually the Secretary of State) shall notify the local jurisdiction in which an offender resides of the conviction information. The actual process of removing should be automatic and seamless, depending on whether the individual has a right to hearing or particular notice under state law. Some jurisdictions, usually small ones, may not be very efficient at removing due to the potential cost of notice to the hearing. But if the notice has been properly provided to the local jurisdiction, “reasonable efforts” should include removing the identified voter if state law disqualifies convicted felons. The hard process is actually acquiring the proper disqualifying information on the voter. But the law requires (“SHALL”) all United States attorneys to notify chief State election officials of felony convictions and they, in turn, shall contact local election officials to remove the voter. There is no discretion.
I think HAVA is more clear that non-qualified voters and dead voters shall be removed once identified, and HAVA and NVRA act in conjunction in many ways, except for address list maintenance. Bottom line, there isn’t much discussion in the guidance about removing federal felons from the voter rolls. Perhaps a supplement to the guidance might issue to remedy this omission and make sure states know what to expect from US Attorneys and how to remove felons from the rolls. Or, perhaps not. The law says:
“g) Conviction in Federal court
(1) On the conviction of a person of a felony in a district court of the United States, the United States attorney shall give written notice of the conviction to the chief State election official designated under section 1973gg-8 of this title of the State of the person’s residence.
(2) A notice given pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include -
(A) the name of the offender;
(B) the offender’s age and residence address;
(C) the date of entry of the judgment;
(D) a description of the offenses of which the offender was convicted; and
(E) the sentence imposed by the court.
(3) On request of the chief State election official of a State or other State official with responsibility for determining the effect that a conviction may have on an offender’s qualification to vote, the United States attorney shall provide such additional information as the United States attorney may have concerning the offender and the offense of which the offender was convicted.
(4) If a conviction of which notice was given pursuant to paragraph (1) is overturned, the United States attorney shall give the official to whom the notice was given written notice of the vacation of the judgment.
(5) The chief State election official shall notify the voter registration officials of the local jurisdiction in which an offender resides of the information received under this subsection.”
It has been reported that not all US Attorneys are following these requirements.
District attorney opens a vote fraud investigation in Autauga County AL. It seems someone’s name appeared as an absentee voter after the final absentee list had been produced, and they weren’t on it. This would be what happens if someone tries to get a vote in that didn’t follow normal absentee procedures (like mailing it in on time). The Montgomery Advertiser has the story.
Ten charged with paying people to vote in the 2006 election. Glasgow Daily Times (KY) has the story.
This is not election related, but I’m posting it in hopes that someone sees it that might not otherwise see it. It is a single U.S. Marine standing and saluting Rolling Thunder on Memorial Day 2010. While some flee the city over Memorial Day weekend, hundreds of thousands pour into D.C. on their Harleys to salute the fallen.
And here is a Rolling Thunder event from a few years ago:
On June 18, the Justice Department announced that it will be monitoring elections in Galveston, Texas on June 19.
One wonders why it is necessary to wait until the last second to announce such an undertaking. According to the June 18 press release, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is doing the coverage. This means that the observers got to Galveston most likely on June 17. Captains and co-captains got to Galveston on either June 17 or June 16. Plus, everyone involved knew they would be there days ago. They didn’t just make plane reservations today. Yet the Department waited until the day before the election to announce a large federal presence will be monitoring a state election.
The same thing happened in May. One day notice.
The same thing happened in April.
The same thing happened in March.
In fact, this will be the fourth time the Voting Section has been monitoring Galveston elections in the last four months.
The Department should provide earlier public notice about the decision to monitor elections. It would be in keeping with a more transparent operation.
How strongly a candidate supports military voting rights has become an issue in the race for governor in Texas. The Austin American Statesman has this story.
In pertinent part:
“In 1997, White supported two lawsuits that sought to throw out hundreds of absentee ballots cast by military members in a South Texas election on grounds that the voters didn’t meet residency requirements, and that their votes violated the Voting Rights Act.
At the same time, White also favored a legislative proposal that could have made it harder for military personnel to vote in state and local elections in Texas. Why? For each state or local election back home, the affected voter would have to demonstrate they had a local address in the Texas community, register to vote there, and then request the appropriate absentee ballot.”
Testimony yesterday in a Fort Worth trial about irregularities in batches of absentee ballot in a Justice of the Peace race. The Fort Worth Star Telegram story is here.