On the Docket 9/3/2021

In the Nation’s Capital: Voting Rights Top Agenda After Return From August Recess

It’s summer vacation for the legislative branch. In early years, Congress adjourned in the spring to avoid the summer heat in Washington D.C. given the poor ventilation in their chambers. Now with air conditioning, an increased workload and demands to reconnect with constituents led to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 which mandated a summer break.

This year, however, the U.S. House of Representatives returned early from recess to take up an infrastructure-related budget resolution. The House also passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, H.R. 4, on August 24. This landmark bill would restore key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which have been weakened by U.S. Supreme Court decisions in recent years. Read today’s Explainer, “The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Explained,” where we reflect on the powerful legacy of Congressman John Lewis and break down the voting rights bill named in his honor as it heads to the U.S. Senate.
[link removed]

Congress will return mid-September, with the Senate planning to immediately take up election reform debate. “Voting rights will be the first matter of legislative business when the Senate returns to session in September," emphasized Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as the Senate left for August recess. “Our democracy demands no less.”

In the States: Texas Republicans Pass Voter Suppression Bill

Texas: On Tuesday afternoon, Republicans in the Texas state Legislature voted for the final time to pass Senate Bill 1, their omnibus voter suppression bill. S.B. 1 is awaiting Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s (R) signature. The final hurdle to the bill’s passage was a conference committee to reconcile differences between the chambers’ versions. Sen. Bryan Hughes (R), the original author of S.B. 1, objected to Amendment 58, a bipartisan House amendment to help prevent criminal prosecutions of people who unknowingly voted while ineligible. The amendment was inspired by Crystal Mason — a Texas woman sentenced to five years in prison for casting a provisional ballot while on parole — but was removed by the conference committee.
[link removed]

S.B. 1 has been the focus of national attention all summer after the bill failed in Texas’ regular legislative session thanks to Democrats’ coordinated walk-out from the chamber. Gov. Abbott called two special sessions in an effort to get the legislation passed; during the first session, Democrats fled to D.C. in order to deny Republicans of their quorum and bring attention to the need for national voting rights legislation. During the 2020 elections, Texas officials instituted drive-thru and overnight early voting for the first time, widely seen as inclusive measures to make voting more accessible. S.B. 1 bans these measures, which were particularly popular in urban, Democratic-leaning counties, and institutes a wide range of other restrictions which disproportionately impact low-income voters and people of color. S.B. 1 also adds documentation requirements to vote by mail, makes it a felony for local election officials to proactively send mail-in ballot applications, empowers partisan poll watchers and more.

Michigan: On Monday, Michigan Republicans announced a petition campaign to tighten the state’s pre-existing voter ID laws, eliminating the option of signing an affidavit to vote without ID. Republican lawmakers introduced a wave of 39 restrictive voting bills earlier this year but a petition can bypass the necessary approval by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D). The petition must collect over 340,000 valid voter signatures within a specific time frame for the policy proposal to head to the Republican-controlled Legislature. If passed, it does not require approval by Gov. Whitmer. Earlier this month, Arizona lawmakers rallied behind a similar measure to impose stricter voter ID requirements on early ballots. In Arizona, however, the initiative could be included on the 2022 Arizona general election ballot if the conservative group sponsoring the effort can gain over 250,000 signatures by next July. A similar signature-gathering campaign for a voter ID ballot initiative is already underway in Nebraska.
[link removed]

In the Courts: Problems in Texas, Progress in North Carolina

Texas: On Wednesday, Texas faced a new lawsuit challenging the state’s legislative districts and upcoming reapportionment plans. The lawsuit was filed by Texas State Senators Roland Gutierrez (D) and Sarah Eckhardt (D) and Tejano Democrats, a political organization focused on voter education and advocacy for Mexican American voters and candidates. The plaintiffs allege that conducting reapportionment during a special — rather than regular — legislative session violates the Texas Constitution. The states’ malapportioned legislative maps require new districts prior to the 2022 election cycle but the Texas Legislature will not have a regular legislative session until January 2023.
[link removed]

North Carolina: A three-judge panel in a North Carolina state court formally ruled that all individuals on probation, parole or a suspended sentence due to a prior felony conviction can immediately register to vote. This victory originates from a case filed in 2019 on behalf of the Community Success Initiative, Justice Served N.C., the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Wash Away Unemployment and individuals convicted of felonies. The plaintiffs challenged North Carolina’s felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for individuals with past felony convictions who remain on probation, parole or a suspended sentence. Since being released from probation requires the payment of various legal and court fees, re-enfranchisement was often dependent on an individual’s ability to pay these costs until the court’s preliminary injunction prohibited it. This state trial court’s ruling last week immediately enfranchised over 55,000 people. The North Carolina Legislature’s motion to pause this amended preliminary injunction while it appeals the trial court’s decision was denied, meaning the ruling will stay in place for now.
[link removed]

Across the Country: Every state has a different deadline for redistricting, the process of drawing new congressional and state legislative district boundaries. However, the Covid-19 pandemic delayed the U.S. Census Bureau in releasing its data by several months, causing many states to push back their predetermined deadlines. Some of the states with fast approaching fall congressional redistricting deadlines include Connecticut, Colorado, Illinois, Maine and Ohio. To prepare for the busy fall, read our Redistricting 101 series, starting with “How We Got Here” and “Why Maps Go to Court.”
[link removed]
[link removed]

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a guidance document on Wednesday regarding enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA as jurisdictions begin redistricting. Section 2 prohibits voting practices that discriminate based on race, color or membership in a language-minority group, whether enacted with discriminatory intent or if it has a discriminatory result. Nonetheless, state legislatures, nonprofit groups and individual voters have already filed redistricting lawsuits in several states.
[link removed]

You can learn about the ongoing legal efforts to ensure fair maps here: [link removed]

And More:
Heading back to school? For many college students, going to school usually means a new address — and a new opportunity for voter registration. Students who move for school can vote at their school address or permanent home address. This week’s piece, “Back to School: Student Voting 101,” outlines the options and barriers for college students hoping to cast a ballot: [link removed]

Redistricting can disenfranchise thousands of voters through “vote dilution,” the phenomenon in which one vote has less of an impact on the outcome of an election than another because of the way districts are drawn. But how does this occur? Learn what it really means to gerrymander districts through malapportioned maps and minority vote dilution in “Redistricting: How Politicians Choose Their Voters:”
[link removed]

What We’re Doing

We’re taking a few actions this week:

Earlier this week, Hurricane Ida pummeled Louisiana and Mississippi, destroying homes and leaving thousands without power. To help, donate to reliable, local organizations providing direct relief to the affected communities: [link removed]

Texas voters now face a host of new potential obstacles to voting. However, only licensed deputy registrars in the state can get folks registered to vote. Sign up to become a volunteer deputy registrar through the Powered by People program or click here for more actions to empower Texan voters.
[link removed]
[link removed]

And make sure to tune in to Twitter Spaces with Marc and Democracy Docket today at 1:30PM ET for a conversation on what to expect in Texas with special guest Rep. Rafael Anchía (D). Join the Spaces by going to the @DemocracyDocket Twitter account on your iPhone or Android: [link removed]

Texas’ new, extreme law (S.B. 8) bans abortion at about six weeks (before many individuals even know they’re pregnant) and allows private citizens to bring a civil suit against a person they believe helped someone get an abortion. Take action and donate to groups on the ground to support Texans who need help: [link removed]

Spotlight: The GOP Is Leading Us Down a Dangerous Authoritarian Path
In this week’s Spotlight, professional tennis player Martina Navratilova raises the alarm on how she views our country heading towards authoritarianism. Growing up in the Soviet-controlled Czech Republic, Navratilova highlights the worrisome parallels between the extremist regime she witnessed as a child and today’s Republican party. Read more of Navratilova’s analysis and warning signs in “The America That Welcomed Me 46 Years Ago Depends on Us”
[link removed]

Ask Marc
Each week, we pick a few reader questions about all things elections and share Marc’s answers. Got a question? Submit it here: [link removed]

Lauren asks: What’s the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision allowing Texas’ new abortion law to stand?

Marc: By refusing to grant emergency relief, Texas’ near-complete ban on abortions went into effect on Wednesday. Here’s the thing — Congress could pass a national law codifying Roe v. Wade, protecting the right to choose from further attack.

Jonathan asks: There was more bipartisan support for voting rights in the early 2000s. Did President Obama’s election change this?

Marc: In 2006, the Senate unanimously voted 98-0 to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, a sharp contrast to today’s Republican party. The 2008 election of Barack Obama, along with the 60 Senate seats he helped carry, showed the overwhelming power of young voters and voters of color. After that, Republicans had the choice to appeal to demographic change or fight it — they chose disenfranchisement.

What Bode’s Barking About

“While in 2012, just before the Shelby County decision, the white-Black turnout gap was shrinking in the states [originally covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act], and in many instances even briefly closed, this trend has reversed in the years since. In 2012, seven out of the eight states had Black voter turnout higher than that of white voters. In 2020, the reverse is true.” Brennan Center for Justice
[link removed]

“When a state is ruthlessly districted, voters are robbed of meaningful elections and, as just happened in Georgia, unrepresentative policies become law. For most districts in the state, the only elections that matter take place within party primaries—low-turnout elections in which extremists often prevail. When those legislators then enact the most draconian abortion policy in the nation, there’s almost nothing citizens can do to stop it.” The New Republic
[link removed]

“U.S. election technology is dominated by just three vendors comprising 90% of the market, meaning election officials cannot easily swap out their existing technology. Release of the software copies essentially provides a blueprint for those trying to interfere with how elections are run. They could sabotage the system, alter the ballot design or even try to change results, said election technology expert Kevin Skoglund.” AP
[link removed]



unsubscribe: [link removed] [[link removed]]