In the Courts Archives - Page 9 of 25 - Voting Integrity Institute

Judge Upholds 3 States’ Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration

Residents of Kansas, Georgia and Alabama will have to prove they are U.S. citizens when registering to vote for federal elections using a national form, a judge ruled Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon sided against a coalition of voting rights groups that sued a U.S. elections official who changed the proof-of-citizenship requirements on the federal registration form at the request of the three states and without public notice. Residents of other states only need to swear that they are citizens, not show proof. Leon refused to issue a temporary injunction sought by voting rights advocates to overturn the move by Brian Newby, the executive director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, until the case can be decided on its merits at trial. No trial date has been set.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:36:32+00:00June 30th, 2016|In the Courts, News, Proof of Citizenship, Voter ID|

ACRU’s Complaint against Broward County, Florida

Sunshine State's Second Largest County Has More than 100 Percent [...]

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:39:01+00:00June 27th, 2016|ACRU Complaints, In the Courts, Vote Fraud, Voter ID, Voter Roll Maintenance|

ACRU: Voter ID Opponents Try End Run Around Court’s Shelby Ruling

ALEXANDRIA, VA (June 20, 2016) --- Opponents of North Carolina's voter photo ID law wrongly sought to use an illegal interpretation of the Voting Rights Act to attack North Carolina's election integrity law, the (ACRU) argues in a brief filed on June 16 at the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Regarding North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Patrick L. McCrory, et al., the brief, notes that a U.S. District Court rightly rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which had required Southern states and other jurisdictions to obtain preclearance from a D.C.-based court panel or from the U.S. Justice Department for any changes in districting or voting laws. The Court said the requirement was based on obsolete data and was no longer necessary, but left intact Section 2, which empowers the federal government to address discriminatory voting conditions in the states. In the current case, the plaintiff attempted to make a purely statistical case of disparate impact that the law discriminates against minorities. The plaintiffs sought to use hair-trigger standards to strike down state laws that the Supreme Court invalidated in Shelby County. "The appropriate standard is one that looks to the totality of the circumstances, as expressed in Section 2, and does not use statistical disparities between groups of voters to establish liability," the ACRU brief says. The District Court's ruling upholding the law "is consistent with traditional Section 2 jurisprudence, does not conflict with Shelby County, and preserves the constitutional balance between states and the federal government," the brief states. "The opponents of common-sense voter ID laws are attempting an end run around the Supreme Court," said Susan A. Carleson, Chairman/CEO of the ACRU. "The District Court got it right, and we are confident that North Carolina's law will stand in the appeals process."

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:34:40+00:00June 21st, 2016|In the Courts, News, Press Releases, Voter ID|

Group Asks Judge to Bar North Dakota Voter ID Law

FARGO -- A federal judge has been asked to temporarily block the enforcement of North Dakota's Voter Identification Law. The request was filed by attorneys who represent members of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. Earlier this year, they filed a lawsuit that claims North Dakota's voter ID requirements ''disproportionately burden and disenfranchise Native Americans.'' Court documents say an injunction would restore the right to cast ballots by signing an affidavit, or by a poll worker's personal knowledge of a voter's eligibility. Attorneys want the injunction to remain in force until the lawsuit is settled. North Dakota is the only state without voter registration. State law requires a driver's license, or tribal identification cards.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:34:40+00:00June 21st, 2016|In the Courts, News, Voter ID|

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Patrick L. McCrory, et al.

ALEXANDRIA, VA (June 20, 2016) —- Opponents of North Carolina’s [...]

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:37:12+00:00June 20th, 2016|ACRU Amicus Briefs, In the Courts, Voter ID|

Kobach Predicts Chaos if Court Order Stands in Kansas Case

DENVER -- Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach contends massive voter confusion will occur if an appeals court doesn't block a lower court's order to register thousands of state residents for November's presidential election. Kobach made the prediction in a document he filed with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The dispute centers on residents who submit voter registration forms at Division of Motor Vehicles offices and don't provide proof of citizenship. A 2011 state law requires newly registering voters to provide proof of citizenship. A preliminary injunction issued May 17 by U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson prohibits election officials from enforcing the proof of citizenship requirement for residents who register at DMV offices. Robinson's order will take effect Tuesday if the Denver-based appeals court doesn't block it by issuing a stay. Kobach requested a stay in the document he filed May 28. Attorneys for the League of Women Voters and American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday opposed Kobach's request. The dispute involves whether about 18,000 residents will be allowed to vote, court filings state. Early voting for the primary election begins July 13.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:00+00:00June 10th, 2016|Early Voting, In the Courts, News, Proof of Citizenship, Voter ID|

ACRU’s Charles Cooper Sues Virginia Gov. McAuliffe over Felon Voting

By Robert Knight The Democrat felon voting express train in Virginia hit a sharp curve on Monday when Republican lawmakers went to the state's highest court to derail it. Constitutional attorney Charles J. Cooper's law firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of Republican leaders in the Virginia legislature asking the state Supreme Court to block 206,000 felons from voting in November. The lawsuit Howell v. McAuliffe states that Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe abused the separation of powers in an April 22 executive order that gives a blanket restoration to convicts who've completed their sentences. McAuliffe is countermanding longtime policy, in which Virginia's governors have restored voting rights by individual cases, the suit states. The felons who received the blanket amnesty include inmates convicted of rape, murder, and other major offenses. It's worth noting that McAuliffe, who served as a fundraiser for Bill and Hillary Clinton, ignored the fact that his two predecessors, Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Bob McDonnell, both attempted blanket amnesty for some felons but abided by opinions from state attorneys general ruling this out as unconstitutional. The current hyper-partisan attorney general, Democrat Mark Herring, who refused to defend the state's constitutional marriage amendment, has no such qualms, which is why the GOP leaders resorted to the lawsuit. "In his blanket restoration, the Governor didn't consider the violence of the offense, the number of offenses, or whether the offender has paid his victim's medical bills," said a press release from Virginia 58th District delegate Rob Bell. "The executive order covers felons who are still on unsupervised probation. It makes 40,000 violent felons eligible to sit on juries, and is already being used by a defendant accused of murdering a state trooper to demand that these felons be included in his jury pool."

ACRU Staff2016-05-24T14:28:58+00:00May 24th, 2016|ACRU Commentary, In the Courts|

Virginia Assembly Republicans Sue Governor over Felon Voting

Virginia Republicans on Monday asked the state's highest court to block more than 200,000 felons from voting in November, arguing that Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe abused his power by restoring the voting rights of thousands of convicts who've completed their sentences. In a lawsuit GOP leaders filed in the Virginia Supreme Court, they say McAuliffe violated the separation of powers by effectively suspending the state's ban on voting by felons. They say McAuliffe is ignoring decades of practice, which has made clear that governors can restore voting rights only on a case-by-case basis. "Gov. McAuliffe's executive order defines the plain text of the Constitution, flouts the separation of powers, and has no precedent in the annals of Virginia history. The governor simply may not, with the stroke of the pen, unilaterally suspend and amend the Constitution," their lawyers wrote in the suit. The lawsuit is being brought by House Speaker William Howell and Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment along with four other Virginia voters. They're asking the justices to prohibit election officials from registering felons and to cancel all such registrations since April 22. As of last week, election officials said nearly 4,000 felons had signed up to vote, media outlets reported.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:01+00:00May 23rd, 2016|Early Voting, In the Courts, News, Voter ID|

Judge Rules against Kansas Proof of Citizenship to Vote

WICHITA - A federal judge said Tuesday that Kansas can't require people to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote for federal elections at motor vehicle offices. U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson ruled that the state's proof-of-citizenship requirements likely violate a provision in the National Voter Registration Act that requires only "minimal information" to determine a voter's eligibility. She ordered Kansas to register thousands of voters whose paperwork is on hold because they did not comply with the requirement. But she put her preliminary injunction on hold until May 31 to give the state a chance to appeal. The state immediately said it would appeal. Unless a higher court halts Robinson's order before the end of the month, it would take effect then, clearing the way for those residents to cast a ballot in the upcoming federal elections.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:38:01+00:00May 18th, 2016|In the Courts, News, Proof of Citizenship, Voter ID|

Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas Voter ID Law — for Now

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an emergency appeal to stop Texas from enforcing its challenged voter ID law. But the court said it could revisit the issue as the November elections approach. The law has been in effect for recent elections, even after a trial judge struck it down in 2014 and an appellate panel found last year that the law had a discriminatory effect on minority voters. The challengers in the ongoing lawsuit argue there is no reason to allow the requirement to show picture identification at the polls to remain in place. But justices rejected the plea in a brief order Friday. The full New Orleans-based appeals court will hold a new hearing on the Texas law in May. The high court said that it is aware of "the time constraints the parties confront in light of the scheduled elections." If the full appeals court has not issued a ruling by July 20, the court said, it would entertain a renewed emergency appeal over the voter ID law. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the identification requirement a "common-sense law to provide simple protections to the integrity of our elections and the democratic process in our state." He said the state looked forward to defending the law in the appeals court next month.

ACRU Staff2020-05-03T23:34:40+00:00April 29th, 2016|In the Courts, News, Voter ID|

SUBSCRIBE