More civil rights groups support appeal in voter ID lawsuit
More civil rights groups are challenging a federal judge’s ruling that an Alabama voter ID law is not discriminatory. Alabama has required voters to present government-issued photo identification since 2014. The Alabama NAACP and Greater Birmingham Ministries sued over the law in 2015, arguing that it disproportionately affects minorities. U.S. District Judge L. Scott Coogler ruled in favor of the state in January. He concluded that the state helps voters get IDs and Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill offered a mobile service to make home visits. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling on Feb. 21. The ACLU of Alabama, ACLU Voting Rights Project, Lawyers’ Committee and Campaign Legal Center submitted a brief in support on Thursday. Plaintiffs are asking for a rescheduled trial before the state’s primary elections in June. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Federal judge dismisses challenge to Alabama voter ID law
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Alabama’s voter ID law. U.S. District Judge L. Scott Coogler on Wednesday rejected arguments — by the Greater Birmingham Ministries and the Alabama NAACP — that requiring a photo ID to vote is racial discrimination, denies equal protection and violates the Voting Rights Act, as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The groups had filed a lawsuit against Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill among other former state officials over a 2011 law, House Bill 19, which requires absentee and in-person voters to show photo identification in order to cast a ballot. The suit contended the law had disenfranchised some 280,000 voters and threatened hundreds of thousands more. Judge Coogler noted in his order that it is easy for anyone to get a photo in ID in Alabama, thus the law is not discriminatory. “…A person who does not have a photo ID today is not prevented from voting if he or she can easily get one, and it is so easy to get a photo ID in Alabama, no on is prevented from voting,” Coogler wrote in the order. He also determined “minorities do not have less opportunity to vote under Alabama Photo ID law because everyone has the same opportunity to obtain an ID.” Alabama’s Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall called the decision to dismiss the suit, the right decision. “Today’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit is without a doubt the right decision,” said Marshall. “Alabama’s voter identification law is one of the broadest in the nation with procedures in place to allow anyone who does not have a photo ID to obtain one.” But NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund President Sherrilyn Ifill said the group is not giving up and is considering its next steps. “We are deeply disappointed by the judge’s ruling dismissing our case before trial,” said Ifill. “Over the course of two years, we have developed a sound case demonstrating that Alabama’s voter ID law is racially discriminatory. We had hoped to present our full case at trial next month. We have no intention of abandoning our commitment to protecting the rights of African-American voters in Alabama, and we are considering our next steps.” View the full court order below:
Supreme Court order unlikely to deter voting restrictions
The Supreme Court’s refusal to breathe new life into North Carolina’s sweeping voter identification law might be just a temporary victory for civil rights groups. Republican-led states are continuing to enact new voter ID measures and other voting restrictions, and the Supreme Court’s newly reconstituted conservative majority, with the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch, could make the court less likely to invalidate the laws based on claims under the federal Voting Rights Act or the Constitution. The justices on Monday left in place last summer’s ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the law’s photo ID requirement to vote in person and other provisions, which the lower court said targeted African-Americans “with almost surgical precision.” But Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the court’s decision to stay out of the case rested on a partisan dispute over who had the authority to present North Carolina’s case to the court, not the justices’ views on the substance of the issue. Indeed, before Gorsuch joined the court, the other eight justices split 4-4 over whether to allow the challenged provisions to remain in effect despite the court ruling striking them down. In January, when the high court rejected a Texas appeal over its voter ID law, Roberts practically invited Texas Republicans to bring their appeal back to the Supreme Court after lower court consideration of the issue is finished. “The issues will be better suited for certiorari review at that time,” Roberts wrote, using the Latin term for the court’s process of deciding whether to hear a case. Two earlier Supreme Court decisions paved the way for the wave of voter ID laws that are now in place in 32 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Roberts was part of a conservative-led decision upholding Indiana’s voter ID law in 2008 and he was the author of the court’s 5-4 decision in 2013 that gutted a provision of the federal Voting Rights Act that had required North Carolina, Texas and other states, mainly in the South, to get approval before changing laws dealing with elections. Republicans in North Carolina and Texas moved to enact new voting measures after the Supreme Court ruling. Voters, civil rights groups and the Obama administration quickly filed lawsuits challenging the new laws. Advocates of requiring voters to show identification at the polls say it is a prudent, painless way to deter voter fraud. Opponents contend that in-person voter fraud has historically not been a problem and that poorer and minority voters, who tend to support Democrats, are more likely to lack driver licenses and other acceptable forms of identification. Roberts’ and the other conservatives’ track record in voting cases suggests they’ll be “quite skeptical of voting rights claims,” said election law specialist Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine. “You could certainly see a five-justice majority overturning a case like this,” Hasen said of the North Carolina appeal. He acknowledged that Gorsuch himself has yet to weigh in on the topic. A conservative defender of the voting laws agreed. “I’d think challengers to voter ID laws would be extremely nervous about any such case coming to the court,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Already this year, Arkansas, Iowa and North Dakota have approved voter ID laws, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Georgia and Indiana are among states that have added other voting restrictions to their identification laws, the Brennan Center said. The voter ID issue itself could return to the court in the next year or two in cases from Texas and Wisconsin. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already has ruled that Texas’ law violates the Voting Rights Act, but a broader challenge to the law is pending at the New Orleans-based appeals court. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared inclined to uphold Wisconsin laws requiring voter ID and limiting early voting when it heard arguments in February. Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed the measures into law in 2011. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Lines at voting precincts as polls open in Alabama
Lines stretched across fields and parking lots as polls opened in Alabama on Election Day. Officials are expecting big crowds after a rough-and-tumble presidential race, and those early predictions looked accurate. Rain won’t be a deterrent to potential voters, as forecasters predicted another dry day Tuesday amid a drought that has parched the state. Republican Donald Trump is a heavy favorite to carry the state over Democrat Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, but other races and issues also will be decided. The ballot includes four U.S. House seats plus a U.S. Senate race, and voters will decide 14 statewide amendments. Here is a glance at some of the issues and questions on Election Day 2016 in Alabama: — HISTORY ON TRUMP’S SIDE Trump will carry Alabama over Clinton without a struggle if history and past voting patterns are an indication. Georgia peanut farmer-turned governor Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat to carry Alabama in a presidential election, and that happened in 1976. No Democrat has come very close since then to winning the state’s nine electoral votes, and the trend is getting worse for the party. Democratic presidential candidates have been stuck below 40 percent of the total vote in Alabama since 2000, when Tennessean Al Gore took nearly 42 percent of the vote compared to Republican George W. Bush. It will be interesting to see how Clinton fares compared to Democratic President Barack Obama, who carried 38 percent of the vote and lost Alabama by 22 percentage points to Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. — WHERE DO I VOTE? State election officials are predicting a possible record turnout by Alabama’s 3.3 million registered voters, but what if people are unsure where to vote? A phone call or a few mouse clicks can clear up that confusion. Voters who aren’t sure where to go on Election Day can call their county registrar’s office — the numbers are in the phone book, and most if not all are available online for Alabama’s 67 counties. For people with internet access, the website alabamavotes.gov may be a better solution. The site is operated by the secretary of state’s office. Residents can verify their registration to vote with a simple search at alabamavotes.gov, and another search pulls up information about voting precincts including addresses and polling times. At the same site, search panes also are available to view sample ballots for each county and to check the status of provisional and absentee ballots. — EYE ON VOTER INTIMIDATION Alabama’s top election agency said it won’t tolerate any attempts to intimidate voters on Election Day. A statement from the secretary of state’s office says anyone caught trying to dissuade others from voting on Tuesday will be prosecuted. Both Republican and Democratic campaigns often have volunteers serving as poll watchers. The statement from the secretary of state says poll watchers can’t disturb voters, try to influence them, campaign, or display any campaign material inside the polling place. Polls were open statewide from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. — PHOTO ID REQUIRED This year marks the first time Alabama’s Republican-backed law requiring photo identification at the polls comes into play during a presidential election. Alabama requires voters to show photo ID such as a driver’s license, a passport, an Alabama non-driver ID, a university student ID or identification issued by the federal government. Voters without ID can still vote by regular ballot if they are positively identified by at least two election workers as being eligible to vote in a precinct. And voters who don’t have a valid ID will still be able to cast a provisional ballot. — CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS There’s a lot of fine print on Alabama ballots, and most of it spells out 14 statewide proposals to amend the state’s 1901 Constitution. The outcome will affect everything from state parks to the age of public officeholders to beer. Four of the amendments apply only to single counties. Here is a look at some of the other measures that have gotten the most attention: Amendment 2 aims to protect money for state parks and open the door to private companies getting more involved in park operations. The proposal specifies that park money can’t be diverted to other government functions unless revenues exceed $50 million. It would also allow private entities to run facilities at state parks. Amendment 8 guarantees that everyone has a right to work in the state regardless of whether they’re in a labor union. It mimics a state law already on the books. Amendment 13 would eliminate maximum-age limits for elected or appointed office with the exception of judicial offices. Trustees at public universities would be most likely to be affected. Amendment 14 would prevent hundreds of local laws — from sales taxes to draft beer rules — from being tossed out because of a dispute over legislative procedures in Montgomery. — CONGRESSIONAL RACES None of Alabama’s four U.S. House races nor the lone Senate race on the ballot is expected to be very close given the name recognition and vast amounts of campaign money available to the Republican incumbents, but there could be an exception. In the 2nd District of southeast Alabama, Rep. Martha Roby has faced a backlash by Trump supporters since publicly stating she wouldn’t support the GOP nominee because of his recorded comments about grabbing women. Democrat Nathan Mathis is hoping to capitalize on that dynamic, and Tea Party organizer Becky Gerritson is being promoted as a write-in candidate. On the Senate side, Republican incumbent Richard Shelby isn’t likely to have much problem against Democratic challenger Ron Crumpton, who is best known as an advocate for legalizing medicinal marijuana in the conservative state. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Complex, yet fascinating: A primer on Alabama’s March presidential primary
With the 2016 election less than a year away, and the first caucuses within the next 90 days, now is a good time for a review of what could be an interesting, yet complex, turn of events. Much of the situation will depend on the state of the Republican field come March 1. Here is a primer of Alabama’s primary delegation process: Alabama’s Presidential Preference Primary is March 1, 2016, and does not require voters to declare a party preference when registering to vote. The Yellowhammer State has an open primary, meaning any registered voter can vote in the primary for any party. Voters choose the primary in which to vote, and they are not required to be a party member in order to vote. According to the state Department of Elections, requirements to vote in Alabama is as follows: each applicant is a citizen of the United States; is an Alabama resident; a minimum of 18 years old on or before Election Day; is not barred from voting by a disqualifying felony conviction, and has not been declared mentally incompetent by a court. The state does not permit online voter registration, early voting or “no excuse” absentee voting. Since 2014, to cast a ballot in Alabama requires valid photo identification at the polls. Alabama’s delegation is 26 at-large (numbered At-Large #1, At-Large #2, etc.), 21-Congressional District and three automatic (“unbound”) for 50 total, which will be allocated proportionally, as a what is known as winner-take-most. The threshold for any candidate to qualify for delegates is 20 percent, both statewide and within each congressional district. This follows Republican National Committee rules stating elections held before March 15 will be assigned proportionately. Some conservatives believe the rule was designed to help well-funded candidates (establishment favorites) who are in the race for the long term, and is an obstacle for grassroots candidates desperate for a primary win to rally supporters (and funds). Delegates are bound to their qualifying presidential candidates until either a candidate withdraws from the race for the Republican Party nomination and releases the delegates or if – by a two-thirds vote – the total number of delegates bound to that candidate become “unbound” at the national convention. That closes the door to any potential abuse but allows just enough for delegates to wiggle out of a pledge, in a scenario with multiple ballots/votes to determine the nominee at the convention. Enforcement of original pledges is left to the head of the Alabama delegation and/or the RNC secretary. While the system is designed to release delegates if a battle on the convention floor occurs, there is no mention of a specific number of ballots taken before a delegate can be released. Compared to four years ago, there are no other substantive rule changes in Alabama elections, but unlike other early primary states – New Hampshire, for one – proportional allocation of Alabama delegates come from two different groups: at-large statewide and congressional district delegates. To get either type, candidates must meet the 20 percent threshold, twice the limit set in New Hampshire. If a single candidate receives a majority of the Alabama’s vote, then he or she will receive all 26 at-large delegates. If a candidate receives a simple majority in any Alabama Congressional District, he or she will win three of the district’s delegates. The Alabama GOP Delegate Information Process datasheet outlines that a delegate must vote for the candidate they pledged on their qualifying form. If the candidate releases his delegates/alternates, then they can vote for a different person. As it stands, with such a large field of Republican presidential candidates – now standing at 15 – the chances are unlikely that a single candidate will receive a majority either statewide or in congressional districts. However, there is a possibility that the southern GOP contest – the so-called “SEC Primary” – will be a game changer in the 2016 presidential race. There is a likelihood the field will narrow after the early primary states of New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. On the other hand, with a big group of candidates remaining March 1, it will substantially limit the probability of the rise of a consensus candidate. The bottom line: it might be a good bet that one person does not emerge on Super Tuesday with all 47 Alabama delegates. That said, there is a path (albeit a backdoor one) for a candidate to receive a majority of Alabama delegates, even in a large field. One only needs to meet the 20-percent threshold, either statewide or within a congressional district. If that is the case, where a particular candidate meets the 20 percent bar statewide, then they will control half (+1) of delegates, regardless of the results in the congressional districts. Understandably, Alabama’s allotment system has the potential to cause a considerable amount of political turmoil, overshadowing what should be a somewhat organized process. With a smaller number of candidates, though, the odds of one person picking up 20 percent of the vote increases. And as that number reaches two – it becomes almost assured that one (or the other) will meet the 50 percent threshold, receiving all delegates. Another case is when the vote triggers a potential winner-take-most scenario. In that situation, there would be a 20 percent bar for one and a 50 percent threshold for the other. With the current state of the race, there is a likelihood that more than one candidate will reach the 20 percent, thereby qualifying for delegates. Here is where math comes in. Since it is statistically impossible for a field of over five viable candidates to receive more than 20 percent each, the overall effect is somewhat limiting. Alabama’s delegate allocation system promotes narrowing the field of contenders – or at least accelerating the winnowing already taking place before March 1. Therefore, if (or when) these conditions are met, 26 at-large delegates will be spread out among candidates who get at least 20 percent of the vote. As for
