I want to be cynical and say it's because he figured out they would vote Democrat.
GOP National Voter Suppression (Interstate Crosscheck, ID, Poll Closures, Voter Patrols)
- Thread starter Julius Skrrvin
- Start date
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Maryland Votes to Expand Felons’ Voting Rights
/
COMMENTS
FEBRUARY 9, 2016
/
by SARAH CHILDRESS Senior Digital Reporter, FRONTLINE Enterprise Journalism Group
at the time of the veto — which restored voting rights once offenders completed all aspects of their sentence, including parole and probation — was more appropriate. Critics, including some ex-offenders, argued that approach amounted to taxation without representation. The new law restores voting rights immediately upon a prisoner’s release.
“These are people living in the community,” said Nicole D. Porter, advocacy director at the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit group that works toward criminal justice reform. “They participate in other areas of the social contract. They are expected not to recidivate. They pay taxes. They want to participate in democracy and should have a role in deciding who represents them.”
The new law is expected to restore the right to vote for an estimated 40,000 people in Maryland, which, once it takes effect next month, should allow them to vote in the state’s April presidential primary election.
Nearly six million Americans are unable to vote because of their criminal records, a disproportionate number of whom are African-American. In recent years, as states have begun to push for reforming the criminal justice system, including making it easier for those with criminal records to find jobs and housing, a few have also begun to consider restoring voting rights for those with felony convictions.
But it’s been an uneven process. Currently, most states restrict the right to vote for those with felony convictions until they have completed all aspects of their sentences. And 12 states have laws that can leave ex-offenders permanently stripped of the right to vote.
Only two states — Maine and Vermont — impose no restrictions on felons’ right to vote, even when they’re in prison.
Since 2010, only two states have passed laws to restore voting rights to some with criminal records.
Delaware dropped its five-year waiting period for those seeking to have their rights restored in 2013. Wyoming, where most felons lose their right to vote permanently, enacted a law last year to restore voting rights to some non-violent offenders upon their release from prison.
More have restricted felons’ access to the ballot. Florida, Iowa, Tennessee, South Dakota and South Carolina have scaled back rights for felons in recent years. Last year, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, issued an executive order that automatically restored felons’ right to vote, but it was rescinded by the current Republican governor, Matt Bevin.
That trend may be starting to change. So far this year, Porter said, lawmakers in Minnesota, Alabama and Kentucky are considering bills that would expand voting rights for ex-offenders.
Maryland Votes to Expand Felons’ Voting Rights
/
COMMENTS
FEBRUARY 9, 2016
/
by SARAH CHILDRESS Senior Digital Reporter, FRONTLINE Enterprise Journalism Group
at the time of the veto — which restored voting rights once offenders completed all aspects of their sentence, including parole and probation — was more appropriate. Critics, including some ex-offenders, argued that approach amounted to taxation without representation. The new law restores voting rights immediately upon a prisoner’s release.
“These are people living in the community,” said Nicole D. Porter, advocacy director at the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit group that works toward criminal justice reform. “They participate in other areas of the social contract. They are expected not to recidivate. They pay taxes. They want to participate in democracy and should have a role in deciding who represents them.”
The new law is expected to restore the right to vote for an estimated 40,000 people in Maryland, which, once it takes effect next month, should allow them to vote in the state’s April presidential primary election.
Nearly six million Americans are unable to vote because of their criminal records, a disproportionate number of whom are African-American. In recent years, as states have begun to push for reforming the criminal justice system, including making it easier for those with criminal records to find jobs and housing, a few have also begun to consider restoring voting rights for those with felony convictions.
But it’s been an uneven process. Currently, most states restrict the right to vote for those with felony convictions until they have completed all aspects of their sentences. And 12 states have laws that can leave ex-offenders permanently stripped of the right to vote.
Only two states — Maine and Vermont — impose no restrictions on felons’ right to vote, even when they’re in prison.
Since 2010, only two states have passed laws to restore voting rights to some with criminal records.
Delaware dropped its five-year waiting period for those seeking to have their rights restored in 2013. Wyoming, where most felons lose their right to vote permanently, enacted a law last year to restore voting rights to some non-violent offenders upon their release from prison.
More have restricted felons’ access to the ballot. Florida, Iowa, Tennessee, South Dakota and South Carolina have scaled back rights for felons in recent years. Last year, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, issued an executive order that automatically restored felons’ right to vote, but it was rescinded by the current Republican governor, Matt Bevin.
That trend may be starting to change. So far this year, Porter said, lawmakers in Minnesota, Alabama and Kentucky are considering bills that would expand voting rights for ex-offenders.
Maryland Votes to Expand Felons’ Voting Rights
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Clinton and Democratic Party Will Sue Arizona Over Alleged Voter Suppression
By Sarah Mimms
April 14, 2016 | 1:57 pm
Hillary Clinton and various segments of the Democratic Party will file a lawsuit on Friday over alleged voter suppression in Arizona, the Washington Post reports.
The lawsuit focuses on Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, where some voters waited in congested lines for as long as five hours before being allowed to vote in the primaries there on March 22. Elections officials in the county cut polling locations by 85 percent from the 2008 presidential election in order to save money, resulting in overwhelmed polling locations on election night last month.
The lawsuit alleges that minority voters, who typically vote Democrat, were most affected by the lack of polling locations. "[Arizona's] alarmingly inadequate number of voting centers resulted in severe, inexcusable burdens on voters county-wide, as well as the ultimate disenfranchisement of untold numbers of voters who were unable or unwilling to wait in intolerably long lines," Democrats argue in the lawsuit.
Maricopa County elections chief Helen Purcell issued a mea culpa just after the Arizona elections, but has rebuffed calls for her resignation. Purcell said that she had pushed for fewer polling locations to save money, and had expected that many more voters would submit their ballots by mail than actually did. "We certainly made bad decisions," she said. "It was my fault."
Related: Phoenix Mayor Asks Justice Department to Investigate Alleged Voter Suppression in Arizona
The lawsuit is being brought by the Democratic National Committee, the party's Senate campaign committee, the state party, the campaign for Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, the Democrat who is challenging Sen. John McCain, and several individuals who were affected by long voting lines in Arizona. Democratic officials told the Post that the Clinton campaign will join the lawsuit after it is filed on Friday.
The legal challenge comes just days after election watchdog and lobby group Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections (AUDIT-AZ) filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court demanding a partial recount of ballots from the Arizona primary.
In the lawsuit, John Brakey, the co-founder of AUDIT-AZ, accused election officials of misconduct, including cutting back the number of polling stations by some 85 percent from 2008 to save money. Brakey estimates that voter suppression tactics and poor election procedures cost some 150,000 people in Maricopa County the ability to vote and "altered the results of both the Democratic and Republican primaries," the Phoenix New Timesreported.
Clinton won the Democratic primary in Arizona last month, but the Democratic Party's lawsuit that she is joining looks forward to the general election.
The lawsuits follow Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton's letter to US Attorney General Loretta Lynch calling on the Justice Department to investigate alleged voter suppression tactics. Stanton, a Democrat supporting Clinton, wrote the letter the day after the Arizona primaries, arguing that the polling locations in his county were congregated in predominately white areas, although Phoenix is a majority-minority city. Stanton called election night there a "fiasco."
"My request comes on the heels of consistent activity that has created a culture of voter disenfranchisement in the state," Stanton wrote in the letter.
The Justice Department opened an investigation into the matter earlier this month.
Related: Jane Sanders Says Bernie Will Vote for Hillary If She Wins the Nomination
Democrats filing the new lawsuit on Friday are hoping to resolve these issues before November 8. But, as the Post notes, these kinds of cases can take a long time, and the "Purcell doctrine" encourages courts not to post decisions affecting elections too close to Election Day.
The suit could also have an effect on Kirkpatrick's campaign, which is also party to the lawsuit as she seeks to unseat McCain this fall. Kirkpatrick trailed McCain, who has served in the Senate for almost 30 years, by just a single point in recent polling. The seat is a major target for Democrats this year as they try to take control of the Senate.
Clinton and Democratic Party Will Sue Arizona Over Alleged Voter Suppression | VICE News
By Sarah Mimms
April 14, 2016 | 1:57 pm
Hillary Clinton and various segments of the Democratic Party will file a lawsuit on Friday over alleged voter suppression in Arizona, the Washington Post reports.
The lawsuit focuses on Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, where some voters waited in congested lines for as long as five hours before being allowed to vote in the primaries there on March 22. Elections officials in the county cut polling locations by 85 percent from the 2008 presidential election in order to save money, resulting in overwhelmed polling locations on election night last month.
The lawsuit alleges that minority voters, who typically vote Democrat, were most affected by the lack of polling locations. "[Arizona's] alarmingly inadequate number of voting centers resulted in severe, inexcusable burdens on voters county-wide, as well as the ultimate disenfranchisement of untold numbers of voters who were unable or unwilling to wait in intolerably long lines," Democrats argue in the lawsuit.
Maricopa County elections chief Helen Purcell issued a mea culpa just after the Arizona elections, but has rebuffed calls for her resignation. Purcell said that she had pushed for fewer polling locations to save money, and had expected that many more voters would submit their ballots by mail than actually did. "We certainly made bad decisions," she said. "It was my fault."
Related: Phoenix Mayor Asks Justice Department to Investigate Alleged Voter Suppression in Arizona
The lawsuit is being brought by the Democratic National Committee, the party's Senate campaign committee, the state party, the campaign for Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, the Democrat who is challenging Sen. John McCain, and several individuals who were affected by long voting lines in Arizona. Democratic officials told the Post that the Clinton campaign will join the lawsuit after it is filed on Friday.
The legal challenge comes just days after election watchdog and lobby group Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections (AUDIT-AZ) filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court demanding a partial recount of ballots from the Arizona primary.
In the lawsuit, John Brakey, the co-founder of AUDIT-AZ, accused election officials of misconduct, including cutting back the number of polling stations by some 85 percent from 2008 to save money. Brakey estimates that voter suppression tactics and poor election procedures cost some 150,000 people in Maricopa County the ability to vote and "altered the results of both the Democratic and Republican primaries," the Phoenix New Timesreported.
Clinton won the Democratic primary in Arizona last month, but the Democratic Party's lawsuit that she is joining looks forward to the general election.
The lawsuits follow Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton's letter to US Attorney General Loretta Lynch calling on the Justice Department to investigate alleged voter suppression tactics. Stanton, a Democrat supporting Clinton, wrote the letter the day after the Arizona primaries, arguing that the polling locations in his county were congregated in predominately white areas, although Phoenix is a majority-minority city. Stanton called election night there a "fiasco."
"My request comes on the heels of consistent activity that has created a culture of voter disenfranchisement in the state," Stanton wrote in the letter.
The Justice Department opened an investigation into the matter earlier this month.
Related: Jane Sanders Says Bernie Will Vote for Hillary If She Wins the Nomination
Democrats filing the new lawsuit on Friday are hoping to resolve these issues before November 8. But, as the Post notes, these kinds of cases can take a long time, and the "Purcell doctrine" encourages courts not to post decisions affecting elections too close to Election Day.
The suit could also have an effect on Kirkpatrick's campaign, which is also party to the lawsuit as she seeks to unseat McCain this fall. Kirkpatrick trailed McCain, who has served in the Senate for almost 30 years, by just a single point in recent polling. The seat is a major target for Democrats this year as they try to take control of the Senate.
Clinton and Democratic Party Will Sue Arizona Over Alleged Voter Suppression | VICE News
Formerly Black Trash
Philosopher, Connoisseur, Future Legend
Good
U.S.
Virginia Governor Restoring Voting Rights to Felons
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGAPRIL 22, 2016
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Virginia Governor Restoring Voting Rights to Felons
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGAPRIL 22, 2016
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
- Terry McAuliffe of Virginia will use his executive power on Friday to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 convicted felons, circumventing his Republican-run legislature. The action will overturn a Civil War-era provision in the state’s Constitution aimed, he said, at disenfranchising African-Americans.
The sweeping order, in a swing state that could play a role in deciding the November presidential election, will enable all felons who have served their prison time and finished parole to register to vote. Most are African-Americans, a core constituency of Democrats, Mr. McAuliffe’s political party.
“There’s no question that we’ve had a horrible history in voting rights as relates to African-Americans — we should remedy it,” Mr. McAuliffe said Thursday, previewing the announcement he will make on the steps of Virginia’s Capitol, just yards from where President Abraham Lincoln once addressed freed slaves. “We should do it as soon as we possibly can.”
The action, which Mr. McAuliffe said was justified under an expansive legal interpretation of his executive clemency authority, goes far beyond what other governors have done, experts say, and will almost certainly provoke a backlash from Virginia Republicans, who have resisted measures to expand felons’ voting rights. It has been planned in secrecy, and comes amid an intensifying national debate over race, mass incarceration and the criminal justice system.
There is no way to know how many of the newly eligible voters in Virginia will register, but Mr. McAuliffe said he would encourage all to do so. “My message is going to be that I have now done my part,” he said.
Only two states — Maine and Vermont — have no voting restrictions on felons. Of the remaining 48, 12 states disenfranchise felons after they have completed probation or parole, said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington policy organization that advocates restoring felons’ voting rights.
Virginia is one of four states — the others are Kentucky, Florida and Iowa — that impose the harshest restrictions. The Sentencing Project says one in five African-Americans in Virginia is disenfranchised.
Continue reading the main story
In Kentucky, Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican who took office in November, promptly overturned an executive order issued by his Democratic predecessor, Steven L. Beshear, just before he left office. (Mr. Beshear’s order did not cover violent criminals.) Then, last week, Mr. Bevin signed into law a less expansive measure, allowing felons to petition judges to vacate their convictions, which would enable them to vote.
Mr. Mauer called Mr. McAuliffe’s plan a stunning development, and one that will have lasting consequences because it will remain in effect at least until January 2018, when Mr. McAuliffe leaves office. It covers those convicted of violent crimes, including murder and rape.
“This will be the single most significant action on disenfranchisement that we’ve ever seen from a governor,” Mr. Mauer said, “and its noteworthy that it’s coming in the middle of this term, not the day before he leaves office. So there may be some political heat but clearly he’s willing to take that on, which is quite admirable.”
Advocates who have been working with the governor say they are planning to fan out into Richmond communities Friday afternoon to start registering people. Until now in Virginia, felons could apply to have their voting rights restored, but the process could be cumbersome and those who have committed violent crimes faced a waiting period. That will be eliminated by Mr. McAuliffe’s action.
“That is a huge deal,” said Tram Nguyen, an executive director of the New Virginia Majority, an advocacy group. “We talk about needing to raise up your voice so that we can impact policy makers, and these people are saying to us, ‘We don’t have a voice, no one is going to listen to us, we don’t even have our right to vote.’ ”
Experts say that with the stroke of his pen, Mr. McAuliffe will allow convicted felons to begin registering to vote, and that their voting rights cannot be revoked — even if a new governor rescinds the order.
But the move could expose the governor to accusations that he is playing politics; he is a longtime friend of — and top fund-raiser for — Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee for president, and former President Bill Clinton.
In the interview, Mr. McAuliffe said that he was not acting for political reasons, and that few people outside his immediate staff knew of his plans. The order builds on steps he has previously taken to restore voting rights to 18,000 Virginians since the beginning of his term, and he said he believed his authority to issue the decision was “ironclad.”
Professor A. E. dikk Howard of the University of Virginia School of Law, who was the principal draftsman of a revised Constitution adopted by Virginia in 1971, agreed, and said the governor had “ample authority.” But Professor Howard, who advised Mr. McAuliffe on the issue, said the move might well be challenged in court. The most likely argument, he said, is that the governor cannot restore voting rights to an entire class of people all at once.
“I’m assuming that the complaint will be that he has to act one pardon at a time, one person at a time, that he’s not permitted to act wholesale,” Professor Howard said. “I think the language of the Constitution and the theory of the pardoning power all point to the same conclusion — that he can.”
Virginia’s Constitution has prohibited felons from voting since the Civil War; the restrictions were expanded in 1902, as part of a package that included poll taxes and literacy tests.
In researching the provisions, advisers to the governor turned up a 1906 report quoting Carter Glass, a Virginia state senator (and later, a member of Congress who was an author of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Actthat regulated banks) as saying they would “eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State in less than five years, so that no single county of the Commonwealth will there be the least concern felt for the complete supremacy of the white race in the affairs of government.”
Mr. McAuliffe, who took office in 2014 and campaigned to restore voting rights to felons, said that he viewed disenfranchisement as “a remnant of the poll tax” and tat he had been “trying to figure out what more I can possibly do.” He has been working with his legal team for months to live up to his campaign promise. His action Friday will not apply to felons released in the future; the governor’s aides say Mr. McAuliffe intends to issue similar orders on a monthly basis to cover more people as they are released.
“People have served their time and done their probation,” Mr. McAuliffe said. “I want you back in society. I want you feeling good about yourself. I want you voting, getting a job, paying taxes. I’m not giving people their gun rights back and other things like that. I’m merely allowing you to feel good about yourself again, to feel like you are a member of society.”
Erik Eckholm contributed reporting from New York.
Dope. Lets stay out of jail now.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Virginia Republicans Sue To Stop 200,000 Ex-Felons From Voting
BY ALICE OLLSTEIN
MAY 23, 2016 12:31 PM
CREDIT: ALICE OLLSTEIN
Karen Fountain with Virginia New Majority has helped dozens of ex-offenders regain their voting rights.
Republican lawmakers in Virginia filed a lawsuit Monday to block the governor from restoring the voting rights of more than 200,000 residents with felony convictions. The case now before the Virginia Supreme Court argues that the Gov. Terry McAuliffe exceeded his constitutional power by signing an executive order restoring the full civil rights of all residents who have already served their felony sentences and completed supervised parole or probation. Until April, Virginia had been one of just four U.S. states that permanently disenfranchised most people with felony convictions.
“The Governor is authorized to restore the voting rights of any convicted felon through an individualized grant of clemency, but he may not issue a blanket restoration of voting rights,” the lawsuit states.
Since the Governor’s executive order in April, a small army of voting rights advocates have fanned out across the Commonwealth to register as many of these 200,000 people as possible before this November, when they could have tip the balance in the presidential election in the crucial swing state. Nearly 4,000 formerly disenfranchised ex-offenders have already registered.
“I’ve had grown men cry and hug me. I’ve seen women do the happy dance and shout,” said Karen Fountain with New Virginia Majority, the group taking the lead on the registration campaign. “You can see in that moment that they feel they are worth something. They go from no self esteem to self esteem. It’s just great to see.”
Fountain has been going out six days a week, clipboard in hand, combing the lower-income neighborhoods of Richmond, Virginia looking for people who have just regained the right to vote. One of the dozens of people she registered was Virginia native Randy Tyler, who lost his voting rights in 1995 due to a grand larceny conviction.
“Before, I felt like I was left out. I felt like even though I live in America, I wasn’t a part of it,” he told ThinkProgress. “But now, I have the privilege of saying who I want to elect for the presidency. I might be the one vote that makes a difference. I feel like a citizen of the United States again.”
If Republicans win this lawsuit, they will not only block advocates like Fountain from registering more former felons to vote, but they’ll strip away the registration from those like Tyler who have already filed their paperwork.
Both Tyler and Fountain told ThinkProgress that they see the current battle as a continuation of Virginia’s centuries-long efforts to prevent people of color from gaining political power. In fact, the authors of the state’s original felon disenfranchisement law openly bragged that their goal was to “disenfranchise every negro that I could disenfranchise.”
African Americans make up 46 percent of the ex-offenders who could regain their rights from the governor’s executive order, even though they make up less than 20 percent of the state’s population. Nearly 80 percent, like Tyler, committed non-violent felony crimes.
TAGS
Virginia Republicans Sue To Stop 200,000 Ex-Felons From Voting
another reason if you needed one not to support conservatives
BY ALICE OLLSTEIN
MAY 23, 2016 12:31 PM
CREDIT: ALICE OLLSTEIN
Karen Fountain with Virginia New Majority has helped dozens of ex-offenders regain their voting rights.
Republican lawmakers in Virginia filed a lawsuit Monday to block the governor from restoring the voting rights of more than 200,000 residents with felony convictions. The case now before the Virginia Supreme Court argues that the Gov. Terry McAuliffe exceeded his constitutional power by signing an executive order restoring the full civil rights of all residents who have already served their felony sentences and completed supervised parole or probation. Until April, Virginia had been one of just four U.S. states that permanently disenfranchised most people with felony convictions.
“The Governor is authorized to restore the voting rights of any convicted felon through an individualized grant of clemency, but he may not issue a blanket restoration of voting rights,” the lawsuit states.
Since the Governor’s executive order in April, a small army of voting rights advocates have fanned out across the Commonwealth to register as many of these 200,000 people as possible before this November, when they could have tip the balance in the presidential election in the crucial swing state. Nearly 4,000 formerly disenfranchised ex-offenders have already registered.
“I’ve had grown men cry and hug me. I’ve seen women do the happy dance and shout,” said Karen Fountain with New Virginia Majority, the group taking the lead on the registration campaign. “You can see in that moment that they feel they are worth something. They go from no self esteem to self esteem. It’s just great to see.”
Fountain has been going out six days a week, clipboard in hand, combing the lower-income neighborhoods of Richmond, Virginia looking for people who have just regained the right to vote. One of the dozens of people she registered was Virginia native Randy Tyler, who lost his voting rights in 1995 due to a grand larceny conviction.
“Before, I felt like I was left out. I felt like even though I live in America, I wasn’t a part of it,” he told ThinkProgress. “But now, I have the privilege of saying who I want to elect for the presidency. I might be the one vote that makes a difference. I feel like a citizen of the United States again.”
If Republicans win this lawsuit, they will not only block advocates like Fountain from registering more former felons to vote, but they’ll strip away the registration from those like Tyler who have already filed their paperwork.
Both Tyler and Fountain told ThinkProgress that they see the current battle as a continuation of Virginia’s centuries-long efforts to prevent people of color from gaining political power. In fact, the authors of the state’s original felon disenfranchisement law openly bragged that their goal was to “disenfranchise every negro that I could disenfranchise.”
African Americans make up 46 percent of the ex-offenders who could regain their rights from the governor’s executive order, even though they make up less than 20 percent of the state’s population. Nearly 80 percent, like Tyler, committed non-violent felony crimes.
TAGS
Virginia Republicans Sue To Stop 200,000 Ex-Felons From Voting
another reason if you needed one not to support conservatives
The transparency of what the Repubs in VA are up to is just ridiculous.
Well the FBI is investigating Terry McCullife now. It's sad that my state has had two corrupt back to back governors.
in virginia are everywhere
That's part for the course in Illinois.
Ohio Governor Poised To Make Voters Pay To Keep Polls Open Late
Republican lawmakers in Ohio approved a bill late Wednesday night that would force residents to put up a cash bond when they petition a court extend voting hours during an election day emergency, such as a natural disaster. If Gov. John Kasich (R) signs the bill, Ohio could become the first state in the nation to make voters risk losing tens of thousands of dollars of their own money when making the case for keeping the polls open a few extra hours.
The bill’s author, Republican Sen. Bill Seitz of Green Township, wrote an op-ed this week about his motivation for pushing the measure.
“Sadly, in both the November 2015 and March 2016 elections, rogue courts in Hamilton County issued orders extending polling hours. These orders cost Hamilton County taxpayers $57,000, and forced the inside poll workers to stay around for an extra 60 to 90 minutes after already working a 14-hour day.”
In the instances he’s citing, local courts ruled that true, unforeseen emergencies — a software glitch in 2015 that temporarily wiped out the poll books and a massive car wreck in 2016 that cut off the county’s main highway — justified keeping the polls open longer so that a few thousand waiting voters wouldn’t be disenfranchised.
Mike Brickner with the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio says the bill now before Gov. Kasich would make it much more complicated and expensive to respond to such emergencies in the future.
fast-tracked by the Republican-controlled legislature, and was approved in a marathon voting session Wednesday along with more than 40 other bills. Every House Democrat, including State Rep. Kathleen Clyde (D-Kent), voted against it.
“I think it’s unconstitutional,” she told ThinkProgress. “It’s tantamount to a poll tax to require voters to post a cash bond, and we really need to have the ability to petition state or federal courts if there is some type of emergency necessitating the extension of polling hours.”
Clyde noted that just yesterday, a federal court ruled that cuts to early voting hours approved by Ohio Republicans over the past few years are unconstitutional, and ordered the state to reverse them. The court found that voters of color were disproportionately harmed by the cuts.
In light of that ruling, Clyde expressed dismay that “the GOP continues on their march to make voting harder in Ohio.”
Republicans in favor of the bill countered that Ohio’s voting laws are “more than generous” and that lawmakers “bend over backwards to ensure that all Ohioans have the opportunity to vote.”
This November, voters in the swing state of Ohio could decide which parties controls the White House, and potentially, the Senate. President Obama’s narrow wins in 2008 and 2012 show that something as small a few extra days of early voting or the ability to extend polling hours in an emergency could tip the scales. Ohio is also being sued for purging nearly 2 million voters from its rolls over the last five years.
Republican lawmakers in Ohio approved a bill late Wednesday night that would force residents to put up a cash bond when they petition a court extend voting hours during an election day emergency, such as a natural disaster. If Gov. John Kasich (R) signs the bill, Ohio could become the first state in the nation to make voters risk losing tens of thousands of dollars of their own money when making the case for keeping the polls open a few extra hours.
The bill’s author, Republican Sen. Bill Seitz of Green Township, wrote an op-ed this week about his motivation for pushing the measure.
“Sadly, in both the November 2015 and March 2016 elections, rogue courts in Hamilton County issued orders extending polling hours. These orders cost Hamilton County taxpayers $57,000, and forced the inside poll workers to stay around for an extra 60 to 90 minutes after already working a 14-hour day.”
In the instances he’s citing, local courts ruled that true, unforeseen emergencies — a software glitch in 2015 that temporarily wiped out the poll books and a massive car wreck in 2016 that cut off the county’s main highway — justified keeping the polls open longer so that a few thousand waiting voters wouldn’t be disenfranchised.
Mike Brickner with the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio says the bill now before Gov. Kasich would make it much more complicated and expensive to respond to such emergencies in the future.
fast-tracked by the Republican-controlled legislature, and was approved in a marathon voting session Wednesday along with more than 40 other bills. Every House Democrat, including State Rep. Kathleen Clyde (D-Kent), voted against it.
“I think it’s unconstitutional,” she told ThinkProgress. “It’s tantamount to a poll tax to require voters to post a cash bond, and we really need to have the ability to petition state or federal courts if there is some type of emergency necessitating the extension of polling hours.”
Clyde noted that just yesterday, a federal court ruled that cuts to early voting hours approved by Ohio Republicans over the past few years are unconstitutional, and ordered the state to reverse them. The court found that voters of color were disproportionately harmed by the cuts.
In light of that ruling, Clyde expressed dismay that “the GOP continues on their march to make voting harder in Ohio.”
Republicans in favor of the bill countered that Ohio’s voting laws are “more than generous” and that lawmakers “bend over backwards to ensure that all Ohioans have the opportunity to vote.”
This November, voters in the swing state of Ohio could decide which parties controls the White House, and potentially, the Senate. President Obama’s narrow wins in 2008 and 2012 show that something as small a few extra days of early voting or the ability to extend polling hours in an emergency could tip the scales. Ohio is also being sued for purging nearly 2 million voters from its rolls over the last five years.
are always on some straight nonsense.
Bruh.
BRUH!
The homie Bill Seitz said:
“Sadly, in both the November 2015 and March 2016 elections, rogue courts in Hamilton County issued orders extending polling hours. These orders cost Hamilton County taxpayers $57,000, and forced the inside poll workers to stay around for an extra 60 to 90 minutes after already working a 14-hour day.”
The truth was:
In the instances he’s citing, local courts ruled that true, unforeseen emergencies — a software glitch in 2015 that temporarily wiped out the poll books and a massive car wreck in 2016 that cut off the county’s main highway — justified keeping the polls open longer so that a few thousand waiting voters wouldn’t be disenfranchised
MUHfukkA TRIED TO TWIST A CAR WRECK INTO BUREAUCRATIC EXCESS
BRUH!
The homie Bill Seitz said:
“Sadly, in both the November 2015 and March 2016 elections, rogue courts in Hamilton County issued orders extending polling hours. These orders cost Hamilton County taxpayers $57,000, and forced the inside poll workers to stay around for an extra 60 to 90 minutes after already working a 14-hour day.”
The truth was:
In the instances he’s citing, local courts ruled that true, unforeseen emergencies — a software glitch in 2015 that temporarily wiped out the poll books and a massive car wreck in 2016 that cut off the county’s main highway — justified keeping the polls open longer so that a few thousand waiting voters wouldn’t be disenfranchised
MUHfukkA TRIED TO TWIST A CAR WRECK INTO BUREAUCRATIC EXCESS