Dead People Voting? Let's Wait Until The Data Is Done Talking

From Humphrey School of Public Affairs blog
by Doug Chapin

Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School posted the following yesterday on Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog - and it's so good, so spot-on about the need to let data tell the whole story whenever election administration is concerned, that I want to share it in its entirety here.

[Image courtesy of degreesofmoderation]

In the wake of James O'Keefe's latest videos about fictitious "dead voters," now comes a new investigation in South Carolina, looking for "actual" dead voters.

In reviewing the South Carolina's motor vehicle records and its voting rolls, there is apparently evidence indicating that 900 people listed as deceased are also listed as voting in subsequent elections (I'm not sure what time period is involved).

With South Carolina filing a preclearance lawsuit over the new voter photo ID law that earned an objection from DOJ, and with the general media hubbub around the state's upcoming presidential primary, expect this to get an awful lot of attention ... along with an awful lot of misinformation.

Attorney General Wilson is right to ask for an investigation. I hope it's complete. And I hope that he publishes not only the full results, but also the methodology used to come to the initial 900-vote assessment, and the methodology used to investigate further.

There's already some skepticism, and for good reason. Exaggerated stories of dead voters crop up pretty regularly around Halloween, which gives me repeated topical opportunities to explain why the zombie voter hordes haven't taken over just yet. [It also gave me the opportunity to post the picture above - it's amazing what you get when you do an image search for "dead people voting" - DMCj] It sounds like the initial evidence in South Carolina is based on matching voter rolls to other lists. In follow-up of other, similar, allegations, further investigation has shown that:

• + The person who's dead isn't the same person listed on the voter rolls.
• + The person who's listed as voting didn't actually vote.
• + The person who's listed as dead isn't actually dead.
• + The person who's dead voted before she died.
• + There was actually a fraudulent ballot cast, absentee.

And when the salacious allegations turn out to be mundane glitches, or unconnected to proving identity at the polls, there's a lot less attention paid. So I look forward to the actual facts, whatever they may show. And I hope there's as much coverage at the end of the investigation as I anticipate at the outset.

Let the election geeks say, "Amen."

From Humphrey School of Public Affairs blog

Why SOPA/PIPA Is A Threat To The Internet As We Know It

Today, sites like Wikipedia, Craigslist, Reddit, WordPress, and this site participated in the largest online protest in history, against the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) and the “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011″ (PIPA). Some, like Wikipedia, have made their sites completely unavailable from 12AM EDT on January 18th to 12AM EDT on January 19th, 2012. Others, like this site, blacked out for just part of the day. Google has also blocked out their logo for the day, to show their disapproval of these bill.

Since many people seem to be unfamiliar with these bills, I wanted to share some videos which will help explain the bills better.

The first video is from khanacademy.org, a not-for-profit with the goal of changing education for the better by providing a free world-class education to anyone anywhere:

Congressman Lamar Smith, Author Of SOPA, Breaks Copyright Law On Campaign Website

From AddictingInfo.org By Jeromie Williams

On the same day that Wikipedia turned off their lights for 24 hours to protest the proposed “Stop Online Piracy Act” or SOPA as it is better known, the very politician who wrote the bill was called out by the 9GAG website for being caught red handed breaking copyright law on his official campaign website.

Representative Lamar Smith (R - TX 21), the politician in question that has been pushing the bill that has even the tech Gurus over at Mashable screaming foul over SOPA’s extreme overreach and censorship capabilities, has allegedly used a photograph for the background of his campaign website without giving credit to the photographer or paying for its use. That’s right, the guy who wants to stop online piracy is apparently an Internet pirate himself – Arrrrrrr

Full story @ AddictingInfo.org
Full story also @ Vice

Announcement: Democratic Blog News To Go Dark On Jan. 18 To Protest SOPA/PIPA

ACT NOW
TO STOP INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Democratic Blog News will join thousands of tech activists, entrepreneurs and corporations on Wednesday and go dark in protest of the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), legislation that has generated national outrage among Internet experts.

Democratic Blog News will go dark 7 am CST until 7 pm CST on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, more than 7,000 websites are expected to voluntarily "go dark," by blocking access to their content to protest the bill, according to organizers of SOPAStrike.com. Some of the biggest names on the Internet plan to participate in the blackout, including Wikipedia, Mozilla, Reddit and WordPress. Many of the sites are promoting an alternative to SOAP called the OPEN Act -- a bipartisan bill drafted by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Democrats File 1 Million Signatures To Recall Wisc. Gov. Scott Walker

Democrats and organizers filed petitions with more than one million signatures Tuesday afternoon as they seek to force a recall election against Republican Gov. Scott Walker. One million signatures is a massive number that is nearly double the 540,000 signatures needed to force a recall election. It would mark the first such gubernatorial recall in state history – in all of U.S. history there have been only two successful recalls of a governor. Organizers also filed enough signatures to recall Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and three GOP state senators. They had already filed petitions to recall Scott Fitzgerald, the Republican Senate Majority Leader.

The number of signatures filed to recall Gov. Walker nearly equals the total votes cast for Walker in November 2010 election and ensures the recall election will be held, said officials with the state Democratic Party and United Wisconsin, the group that launched the Walker recall. ”It is beyond legal challenge,” said Ryan Lawler, vice chairman of United Wisconsin.

Former U.S. Rep. Dave Obey, who has been in state politics for a half-century, called the recall effort “an amazing development.” But, “what is unprecedented is the way that the governor and his allies ran roughshod over normal legislative and political procedures,” said Obey, declining to say whether he might run against Walker. “He’s abused the very process that elected him, and that’s what’s got people so angry.”

Full Article: Democrats to file 1 million signatures for Walker recall – JSOnline .

NAACP Puts Voter Photo ID Laws in Crosshairs

The Root: Before a South Carolina rally, NAACP President told The Root of plans to fight the laws and educate young black voters.

The joint appearance of NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Monday morning at the annual "King Day at the Dome" rally at the State House in Columbia, S.C., speaks volumes in and of itself. Monday marks the first time Holder will have been in the Palmetto State since Dec. 23, when the U.S. Department of Justice struck down its new voter photo ID law, which DOJ says would likely have disenfranchised minorities, students and disabled voters alike.

The optics of their joint appearance -- the leader of the nation's oldest and most storied civil rights organization and the country's top law-enforcement officer -- send a signal about the intent, through legal challenges and social advocacy, to make voting rights a high priority in an already contentious election year. The rally takes place five days before the South Carolina primary.

The United States is a nation with a patchwork of laws on voter identification -- some states with strict policies, others with no policy at all. Thirty-one states require voters to show IDs before voting. In 2011, eight states -- Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin -- enacted variations of the same rule, requiring some form of photo identification. Critics of the laws argue that they disenfranchise voters of color and young voters, who are less likely to possess and be able to afford the required identification.

In an interview with The Root before his South Carolina address, Jealous spoke about the importance of the Justice Department action against South Carolina, the possible impact of new voter ID laws and the strategies for blunting their potentially suppressive impact on voter turnout in the 2012 election.

Jealous, who has appeared at previous King Day at the Dome rallies, noted that the 2012 event takes place amid growing attention to voter ID laws in general, and specifically a tough new immigration law enacted in South Carolina. A federal judge blocked some of that law's more restrictive parts, such as allowing police and authorities to check the immigration status of any suspect. But the amended measure -- widely seen as a copycat of Arizona's controversial immigration law -- went into effect on Jan. 1, despite lawsuits by the Justice Department and advocacy groups.

"This state, like so many others in the Deep South, has engaged in state-sponsored voter suppression," Jealous said. "Two years ago we were dealing with a recession; what's different this year is that the state has sought to focus special energy on suppressing voters of color. But there's also been a ruthless attack here on migrant workers' rights. The attack on the rights of immigrants will be a focus of my comments [Monday] and on this march."

Read page 2 of the story @ The Root

U.S. Attorney General Vows to Protect Voters’ Rights At MLK Day Services

Attorney General Eric Holder defended his department’s civil rights agenda today, delivering a speech at an event honoring Martin Luther King Jr. at South Carolina's state capitol in Columbia. Holder’s speech was sponsored by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, took place at the state capitol in Columbia, S.C., where the Confederate flag still flies on the north end after it was moved from atop the dome in 2000 following NAACP protests.

The speech comes one month after Mr. Holder delivered a voting rights speech on the University of Texas campus at the library of President Lyndon B. Johnson in Austin. (More on Holder's LBJ Library speech here and here.)

South Carolina’s passage, and the U.S. Justice Department’s subsequent rejection of, a controversial voter photo ID law last year has sparked a rancorous political fight putting South Carolina and the Department of Justice on a collision course with the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act verses state's rights.

The rallying cry of states' rights was used to defend slavery before the Civil War and racial segregation during the post-World War II battles over civil rights.

Holder’s Justice Department opposes very restrictive voter photo identification laws such as passed by the South Carolina and Texas legislatures in 2011. The department announced last month it would block South Carolina’s attempts to require voters to show one of a very limited selection of dated and unexpired government issued photo identification, which up to 25% of some minority groups do not hold. Minority and senior citizen advocacy groups oppose these restrictive photo ID laws because there is a strong evidence that the laws will restrict the voting rights of elderly, poor, and racial minority voters.

South Carolina’s controversial restrictive voter photo ID law was the subtext for Mr. Holder's address to those gathered to honor the life and work of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. In reference to the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Mr. Holder said:

Section 5 – which requires preclearance of proposed voting changes in parts or all of sixteen states – continues to be a critical tool in the protection of voting rights. In 2006, it was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan – and near-unanimous – support in Congress, before being signed by President Bush. However, despite the long history of support for Section 5, this keystone of our voting rights laws is now being challenged as unconstitutional by several jurisdictions. Each of these lawsuits claims that we’ve attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2012 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 is no longer necessary.

I wish this were the case. But the reality is that – in jurisdictions across the country – both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common. And though nearly five decades have passed since Dr. King shared his vision from the mountaintop – despite all the progress we’ve made, the barriers we’ve broken down, and the divisions we’ve healed – as a nation, we have not yet reached the Promised Land.

That’s why the Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend Section 5 against challenges to its constitutionality.

Full text of Mr. Holder's speech courtesy of the Department of Justice website.

Updated January 16, 2012 @ 6:45pm

In July 2006, President Bush signed the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in a ceremony praising the participation of civil rights leaders, including family members of Dr. King. The bill passed 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House. Although there were Republican members of the House and Senate who voiced objections that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (requiring states with a history of discrimination to get permission from the federal government before changing their voting rules) violated states' rights, President Bush ignored those objections.

At the South Carolina Republican presidential debate tonight, that 2006 bipartisan Republican support of the Voting Rights Act evaporated in favor of the old south's "states' rights" argument. Fox News’ Juan Williams asked Texas governor Rick Perry whether the federal government still has a role to play in protecting voting rights in a state like South Carolina, [which has a history of using Jim Crow type laws to prevent African Americans from voting,] in reference to the USDOJ’s denial of preclearance of South Carolina’s voter ID law and South Carolina’s threat to take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

Juan Williams: Are you suggesting on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day that the federal government has no business scrutinizing the voting laws of states where minorities were once denied the right to vote?”

Governor Perry responded: “I’m saying that the state of Texas is under assault by the federal government. I’m saying also that South Carolina is at war with this federal government and with this administration. When you look at what this Justice Department has done, not only have they taken them to task on voter i.d.,…”

(Watch the video)

More:

• McClatchy: Holder decries states' efforts to restrict access to the ballot box.

Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King

Dr. Martin Luther King
(Jan. 15, 1929 - April 4, 1968)

The 1965 Voting Rights Act was a natural follow on to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Ironically, the 1964 Act had resulted in an outbreak of violence in the South. White racists had launched a campaign against the success that Martin Luther King had had in getting African Americans to register to vote. The violence reminded Johnson that more was needed if the civil rights issue was to be suitably reduced.

Johnson introduced to Congress the idea of a Voting Rights Act in what is considered to be one of his best speeches:

"Rarely are we met with a challenge…..to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved Nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such as an issue…..the command of the Constitution is plain. It is wrong - deadly wrong - to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country."

With his commitment to the cause, Congress realized that Johnson would not back down on this issue and if they hindered or failed to back it, Americans would view the failure to be one by Congress alone.

The Act was passed. It outlawed literacy tests and poll taxes as a way of assessing whether anyone was fit or unfit to vote. As far as Johnson was concerned, all you needed to vote was American citizenship and the registration of your name on an electoral list. No form of hindrance to this would be tolerated by the law courts.

The impact of this act was dramatic. By the end of 1966, only 4 out of the traditional 13 Southern states, had less than 50% of African Americans registered to vote. By 1968, even hard-line Mississippi had 59% of African Americans registered. In the longer term, far more African Americans were elected into public office.

The Act was the boost that the civil rights cause needed to move it swiftly along and Johnson has to take full credit for this. As Martin Luther King had predicted in earlier years, demonstrations served a good purpose but real change would only come through the power of Federal government.

"I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s address at the March on Washington on August 28, 1963. Washington, D.C.

Poll: Republicans Could Be Heading For A Devastating 2012 Defeat

PoliticusUSA on Democracy Corps poll

A new Democracy Corps poll revealed a nightmare scenario for Republicans where not only does Obama get reelected but Democrats regain total control of Congress.

According to Democracy Corps, for the first time in two years the Democratic Party has taken the lead on the generic congressional ballot, 47%-44%.

The bad news for the GOP is that Independents have shifted back to the Democratic Party. In the previous surveys congressional Republicans led congressional Democrats by a net 9 points in October and 19 points in August with Independents, but today Democrats have taken a two point lead.

Why have the Democrats surged? The answer is that the behavior of Republicans in Congress has turned off voters. By a margin of 53%-39% respondents said the more they watched the Republicans in Congress, the less they like what they are offering. Approval of Republicans in Congress has dropped to a new low of 28%, and 8% strongly approve of the Republican caucus.

Texas Responds to USDOJ With Requested Minority Voter Photo ID Information

On Thursday, the Texas secretary of state’s office sent the minority voter photo ID information to the U.S. Department of Justice that the USDOJ had requested last September and again on November 16, 2011. If Texas had not returned the requested information to the USDOJ by Monday, January 16, 2012, the USDOJ would likely have rejected Texas request for preclearance of Senate Bill 14 - Texas' voter photo ID legislation. The USDOJ now has up to 60 additional days to review the recently submitted information before rendering a decision to approve or block the law.

When the U.S. Justice Department blocked South Carolina's new voter ID law on December 23, 2011, because of possible discrimination against minorities, attention quickly focused on Texas, which passed nearly identical photo ID legislation in 2011.

Of the eight states that passed voter ID bills last year, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas -- because of a history of past discrimination against minority voters -- must have pre-clearance from the Justice Department before instituting new procedures. Under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department reserves the right to review laws that affect voter participation before they are enacted.

The four other states enacting voter photo ID laws in 2011, which are not covered by the Voting Rights Act preclearance requirement, are Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Wisconsin. Mississippi adopted its photo ID law by voter referendum in November 2011 as an amendment to the state Constitution. Indiana and Georgia were already enforcing strict voter photo ID laws for the 2008 presidential election. Governors vetoed bills passed by legislatures in 2011 in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.

Originally set to go into effect on January 1, 2012, the Texas law would require voters to present one of a limited selection of government issued photo IDs to election Judges in order to qualify to vote. The accepted forms of currently dated photo identification are: Department of Public Safety issued Texas driver's license, Texas election ID , or personal identification card; Texas concealed handgun license; U.S. military ID card; U.S. citizenship certificate; or U.S. passport.

On November 16, 2011 Christian Herren Jr., the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) Civil Rights Division Voting Section Chief, informed the Texas Secretary of State’s office by letter that the state had yet to provide the voter photo ID related information the USDOJ requested at the end of September.

In the letter, Herren informed the Texas Director of Elections, Ann McGeehan, that without the requested information the USDOJ is unable to determine if the voter photo ID law will “have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” The USDOJ must make that determination before the law may be implemented.

Texas had 60 days from the date of Herren's Nov. 16th letter to respond with the requested data.

The Secretary of State filed its original request for preclearance in July, but the USDOJ determined in September that it needed more information. Specifically the USDOJ requested the racial breakdown and counties of residence of the estimated 605,576 registered voters who do not have a state-issued license or photo ID, and how many of them have Spanish surnames. It requested the same information for registered voters who do have valid IDs.

The Texas Secretary of State (TXSOS) had initially told the DOJ that 605,576 registered Texas voters do not appear to have a Texas driver’s license or personal ID card. The SOS report indicates that in 27 of Texas' 254 counties, at least 10 percent of the registered voters might be unable to cast ballots. In Presidio County in Southwest Texas as many as 25.9% of registered voters might not have the required photo ID, which will block as many as 1,313 out of the 5,066 registered voters in that county from casting ballots in any election.

Last fall, the Brennan Center for Justice issued a report on its research that shows as many as 11% of eligible voters nationwide do not hold a government issue photo ID. With 18.8 million voting age citizens in Texas, as counted by the 2010 U.S. census, as many as 2.1 million (11 percent) registered and unregistered voting age citizens in Texas possibly do not hold a Texas driver’s license, personal ID card or other government issued photo ID document.

On October 5 Texas responded to the USDOJ by saying it did not have the requested information because it does not collect race data on voter registration applications. So instead, it submitted a spreadsheet list of all the Hispanic surnames in Texas, as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The spreadsheet shows how many voters did not provide an ID when they registered to vote, how many voters did not provide an ID, but whose records matched an ID record in the Department of Public Safety database — meaning they have been issued an ID — and those who did not provide an ID and could not be matched with a DPS record.

The Texas Democratic Party followed up with its own letter and spreadsheet to the USDOJ showing that in at least 46 Texas counties, over half the voters who do not have one of the required photo ID's are Hispanic. The Texas Democratic Party and various organizations staunchly opposed SB14 on the grounds it will disenfranchise elderly and minority voters.

Though the state subsequently said it would use DPS data to compile a breakdown of Hispanic surnames, it had yet to submit the information to the USDOJ by mid-November. On November 16, USDOJ Civil Rights Division Voting Section Chief T. Christian Herren Jr. sent a letter to the Secretary of State's office reminding the state that it provided “incomplete” information that does not enable USDOJ Civil Rights officials to determine whether their proposed voter ID law would be discriminatory.

“Although you did not indicate a date when this information would be available, you noted that the state will provide the results of its analysis as expeditiously as possible,” the letter stated.

On Thursday, January 12, 2012 the Texas secretary of state’s office finally sent the additional information to the USDOJ, which restarts the 60 day clock on when the department must to make a decision about whether the law complies with the Voting Rights Act. The USDOJ may make that determination at anytime before the new March 13, 2012 deadline.