Showing posts with label VRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VRA. Show all posts

Friday, December 6, 2013

Some Florida Election Supervisors Stunned By New Voter Restrictions

Some Florida Election Supervisors Stunned By New Voter Restrictions

By Igor Volsky on November 26, 2013 at 11:16 am
"Some Florida Election Supervisors Stunned By New Voter Restrictions"

rick scott banner
Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) chief election official issued new rules Monday night that could hamper absentee voting, just months before Floridians in the state’s 13th Congressional district take part in a special election to replace the late Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R). The seat was held by Republicans for decades, but is now considered a tossup.
The move surprised some election supervisors, who confirmed to ThinkProgress that Secretary of State Ken Detzner had not consulted them before announcing the change. Under the new rule, Floridians will be prohibited from dropping off their absentee ballots at “libraries, tax collectors’ branch offices and other places” and will only be allowed to mail-in their selections or deposit them at local election offices.
Detzner claims that the rule change clarifies established statutory language and establishes “uniformity,” but some supervisors fear that it could have the effect of suppressing voter turnout.
“I was surprised, to say the least,” Ann McFall, Volusia’s Supervisor of Elections told ThinkProgress. “I just have one office and no ‘drop boxes.” Under the new rules, “people who like to save postage and drop it off at an early voting site” could no longer do so. “Why create a problem when none currently exists?” she asked. “If the Secretary of State were to call me, I would ask why not wait until the winter conference in a few weeks to get ideas from the [Supervisors of Elections]?”
Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Deborah Clark had a similar reaction. She told The Tampa Bay Times, “I’m very worried about this. I’m just stunned.” Pinellas county “has used dropoff sites since 2008 and used 14 in the 2012 general election,” when 42 percent of the county’s absentee ballot total were left at dropoff sites.
Duval County Supervisor of Elections Jerry Holland added that the rule would not impact his county, as Duval is one of two that pays for a return postage on an absentee ballot, and disputed charges of voter suppression. “[V]oters will overcome any obstacle and vote, the ballot is designed to be mailed and the voter has not lost that option,” he said.
Detzner has a history of limiting voters’ access, however. In 2012, the state created a voter purge list full of suspected non-citizens, which was mainly comprised of Latino, African and Asian Americans. The list was full of mistakes, targeting U.S. citizens because of a misspelled name or outdated address. County election supervisors refused to go along with the purge, and the Justice Department sued over possible racial discrimination. Detzner eventually apologized for the effort.

Monday, December 2, 2013

How GOP Oligarchs and the Christian Right Are Hiding Behind the 1st Amendment to Ram Through Their Political Agenda

How GOP Oligarchs and the Christian Right Are Hiding Behind the 1st Amendment to Ram Through Their Political Agenda

  Tea Party and the Right  

The Tea Party is turning the Constitution’s most fundamental protections into a refuge for scoundrels and billionaires.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/Vince Clements
 
Once again, the First Amendment has become the latest refuge for America’s scoundrels and oligarchs: Republicans who only want to follow rules they like are declaring that their speech and religious freedoms are being violated unless they get their way.
This fraudulent flag-waving is unfolding in two high-profile fights. The first is the latest front in the ongoing war on Obamacare, where the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear two suits brought by Christian business owners who don’t want to include birth control in employee health plans.
The second is the GOP’s effort to block anti-corruption campaign finance laws. The GOP is screaming censorship after Obama’s Treasury Department proposed new rules that might deter political operators like Karl Rove from using non-profit charities as front groups for attacks on specific candidates—which goes beyond promoting issues.
In both instances, the scoundrels contend that the First Amendment lets them do what they want, and any contrary view—such as new laws or regulations from the Obama administration—is an affront to their fundamental freedom to do as they please.
The Obamacare challenge came out of dozens of suits filed soon after the Affordable Care Act became law. The Christian Right objected to including birth control options in health plans. The administration’s response was to issue rules noting that the minimum coverage standards for businesses, which included a full range of reproductive care, differed from houses of worship—which were given more latitude on including birth control.
However, the Christian-owned businesses whose challenges are coming to the Supreme Court argue that corporationsshare the same religious rights as citizens under the First Amendment. This is the latest effort by the Right to treat corporations as people with a complete complement of constitutional rights.
In the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United ruling in 2010, the Republican-appointed majority expanded the political speech rights of corporations, allowing them to spend money in certain political campaigns as if they were voters—which they’re not. This latest claim of corporate religious freedom could be even more significant, Lyle Denniston, who has covered the Supreme Court for a half-century recently noted.
“The Court is now poised to decide whether corporations also have a First Amendment right to exercise the freedom of religion, which can be thought of as another form of expression—that is, voicing or acting out one’s personal beliefs,” hewrote. “It may be too early to say so, but a decision by the justices recognizing such a corporate right may make the controversy over the Citizens United ruling pale by comparison.”
On Saturday, theWall Street Journal editorial page attacked the administration—which created an exception for houses of worship, religious schools, hospitals and charities. In its typical fashion of blurring details to buttress its view, it said, “The radical implication of the White House argument is that the Constitution doesn’t apply to commercial activity.” Their view is the radical one. Of course, the Constitution protects commerce, such as in contracts. But the Bill of Rights primarily protects individual rights.
The people who want to impose their religious beliefs regardless of cost or consequence are complaining not just that their freedom is threatened, but that corporate religious freedom exists, and must be elevated over the rights of people working for them. That’s radical. They conveniently forget that under Obamacare or any health plan, people can decide to take advantage of a medical procedure or not. These unruly Christian soldiers want to do away with that private choice from their employees, and have the audacity to argue their businesses are being deprived of religious liberty under the First Amendment.
Some legal blogs even go further in noting the hypocrisy and double standards at play. At Balkinization, Joey Fisherwrites that large employers have been “enlisted… as one part of an overall federal project of health insurance provision.” He noted that they even get subsidies to extend coverage to their low-paid or oldest employees, because some of those will end up in state-run Medicaid polls or be covered by Medicare. Their role is facilitating access to insurance, not “to hand out drugs.”
The religious liberty protests are not the only twisted view waving a fake First Amendment flag. The other newly prominent example concerns a legal loophole that flourished after the Supreme Court’s Citizen United ruling: political operators creating and using non-profits as fronts for anonymous, large-scale attacks on political candidates.
Karl Rove was the first to go big with this strategy, because under tax law, non-profits do not have to disclose their donors. The Koch brothers soon followed, as did the Democrats. The Center for Responsive Politics found that at least $240 million was spent this way in 2012, mostly on negative television ads. These were the nastiest and least factual attacks, because their backers evaded accountability by hiding behind blandly named groups.
Many public-interest groups protested this abuse of charitable status to the Internal Revenue Service, which licenses non-profits. This week, the IRS released a proposed rule change that would expand the definition of political activity to any communication to more than 500 people that mentions a candidate’s name in the runup to an election. The idea is to try to ensure that the primary activity of a non-profit is charitable, or public education on issues, but not explicitly working to elect or defeat candidates.
Here, too, the GOP and its allies have been screaming censorship, saying that First Amendment freedoms are being violated. They’re saying, “How dare you?” That’s how dare you stop us from saying whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want, without any accountability or disclosure of who is behind attacks on candidates—even though we also are using government-granted benefits, namely non-profit tax status.
The Journal, as expected, called the proposed rule, “the latest IRS political crackdown.” It’s actually an overdue and sensible step to push political campaigns back into the political sphere, where, ironically, there’s barely any campaign finance regulation left that has teeth. For example, since the mid-1970s, any person could spend unlimited sums of their own money on a political campaign message. That was the result of the Supreme Court’s Buckley V. Valeo ruling. But the super-wealthy donors to non-profits set up and run by Rove and the Koch brothers don’t want to campaign that way.
It’s worth remembering that the GOP and conservative Christians have filed dozens of suits to try to blow up the little that remains of federal and state campaign finance laws. The Supreme Court heard a case this fall brought by the GOP that challenges a cap on the total contributions that any person can give to both candidates and political parties in a campaign season. The basis for that legal limit is preventing political corruption by essentially turning piles of campaign cash into legal bribes.
There are dozens of additional suits brought by the GOP and conservative Christians, especially surrounding same-sex marriage state ballot measures, to overturn disclosure laws that would list donors. Here, again, the party that is complaining the loudest about losing First Amendment freedom doesn’t want to stand in public next to its own words. Tea Party groups have sued to hide their funders, claiming they’re like black Americans in the worst of the Jim Crow era.
These self-serving abuses of the First Amendment are ridiculous and an insult to history. Nobody is stopping right-wing crusaders from following their religious beliefs at home or from reaching into their pockets to pay for their own political messages. But once they step into the public sphere, either though running government-chartered corporations or creating non-profit charities, there are legal obligations to employees and tax laws to be followed. I may be late for work, but that doesn’t mean I get to run red lights.
Waving the freedom flag is the right’s favorite argument. But claiming First Amendment rights as a way to evade uncomfortable laws and inconvenient legal standards—passed by an administration they intensely dislike—turns the Constitution’s most fundamental protections into a refuge for scoundrels and oligarchs.

Diebold Charged With Bribery, Falsifying Docs, "Worldwide Pattern of Criminal Conduct"

Diebold Charged With Bribery, Falsifying Docs, "Worldwide Pattern of Criminal Conduct"

Friday, 25 October 2013 11:00 By Brad Friedman, The Brad Blog | Report

One of the world's largest ATM manufacturers and, formerly, one of the largest manufacturers of electronic voting systems, has been indicted by federal prosecutors for bribery and falsification of documents.
The charges represent only the latest in a long series of criminal and/or unethical misconduct by Diebold, Inc. and their executives over the past decade.
According to Cleveland's Plain Dealer, a U.S. Attorney says the latest charges are in response to "a worldwide pattern of criminal conduct" by the company....
Federal prosecutors Tuesday filed charges against Diebold Inc., accusing the North Canton-based ATM and business machine manufacturer of bribing government officials and falsifying documents in China, Indonesia and Russia to obtain and retain contracts to provide ATMs to banks in those countries.

The two-count criminal information and deferred prosecution agreement calls for Diebold to pay nearly $50 million in penalties: $23 million to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and $25 million to the Department of Justice.

The agreement with federal prosecutors also calls for the implementation of rigorous internal controls that includes a compliance monitor for at least 18 months. The government agreed to defer criminal prosecution for three years, and drop the charges if Diebold abides by the terms of the agreement.

Despite at least $1.75 million in bribes said to have been paid the company around the globe, nobody will go to jail for what U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach describes as their "worldwide pattern of criminal conduct," because they are a corporation --- and you are not.

The $50 million the company has agreed to pay is a mere fraction of the firm's $3 billion in annual revenues. That, even though Diebold is a repeat offender --- which may be describing it mildly...

In 2010 the company settled an SEC fraud suit for $25 million. They also admitted in 2008 that they had overstated 2007 election division revenue by some 300% in hopes of manipulating stock prices.

As early as 2004, thanks to documents leaked by a whistleblower, it was discovered that Diebold had illegally used uncertified hardware and software in California election systems and planned to lie about it to state investigators. The e-voting systems, repeatedly found over the years to be easily hacked, were decertified for use by the state at the time (though they are still used widely around much of the country today.)

Still, nobody went to prison for any of Diebold's crimes.

Their most notorious infamy was tied to their often bumbling work as the nation's second largest e-voting company, which produced wildly insecure and often inaccurate voting systems and tabulators and which they proved willing to lie about. The Ohio-based firm first attracted the notice, and ire, of Democrats in 2003 when its then CEO, Walden O'Dell, penned a fundraising letter on behalf of George W. Bush and the Republican Party, promising that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

O'Dell, who many had blamed for Diebold's flagging stock prices and the sullying of the company's otherwise-excellent 150-year old reputation, was eventually forced to resign for "personal reasons" in late 2005. He was later required to pay back some $470,000 as part of the SEC's 2010 lawsuit after it had been found that Diebold had "manipulated the company's accounting to meet earnings forecasts from 2002 through 2007."

In 2007, Diebold, Inc., after nearly two years of attempting to sell off their elections division, renamed that portion of their business to Premier Election Solutions. Eventually, Premier, the second largest voting machine company in the country at the time, was sold to ES&S, the nation's largest. In turn, the U.S. Dept. of Justice forced ES&S to sell off many of the assets from the Diebold/Premier acquisition in response to anti-trust concerns. Those assets were eventually purchased by the Canadian firm, Dominion Voting which has since become the second largest voting machine company in the U.S. after their subsequent purchase of Sequoia Voting, a firm tied for years to the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Diebold's Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Kevin Krakora, stepped down in 2009 amidst the SEC's investigation at the time. As The BRAD BLOG reported exclusively in 2007, Krakora had been the top beneficiary of an apparent round of insider trading by a number of Diebold executives who unloaded hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of company stock just before the announcement of the Diebold/Premier name change, and the subsequent plummeting of the parent company's stock price. In a mass sell-off, Krakora and other executives sold their shares at more than $53/share, a near-historic high, just prior to the price plunging more than 50% on the announcement of the elections division spin-off. Diebold, Inc.'s price has never recovered from the 2007 sell-off. It closed at less than $30/share on Wednesday.

The Plain Dealer reports that court documents filed this week by the U.S. Justice Department allege executive and company employees from Diebold's Asia Pacific region paid "$1.75 million in bribes, gifts and trips to dozens of employees of banks in China and Indonesia"...
The bribes were paid in order to secure and retain business with bank customers, including state-owned and state-controlled banks.

Diebold attempted to disguise the payments and benefits in various ways, including by making payments through third parties designated by the banks, and by inaccurately recording leisure trips for bank employees as "training."

The court documents also accuse Diebold employees, over a four-year period, of creating and entering into false contracts with a distributor in Russia for services that the distributor was not performing. The distributor, in turn, used the Diebold funds to pay bribes to employees of Diebold's privately-owned bank customers in Russia in order to obtain and retain ATM-related contracts with those customers.

Despite their years-long global crime spree, it seems Diebold will receive yet another slap on the wrist, and another polite request to please not to do that again. You and I should be so lucky next time we run into repeated trouble with the law. Good luck with that.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Brad Friedman

Brad Friedman is an award-winning freelance investigative journalist, blogger, muckraker, author and broadcaster. He is the publisher and executive editor of BradBlog.com, a co-founder of the government accountability and election integrity watchdog organization VelvetRevolution.us and a fellow at the Commonweal Institute. He is also the co-host of the nationally syndicated radio feature "Green News Report" and the host of his own weekly radio program on Los Angeles' Pacifica Radio affiliate KPFK. More ...

Voter ID Gets Another Day in Court

Voter ID Gets Another Day in Court

A federal trial in Milwaukee on Wisconsin’s 2011 voter ID law concluded recently, and the verdict, when it comes, will help define the future of the Voting Rights Act, which has been in question since the Supreme Court gutted a core provision, Section 5, in June. This case could also set an important precedent for lawsuits recently filed against similar laws in Texas and North Carolina.
The Wisconsin law, which is now on hold, is among the strictest in the country. It requires a voter to show poll workers government-issued photo identification, like a driver’s license or passport.
The law’s challengers, which include the A.C.L.U., the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Young Voters and several private citizens, sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That section, which survived the Supreme Court’s ruling, prohibits state and local governments from imposing any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting” that has a racially discriminatory effect. The test is whether a law causes minority voters to have “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process.”
The plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that the Wisconsin statute had precisely that effect.
For example, a political scientist testified that it is likely that more than 63,000 residents of Milwaukee do not have the required photo ID, and that black residents are 40 percent more likely than whites not to have such ID. In addition, one-third of those without a photo ID do not have the underlying documents, like a birth certificate, needed to get one. The court heard testimony from several such witnesses, including Lorene Hutchins, a 93-year-old black woman who was born at home in Mississippi at a time when the state’s hospitals refused to accept black patients.
For those living in poverty or on a fixed income, who are disproportionately people of color, even the $20 charge to get a copy of a birth certificate can be unaffordable, and is in practice no different from a poll tax. As is typical in voter ID cases, the state presented virtually no evidence of voter fraud in defending the law. One election official could not recall a single case of identity fraud in his three decades of service to the state.
The law’s backers know their case is weak, and Republican legislators are scrambling to revise the statute to permit indigent voters to take a verbal oath and sign an affidavit that they cannot afford the paperwork needed for a photo ID. But the revision would set no guidelines for determining when someone is poor enough to qualify, and it would put residents in the embarrassing position of having to declare their poverty in public.
State voter ID laws may vary in their particulars, but their underlying purpose is to prevent eligible voters from voting. That point was reiterated when Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said recently that he had been wrong to uphold an Indiana voter-identification law in 2007.
Such laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention,” Judge Posner wrote in a memoir, adding that if he had been alert to the “trickery” of voter ID laws at the time, the case would have come out differently. He may soon have the chance for a do-over. Whichever way the trial court rules, the losing side is sure to appeal to the Seventh Circuit, which includes Judge Posner and his colleagues. Perhaps this time, they will not be fooled.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Why the Christian Right Believes It Has Once-in-a-Decade Chance to Impose Its Radical Worldview on America

Why the Christian Right Believes It Has Once-in-a-Decade Chance to Impose Its Radical Worldview on America

A change to obscure procedural rules in the U.S. Senate and the upcoming 2014 elections could be a dangerous window of opportunity.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Scott Walker: Paul Ryan, Reince Priebus And I Are A 'Cheesehead Revolution'

Scott Walker: Paul Ryan, Reince Priebus And I Are A 'Cheesehead Revolution'

The Huffington Post  |  By Posted:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) coined a spirited term over the weekend for a trio of high-powered Republicans from the Badger State.
In a Saturday interview with USA Today’s Capital Download, Walker talked about his friendship with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). When asked if both he and Ryan could run for president in 2016, Walker said it was an "interesting question," adding that "who knows what the future will bring?"
What he was sure of was the success of three big-name Wisconsin Republicans, remarking how he, Ryan and Reince Priebus all grew up within miles of one another.
"Paul grew up 15 miles to the west of me," Walker said. "Reince Priebus, who’s the RNC (Republican National Committee) chair, grew up about 20 miles to the east of me. There must have been something in the water at the time….We say it’s kind of a Cheesehead Revolution."
With nearly three years to go before the 2016 presidential picture hits its peak, HuffPost Pollster's latest compilation of 27 publicly available polls shows Ryan and Walker both in the mix as potential GOP candidates. Ryan, who served as the party's 2012 vice presidential candidate, netted 11 percent of the hypothetical vote, while Walker earned eight percent.

Wisconsin GOP aims to scrap weekend voting

Voters sign in to vote at the Dr. Martin Luther King Community Center for the U.S. presidential election in Racine, Wisconsin on Nov. 6, 2012.
Voters sign in to vote at the Dr. Martin Luther King Community Center for the U.S. presidential election in Racine, Wisconsin on Nov. 6, 2012.
Sara Stathas/Reuters


Wisconsin GOP aims to scrap weekend voting

By Zachary Roth Wisconsin Republicans are pushing a bill to end early voting on the weekend. The measure would make it harder for people in the state’s most populous areas to cast a ballot—and it would hit blacks especially hard.
But state Sen. Glenn Grothman, a Republican who is sponsoring a Senate version of the bill, told msnbc it’s already easy enough to vote.
“Between [early voting], mail absentee, and voting the day of election, you know, I mean anybody who can’t vote with all those options, they’ve really got a problem,” he said. “I really don’t think they care that much about voting in the first place, right?”
The measure, which passed the state assembly Thursday, would give municipalities two choices for early voting, known in the state as in-person absentee voting: they could offer it either from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays in the two weeks before an election; or at any time on a weekday, but not to exceed 30 hours per week, again in the two weeks before an election.
That would mean a reduction in early voting hours for the state’s two biggest cities, Milwaukee and Madison—which are also its most important Democratic strongholds.
Scott McDonell, the clerk for Dane County, where Madison is located, called the effort a “voter suppression initiative.”
“This is not unintentional,” McDonell told msnbc. “This is part of a whole strategy of limiting the large cities from their ability to vote.”
In 2011, Republicans eliminated early voting on the weekend directly before the election—part of a sweeping voting bill that also included a voter ID provision currently being challenged in court. But they left the weekend before that in place. Last year, around 7,000 voters in Madison and Milwaukee alone took advantage of those two days of voting, according to numbers provided by the election commissions for those cities.
And currently, cities and towns can set their own hours, based on local needs. That’s meant they’ve been able to make game-time decisions to keep polls open during weekdays evenings, if there’s a larger-than-expected number of voters, as Madison did for the 2010 governor’s race, Madison City Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl told MSNBC.
In 2012, the city saw more than 1,000 early voters per day, according to Witzel-Behl. She said the reduction in hours, and the loss of flexibility, would make life more difficult for her office – and for voters.
“We always have voters who let us know that if we hadn’t been open on Saturday, they wouldn’t have been able to come in to cast an absentee ballot,” said Witzel-Behl. “If we are not able to have absentee voting on the weekends, and we’re limited during the week as well, we’re going to be under a significant time crunch to get everybody through the lines.”
While hitting big cities hard, the bill leaves voting practices in small towns largely untouched. Many small towns in Wisconsin let people make appointments to cast their ballots at the local clerk’s house, McDonell explained—something they’ll be able to keep doing.
“What this does is, it leaves in place the ability for the small communities to set their hours in different ways, but it shuts down the big cities from having the ability to do that,” said McDonell.
Grothman said his bill is intended to establish “uniformity” between the large cities and small towns. Since it would be both expensive and unnecessary for small municipalities to increase voting hours, the only fix is to reduce the hours offered by big cities.
“We can have some of these ones that are completely out of control, doing maybe 80 hours a week, we can rein them in,” Grothman said.
Asked why uniformity is important if there’s less demand for early voting in more sparsely populated areas, Grothman was indignant.
“The idea of having one set of rules to apply to one municipality and another set of rules to apply to another goes against equal protection of the laws and is contrary to all our country stands for,” he said. “Isn’t it?”
But scrapping weekend voting will hit African-Americans particularly hard, Rev. Willie Brisco, who leads an alliance of Milwaukee churches, told msnbc.
“A lot of people in our community are working two or three jobs, odd hours, having difficulty with childcare,” said Brisco. “So the weekend and the early voting reaches a lot of those people.”
Brisco said his organization ran a “Souls to the Polls” drive last year, encouraging congregants to vote en masse after church on Sunday.
“We really need our community to stay engaged in the political process, and to be a determining factor,” Brisco said. “And there is a concerted effort to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
The measure wasn’t the only voting bill that the Republican-dominated Wisconsin Assembly passed Thursday night. On a party-line vote, it also approved a bill that would slightly modify the state’s controversial 2011 voter ID law, in an effort to boost its chances of surviving the court challenge that’s currently underway. Under the new GOP bill, voters would now be able to cast a ballot without ID—if they signed an affidavit swearing that they couldn’t afford ID or had no way of geting their birth certificate.
“This bill says that poor people need to declare their indigency,” Rep. JoCasta Zamarripa, a Democrat, told The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. “It’s a scarlet letter.

If You're a Millennial, Black, or Latino, Good Luck Voting Quickly in 2016

If You're a Millennial, Black, or Latino, Good Luck Voting Quickly in 2016

| Tue Nov. 19, 2013 3:00 AM PST
 
When I voted last year in downtown Washington, DC, I was able to walk down the street, cast my ballot, and get back to the office in less than 30 minutes. But according to a new report by two voting rights groups, the Advancement Project and OurTime.org, plenty of American voters weren't so lucky. According to their research, African Americans, Latinos, and millennials in Virginia and Florida—two key battleground states—faced significantly longer wait times than older white voters in 2012. This was largely because the former groups are more inclined to utilize early voting, which was restricted in both states last year. And according to the report, this new "time tax"—along with other voting obstacles, like strict ID laws—will likely continue to dampen voter turnout among these groups in 2016.
In 2012, Florida cut early voting from 14 days to 8 days, and lines were so long, more than 200,000 Florida voters gave up and went home, according to data collected by the Orlando Sentinel. The Advancement Project and OurTime.org report focused on 5,196 of the 6,100 voting precincts that were used last November in Florida—which faced some of the longest voting lines in the country—and found that young voters spent a disproportionately longer time waiting to vote. For example, in Orange County, which has the highest percentage of voters younger than 30 in the state (22 percent), precincts closed an average of 86 minutes after the 7 p.m. deadline, with one precinct closing five hours late. The report found that in Orange County, the trend indicated that the more voters under 30 there were at a certain precinct, the later the closing time.
"Regarding the number of people willing to wait in line to vote in 2012, there were others who didn't vote, and there is no guarantee that voters will always be able to wait so long to exercise their fundamental rights," says Katherine Culliton-González, director of Advancement Project's Voter Protection Program. The report makes the case that young voters have less flexibility with their work schedules, and when early voting days are cut, as they were in Florida, lines get longer. Millennials (defined in the report as people between the ages of 18 and 29) are also more racially diverse than the rest of the population, meaning that there is often an overlap between young voters and voters of color. This 2013 MIT report found that voters of color are also more likely to wait in line than white voters:
The conservative Heritage Foundation maintains that African Americans face longer voting times than white voters because they "tend to be concentrated in large urban areas" and "the most populous areas had longer wait times than those living in areas with fewer voters." But Culliton-González, from the Advancement Project, tells Mother Jones that her group's study disproves this, since their research found that there wasn't a clear correlation between longer lines and precincts with dense populations. She says that, in Virginia, for example, "unless a voter can prove they are sick, otherwise disabled, or have to travel for work on Election Day, all voters must vote on the first Tuesday in November. These limits are probably what caused the disparities, as due to socioeconomic factors, many young voters of color have less flexibility in their work schedules." Voting rights groups argue that all states should offer flexible early voting—but some states have done the opposite: North Carolina, for example, is restricting early voting from 17 days to 10 days, starting in 2014.
Culliton-González adds, "We are concerned about 2014, but even more concerned about 2016," since Florida and other states will likely not have enough early voting time so that voters can avoid long lines. (The Advancement Project didn't find evidence of the "time tax" in the state elections earlier this month, partly because voter turnout was so low.)
But even if early voting is taken care of, young voters of color are also more likely to be turned away from the polls because of identification requirements. This was true in 2012, even in states that didn't have voter ID requirements on the books (see chart below). In the state elections that occurred earlier this month, numerous voters complained of being unable to vote because of real or perceived voter ID laws.
According to data collected by the Black Youth Project, an activist group that does research on issues that affect African American youth, only 67 percent of Latino youth and 71 percent of black youth possess driver's licenses, compared to 85 percent of white youth. Additionally, three times more young black voters than white voters said that lack of an ID was the reason they didn't vote in 2012. The Advancement Project and OurTime.org have submitted their report to the Presidential Committee on Election Administration, President Obama's group that is tasked with finding ways to improve voting.


Dana Liebelson

Reporter
Dana Liebelson is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. Her work has also appeared in The Week, TIME's Battleland, Truthout, OtherWords and Yahoo! News. RSS |

Monday, November 18, 2013

Rachel Maddow Nails How Utterly Nutty Wis GOP Has Become (Now With Even More Voter Suppression)

Rachel Maddow Nails How Utterly Nutty Wis GOP Has Become (Now With Even More Voter Suppression)

 
Must see video (H/T to BruinKid for his comment/tip on how to embed this since the "new" MSNBC video no longer embeds):

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
She nailed it from the extremism to the petty bullying that has infested our State Legislature since the Red Tide election of 2010.
After taking even more extremist anti-abortion legislation off the table as I diaried here, saying they were going to end the legislative session on a lighter note, Republicans in the State Assembly pulled out a brand new shiny Voter Suppression Bill and resurrected a bill to allow state-issued anti-abortion license plates.
They did this because they got into a snit about Assembly Democrats calling for a vote on an already approved bill to honor the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre which passed the State Senate unanimously.  Republicans in the Assembly refused to even consider that bill.  Why?  Nobody seems to know.  So, in retaliation, they brought out more extremist bills including a brand new one to further restrict voting in Wisconsin.  Yes, it's gotten that petty.
The most severe of the voter suppression measures Republicans passed in 2011, including the presentation of a state-issued ID, are on hold by the courts.  Left in place, however, are measures that restrict early voting and absentee ballots,  as well as a requirement that all voters must sign the poll book.  These measures increase the amount voters who must vote in person as well as increase the actual amount of time poll workers need to spend with each voter.  Of course, this increases the lines of people who vote, further discouraging those with busy schedules or in crowded voting precincts.  And that's the intent of those laws - to suppress the vote in Democratic areas.
That wasn't enough for Republicans, though.  Their brand new shiny voter suppression bill removes ALL weekend voting (their limitation to 1 weekend from 3 in 2011 wasn't restrictive enough to prevent electoral wins by Tammy Baldwin and Barack Obama in 2012) and restricts early voting to ONE WEEK and ONLY during the hours of 7:30 AM - 5 PM (that'll show those folks who try to vote before or after work).
Not only that, but anyone without that ID needs to sign an affidavit that they're indigent and their "vote" is not guaranteed to be counted.  A person who doesn't have the time to go during work hours to get that ID, has no transportation to a DMV for that ID, or who can't obtain the documents necessary for the ID will have to declare their indigent and possibly get their vote tossed if they aren't.
So, here we go again.
On top of all of this, they want to make the Chief Justice position based on the election of the fellow justices (currently it's the most senior Justice and has been done that way for more than 100 years).  Naturally, they want to impose the will of the RW 4 of 7 justices who have bought their seats instead of having moderate Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson as the Chief based on her long history of service on the State Supreme Court.
And they've also succeeded in changing the reasons for recall to the reasons Scott Walker cited during his own recall.   There has been no reason necessary other than the will of the voters.  Now the recalled official must be charged and/or convicted of a felony or ethics violation.  This would make it impossible for Walker to have politically profited from the voter anger that made him Milwaukee County Executive had it been in effect 15 years ago.  It would also make it impossible for us to recall anyone for malfeasance in office or anything outside of criminal behavior.
I think we be "safe" from them for the next year.  They're done with their extremism until after the next election because they can't count on the poor memories of Wisconsinites or the power of their massive money to ensure their re-election.
They know no bottom and know no shame.
.

Originally posted to Puddytat on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 12:29 PM PST.

Also republished by Badger State Progressive and Friends of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

30 subpoenas issued, search warrants, investigating Gov Scott Walker’s recall Campaign


30 subpoenas issued, search warrants, investigating Gov Scott Walker’s recall Campaign

November 17, 2013
By
Ruh roh. Gov. Scott Walker is surrounded.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Walker’s campaign, the Republican Party of Wisconsin and dozens of conservative political groups are the targets of the Milwaukee County probe. Dozens of subpoenas have been issued demanding documents related to the 2011 and 2012 campaign to recall Walker and state legislative leaders. In all, about 30 groups have been subpoenaed.
Walker

The report details those targeted: Copies of two subpoenas we’ve seen demand “all memoranda, email . . . correspondence, and communications” both internally and between the subpoena target and some 29 conservative groups, including Wisconsin and national nonprofits, political vendors and party committees. The groups include the League of American Voters, Wisconsin Family Action, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Americans for Prosperity—Wisconsin, American Crossroads, the Republican Governors Association, Friends of Scott Walker and the Republican Party of Wisconsin.
According to the newspaper, one subpoena also demands “all records of income received, including fundraising information and the identity of persons contributing to the corporation.”
Follow the money.
Madison.com reports:
 According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, spending in the 2011 and 2012 recall elections by groups mentioned in the article include:
• Right Direction Wisconsin PAC (Republican Governors Association): $9.4 million
• Club for Growth Wisconsin: $9.1 million
• Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce: $4.7 million
Americans for Prosperity/MacIver Institute for Public Policy: $4.5 million
The liberal Center for Media and Democracy has tracked millions of dollars that has flowed among these groups in Wisconsin.
In an interview Saturday, the group’s general counsel, Brendan Fischer, described it as a “dark money shell game” in which thousands and in some cases millions of dollars from anonymous donors are moved from one organization to another with the goal of influencing elections.
JS Online reports:
Unmentioned in the editorial is that R.J. Johnson is an adviser to both Walker’s campaign and the Wisconsin Club for Growth.
The newspaper said the subpoenas sought records and fundraising information and were related to the 2011 and 2012 recall efforts against the Republican governor and state senators.
The subpoenas come out of a second, secret John Doe investigation of Walker aides or allies. The first investigation was closed in February, but the second one is ongoing. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel first reported on both investigations.
John Doe probes give prosecutors the power to compel people to testify and bar them from speaking about their involvement in the investigations. The Wall Street Journal editorial page reported O’Keefe was willing to discuss his subpoena, saying he “realizes the personal risk but wants the public to know what is going on.”
Search warrants were executed based on affidavits filed by Dean Nickel, according to the newspaper. Nickel served as the special agent in charge for the state Department of Justice’s public integrity unit, and the newspaper reported he has served as an investigator for the state Government Accountability Board.
Just this morning Walker was opining that a governor would be the best choice for a presidential run in 2016.
I know Scott! Maybe you can have all the investigators arrested just as you did protesters, a kid and even a few grannies.
Big thanks to tipster extraordinaire @TomCinmidlife who you can follow on Twitter here. 

ALEC Battles Voting Rights in Ohio

ALEC Battles Voting Rights in Ohio

Four GOP Anti-Voter Bills Set For Hearings This Week

The House Policy and Legislative Oversight Committee will be meeting in Room 116 this Tuesday to discuss two Republican voting bills.  (editor: It is important to note ALEC’s involvement in the battle for voting rights in Ohio, as all of the Republican politicians noted by Plunderbund are members of ALEC.)
Republican State Senator (member ALEC’s Civil Task Force) Bill’s Coley’s SB 205 prevents the Secretary of State from mailing absentee ballot applications to Ohioans during primary and special elections, and only allows ballots to be sent during a general election if the General Assembly approves funding for the ballots, which they’ll likely never do.   It also prevents any other official besides the Secretary of State from mailing ballot applications.
Secretary of State Jon Husted (R-ALEC) mailed absentee ballot applications to every registered voter in Ohio during the 2012 presidential election. Almost 1.3 million Ohioans cast an absentee ballot that November.  Coley’s bill, if passed, will ultimately end up seeing fewer people voting overall, fewer people voting absentee and more people likely voting in person.
Which is interesting, because Republican State Senator Joe Uecker’s (member of ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Task Force) bill, SB 200, will actually lowers the number of voting machines a county must have available for an election based on the number of votes cast in recent presidential election years.   Uecker’s bill changes the current formula, which is based on the total number of voters in two most recent presidential elections, by requiring counties to subtract the number of absentee voters from this number.
Given the huge number of absentee ballots cast in 2012, and with Coley’s bill likely to increase the number of people voting in person, voting machine shortages around the state could again become a familiar sight around our state for the next 7 years.
Later in the day, the Senate State Government Oversight and Reform Committee will be meeting (at 3:15 pm) in the South Hearing Room to discuss two more voting bills.
Republican State Senator Frank LaRose’s (member of ALEC’s Public Safety and Elections Task Force), bill SB 238, aims to cut six days off the beginning of the early voting schedule in Ohio.   This bill would not only reduce the number of early voting days from 35 to 29, it would also eliminate the so-called golden week when voters can register and vote on the same day.
Bill Seitz’s (member of ALEC’s Civil Justice Task Force) bill, SB 216, will reduce the period of time, from 10 days to 3 days, a provisional ballot voter has to provide additional information to their local BOE to get their vote counted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This article is written by and is entitled Four GOP Anti-voter Bills Set For Hearings This Week.  This article is posted at  http://www.plunderbund.com/2013/11/16/four-gop-anti-voter-bills-set-for-hearings-this-week/ Plunderbund logo

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Suppress the Vote With Lies? Sure, Go Ahead. WTF?

Suppress the Vote With Lies? Sure, Go Ahead

The Denver Post is out with an editorial that proudly supports the defeat of Senate Bill 147, which would have made it a felony to spread falsehoods about election procedures or voter eligibility. Their reasoning? Outlawing false speech has a chilling effect on non-false speech. What?
Let’s be clear: In no way do we condone robocalls that attempt to scare voters from the polls, or efforts to undermine voters’ belief in their eligibility to cast a ballot.
Our concerns center on the chilling effect of criminalizing speech. It is easy to envision how such a law, if it had passed, could have been used to threaten not only the dishonorable, but even well-intentioned voter participation advocates who maybe weren’t exactly right in summarizing complex election law.
Why does it matter? Free speech is a precious constitutional right, and any law that attempts to curb that right — particularly one that makes speech a felony — must be considered very carefully. …
The best defense against such deception is an informed electorate. Voters must take steps to root out the truth, and the media can help them.
(Denver Post Editorial Board. March 22, 2012. Punish lies at the ballot box. Denver Post.)
Instead of outlawing the deception and trickery involved in voter suppression, the Denver Post Editorial Board thinks the speech of voter supressionists is so important that they’re willing to sacrifice the right to vote for people who don’t happen to be informed enough not to believe liars.
Instead of saying “You’re going to jail for telling students they can’t vote until Wednesday,” they’re saying “Sure, suppress the vote by bowing to false claims by unknown special interests, we think struggling media outlets with shrinking newsroom budgets and owned by just a handful of companies with their own interests at heart can make sure voters are informed.”
Not very compelling.

Rick Scott's dirtiest deeds

Rick Scott's dirtiest deeds