Have a Comment?
Generously Supported By
ELB Feeds and Email Subscriptions
Books by Rick
The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown (Yale University Press, 2012)
The Voting Wars Website
NOW AVAILABLE from
Barnes and Noble
Election Law--Cases and Materials (5th edition 2012) (with Daniel Hays Lowenstein and Daniel P. Tokaji)
The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v. Carr to Bush v. Gore (NYU Press 2003) NOW IN PAPER
Table of Contents
Order from Amazon.com
Order from BarnesandNoble.com
Journal of Legislation Symposium on book
The Glannon Guide to Torts: Learning Torts Through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis (Aspen Publishers 2d ed. 2011)
Remedies: Examples & Explanations (Aspen Publishers, 2d ed. 2010)
Election Law Resources
Blogroll/Political News Sites
All About Redistricting (Justin Levitt)
American Constitution Society
Ballot Access News
Brennan Center for Justice
The Brookings Institution's Campaign Finance Page
California Election Law (Randy Riddle)
Caltech-MIT/Voting Technology Project (and link to voting technology listserv)
The Caucus (NY Times)
Campaign Legal Center (Blog)
Campaign Finance Institute
Center for Competitive Politics (Blog)
Center for Governmental Studies
Doug Chapin (HHH program)
Equal Vote (Dan Tokaji)
Federal Election Commission
The Fix (WaPo)
Initiative and Referendum Institute
Legal Theory (Larry Solum)
Political Activity Law
Summary Judgments (Loyola Law faculty blog)
Talking Points Memo
UC Irvine Center for the Study of Democracy
UC Irvine School of Law
USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics
The Volokh Conspiracy
Votelaw blog (Ed Still)
Washington Post Politics
Recent Newspapers and Magazine Commentaries
Big Money Lost, But Don't Be Relieved, CNN Opinion, Nov. 9, 2012
A Better Way to Vote: Nationalize Oversight and Control, NY Times, "Room for Debate" blog, Nov. 9, 2012
Election Day Dispatches Entry 5: Black Panthers, Navy Seals, and Mysterious Voting Machines, Slate, Nov. 6, 2012
Behind the Voting Wars, A Clash of Philosophies, Sacramento Bee, Nov. 4, 2012
How Many More Near-Election Disasters Before Congress Wakes Up?, The Daily Beast, Oct. 30, 2012
Will Bush v. Gore Save Barack Obama? If Obama Narrowly Wins Ohio, He Can Thank Scalia and the Court's Conservatives, Slate, Oct. 26, 2012
Will Voter Suppression and Dirty Tricks Swing the Election?, Salon, Oct. 22, 2012
Is the Supreme Court About to Swing Another Presidential Election? If the Court Cuts Early Voting in Ohio, It Could Be a Difference Maker in the Buckeye State, Slate, Oct. 15, 2012
Election Truthers: Will Republicans Accept an Obama Election Victory?, Slate, Oct. 9, 2012
Wrong Number: The Crucial Ohio Voting Battle You Haven't Heard About, Slate, Oct. 1, 2012
Litigating the Vote, National Law Journal, Aug. 27, 2012
Military Voters as Political Pawns, San Diego Union-Tribune, August 19, 2012
Tweeting the Next Election Meltdown: If the Next Presidential Election Goes into Overtime, Heaven Help Us. It’s Gonna Get Ugly, Slate, Aug. 14, 2012
A Detente Before the Election, New York Times, August 5, 2012
Worse Than Watergate: The New Campaign Finance Order Puts the Corruption of the 1970s to Shame, Slate, July 19, 2012
Has SCOTUS OK'd Campaign Dirty Tricks?, Politico, July 10, 2012
End the Voting Wars: Take our elections out of the hands of the partisan and the incompetent, Slate, June 13, 2012
Citizens: Speech, No Consequences, Politico, May 31, 2012
Is Campaign Disclosure Heading Back to the Supreme Court? Don’t expect to see Karl Rove’s Rolodex just yet, Slate, May 16, 2012
Unleash the Hounds Why Justice Souter should publish his secret dissent in Citizens United, Slate, May 16, 2012
Why Washington Can’t Be Fixed; And is about to get a lot worse, Slate, May 9, 2012
Let John Edwards Go! Edwards may be a liar and a philanderer, but his conviction will do more harm than good, Slate, April 23, 2012
The Real Loser of the Scott Walker Recall? The State of Wisconsin, The New Republic, April 13, 2012
A Court of Radicals: If the justices strike down Obamacare, it may have grave political implications for the court itself, Slate, March 30, 2012
Of Super PACs and Corruption, Politico, March 22, 2012
Texas Voter ID Law May Be Headed to the Supreme Court, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Mar. 13, 2012
“The Numbers Don’t Lie: If you aren’t sure Citizens United gave rise to the Super PACs, just follow the money, Slate, Mar. 9, 2012
Stephen Colbert: Presidential Kingmaker?, Politico, Mar. 5 2012
Occupy the Super PACs; Justice Ginsburg knows the Citizens United decision was a mistake. Now she appears to be ready to speak truth to power, Slate, Feb. 20, 2012
Kill the Caucuses! Maine, Nevada, and Iowa were embarrassing. It’s time to make primaries the rule, Slate, Feb. 15, 2012
The Biggest Danger of Super PACs, CNN Politics, Jan. 9, 2012
This Case is a Trojan Horse, New York Times "Room for Debate" blog, Jan. 6, 2012 (forum on Bluman v. FEC)
Holder's Voting Rights Gamble: The Supreme Court's Voter ID Showdown, Slate, Dec. 30, 2011
Will Foreigners Decide the 2012 Election? The Extreme Unintended Consequences of Citizens United, The New Republic (online), Dec. 6, 2011
Disenfranchise No More, New York Times, Nov. 17, 2011
A Democracy Deficit at Americans Elect?, Politico, Nov. 9, 2011
Super-Soft Money: How Justice Kennedy paved the way for ‘SuperPACS’ and the return of soft money, Slate, Oct. 25, 2012
The Arizona Campaign Finance Law: The Surprisingly Good News in the Supreme Court’s New Decision, The New Republic (online), June 27, 2011
New York City as a Model?, New York Times Room for Debate, June 27, 2011
A Cover-Up, Not a Crime. Why the Case Against John Edwards May Be Hard to Prove, Slate, Jun. 3, 2011
Wisconsin Court Election Courts Disaster, Politico, Apr. 11, 2011
Rich Candidate Expected to Win Again, Slate, Mar. 25, 2011
Health Care and the Voting Rights Act, Politico, Feb. 4, 2011
The FEC is as Good as Dead, Slate, Jan. 25, 2011
Let Rahm Run!, Slate, Jan. 24, 2011
Lobbypalooza,The American Interest, Jan-Feb. 2011(with Ellen P. Aprill)
Election Hangover: The Real Legacy of Bush v. Gore, Slate, Dec. 3, 2010
Alaska's Big Spelling Test: How strong is Joe Miller's argument against the Leeza Markovsky vote?, Slate, Nov. 11, 2010
Kirk Offers Hope vs. Secret Donors, Politico, November 5, 2010
Evil Men in Black Robes: Slate's Judicial Election Campaign Ad Spooktackular!, Slate, October 26, 2010 (with Dahlia Lithwick)
Show Me the Donors: What's the point of disclosing campaign donations? Let's review, Slate, October 14, 2010
Un-American Influence: Could Foreign Spending on Elections Really Be Legal?, Slate, October 11, 2010
Toppled Castle: The real loser in the Tea Party wins is election reform, Slate, Sept. 16, 2010
Citizens United: What the Court Did--and Why, American Interest, July/August 2010
The Big Ban Theory: Does Elena Kagan Want to Ban Books? No, and She Might Even Be a Free Speech Zealot", Slate, May 24, 2010
Crush Democracy But Save the Kittens: Justice Alito's Double Standard for the First Amendment, Slate, Apr. 30, 2010
Some Skepticism About the "Separable Preferences" Approach to the Single Subject Rule: A Comment on Cooter & Gilbert, Columbia Law Review Sidebar, Apr. 19, 2010
Scalia's Retirement Party: Looking ahead to a conservative vacancy can help the Democrats at the polls, Slate, Apr. 12, 2010
Hushed Money: Could Karl Rove's New 527 Avoid Campaign-Finance Disclosure Requirements?, Slate, Apr. 6, 2010
Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court Kills Campaign Finance Reform, Slate, Jan. 21, 2010
Bad News for Judicial Elections, N.Y. Times "Room for Debate" Blog, Jan., 21, 2010
Read more opeds from 2006-2009
Forthcoming Publications, Recent Articles, and Working Papers
The 2012 Voting Wars, Judicial Backstops, and the Resurrection of Bush v. Gore, George Washington Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (draft available)
A Constitutional Right to Lie in Campaigns and Elections?, Montana Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (draft available)
End of the Dialogue? Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress, 86 Southern California Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (draft available)
Fixing Washington, 126 Harvard Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (draf available)
What to Expect When You’re Electing: Federal Courts and the Political Thicket in 2012, Federal Lawyer, (forthcoming 2012)( draft available)
Chill Out: A Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws in the Internet Age, Journal of Law and Politics (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Lobbying, Rent Seeking, and the Constitution, 64 Stanford Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Anticipatory Overrulings, Invitations, Time Bombs, and Inadvertence: How Supreme Court Justices Move the Law, Emory Law Journal (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Teaching Bush v. Gore as History, St. Louis University Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (symposium on teaching election law) (draft available)
The Supreme Court’s Shrinking Election Law Docket: A Legacy of Bush v. Gore or Fear of the Roberts Court?, Election Law Journal (forthcoming 2011) (draft available)
Citizens United and the Orphaned Antidistortion Rationale, 27 Georgia State Law Review 989 (2011) (symposium on Citizens United)
The Nine Lives of Buckley v. Valeo, in First Amendment Stories, Richard Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, eds., Foundation 2011)
The Transformation of the Campaign Financing Regime for U.S. Presidential Elections, in The Funding of Political Parties (Keith Ewing, Jacob Rowbottom, and Joo-Cheong Tham, eds., Routledge 2011)
Judges as Political Regulators: Evidence and Options for Institutional Change, in Race, Reform and Regulation of the Electoral Process, (Gerken, Charles, and Kang eds., Cambridge 2011)
Citizens United and the Illusion of Coherence, 109 Michigan Law Review 581 (2011)
Aggressive Enforcement of the Single Subject Rule, 9 Election Law Journal 399 (2010) (co-authored with John G. Matsusaka)
The Benefits of the Democracy Canon and the Virtues of Simplicity: A Reply to Professor Elmendorf, 95 Cornell Law Review 1173 (2010)
Constitutional Avoidance and Anti-Avoidance on the Roberts Court, 2009 Supreme Court Review 181 (2010)
Election Administration Reform and the New Institutionalism, California Law Review 1075 (2010) (reviewing Gerken, The Democracy Index)
You Don't Have to Be a Structuralist to Hate the Supreme Court's Dignitary Harm Election Law Cases, 64 University of Miami Law Review 465 (2010)
The Democracy Canon, 62 Stanford Law Review 69 (2009)
Review Essay: Assessing California's Hybrid Democracy, 97 California Law Review 1501 (2009)
Bush v. Gore and the Lawlessness Principle: A Comment on Professor Amar, 61 Florida Law Review 979 (2009)
Introduction: Developments in Election Law, 42 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 565 (2009)
Book Review (reviewing Christopher P. Manfredi and Mark Rush, Judging Democracy (2008)), 124 Political Science Quarterly 213 (2009).
"Regulation of Campaign Finance," in Vikram Amar and Mark Tushnet, Global Perspectives on Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press (2009)
More Supply, More Demand: The Changing Nature of Campaign Financing for Presidential Primary Candidates (working paper, Sept. 2008)
When 'Legislature' May Mean More than''Legislature': Initiated Electoral College Reform and the Ghost of Bush v. Gore, 35 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 599 (2008) (draft available)
"Too Plain for Argument?" The Uncertain Congressional Power to Require Parties to Choose Presidential Nominees Through Direct and Equal Primaries, 102 Northwestern University Law Review 2009 (2008)
Political Equality, the Internet, and Campaign Finance Regulation, The Forum, Vol. 6, Issue 1, Art. 7 (2008)
Justice Souter: Campaign Finance Law's Emerging Egalitarian, 1 Albany Government Law Review 169 (2008)
Beyond Incoherence: The Roberts Court's Deregulatory Turn in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 92 Minnesota Law Review 1064 (2008) (draft available)
The Untimely Death of Bush v. Gore, 60 Stanford Law Review 1 (2007)
Category Archives: voter id
Judge Quotes Extensively from Brennan Center Voter ID Study in Rejecting ID for Plan B Emergency Contraception
The Lawyers’ Committee has posted the Supreme Court documents:
Supreme Court Documents:
Click here for Texas’ Jurisdictional Statement.
Click here for the Lawyers’ Committee’s Motion to Affirm.
Click here for the Justice Department’s Motion to Affirm.
Click here for another intervenor’s Motion to Affirm.
News from Wisconsin:
Three times over the past two years, signature portions of Republican-passed legislation have been blocked from immediately taking effect because a Dane County Circuit Court judge found the statutes to be unconstitutional.
The rulings against statutes that limited collective bargaining for public employees (Act 10), expanded the governor’s power over administrative rules and would require voters to show a photo ID at the polls have drawn vociferous criticism from Republicans against “liberal, activist” judges on the Dane County bench.
Companion bills introduced in April by Republicans in both houses of the Legislature suggest members of the ruling party have had enough.
I’ll admit to being somewhat surprised that the evidence the judge has requested hasn’t already been presented, given the importance of the underlying question. Hopefully, the data will shed at least a little light on the impact of the proposed ID law.
There’s no guarantee it will, however; as we’ve already seen in other courts, once a match is complete the arguments invariably begin about the significance of the results. Moreover, there’s no guarantee that the state (which is responsible for maintaining the voting rolls) will be able to produce the requested data: a spokesperson for the state said it will “do its best to comply” with the requirement to deliver the data by next Tuesday.
While it is encouraging to see this potential development in the Pennsylvania case, it does seems strange to be cheering the use of evidence in a trial. Still, given how little evidence has been brought forth in ID litigation across the country, even this tiny (if obvious) step suggests that we may be inching closer to a greater use of data in the fierce fights over voter ID and other election policy issues across the nation.
“Top Iowa Elections Official: Pass Voter ID So The GOP Can Kill Abortion Rights And Marriage Equality”
AP from North Carolina: “New data from the State Board of Elections show far fewer voters lack photo identification than critics of a voter ID bill suggest. The new information roughly halves the potential number of registered voters without photo ID from the 612,000 in a January report to about 318,000….Ray Starling, the general counsel for Speaker Thom Tillis, argues the number is likely even less because about 115,000 of those identified in the latest analysis have not voted in the last five elections.”
AP: “Arkansas legislators passed a law Monday requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, overriding Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto of the bill, which he called an expensive solution to a non-existent problem.”
Richmond Times Dispatch: “Gov. Bob McDonnell has signed legislation requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls.”
The law now requires approval from DOJ or a court under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Politico: “As a handful of state legislatures around the country consider enacting stricter voter ID laws, a new study finds that young people – and especially young minorities – are disproportionately affected by those laws when they go into effect. According to the study, previewed before its release to POLITICO, significantly more minority youths age 18-29 were asked to show identification than white youth: 72.9 percent of black youth were asked for ID, compared with 60.8 percent of Latino youth and 50.8 percent of white youth.”
See also Doug Chapin on a new Pew report on “Teens and Technology.”
True the Vote, an organization dedicated to eradicating voter fraud through controversial methods, issued a report on February 27 concluding that voter ID laws and other election changes allegedly meant to reduce voter fraud not only did not have an adverse impact on turnout in the 2012 elections, but may have helped to increased turnout. Its findings have been trumpeted by many news outlets who do not believe such laws suppress voter turnout.
But it turns out the report’s authors made a huge methodological mistake. They compared turnout of eligible voters in 2008 to turnout of registered voters in 2012. Correcting this error reverses their findings. All but one of the states with these new laws experienced a decline in voter turnout, and most experienced a decline greater than the national turnout decline from 2008 to 2012.
“Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee: ‘The Citizens United Court and the Continuing Importance of the Voting Rights Act’”
Anthony Johnstone has posted recent Senate testimony on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This testimony concerns the role of the Supreme Court in reviewing the constitutionality of “laws of democracy,” including campaign finance regulation, election administration, and voting rights enforcement. It compares the different approaches the Court has taken toward two controversies, corporate campaign spending and voter identification laws, and attempts to draw some lessons from the comparison for the Court’s pending review of the Voting Rights Act.
AP reports. “General Assembly Republicans muscled the most far-reaching of their polling place identification and voter vetting bills to final passage Wednesday with almost party-line House votes on Wednesday over the outcries of Democrats who likened the measures to Jim Crow-era poll taxes.”
Kathleen Stoughton, instrumental in organizing the recent, excellent GW election law symposium, has written this student note for the GW Law Review. Here is the abstract:
In response to growing concerns about the integrity of the electoral process, state legislatures across the country have adopted voter ID laws, which require voters to present a qualifying form of identification before casting a ballot in person. By late 2012, nine states had passed strict voter ID laws requiring those voting in person to present a valid, government-issued photo ID. These laws disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters, who are much more likely than their white counterparts to lack a valid ID.
There are no constitutional remedies available, as the Supreme Court has upheld voter ID laws against facial constitutional challenges, and as-applied constitutional challenges are not a feasible method of challenging laws with such a widespread effect. Although section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 can keep discriminatory voter ID laws from being enacted in a limited number of jurisdictions, the Supreme Court has expressed skepticism about the provision’s continued constitutionality. This Note argues that a remedy can be found in section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: plaintiffs can challenge strict voter ID laws by showing that they so disproportionately affect minority voters that they dilute the vote of the minority group as a whole, effectively abridging the right to vote on account of race or color in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
With news of possible fraud claims coming out of Hamilton County, Ohio, it is worth remembering that vast majority of the relatively small number of cases involve either election officials committing fraud, or voters, candidates, and others committing absentee ballot fraud.
The problem is that the supposed cure—voter id—does not stop these main types of fraud.
If John Fund and others started a serious push to eliminate the use of absentee ballots, then I would take their concerns about voter fraud much more seriously. But it is not a part of the antifraud measures proposed and adopted by those who claim this is a major problem.
UPDATE: John Fund sent an email response to the election law listserv, which I am posting here with his permission:
Rick (whose book I read and found much to agree with in) says he would take my concerns about voter fraud more seriously if I and others ”started a serious push to eliminate the use of absentee ballots.”That is strange. No one serious calls for ELIMINATING absentee ballots. They are needed by old people, bedridden people, military voters, expats and people who travel a great deal. In “Who’s Counting: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote At Risk,” my co-author an I call for absentee ballot REFORM and vigorously. The chapter is entitled “Absentee Ballots: the Tool of Choice for Vote Thieves.”Indeed, I have gotten into hot water with some Republicans for criticizing some state legislatures that have not passed comprehensive anti-fraud efforts that include Photo ID, absentee ballot reform and cleaning up voter rolls despite the federal strictures on that activity.As the liberal Talking Points Memo wrote last August:
Fund said that many voter ID laws “take some provisions to curb absentee ballot fraud,” with a few exceptions. But he confessed that Democrats had a point when they say that Republicans focus on voter ID because of a potential electoral advantage.
“I think it is a fair argument of some liberals that there are some people who emphasize the voter ID part more than the absentee ballot part because supposedly Republicans like absentee ballots more and they don’t want to restrict that,” Fund said. “But the bottom line is, on good government grounds, we have to have both voter ID laws and absentee ballot laws.”
Just last Wednesday, my co-author and I were in Raleigh, North Carolina on a panel with two liberal opponents of Photo ID laws. We all agreed that absentee ballot fraud was a real problem, however the two opposing panelists declined to endorse any specific legislation to combat it despite a clear invitation to do so.
I thank John for the correction about his views. Good to know there is some common ground. It is notable that in the Republican/ALEC push to take anti-fraud measures, limiting the use of absentee ballots was never part of any serious discussion. And it remains so to this day. Instead we have a heavy push for state voter id laws, which do very little, if anything, to address election official fraud and absentee ballot fraud. The mismatch makes me question the motives of those pushing these laws.
AP reports from Virginia.
Bob Pastor has written this LA Times oped.
Post-Gazette: “Media organizations in Pennsylvania don’t have the right to report from, or take photos and video within, polling places, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday. The 53-page opinion by three judges comes in response to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette lawsuit against the state and the Allegheny County Board of Elections in which the newspaper sought court permission to report on the voter sign-in process, particularly in light of the implementation of new voter identification rules.”
Two lower court judges, both Democrats, put Wisconsin’s voter id law on hold for the 2012 elections. The state supreme court, mired in other controversies, refused to get involved before the election.
But the case will eventually make it back to the state Supreme Court. And the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel explains how the outcome of the voter id case may depend upon whether an incumbent conservative Justice is reelected or is replaced by a more liberal justice.
One of the incumbent’s competitors is Marquette U. Law professor Ed Fallone. According to the article: “Fallone wrote in an October 2011 blog post that any challenge to voter ID laws ‘faces an uphill battle under existing judicial precedent,’ but he also went on to write that there may be two possible ways to successfully challenge Wisconsin’s law. He did not take a position on the law itself, but said that groups that oppose voter ID laws should work to help voters get IDs and elect lawmakers who would repeal such laws, rather than focus on litigation.”
AP: “But getting a bill to [incoming North Carolina governor] McCrory won’t be simple, with some lawmakers insistent on a tough photo ID measure and others comfortable with some non-photo documents. And while 11 states required voters to show some form of photo identification in November, photo ID laws in six other states were in legal limbo for 2012, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.”
I’ve written this Jurisprudence essay for Slate. It begins:
Odds are, the Supreme Court will strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act after hearing a case from Alabama that will be argued next month. If the part of the law called Section 5 does indeed go down, minority voters in Southern states and elsewhere will lose a key bargaining chip. Section 5 has enabled them to beat back some attempts to make it harder for them to vote, and helped insure that the gains they’ve made in representation and redistricting are not rolled back. As another recent fight over South Carolina’s voter ID law shows, Section 5 still serves a vital role in an era in which partisan legislatures may manipulate election laws for political gain
I talk a lot about the recent South Carolina case over voter id. Last Friday, the judges hearing the South Carolina case agreed that South Carolina had won enough of its case to be entitled to recover its costs from the United States. But while some like Hans von Spakovsky portray the fee award as a big loss for the government, that misses the point. DOJ was right to bring this suit against a harsh voter id law, and the law which was approved was very different from the one originally submitted; the real winners of the litigation are the minority voters in South Carolina who ended up with a much better law.
Ryan Reilly for HuffPo: “As Republicans in North Carolina make a renewed push to pass a voter ID law, a new report from the State Board of Elections suggests that nearly one in ten voters lack state-issued photo identification. The report shows that up to 613,000 voters, about 9.25 percent of all registered voters in North Carolina, lack state-issued photo identification. Former Gov. Bev Perdue (D) vetoed a voter ID law passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2011. But current Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, spoke out in favor of the law on the campaign trail and has promised to sign it if it reaches his desk.”
News from Virginia: “A year after controversial voter identification legislation passed the Virginia General Assembly, several Republican lawmakers are proposing even greater restrictions on the identification required to cast a ballot, including the requirement of photo identification. Del. Robert B. Bell, R-Albemarle, will introduce what he terms “Photo ID — No Exceptions,” a measure that would require voters to present valid government-issued photo identification in order to vote. Acquiring the identification would also require proof of U.S. citizenship, which the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles requires to obtain identification.”
“SC’s voter ID lawsuit cost $3.5 million; But court rules federal government must cover some of the costs”
The State: “It cost South Carolina $3.5 million to sue the federal government over the state’s voter ID law – but the federal government will have to pay some of that bill. Late Friday, a court ruled that because South Carolina was the “prevailing party,” the federal government had to pay some of South Carolina’s expenses.”
Politico: “Testifying with Crist will be Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund as well as Gilda Cobb Hunter, a Democratic member of the South Carolina legislature who has opposed voter ID laws.”
Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog: “The time may be short for the Supreme Court to act on the state of Texas’s power to impose a new voter photo ID law, but the state nevertheless plans to pursue a prompt appeal in hopes of a quick final decision, perhaps during the Justices’ current Term. The state got permission on Monday to pursue an immediate appeal from a three-judge U.S. District Court in Washington. That court had ruled against the voter ID law in August.”
Doug Chapin: “I’m not sure that the issues of cost and lack of fraud are enough to kill the proposal, however. Indeed, it looks to me like Miller’s goal in making this proposal (and spending the money) is not to prevent fraud but rather to end the voter ID debate in a way that simultaneously improves the state’s election process.“
LVRJ: ‘The head of the Clark County Election Department on Monday supported Secretary of State Ross Miller’s proposal to use photos to verify voters’ identities at the polls, arguing a new system could make it easier for election workers and cut down on intimidation.”
AP: “A proposal by Democratic Secretary of State Ross Miller to seek a voter photo requirement in the upcoming Legislature appears dead before arrival, with legislative leaders of his own party expressing opposition.”
Bloomberg: “The U.S. Justice Department agreed to defer further proceedings in a lawsuit filed by Texas over the state’s voter identification law until the Supreme Court rules whether part of the Voting Rights Act is constitutional.”
Under Ross Miller’s proposal, “the photos on residents’ drivers licenses would be placed with their voter registration records and in poll books at election locations. People without any DMV-approved identification but who are registered would be required to have their picture taken by poll workers and to sign an affidavit that they are the person they represent the first time they vote after the law goes into effect.”