About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 [1] (October 7, 2014)

handle is hein.crs/crsmthaactj0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Legal Sidebar As Midterm Election Approaches, State Election Laws Challenged As the November 4 election approaches, there have been several court challenges to state election laws. Depending on how the courts rule-and when-these cases could affect election administration in several states during the upcoming election. For example, on October 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, on a 2-1 vote, issued a in that required North Carolina to restore same-day voter registration and the counting of out-of-precinct ballots in the upcoming election. The 4th Circuit found undisputed evidence demonstrating that these election laws were enacted to increase voter participation, that African American voters disproportionately utilized those electoral mechanisms, and that a North Carolina law, BLuseJill _, restricted those mechanisms. Therefore, the court determined that aspects of the law disproportionately impacted African American voters in violation of Sect:in 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits any voting qualification or practice that results in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority. The statute further provides that a violation is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by [members of a racial or language minority group] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political processes and to elect representatives of their choice. North Carolina is aeking a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, where a ruling is expected at any time. On September 22, a trial concluded in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in a cam where plaintiffs are challenging a Texas voter ID law, Senate Bill 14. The law requires voters to show a form of government-issued identification that contains a photograph of the voter, including a driver's license, election identification certificate or personal identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety (DPS), a U.S. military ID card, a U.S. citizenship certificate, a U.S. passport, or a license to carry a concealed handgun issued by DPS. Among other things, plaintiffs are that the law dilutes and/or prevents the voting strength of minority voters in violation of SetUn 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Observers predict a ruling will be issued prior to the November election, which might ultimately be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On September 29, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a stay of a district court order that prevented reductions in early voting in Ohio. The district court had enjoined enforcement of a recently enacted state election law, Senate Bill 23, and Secretary of State Directive 2014-17, which had reduced the period for early in-person voting, and ordered the restoration of additional hours for voting. The district court had determined that the bill and directive violate both the Eaual Protection l of the 14th Amendment by burdening the fundamental right to vote, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by disproportionately burdening African American voters' ability to participate effectively in the political process. On September 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affIrmed the district court order. As a result of the Supreme Court staying the order, for this election, it appears that the recently enacted shorter period for voting will be in effect unless or until the State of Ohio files a cert. petition with the Supreme Court, and depending on how the Court responds. On September 29, the Ohio Secretary of State issued Directive 2014-3 outlining uniform days and hours for in-person absentee voting. For further reading on the Voting Rights Act, see CRS reports, Qngresion I Rights Act: A Lga/ Overview, and he.tin Rits Act of 165: Backew.