Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
March 31, 2022

Arizona GOP governor signs legislation requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote

This law will be challenged and is clearly unconstitutional
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1509500012996276224

Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey on Wednesday signed legislation that would require all Arizonans to provide proof of citizenship and residency to register to vote, sparking criticism from voting rights advocates who say it will potentially cancel thousands of voter registrations and are exploring legal challenges in response.

State law already requires Arizona residents who want to register to vote in state elections to provide proof of citizenship. But this legislation, passed by the GOP-controlled legislature, extends those requirements to residents who are only voting in federal elections. Currently, individuals who use a federal voter registration form are required to attest under penalty of perjury that they are a citizen, but proof is not required......

Critics also say the bill would do most harm to voters who lack a valid state driver's license or identification card like students, the elderly and tribal communities. They say they are expecting litigation to challenge the legislation.

"We are exploring that option, joining with other groups," Pinny Sheoran, president-elect of the League of Women Voters of Arizona, told CNN.

In 2004, Arizona voters approved proposition 200, which requires individuals to provide proof of citizenship to vote in state elections. But in 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled that the state could not impose the citizenship requirement on federal-only voters.
March 31, 2022

Arizona GOP governor signs legislation requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote

This law will be challenged and is clearly unconstitutional
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1509500012996276224

Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey on Wednesday signed legislation that would require all Arizonans to provide proof of citizenship and residency to register to vote, sparking criticism from voting rights advocates who say it will potentially cancel thousands of voter registrations and are exploring legal challenges in response.

State law already requires Arizona residents who want to register to vote in state elections to provide proof of citizenship. But this legislation, passed by the GOP-controlled legislature, extends those requirements to residents who are only voting in federal elections. Currently, individuals who use a federal voter registration form are required to attest under penalty of perjury that they are a citizen, but proof is not required......

Critics also say the bill would do most harm to voters who lack a valid state driver's license or identification card like students, the elderly and tribal communities. They say they are expecting litigation to challenge the legislation.

"We are exploring that option, joining with other groups," Pinny Sheoran, president-elect of the League of Women Voters of Arizona, told CNN.

In 2004, Arizona voters approved proposition 200, which requires individuals to provide proof of citizenship to vote in state elections. But in 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled that the state could not impose the citizenship requirement on federal-only voters.
March 31, 2022

Florida must seek court preapproval to change some voting laws, judge rules

This is a major ruling on imposing preclearance on Florida
https://twitter.com/srl/status/1509602838783180807

Florida cannot change certain voting laws without getting preapproval from a federal court for the next decade, a federal judge ruled on Thursday, saying the state has an ongoing and extensive history of discrimination against non-white voters that warranted extraordinary oversight.

US district judge Mark Walker put the state back under preclearance on Thursday as part of a 288-page ruling striking down new voting restrictions in Florida limiting the availability of drop boxes, and making it more difficult for third-party groups to register voters. “Florida has repeatedly, recently, and persistently acted to deny Black Floridians access to the franchise,” he wrote in his opinion.

Placing a state under federal preclearance is an extraordinary, and rarely used, action. A provision of the Voting Rights Act allows judges to place jurisdictions under federal supervision if there is evidence of intentional discrimination. Until Thursday, courts have not placed any states back under supervision since the supreme court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder.
March 31, 2022

Breaking: Federal District Court Strikes Down Restrictive Florida Voting Rules, Imposes Requirement

Source: Election law Blog

Quite a blockbuster ruling from the federal district court. The court found that in enacting certain election laws limiting registration outreach and the use of drop boxes, Florida violated the Voting Rights Act. The court also found that Florida acted intentionally discriminating against the state’s black voters. And although the parties hardly briefed it, the Court imposed a very strong remedy of requiring that certain changes in voting rules in Florida be precleared before the court for a period of 10 years under section 3c of the Voting Rights Act.

This is a huge deal, and the district court’s analysis is probably right, but there is good reason to believe that this case could be reversed on appeal by the much more conservative 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court. Indeed, the district court seems to signal that very early in the case that the appellate courts have stopped meaningfully protecting minority voting rights:

In so ruling, this Court recognizes that the right to vote, and the VRA particularly, are under siege. See, e.g., Ark. State Conf. NAACP v. Ark. Bd. of Apportionment, No. 4:21-cv-01239-LPR, 2022 WL 496908, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 17, 2022) (dismissing a “strong merits case” that Arkansas had, to the detriment of Black voters, racially gerrymandered seats in the Arkansas House of Representatives under the theory that no private right of action is available under section 2 of the VRA); Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879 (2022) (staying, without explanation, order enjoining racially gerrymandered congressional maps); Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 141 S. Ct. 2321, 2351 (2021) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (“Today, the Court undermines Section 2 [of the VRA] and the right it provides.”); Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (gutting the VRA’s preclearance regime).

Federal courts must not lose sight of the spirit that spurred the VRA’s passage. In June 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter to the New York Amsterdam News urging Congress to pass the VRA. In it, he wrote that “to deny a person the right to exercise his political freedom at the polls is no less a dastardly act as to deny a Christian the right to petition God in prayer.” Martin Luther King Jr., Let My People Vote, The Atlantic, https://tinyurl.com/2sfx63u4 (last visited Mar. 22, 2022). Federal courts would not countenance a law denying Christians their sacred right to prayer, and they should not countenance a law denying Floridians their sacred right to vote.



Read more: https://electionlawblog.org/?p=128540

March 31, 2022

Federal federal judge STRIKES DOWN key provisions of voters suppression law SB90.

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1509556947946819596

https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/florida-voter-suppression-bill/

Lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters of Florida, Black Voters Matters Fund, Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and individual voters against all 67 Florida counties challenging voter suppression law Senate Bill 90. The case claims that S.B. 90’s drop box restrictions, mail-in ballot repeat request requirement, volunteer assistance ban, deceptive registration warning and food and water ban violate the First and 14th Amendments. The Republican National Committee (RNC) and National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) intervened in the case. Four cases challenging S.B. 90 were consolidated for discovery and trial, with this case named as the “parent case.” A two-week trial began on Monday, Jan. 31.
March 31, 2022

Judge in Sandy Hook Case Holds Alex Jones in Contempt of Court, Orders Escalating Fines of $25,000

The attorney handling the Texas case against Alex Jones is Juanita Jean's son. Susan sent me a copy of the letter to the Texas plaintiffs offering the $120,000 per family that Marked stamped with a large bullshit stamp. This is like the 10th set of attorneys used by Jones in this case. These attorneys are pure criminal defense attorneys and fairly weak ones at that.

There was a hearing today that Mark sent Susan the link to 3 minutes before the hearing started. The judge was not happy with Jones
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1509247315416166414
https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-in-sandy-hook-case-holds-alex-jones-in-contempt-of-court-orders-escalating-fines-of-25000-per-day-until-infowars-host-sits-for-depositions/

A Connecticut judge on Wednesday afternoon issued a contempt finding against conspiracy theorist and InfoWars host Alex Jones. Fines of $25,000 per day will kick in starting Friday unless and until Jones sits for a deposition, but the fines will be refunded if Jones actually goes through with the deposition he skipped out on due to alleged health concerns last week.

The litigation surrounds alleged defamatory comments Jones made against the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook, Conn. school massacre.

“The argument is on the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions,” Judge Barbara Bellis said at the beginning of the 47-minute hearing. “This isn’t a press conference,” she continued while warning attorneys not to talk about settlement offers which were summarily rubbished by the plaintiffs Tuesday evening.

Christopher Mattei, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he didn’t wish to “belabor” the court with all the facts while he and co-counsel were in Texas attempting to take Jones’s deposition last week.

I got to watch part of one of the hearings in the Texas case. The court told Jones that the next depo needed to have someone who can answer a set of questions that Jones has been dodging as to his net worth and assets. That corporate representative did not answer the require questions and there will be another sanctions hearing soon.

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PM
Number of posts: 147,755
Latest Discussions»LetMyPeopleVote's Journal