VOTER PROTECTION VICTORIES

Florida Third-Party Voter Registration Case Ends in Victory
Court Ruling Having Domino Effect in Other States

Advancement Project helped to attain a tremendous court victory in August when the federal court in Miami enjoined Florida's most recent voter suppression scheme—chilling registration by imposing crippling fines on voter registration groups. In a favorable decision handed down in League of Women Voters v. Cobb, brought by Advancement Project, the Brennan Center, and two private law firms, the court blocked enforcement of the new Florida law that penalizes voter registration groups and their individual workers for even inadvertent failures to turn in registration applications within ten days. (For background on this case, read “Testimony Highlights Burdens Of Florida Law On Historically Disenfranchised Citizens” Democracy in Action, August 2006).

This Florida victory also influenced a federal court in Ohio to strike down a similar law penalizing voter registration groups. We further expect the Florida precedent to be extremely helpful in a similar case in Georgia that Advancement Project is litigating with Project Vote and a private law firm. That case challenges administrative requirements that Georgia imposes on voter registration activities, as violations of the First Amendment and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). (For more information on the pending lawsuit in Georgia, read “Advancement Project Sues Georgia State Election Board over Unconstitutional Voting Restrictions,” in this issue).  The favorable ruling may also have positive implications in New Mexico and Colorado.

Media Pressure Forces Maryland State Board of Elections to Back Down
False Voting Information Corrected, Maryland Voters Informed of their Rights

Approximately 8,500 would be voters in the state of Maryland received a letter from county election boards indicating that additional information was needed in order to process their voter registration applications because the state was unable to verify the driver’s license or social security number provided on the application.  The letter goes on to say that until the requested information is received, the applicant will not be registered to vote.  These letters created a tremendous problem by giving the impression that these voters are not registered and would not be allowed to vote in the September 11 primary. The truth is that these voters had been added to the voter rolls in a “pending” status and could bring the necessary identification to their polling places and vote by provisional ballot.

Advancement Project asked the State Board of Elections to send out a follow up letter to the 8,500 applicants letting them know that they could in fact vote via provisional ballot accompanied with some form of identification in the upcoming primary election—the state refused. 

However, after Advancement Project launched a media campaign informing voters of their rights and exposing the misleading letter distributed by Maryland county election boards, Mary Cramer Wagner, director of voter registration for the Maryland State Board of Elections, subsequently said to the Baltimore Sun and on local television newscasts that the letter would be reworded in time for the general election on November 7.

Missouri Voter Registration Form Shortage Resolved
Situation Provides Opportunity to Explore Other Concerns

Two weeks ago, Advancement Project averted a potentially serious threat to voter registration activities in Missouri.  A seriously depleted supply of voter registration forms presented a significant hurdle for voter registration efforts in the state and threatened to disenfranchise potential voters.  In August, several Missouri voter registration organizations reported to Advancement Project that they were running out of applications and that the secretary of state’s office did not have any more cards and would not provide an estimated date of when the voter registration cards would be reprinted. Compounding the issue, Advancement Project discovered that the secretary of state’s office removed the downloadable version of the Missouri voter registration form from its website. With just over a month before the registration deadline, the groups needed more cards—right away.

On August 30, Advancement Project sent a letter to the office of Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan indicating that if the reports were true, they raised concerns of possible violations under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by the state.  In less than two days, the Secretary of State’s office promised to expedite printing of new cards and to make the new cards available to groups in a few days. The secretary of state also promised to consider Advancement Project’s recommendations for changes to the state’s rules and procedures, including our concern over the requirement that voter registration applications be printed on heavy card stock.

This acknowledgement from the secretary of state’s office in Missouri is a key first step in an investigation into the election practices and procedures in the state.  Advancement Project will continue to follow up on these concerns and to act as a watchdog for unlawful election practices in Missouri and other states.

ON THE GROUND

Latino Conference Convenes in L.A.
Gathering is First of its Kind in More Than Two Decades

Billed as the most comprehensive gathering of Latino leaders in the past 22 years, the National Latino Congreso kicked off in Los Angeles on September 6, 2006.  Attendance at the five-day Congreso surpassed expectations; conveners reported registration for the luncheon on the first day exceeded capacity. Among the attendees were delegates representing a number of grassroots organizations from states such as California, Texas, and Arizona.  Advancement Project Staff Attorney M. Aurora Vásquez joined Arizona State Representative Steve Gallardo on a panel to discuss the importance of voter protection generally and leading up to the November 2006 elections.

Audience participation in the workshop was critical as the breadth of what voter protection entails was explored. During the question and answer session, participants contemplated and unveiled strategies for preparing and protecting voters both before and during the pending elections. Key strategies included: developing networks for tracking new Latino registrants to ensure they get onto the rolls; educating the Latino community on the nexus between the Brown and Black community and how barriers—regardless of how they are packaged—have a negative impact on both communities; documenting voters’ experiences at the polls; continuing to improve and monitor election systems post-November 2006 and pre-November 2008; and ensuring both voters and election officials understand some of the most basic but important voting rights, such as the right to request and receive assistance at the polls.

Conference attendees agreed that cumbersome identification demands, proof-of-citizenship requirements, and similar trends are the voting barriers of the civil rights struggle re-packaged for the new millennium,  and they recognized the need for a proactive, vigilant, and united Brown/Black front to ensure the historic struggles will not be repeated.

Strike One for NVRA Purge Rule Violators
Nine States Forewarned about No-Purge Season

Late last month, Advancement Project learned that a jurisdiction in one of the states where our voter protection advocates are working violated the no-purge statute of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The NVRA provision prohibits systematic purging of voter lists 90 days prior to a federal election. Advancement Project responded promptly to protect the rights of voters, taking preemptive action to avoid further illegal purging of names from voter lists. Teaming up with Project Vote, Advancement Project distributed letters to election officials in nine states—Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—issuing notice to all that with Election Day just two months away, it is no-purge season.

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro A. Cortés responded to our letter in writing.  He gave us his assurance that the Department of State “timely reminded [all county] voter registration commissions of this requirement in advance of the November 7, 2006 General Election.”

State Election Directors for Arizona and Michigan also sent letters with assurances of full compliance with this requirement. The Michigan letter raised new questions, however, by claiming that “verification of new voters” is exempt from the 90-day systematic removal prohibition. We immediately began an investigation into this claim.

Advocates Speak Out on the VRA and New Orleans Voting
CBC Annual Event Brings Together Diverse Group of Panelists

The Congressional Black Caucus’ Annual Legislative Conference convened recently in Washington, D.C., featuring a forum discussion titled, “Bringing Back New Orleans One Voter at a Time: The Voting Rights Act (VRA) Reauthorization.” Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson hosted the forum discussion, which included a roster of distinguished panelists:  Advancement Project Staff Attorney Alaina Beverly; Gary Flowers, national field director for the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition; Cedric Richmond, New Orleans Representative and Chair of the Louisiana Black Caucus of State Legislators; Melanie Campbell, executive director and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation; and New Orleans Representative Jalila Jefferson-Bullock.  Donna Brazile, Chair of the Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute, moderated the panel, and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin made a guest appearance. 

The panel analyzed renewal of the Voting Rights Act and its impact on the voting rights of temporarily displaced New Orleans voters after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Emphasizing the need for an accurate accounting of where displaced voters temporarily reside, Beverly advised that voter protection requires us to “assess the [voting rights] landscape, determine which facts we have and those we don’t, and develop a manageable strategy.”  She explained that “the numbers are important for voter outreach, central to advocacy under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and essential to litigation.” Click here for full text of Beverly’s remarks.

Melanie Campbell reviewed the exit poll research conducted by Dr. Silas Lee which indicated a high turnout rate of African-American voters in the New Orleans primary and general elections this past spring and overall satisfaction with the in-person voting process.  

Gary Flowers placed Louisiana’s present disfranchisement of African-American voters in a historical context, noting “Plessy v. Ferguson came out of Louisiana” and explaining “historic racial discrimination in the state is one reason why Louisiana is covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”  Flowers warned that “the battle did not end in the halls of Congress” and encouraged panelists and audience members, alike, to be part of a movement to both keep and enforce the Voting Rights Act, and to bring the citizens of New Orleans home. Both  state legislators, Cedric Richmond and Jalila Jefferson-Bulloch, provided detailed accounts of the actions taken by African-American legislators to protect the vote, including staging a “walkout” to dramatize the urgent need for satellite polling places around the state.

Donna Brazile and Mayor Nagin discussed decision making processes in the context of recovery and rebuilding strategies and stressed the importance of ensuring that temporarily displaced voters have strong voices in those processes.  Mayor Nagin, in particular, noted the irony of conducting his campaign for a municipal office without having access to a list of locations for displaced New Orleans voters that was in the possession of FEMA officials.

The Louisiana primary is scheduled for September 30 and the congressional/general election is scheduled for November 7.

DEFENDING DEMOCRACY

Advancement Project Sues Georgia State Election Board over Unconstitutional Voting Restrictions
Testimony Underscores Impact on Historically Disenfranchised Groups

On September 13, a federal district court in Newnan, Ga., heard testimony and argument in ACORN v. Cox in support of plaintiffs’ motion to block enforcement of Georgia’s restrictions on third-party voter registration.  Georgia’s new regulation, which went into effect on January 17, 2006, requires that completed voter registration applications be separately sealed by an applicant before being handed to a private voter registration worker and prohibits the photocopying of completed voter registration applications.  The regulation is the latest in a series of repeated attempts by Georgia election officials to restrain private entities from engaging in organized voter registration activity as permitted by federal law—even though the same court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals had invalidated and enjoined the previous restrictions on third-party groups.  See Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. v. Cox, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2004) (Wesley Foundation I), aff’d, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2005) (Wesley Foundation II).

During the hearing, Edward DuBose, president of the Georgia State Conference of NAACP Branches, a plaintiff in the case, presented compelling testimony that the new regulations have significantly impaired the NAACP’s ability to register voters by forcing the organization to divert its workers from assisting prospective voters with registration.  Instead, they are forced to spend much of their time on clerical tasks, manually creating lists of registrants and their pertinent information.  Nyana Miller, an election administration coordinator with plaintiff Project Vote, testified that the regulations foreclose Project Vote’s quality control protocols, without which they cannot engage in voter registration at all.

Plaintiffs contend that Georgia’s regulation violates both the National Voter Registration Act and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Georgia, in both briefs and oral argument, has compared the status of voter registration groups to telemarketers, who have now been regulated by the federal “Do Not Call” registry, as if voter registration were just one more commercial activity. 

Plaintiffs were represented ably at the preliminary injunction hearing by Atlanta lawyer Bradley Heard and Brian Mellor of Project Vote.  Elizabeth Westfall and Estelle Rogers of Advancement Project attended and participated as co-counsel on the written briefs and preparation for the argument.  The court is expected to rule on the motion within several weeks.

 

MATERIALS YOU CAN USE

TRANSPARENCY IN THE PROVISIONAL BALLOT COUNTING PROCESS IN MARYLAND

According to news reports and observations made by poll workers, numerous provisional ballots were cast in Maryland’s primary yesterday, including more than 12,000 in Montgomery County alone. This happened due to numerous technological and personnel difficulties experienced by local boards of elections statewide, most notable in Baltimore City, Montgomery County and Prince Georges County. Advancement Project and Project Vote voiced earlier concerns about this election, as noted by the media on Election Day. We want to ensure that these votes are canvassed next Monday, September 18, 2006 and are counted on the second counting of absentee ballots on Wednesday, September 20, 2006. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) gave Maryland the discretion to distribute and count provisional ballots. However a county-by-county variation of this canvass will be unfair to voters and would be unconstitutional.

We therefore make the following policy recommendations for statewide uniformity in the canvass of provisional ballots:

1. Provisional ballots that were voted because of irregularities at the polls and subsequent court orders that extended the poll hours in Montgomery County and Baltimore City must be counted.
2. Provisional ballots that were voted because voters needed to show ID and voters showed the required ID must be counted.
3. Provisional ballots that were voted because voters needed to present a MVA or Social Security Number and they gave either of those numbers must be counted.
4. Provisional ballots that were voted because voters were not list listed on the precinct register, local boards must investigate whether they:
   1. Did attempt to register to vote prior to the voter registration deadline;
   2. Were erroneously cancelled prior to the closing of the poll books.
5. Should there be evidence that they were eligible to vote, their ballots must be counted. The local must search all records (e.g., an original registration application, MVA application, computerized records of the application, and/or correspondence with the applicant) in order to determine why the name was missing from the voter roll. The notation “not registered,” so often used by election officials, does not explain why an applicant who thought he had registered was not. Only the underlying documents can answer this question. They are necessary to determine whether the provisional ballot should count.
6. Provisional ballots that were voted because voters needed to show ID and/or present a MVA or Social Security Number and did not do so on Election Day, local election boards, in the abundance of caution must notify and give them the opportunity provide the identification and/or information by 10: 00 AM September 18, 2006.
7. Voters who cast provisional ballots should inquire with their local board of election to ensure that their ballots were recorded as being voted.

Note: After Wednesday, September 20, 2006, voters can determine whether their provisional ballot was counted by calling 1-800-222-8683 or via the internet at http://www.elections.state.md.us/registered_voters/
provisional_ballot_status_check.html.

1. The information supplied on a provisional ballot should be used to complete a previously-filed, incomplete voter registration application. Applications that were timely filed but for some reason incomplete should be entered on the poll book with a notation that indicates if the voter appears on Election Day and cures the application, she should vote and the provisional ballot be counted.
2. Polling places should be required to have a reasonable number of provisional ballots, equivalent to at least 5% of the registered voters in the precinct. A different “emergency ballot” should be used if there is a breakdown in the electronic voting system. Those ballots should be canvassed on election night along with the electronically recorded votes.
3. Poll workers must be thoroughly trained to administer provisional voting. Poll workers must know to affirmatively use provisional ballots when necessary. They must also be able to clearly communicate to voters the option for provisional voting and give instructions to the voter on how enable her vote to be counted. Poll workers should also have access to a statewide or countywide list of registered voters and their respective precincts. This would allow poll workers to direct voters to their proper precincts. Finally, provisional ballot forms should be clear and easy-to-read, and poll workers should be trained to check that the voters complete provisional ballot envelopes correctly. This included noting the specific ID or information given by the voter to
4. If the provisional ballot is not counted, the provisional ballot envelope should serve as a voter registration application. The applicant must be notified of the disposition their vote pursuant to HAVA and the disposition of this application pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act.
5. Maryland election officials must keep detailed data on provisional voting, and it should be available as a public record.

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION CRUCIAL IN NOVEMBER FOR DISPLACED NEW ORLEANS RESIDENTS

As New Orleans continues to face a housing shortage that will not be abated before the 2006 hurricane season, thousands of citizens will likely remain involuntarily displaced by the fall elections. These displaced voters will once again have no choice but to participate by absentee ballot or return to New Orleans at their own expense to vote, the modern equivalent of a poll tax. It is vital that we protect their meaningful participation in the next election process. Advancement Project has developed a flier that groups on-the-ground can use to inform displaced New Orleans residents of how the absentee voting process works.

PENNSYLVANIA CAN’T KEEP YOUR VOTE BEHIND BARS

No single existing voting rights inequity seems a starker injustice than the plight of people with felony convictions. Their disenfranchisement erodes the promise of the American democratic system. Advancement Project with our community partners in Pennsylvania have created a flier for posting in local barbershops throughout Pennsylvania in an effort to dispel the myth that people with felony convictions do not have the right to vote.