VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1
In This Issue … |
|
Sign Up |
QUICK LINKS
|
| |
|
GREETINGS FROM ADVANCEMENT PROJECT! |
Advancement Project’s Voter Protection Program is on the ground in ten states to ensure that all voters have a fair and equal opportunity to cast a ballot and have that ballot counted. We partner with voter registration groups to verify that eligible applicants are added to the voter rolls; we monitor election administration; and we build multiracial voter protection coalitions. This newsletter highlights information and resources that are available to assist voting rights advocates in advancing the principles of fairness, justice, and freedom that will ultimately lead to full political participation for marginalized populations in this country.
|
VOTER PROTECTION VICTORIES |
Norfolk Registrar Ordered to Release Key Voter
Registration Documents
In November 2005, Advancement Project attorney
Andrew A. Rivera sued the Norfolk general registrar
to force her to provide records that would allow us
to investigate why more than 6000 voter registration
applications were rejected before the November 2005
statewide election. In June 2006, the Fourth
Judicial Circuit of Virginia ruled that Mr. Rivera
is entitled to denial letters sent to voters, while
rejecting Mr. Rivera?s request to view the rejected
voter registration forms themselves. This partial
victory results from months of efforts to access
these key
records.
Our 2005 investigation into Norfolk?s voter
registration procedures has already revealed that
the registrar used arbitrary and immaterial
standards to reject voter registration applications.
[for more information on our 2005 investigation,
click here]
Advancement Project remains concerned
that the City?s practices have disenfranchised large
numbers of eligible voters and will continue to do so.
Although it is unfortunate that thousands of
applicants were denied the right to register in
2005, access to the rejection letters will finally
allow Advancement Project to learn the names of
voters whose applications were rejected and the
purported reason for denial. We can now
independently determine which applicants were
improperly disenfranchised and can seek a remedy for
those persons. This data also will shed light on
ways to avoid further erroneous rejections of voter
registration applications. [for more information or
a copy of the court decision, click here]
FEDERAL COURTS FORCE GEORGIA TO ACCEPT
?BUNDLED? VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS
In the latest victory in a 2004 case challenging
obstacles to voter registration in Georgia, a
federal judge in March entered a consent decree in Wesley Foundation v. Cox, granting extensive
relief
to a non-profit voter registration group.
In 2004, Georgia violated the National Voter
Registration Act by enforcing its longstanding
policy to reject ?bundled? mail-in voter
registration forms and any forms submitted by
persons other than registrars, deputy registrars, or
the applicants themselves. The Charles H. Wesley
Education Foundation, a charitable organization,
sued to overturn the policy after the Secretary of
State rejected all 63 applications collected during
its voter registration drive.
A federal district court judge in Atlanta ruled for
the Wesley Foundation and the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision. Wesley Foundation
then sought to negotiate a final settlement.
Advancement Project advised the Foundation?s counsel
on settlement strategy.
This case represents a clear-cut victory for voting
rights in Georgia. The consent decree includes:
- A declaration that rejection of bundled
forms or forms submitted by ?third parties? violates
the NVRA;A declaration that private entities have the
right to engage in voter registration activity in GA
and that defendants cannot unreasonably burden that
right; A permanent injunction against defendants?
rejection of bundled or ?third party? forms; and
- An order that defendants transmit a written
statement to all county boards of registrars
containing: the Court?s interpretation of Georgia
law permitting bundling and third party registration
drives; acknowledging that plaintiffs acted properly
and lawfully in their prior voter registration
activities; and mandating their compliance with the
Consent Decree.
Unfortunately, this struggle continues. Even as the
Wesley case was pending, Georgia Secretary of State
Cathy Cox recommended three new restrictive voting
regulations that were rushed to passage by the State
Election Board. One of the regulations opposed by
Advancement Project and Project Vote, a 3-day time
limit on the submission of applications, has been
extended to 10 days (subject to pre-clearance) as a
direct result of the Wesley case settlement.
Advancement Project is working with the Wesley
Foundation and Project Vote on an action plan to
combat the newest voter registration obstacles in GA.
|
ON THE GROUND |
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT CONFIRMS THOUSANDS OF
ILLEGALLY REJECTED REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS IN
PENNSYLVANIA
Advancement Project?s Voter Protection Program
reaches out to election officials to build
relationships. In May 2006, Advancement Project and
Project Vote met with election administrators in
Pennsylvania to discuss the voter registration
process, review rejected applications, identify
problems, and begin dialogue on how those problems
could be resolved. Shockingly, on the same day that
we visited with election officials, at least 1400
voter registration applications were rejected!
We discovered that thousands of voter
registration
cards are being rejected in Pennsylvania because
information on the applications does not match
exactly with records in Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) or the Social Security Administration
databases. 2006 is the first year for Pennsylvania
to implement the new requirement under the federal
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that registration
applicants provide a Department of Motor Vehicles ID
number (driver?s license or non-driver ID), or the
last four digits of their social security number. If
the applicant has neither of these ID numbers, the
state will issue a unique voter identification
number to the applicant.
The problem in Pennsylvania is that local election
officials have been instructed by the Commonwealth
not to process applications where the voter?s
identity cannot be exactly matched to the DMV or
Social Security database, even though HAVA makes
clear that the purpose of the voter ID number is not
to verify the voter?s identity, but rather to
ensure
that each voter can be tracked via a unique
registration number.
Efforts to match identifying
information in two
separate databases have been ridden with error.
Pennsylvania officials confirmed that when the
Social Security Administration database produces a
?no match? result, election officials receive no
information on why the data did not match. In
contrast, election officials can look at the
information in the applicant?s DMV file and can
override a ?no match? report if it was caused by a
typo or other obvious error in the database. Thus,
voters who use their social security number on their
registration form may have a higher chance of being
rejected. For this reason, Advancement Project has
undertaken an education campaign to encourage registration applicants to use
their state DMV number as their voter ID.
Advancement Project?s legal analysis concludes that
nothing in HAVA authorizes rejection of a voter
registration application based on the state?s
failure to obtain an ID match. Instead, we conclude
that individuals whose ID produces a ?no match?
report should be given the opportunity to prove
their identity at the polls ? just as first time
voters who registered by mail but who failed to
include a copy of their ID along with their
application, are permitted to do under HAVA.
Advancement Project has written to Pennsylvania
Secretary of State, Pedro A. Cortes, asking that he
to modify the state?s rigid ?no match/no
registration? policy. (click here for a copy of our letter) With our coalition partners in
Pennsylvania, we will undertake aggressive advocacy
to protect voters from this arbitrary denial of the
right to vote.
Unfortunately, several other states also have
adopted a rigid approach to the HAVA ID number and
are also illegally rejecting eligible registration
applicants because of ?no match? reports that may be
caused by a slight discrepancy such as the middle
initial, a typo or an error in the DMV or social
security database. Advancement Project currently is
looking into similar issues in Florida. Project
Vote and other advocates have sued over a rigid ?no
match? policy in Washington State and the Brennan
Center has produced a report on this problem.
COMBATING CHILLING VOTER REGISTRATION RULES IN
OHIO
 Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth
Blackwell has
leveled another slap in the face to Ohio voters and
voter registration drives. Blackwell, an
African-American gubernatorial candidate, whose
previous actions have consistently resulted in voter
suppression, penned controversial new rules that
require compensated voter registration workers to
register with the state, take an online training
course, and personally return registration forms
directly to the secretary of state or a local
election office within 10 days, or 30 days before an
election, whichever is earlier. Violation of these
rules can result in a felony conviction!
Advancement Project spent the month of June
combating Blackwell?s new rules. Staff Attorney
Donita Judge testified at a public hearing held by
the Secretary of State?s office on June 5. (click here for Judge?s written testimony) After that
hearing, Blackwell only marginally improved the
draconian new rules, allowing registration forms to
be mailed as well as delivered in person.
On June 26, Donita Judge was the lead witness to
testify before the Ohio Joint Committee on Agency
Rule Review (JCARR) opposing the new rules. JCARR is
responsible for reviewing proposed rules. Judge
described the effects of the proposed rules,
stating, ?if this version of the proposed rule is
adopted, we can expect two things: 1) voter
registration assistance by compensated third parties
will be effectively halted in Ohio, and 2) assisted
voter registration by compensated third parties in
Ohio will make criminals of well-intended civic
activists.? JCARR voted 6-4, along party lines, in
favor of the
new proposed rules.
The struggle continues. On
July 7, voter registration groups and
pro-democracy organizations filed a lawsuit
challenging Ohio?s restrictive voter registration
laws. For
now, Advancement Project strongly
recommends that covered voter registration groups
strictly comply with the Ohio rules, which require
compensated third party voter registration workers
to: 1) Register with the secretary of state; 2)
complete the online compensated registrars training
program and submit an ?affirmation statement,? and
3) return the signed registration form and a signed
affirmation statement to the secretary of state?s
office (and also submit a single copy of the
affirmation with each set of voter registration
forms returned to a county board of elections).
Finally, voter registration applications must be to
be turned in not later than the 10th day after the
applicant has completed the form, or the 30th
day before the election, whichever is earlier, to the
secretary of state or the Board of Elections in
person or by U.S. mail.
CLICK
HERE TO LEARN MORE
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT ?PROTECTS THE VOTE? IN
GEORGIA
On March 25, Advancement Project sponsored a
conference at the Southern Center for Public Policy,
Clark Atlanta University. Organized by Georgia
Local Advocate, Helen Butler, and underwritten by
the Sapelo
Foundation, the meeting brought together lawyers,
advocates, and activists to explore ways to combat
the effects of Georgia?s regressive voter ID law,
using grassroots, legal, research, and public
education strategies. Among the participants were
representatives from MALDEF, Greensboro (GA) Civic
Association, Defenders of Democracy, Georgia Clients
Council, Georgia Rural Urban Summit, MLK March
Committee, Georgia Coalition for the Peoples?
Agenda, Atlanta Jewish Federation, Georgians for
Democracy, and NAACP Fayette County Branch. The
plenary sessions included
briefings on legislative and legal developments in
Georgia. The keynote luncheon speaker was Rev.
Timothy McDonald, voting rights advocate and
President of African American Ministers in Action,
who put the current struggle in the context of the
long march for voting rights in the South.
 Participants spent the afternoon in
small groups,
brainstorming about how to ameliorate the ID law?s
impact, how to increase public awareness of the
issue, and how to eliminate the law altogether.
Each breakout group came back to the whole group
with concrete action steps. The grassroots group,
for example, suggested holding public hearings
around the state, as well as door-to-door contact
with voters to help them obtain the necessary
identification for voting. The research-oriented
group wanted to obtain the statistics for possession
of various kinds of IDs by race, age, and other
demographic categories, data on the effectiveness of
the state?s mobile ID-issuing bus, and several other
studies. Other small groups discussed legal and
education strategies. The ideas from the breakout
groups combined to create an ambitious and promising
action agenda.
Rep. Alisha Thomas Morgan of the Georgia House of
Representatives, one of the most steadfast champions
of voting rights during the debates on the ID bills
in the Georgia legislature, gave an inspiring
closing address. She energized the participants for
the struggle ahead, and they left committed to
making real progress in protecting the vote in
Georgia.
 On June 10, Advancement Project convened a
comparable session in Augusta, yielding a similar
outpouring of ideas. The Augusta participants
developed an exciting new idea -- to promote
absentee voting among elderly, low income, and
minority voters who may not have the type of ID
required under the new law. This campaign will not
only educate voters about the new ID requirements,
but it will also prevent the disenfranchisement of
persons who do not possess the required ID since
this ID applies only to those who vote in person.
Additionally, this effort will inundate the election
system with absentee ballots as a show of force. |
| DEFENDING DEMOCRACY |
GROUPS FIGHT BACK AGAINST FLORIDA?S CHILLING
VOTER REGISTRATION LAW
Advancement Project and several allies sued in May
to challenge a new Florida law that imposes
crippling fines on voter registration groups for
accidental or innocent missteps in attempting to
comply with complex and oppressive new rules. The
plaintiffs, civic organizations and voting rights
groups that have been working in Florida through
many election cycles without government
interference, say that the law has shut down or
dramatically curtailed their efforts to help
eligible voters get on the rolls.
In filing the lawsuit on behalf of the League of
Women Voters of Florida, Miami-based People Acting
for Community Together (PACT) and other public
interest and labor groups, Advancement Project
joined with attorneys at the Brennan Center for
Justice and two pro bono law firms, to ask the U.S.
District Court in Miami to immediately suspend the
fines imposed under the challenged law, which went
into effect on January 1.
The challenged law creates a punitive and
complicated tiered regime of deadlines and fines.
For each and every voter registration form submitted
more than ten days after the form was collected from
a prospective voter, the government will impose a
fine of $250, while there is a $500 fine for each
registration form submitted after a registration
deadline. If a registration form
is not submitted at all, for any reason, the fine
per form jumps to $5,000. Most chilling to
plaintiffs? activities is the law?s adoption of a
?strict liability? legal standard, meaning that no
extenuating circumstance -- not even destruction of
an office by a hurricane -- will excuse the failure
to submit a registration form.
Plaintiffs say the impact of multiple fines would
devastate the budgets of many non-partisan voter
registration groups. For example, the entire annual
budget for the Florida League of Women Voters is
$80,000, or the equivalent of just 16 lost
registration forms. At the same time, virtually
everyone associated with an organization -- from a
volunteer canvasser to the organization?s Board
chair -- can be held personally responsible for
paying the fines.
The Court has scheduled a combined hearing on
preliminary injunction and trial on the merit
for July 18. [for a copy of the Complaint, click here.]
For more information, click:
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT CONSIDERS OPTIONS IN
FLORIDA CHECKBOXES CASE
Advancement Project is disappointed with a recent
action by the federal court in Miami, which for the
second time has dismissed claims in a case
challenging the rejection of voter registration
forms in Florida because applicants accidentally
failed to mark one of several small, redundant, and
immaterial checkboxes on the FL registration form.
After Advancement Project succeeded on appeal in
overturning the district court?s 2004 dismissal of
this case, the case was returned to the same federal
judge. On June 21, that judge issued an order
dismissing claims about the checkboxes themselves,
but allowed to go forward our claims that
defendants failed to provide voter registration
applicants with timely notice or an opportunity to
cure purported deficiencies.
Advancement Project believes that the dismissal of
some of our claims is in error and we are currently
weighing our options.
Click here for more information:
Click below to view related documents in Diaz v.
Cobb in chronological order:
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT GIVES ARIZONA NOTICE OF
NVRA VIOLATIONS
On May 16th, Advancement Project, Project Vote,
ACORN, and our pro-bono counsel informed the
Secretary of State of Arizona that we plan to sue
the state for requiring documentary proof of U.S.
citizenship in order to register to vote.
Our notice letter builds on a related finding by the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which
previously informed Arizona;s Secretary of State
that refusing to accept the federal voter
registration form without supplemental proof of
citizenship directly violates the National Voter
Registration Act (NVRA). Our letter concludes that
the state is also violating the NVRA by refusing to
accept the Arizona mail-in voter registration form
without additional proof of citizenship. Despite
numerous notices, Arizona has steadfastly refused to
drop its proof of citizenship rule. [click here to read the letter]
To litigate our claim over the Arizona mail-in
registration form, we had agreed to join forces with
the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education
Fund (MALDEF), which filed a complaint on behalf of
Latino voters on May 9. Unfortunately, before we had
time to intervene, the court in the MALDEF case
recently denied a request for a temporary
restraining order (TRO). We are now assisting MALDEF
in exploring all legal options in light of the
court?s adverse ruling on MALDEF?s request for a
TRO. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled
for July.
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT REVIEWS ID
STATUTE
In a very unusual proceeding, the Michigan Supreme
Court, at the request of the state's House of
Representatives, will render an advisory opinion on
whether the state's picture ID law is
unconstitutional under the state or federal
constitution. The 1999 Michigan law requires voters
to present a photo ID at the polling place in order
to be able to vote. The law has never been enforced,
because the Attorney General of Michigan ruled that
it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment. |
| MATERIALS YOU CAN USE |
THE NUTSHELLS RETURN!
In 2004 Advancement Project created the ?Nutshell?
series - state-specific ?Voter Protection Laws In A
Nutshell? - to distill complex election law for
lawyers, advocates, voter registration campaigns and
"Get Out the Vote" campaigns. They combine state
election law with state regulations, rules, attorney
general opinions and other election materials to
provide a comprehensive interpretation of the law
and practices that impact elections. While these
publications do not cover every provision of state
election law, they highlight those provisions which
in our experience have most seriously affected the
voting rights of minority voters. (for archived
2004 Nutshells, click here)
Advancement Project is creating 2006 editions of the
Nutshells for the states where we are working
this year. The 2006 editions are fully updated with
the many changes and revisions in election law and
regulations since 2004. Nutshells are currently
available for the following states:
Stay tuned; more Nutshells are on the way.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORTS ? COMPREHENSIVE
SUMMARY OF 2004 VOTER COMPLAINTS
During the 2004 election, voters from around the
country reported thousands of incidents that
restricted their access to the ballot box.
Advancement Project has meticulously examined these
voter complaints and summarized them by state and
locality. These reports often provide a roadmap of
the problems and issues that need to be resolved
before the next elections.
Currently, ?Unfinished Business? reports are
available for the following states, with several
more reports on the way:
Advancement Project has developed ?recommended
practices? guide to assist voter registration
programs in verifying that registration applications
are properly processed by election offices and in
taking other steps to protect voter rights.(click here for a copy) |
|
