By Nancy Abudu, Senior Staff Attorney, Voting Rights Project, ACLU at 1:30pm
On Monday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Arizona, et al. v. ITCA, Inc., et al., the second of two important voting rights cases that the Court will hear in less than a month involving Congress' authority to enact laws to increase access to voting. This case, in which the ACLU and other public interest organizations are representing a number of plaintiffs, addresses different legal questions than Shelby County v. Holder, which was heard by the Supreme Court a few weeks ago.
Twenty years ago today, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), in order to make voter registration free, fair, and accessible for all Americans. The statute has been a resounding success, helping to enfranchise millions of Americans across the country.
The NVRA is often referred to as the "Motor Voter" law, because it requires states to offer voter registration with applications for driver's licenses. But other provisions are equally important. The NVRA requires states to offer voter registration to applicants for public assistance programs such as Medicaid and the new health benefit exchange that is required under the Affordable Care Act. . It also protects the right of citizens and civic associations to conduct volunteer voter registration drives, and removes state-imposed barriers to registration, by creating a one-page standardized voter registration form for use in all states, on which voters affirm their eligibility as citizens by signing a sworn affidavit.
An international human rights body is set to question the United States on its obligations under a key human rights treaty. The U.N. Human Rights Committee, an independent body of experts tasked with monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), this week released its list of issues, which will serve as the basis for its upcoming review of U.S. compliance with the treaty. The U.S. ratified the ICCPR in 1992 and is obligated to submit to periodic reviews of its treaty implementation efforts.
Six years ago, Desmond Meade stood along a set of railroad tracks and considered jumping in front of an oncoming train. Homeless, unemployed and recently released from prison, Desmond felt out of options, and couldn't imagine a future for himself. Thankfully, Desmond did not end his life that day, but instead, incredibly, found the courage to turn it around completely. Today, he is a second-year law student at Florida International University College of Law and president of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition.
Hans von Spakovsky, in his recent article in the National Review, “Strike Down Section 5,” gets it wrong when he says the Supreme Court should hold Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional in the case now pending before it, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. The South, as a direct result of the Voting Rights Act, has changed, but that does not mean we no longer need Section 5, which requires nine states and parts of seven others with the worst and continuing histories of discrimination in voting to preclear their proposed changes in voting and show that they do not have a discriminatory purpose or effect.
Following a wave of voter suppression laws over the last few years, Texas passed a restrictive voter identification law, which unfairly burdened communities of color all across the state. The new law was rejected as discriminatory under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In Arizona, Herta Weber, a U.S. Army and Navy veteran had her voter registration denied because of new burdensome state requirements for documentary proof of citizenship, despite the fact that she could easily register under the requirements of the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (the federal "motor voter" law).
During the signing ceremony of the Voting Rights Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson characterized the law as "one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom." Since that day, this landmark civil rights law has steadily and surely defeated and deterred countless discriminatory and varied barriers to the ballot.
The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to review a case that challenges the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, which has been a crucial tool for protecting the minority vote and ensuring equal access to the ballot box.
The court agreed to hear Shelby County v. Holder, which involves Shelby County, Ala. The ACLU intervened in the case in order to represent minority voters and the state NAACP chapter, and protect the right to vote.
By Patrick DePoy, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 11:05am
Like many Americans, Asher Schor is excited to vote this coming November. Asher was born and raised in Pittsburgh, works at a public interest law firm, and feels more motivated than ever to participate in the electoral process. But Asher is one of thousands of transgender Americans whose driver’s license and passport do not reflect his or her true gender identity. Asher received his photo ID before his transition and the official sex listed still reads “Female.” He recently joined the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s lawsuit against a new and particularly onerous voter ID law, and I had a chance to discuss how the new law will impact him at the polls this November. This LGBT Pride Month, it’s important to examine the ways that voter suppression efforts, like newly-enacted photo ID laws, will have a disproportionately harmful impact on those who are transgender.
