Voting Rights Alerts

Agreement Follows Lawsuit By ACLU And Advancement Project

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

DETROIT – The state of Michigan has agreed to stop two voter-purge programs that unlawfully disfranchised thousands of Michigan voters in violation of federal law. The settlement agreement resolves a lawsuit filed in September 2008 by Advancement Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Michigan and the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP on behalf of the United States Student Association Foundation (USSAF), ACLU of Michigan and Michigan State Conference of the NAACP.

"This is a true victory for Michigan voters," said Bradley Heard, a senior attorney with Advancement Project. "Voter-removal procedures like those at issue in this lawsuit, which allow eligible and registered voters to be suddenly stricken from the rolls without notice, are bad for democracy. We are happy that the state of Michigan finally agreed to right these wrongful practices."

Michigan's voter-purge programs disfranchised Michigan voters with out-of-state driver's licenses or voter-identification records associated with incorrect mailing addresses.

In October 2008, the U.S. District Court in Detroit found that the voter-removal programs likely violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The court issued a preliminary block on a Michigan law requiring local clerks to nullify the registrations of newly-registered voters whenever their voter-identification cards were returned by the U.S. Post Office as undeliverable. Today's settlement agreement permanently ends that practice as well as the practice of purging voters from the rolls who obtained out-of-state driver's licenses without proof that the voter changed residence for voting.

The NVRA permits voters to remain on the voter rolls for at least two federal general election cycles after voter-registration cards are returned as undeliverable. The NVRA also requires that before states purge voters who obtain out-of-state driver's licenses, states must verify that voters actually changed voting residence.

"The affirmative steps Michigan is taking will help restore confidence in an electoral process badly damaged by misguided practices that would have shut out lawful voters from the democratic process," said Meredith Bell-Platts, an attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "The people of Michigan can now be assured that their votes will be counted regardless of whether the postal service could match your street address or when and where you got a driver's license."

Michigan's voter-removal programs had a particularly detrimental impact on students and minority and low-income communities. These populations tend to be more transient and to live in multi-family housing or in dormitory settings where mail can be unreliable and unpredictable. Students often have driver's licenses from different states than where their colleges are located.

"This ruling ensures that, despite the transient lifestyle of college students, they will continue to have an influential voice in the electoral process," said Gregory Cendana, President of USSAF.

"Students and communities of color shouldn't have their right to vote taken away because they didn't receive their mail or have out-of-state driver's licenses," said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan. "We are relieved that Michigan has agreed to take steps to make sure all Michigan voters can make their votes count and their voices heard."

"The resolution of this lawsuit in advance of the 2010 elections will help to eliminate a great deal of voter confusion, particularly in communities of color," said Yvonne White, President of the NAACP Michigan State Conference. "Since our founding, we have constantly worked with our members and coalition partners to fight barriers to voting. We are very proud to have helped facilitate this important settlement agreement that ends the disfranchisement of thousands of our members and Michigan citizens."

Attorneys on the case are Heard of Advancement Project, Bell-Platts of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Moss, Dan Korobkin and Michael Steinberg of the ACLU of Michigan, and Matthew J. Lund, Mary K. Deon and Deborah Kovsky-Apap of Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Legal documents in this case are available at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/united-states-student-association-foundation-et-al-v-land-et-al
 
More information on the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org

More information on Advancement Project is available at: www.advancementproject.org

ACLU Represents NAACP And Voters Affected By Oversight Provision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Alabama filed a motion today in a Washington, D.C. federal court to intervene in a challenge to the Voting Rights Act brought by Shelby County, Alabama. The ACLU charges that Section 5 of the Act, which since 1965 has protected racial and language minorities access to voting across the South and the nation, should remain in place. Section 5 requires certain jurisdictions like Shelby County that have a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain advance approval from the federal government before changing their election laws.

The ACLU filed the intervention on behalf of the Alabama State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and four voters who live in Shelby County.

"Unfortunately, our country has a long history and ongoing problem of racial discrimination and racially polarized voting," said Meredith Bell-Platts, a senior attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "Across the country and in Shelby County there has been a regular recurrence of discriminatory voting practices that have been alleviated by the Section 5 preclearance requirement. It’s clear that we still need this voting rights protection that has enabled millions of voters to overcome the worst voting rights violations."

Shelby County and cities in the county have attempted to circumvent the Section 5 preclearance requirement by unlawfully implementing election plans that dilute the minority vote.

In 2006, without obtaining federal preclearance, the city of Calera in Shelby County held city council elections after conducting nearly 200 annexations and redrawing its city council districts. The redistricting eliminated the only district that gave African-American voters the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. In the subsequent elections, Councilman Ernest Montgomery, the second African-American in the history of Calera to become a member of the city council, lost his seat.

After the changes were challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice under Section 5, Calera was required to redo its discriminatory redistricting plan so that it would not dilute the minority vote and to conduct new elections. Under the remedial plans, Montgomery regained his seat.

"Every eligible voter in Alabama, regardless of race, has the right to have his or her vote count," said Bernard Simelton, President of the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP. "Unfortunately, we have seen that the danger of minority disfranchisement persists. Section 5 is an important part of ensuring equal access to voting is protected."

"The basis of our democracy is that every American citizen has the right to participate equally in the political process," said Olivia Turner, Executive Director of the ACLU of Alabama. "Despite significant progress over the years, many minority voters in Alabama continue to face great obstacles in exercising that right."

Attorneys on the case include Bell-Platts and Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Allison Neal of the ACLU of Alabama, Art Spitzer of the ACLU National Capitol Area and Laura D. Blackburne and Victor L. Goode of the NAACP Office of General Counsel.

The motion for intervention in the case, Shelby County v. Holder, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and can be found online at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/shelby-county-alabama-v-holder-memo-support-motion

More information on the work of the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 410-889-8555; media@aclu-md.org

CRISFIELD, MD ­ Concerned that improper and illegal election procedures may have been used in last week's election in the City of Crisfield, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, on behalf of Mayoral candidate James Lane and several African American voters in Crisfield, has written to the local election board asking for it to conduct an investigation into the procedures used. The letter details a number of alleged irregularities ­ including unlawful voter identification requirements and the failure to offer rejected voters a provisional ballot ­ which appear to have disproportionately affected African American voters.

"We have questions about why certain voters were targeted to show identification, as well as about other troubling election practices that call into question the fairness and legality of the Crisfield election," said Deborah Jeon, Legal Director for the ACLU of Maryland.

The letter, which was also sent to the U.S. Department of Justice, alleges election irregularities:

•  
• Witnesses attest that many prospective voters were unlawfully required to produce identification in order to cast a ballot in this election, and that those who could not produce identification, or whose identification was deemed insufficient by election officials, were turned away from the polls. Voter ID laws have been consistently rejected in Maryland, because they disproportionately affect poor, minority, and elderly voters.
   
• In addition, the identification requirement is alleged to have been enforced unevenly and in a racially discriminatory manner, such that more African American voters than white voters were required to produce identification, and more African American voters were turned away from the polls for lack of identification or inadequate identification.
   
• Witnesses also allege that African Americans who had been newly registered to vote by supporters of African-American candidate James Lane were targeted for identification challenges and with intimidation tactics such as having their pictures taken.  It is alleged that African Americans who live in public housing were one particular focus of this disparate treatment. 
  
• Additionally, we are told that individuals who were rejected at the polls on identification grounds were not uniformly offered provisional ballots, as the law requires.  We understand that at some point a poll watcher began urging election officials to offer rejected voters a provisional ballot, but we cannot know how many voters were turned away without that opportunity. It is also our understanding that the majority of voters who cast their ballots provisionally were African American ­ which reinforces concerns that a majority of those challenged and of those turned away by election officials may have been African American as well.

The letter was drafted by Deborah Jeon and Ajmel Quereshi from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

COLUMBIA, SC – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of South Carolina sent a letter today to the South Carolina State Election Commission asking the commission to require South Carolina counties to copy or preserve the flash memory cards from voting machines used in the June 8 South Carolina primary elections for the U.S. Senate so that the information on the cards can be audited.

There have been numerous complaints about malfunctions with the touch-screen voting machines used in the South Carolina primary elections. Generally, South Carolina counties erase the memory cards for reuse in upcoming elections. The ACLU believes the information on the cards must be saved and audited so that South Carolina voters know whether or not their votes were counted.

In the letter to the commission, the ACLU and the ACLU of South Carolina said, "We take no position on whether there were irregularities sufficient to place the outcome of the election in doubt but believe the voters in South Carolina are entitled to know that their votes were properly counted. That assurance can only be given if the information on the flash cards is preserved and audited."

The full text of the letter is below and online at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-letter-south-carolina-state-election-commission

More information on the work of the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org

June 16, 2010

Marci Andino
Executive Director
South Carolina State Election Commission
2221 Devine Street, Suite 105
Columbia, S.C.  29205

Dear Ms. Andino:

    This is to request that the State Election Commission require the 46 counties in South Carolina to preserve or copy the flash cards (memory chips) inside their touch-screen voting machines used in the June 8, 2010 primary election for United States Senate.  Dr. Douglas Jones, who serves on the Federal Election Assistance Commission's Technical Guidelines Development Committee, has been quoted as saying there is no way the touch-screen machines in South Carolina can be audited without all the information on the computer flash card in each machine.

    This request is made in response to numerous complaints that have been made about malfunctions in the voting machines during the June 8 election.  We take no position on whether there were irregularities sufficient to place the outcome of the election in doubt but believe the voters in South Carolina are entitled to know that their votes were properly counted.  That assurance can only be given if the information on the flash cards is preserved and audited. 

    This request is consistent with the Mission Statement of the State Election Commission, which "is to ensure every eligible citizen has the opportunity to register to vote, participate in fair and impartial elections, and have the assurance that their votes will count."
  
    Your attention to this request will be much appreciated.

                    Sincerely,
                   
                    Laughlin McDonald
                    Director, ACLU Voting Rights Project
                   
                    Victoria Middleton
                    Executive Director, ACLU South Carolina National Office

Onerous Petition Laws Keep Alternative Parties Off Ballot

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

OMAHA, NE – The Libertarian Party joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit today challenging burdensome petition laws that unlawfully keep alternative parties off the Nebraska ballot. The lawsuit, originally filed in December 2009 by the ACLU and ACLU Nebraska, charges that the laws limit political speech, violating Nebraska candidates' and voters' free speech, equal protection and due process rights.

The statutes the Libertarian Party is challenging require all petition circulators to be residents of Nebraska and that "Scarlet Letter" language appear on all petitions in large red type, indicating whether the petition gatherers are paid or volunteer, which dissuades many voters from signing petitions. The Libertarian Party is asking the court to immediately block the statutes so it can petition to be on the Nebraska ballot in 2010.

"Modern political reality means that alternative parties often need to use paid and out-of-state circulators to gather signatures," said Bryan Sells, an attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "Nebraska's restrictions on these methods serve no real purpose except to protect the existing parties from competition from candidates with diverse political perspectives and to limit the options of Nebraska voters."

The ban on out-of-state signature gatherers was enacted in 2008 over the governor's veto. The law reduces the pool of petition circulators, making it more difficult for alternative parties to get on the ballot. Combined with Nebraska's other petition requirements, it has effectively shielded the major parties from competition.

"We have a significant and vocal membership in this state, but the unfair requirements have effectively kept us out of Nebraska's political process," said Gene Siadek of the Nebraska Libertarian Party. "It's hard not to see them as a deliberate effort on the part of legislators to keep alternative parties and independent candidates off the ballot."

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Attorneys on the case, Citizens in Charge Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Secretary of State of Nebraska John A. Gale, are Sells and Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU Voting Rights Project and Amy Miller of ACLU Nebraska.

A copy of the complaint-in-intervention is available at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/citizens-charge-foundation-inc-et-al-v-secretary-state-nebraska-john-gale-complaint-in

More information about the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org

Settlement Reached After ACLU Challenged Illegal Disfranchisement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

SIOUX FALLS, SD – The state of South Dakota and Shannon County, South Dakota agreed to restore the voting rights of American Indians who attempted to vote in the 2008 presidential election but were improperly removed from the voter rolls due to felony convictions. The settlement agreement also calls for procedures to prevent future illegal disfranchisement. The agreement follows a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two women of Pine Ridge, South Dakota who were illegally disfranchised. South Dakota state law, which disfranchises individuals sentenced to prison, was improperly applied in this case since both women had been sentenced to probation.

"Voters who had been convicted but never incarcerated have now regained their constitutional right to vote," said Nancy Abudu, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "We are extremely happy that South Dakota and Shannon County are making a serious effort to educate the public and election administrators so that in future elections legitimate voters can exercise their constitutional right to vote and fully participate in our democracy."

In addition to restoring voting rights to those improperly removed from the rolls because of felony convictions that never resulted in prison sentences, the settlement agreement also calls for the establishment of procedures to prevent unlawful disfranchisement from happening in the future, including increased training for election officials and public education.

Kim Colhoff and Eileen Janis, represented by the ACLU, registered to vote for the first time in 1974 and 1984, respectively, and remained on the voter rolls until early 2008, after they were each convicted of a felony offense and sentenced to five years probation but no jail time. Despite the fact that South Dakota only disfranchises those sentenced to prison, Colhoff and Janis were removed from the voter rolls without any notice and denied the right to vote at their polling places when they attempted to vote in the historic 2008 presidential election. In front of several other voters, election officials refused to allow Janis to cast either a regular or provisional ballot.

"I'm very happy that we were able to settle this case with Shannon County and the state," said Janis. "I hope that their efforts to better educate election officials and the public in general about the state's felon disfranchisement law will result in more people exercising their right to vote."

The ACLU filed a lawsuit on Colhoff's and Janis' behalf in February 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of South Dakota. The lawsuit charged that South Dakota officials' illegal disfranchisement of individuals with felony convictions has had a disproportionate and negative impact on American Indian voters who are overly represented in South Dakota's criminal justice system. The lawsuit also contended that the removal of individuals' names from the state and county voter registration lists based on felony convictions for which they were sentenced only to probation violated their rights to equal protection and due process under the federal and state constitutions, the Help America Vote Act, the National Voter Registration Act and Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

"This settlement clears the confusion regarding the South Dakota felony disfranchisement laws and adds significant protections to American Indians' voting rights in South Dakota," said Robert Doody, Executive Director of the ACLU South Dakota Chapter. "Unfortunately, felony disfranchisement laws in South Dakota have a disproportionate impact on American Indians who represent the majority of those convicted of felonies at the federal level."

Attorneys on this case are Abudu, Bryan Sells and Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Doody of the ACLU South Dakota Chapter and cooperating attorney Patrick Duffy.

More information on the case, including the state's settlement agreement, the ACLU's complaint and first amended complaint in Janis v. Nelson are available at: www.aclu.org/racial-justice-voting-rights/janis-v-nelson

An ACLU report providing a historical overview of systemic discrimination against American Indians, limiting their ability to participate in local, state and national elections, can be found at: www.aclu.org/racial-justice_voting-rights/voting-rights-indian-country

More information about the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACTS: Maria Archuleta, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Stacie B. Royster, Lawyers’ Committee, (202) 662-8317; sroyster@lawyerscommittee.org
Nina Perales, MALDEF, (210) 224-5476

ATLANTA – A coalition of civil rights groups argued before a federal court in Atlanta today that Georgia’s citizenship voter-verification procedures discriminate against minorities and should be permanently blocked absent federal preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Under the procedures, U.S. citizens from minority communities were incorrectly flagged as non-citizens and prevented from registering to vote.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires jurisdictions with a history of discrimination in voting to obtain federal approval before implementing any changes in their practices or procedures affecting voting.

The civil rights coalition includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers’ Committee), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), Georgia attorney Brian Spears and the law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. The coalition represents Cherokee County resident Jose Morales, the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Center for Pan Asian Community Services.

“There is no doubt that racial and language minorities in Georgia would be subject to discrimination in voting if these voter-verification procedures were allowed to be implemented again,” said Laughlin McDonald, Director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “We have already seen that during the short time they were in effect, U.S. citizens were unlawfully prevented from registering.”

The contested voter-registration procedures flag certain voter-registration applicants and some types of already-registered voters as non-citizens based on records from the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS). The records, however, contain out-of-date citizenship information because DDS fails to update them to reflect the thousands of Georgia residents who become U.S. citizens each year. The state’s own data has shown that the procedures have incorrectly flagged thousands of Georgia citizens who submitted voter-registration applications as non-citizens.

“These flawed procedures would burden or deny the right to vote to many thousands of eligible Georgia voters,” said Robert A. Kengle, an attorney with the Voting Rights Project of the Lawyers’ Committee, who argued the case today. “These procedures should be permanently blocked.”

The coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the voting procedures in October 2008 after a number of U.S. citizens had been incorrectly flagged as non-citizens. Those who were flagged were denied the right to vote unless they presented written evidence of citizenship.

A federal court in Atlanta issued a preliminary block on the procedures on October 27, 2008, because the Georgia Secretary of State implemented the measures without obtaining Section 5 preclearance.

In May 2009, after Georgia finally submitted the procedures for Section 5 review, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) found that the state failed to prove that they did not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters and refused to preclear them.

“Georgia’s discriminatory voter-identification measures primarily affect racial minorities,” said Nina Perales, an attorney with MALDEF. “The state’s attempt to disenfranchise minority U.S. citizens didn’t make it past the Department of Justice and it won’t hold up in court either.”

Despite DOJ’s findings, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has announced that he intends to file a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. seeking court preclearance of the flawed voter-registration practices.

“The question before the court here in Georgia today is simply whether these procedures should be permanently enjoined,” said Kengle. “But Georgia has failed repeatedly to prove to the Department of Justice that these procedures were non-discriminatory, and we are confident that the federal court in the District of Columbia would find them discriminatory as well.”

Attorneys on the case, Morales et al. v. Kemp et al., include McDonald and Meredith Bell-Platts of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Kengle, Jon Greenbaum and Mark A. Posner of the Lawyers’ Committee, Perales of MALDEF, Brian Spears of the Law Office of Brian Spears and Jason S. Pielemeier and Young K. Lee of Debevoise & Plimpton.

The coalition’s supplemental brief for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division can be found online at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/morales-v-kemp-supplemental-brief

The coalition’s complaint can be found online at: www.aclu.org/votingrights/access/39714lgl20090310.html

Civil Rights Division Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King’s letter blocking the procedures can be found online at: www.aclu.org/votingrights/access/39715res20090529.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Richmond, VA – Governor Robert McDonnell today announced new procedures for restoring felons' voting rights that could increase the number of restorations in Virginia.

According to the Governor's news release the waiting period for non-violent offenders to have their rights restored will be reduced from three to two years, and all applications for restoration will be processed within 60 days of the necessary information having been gathered from the applicant, the courts and other agencies. The waiting period for re-applying for restoration of rights after being rejected has also been reduced, from two years to one.

"These changes are commendable, but it's the results that matter in the end," said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.  "The Governor will need to both implement these technical changes and devote more resources to the voter restoration process in order to increase the numbers."

"We feel like this is just the beginning of a real conversation with the Governor about reforming the voter restoration process in Virginia," added Willis.  "Even with these changes, Virginia will still rank last or next to last in the nation in restoration of voting rights, and there will still be more than 300,000 disenfranchised felons here."

Virginia and Kentucky are the only two states that permanently disfranchise all felons, leaving the restoration process up to the Governor.  Advocates for reform continue to focus most of their energies on amending Virginia's Constitution to allow for restoration through an administrative process.

"Today's message from the Governor about the importance of restoring voting rights is a positive one, not just for felons who have lost their voting rights, but for legislators who will be considering amendments to the Virginia Constitution this January," said Willis.

The announcement seems to be a turnabout for the new administration on restoration of voting rights.  Shortly after taking office, the Governor's staff began sending letters to non-violent voter restoration applicants indicating that, in addition to filling out the regular form, they would be required to write a letter to the Governor describing their efforts to rehabilitate themselves-- including education, employment, community service, church activities -- and explaining why they deserved to have their rights restored. 

Amid criticism from voting rights advocates in Virginia and across the nation, the Governor's office halted the letter-writing requirement and announced that it would wait to make permanent changes to the process.  Groups such as the ACLU, the NAACP, the Virginia Interfaith Center, the Virginia League of Women Voters, and the Virginia Organizing Project met with the Governor's staff to recommend reforms to the process.
   
The Governor's press release and new forms for restoration of voting rights are available at: www.commonwealth.virginia.gov/JudicialSystem/Clemency/restoration.cfm

Group Argues "Sore Loser" Statute Violates Free Association Rights

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

RICHMOND, VA – The American Civil Liberties Union argued in a federal appeals court in Virginia today that South Carolina's so-called "sore loser" statute unconstitutionally violates the rights of voters and parties to select the candidates of their choosing. The statute prevents candidates who seek nominations from multiple parties from appearing on the ballot if they lose any one party's nomination.

The challenged statute blocked Eugene Platt, the Green Party's chosen candidate for the state House of Representatives, from appearing on the ballot in the November 2008 elections because he later lost the Democratic Party's primary nomination.
 
"Voters and parties have the right to put the candidates of their choice on the ballot," said Bryan Sells, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project, who argued the case today. "The U.S. Constitution provides special protection for the process in which a political party selects a nominee that best represents its ideology and preferences."

South Carolina is one of only a handful of states that permit fusion voting, which allows multiple political parties to nominate the same candidate. However, the state's "sore loser" statute blocks a candidate from appearing on the ballot if he or she loses any party's nomination even if another party selects that candidate as its nominee.

The ACLU's lawsuit charges that the statute imposes an unjustified burden on the First Amendment's free association rights of candidates and voters as well as political parties' right to select their preferred candidates.

"South Carolina's election scheme rejects the First Amendment's fundamental protections and makes the outcome of one party's primary dependent on the outcome of every other party's nominating process," said Sells. "The real losers here are the democratic process and the voters of South Carolina who are being denied greater choices at the ballot box."

Attorneys on the case, South Carolina Green Party et al. v. South Carolina State Election Commission et al., are Sells and Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU Voting Rights Project.

The ACLU's legal brief in the case is available at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/south-carolina-green-party-et-al-v-south-carolina-state-election-commission-et-al-appe

More information on the work of the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (786) 363-2737 or media@aclufl.org

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida sent a letter to Governor Charlie Crist this morning urging him to veto a damaging piece of legislation – HB 131.  The bill would delay by an additional four years – until 2016 – the right of voters with disabilities to vote on reliable paper ballot voting machines. This is a full eight years after legislation – praised by Governor Crist in 2007 – gave that right to all other Florida voters.

The technology, which is already available, was supposed to be deployed for voters with disabilities in 2012, four years after most voters began using voting systems that provide a paper trail.

"All voters – including voters with disabilities – should be able to vote knowing that their votes will be accurately recorded and counted," said Muslima Lewis, senior attorney and Director of the ACLU of Florida's Voting Rights and Racial Justice Projects.  "The state is relegating voters with disabilities to a second-class voting status—essentially saying 'your vote doesn't count as much as everyone else's.'

"The technology exists to bring everyone on board with paper ballot voting systems. The governor's veto of HB 131 will bring increased integrity to Florida elections, and protect the right to vote for all Floridians," added Lewis.

The full text of the ACLU's letter is below, or you can download a PDF of the letter to Gov. Crist here: www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Veto131_ACLU.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

ST. LOUIS – A federal appeals court today declined to block an elections system that dilutes the American Indian vote in the city of Martin, South Dakota. The divided 7-4 opinion was issued by the full panel of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and follows a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union in April 2002 on behalf of two American Indian voters. The lawsuit argued that a redistricting plan adopted by the city in 2002 prevented American Indian voters from having an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
 
American Indians make up approximately 45 percent of the city's population but the redistricting plan ensures that white voters control all three city council districts.

The following can be attributed to Bryan Sells, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project:

"Everyone deserves an equal voice in the selection of city officials, but today's ruling will mean that the city of Martin can continue to use a redistricting plan that gives non-Indian voters an overwhelming majority in each of the three city council districts. We are extremely disappointed that American Indian voters, who make up more than a third of the city's voting-age population, will effectively have no voice in their government."
 
Today's decision is available online at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/cottier-et-al-v-city-martin-opinion-0

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (786) 208-7203 or media@aclufl.org

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – As the 2010 Florida Legislative Session ends today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida takes a look at some of the most dangerous anti-civil liberties bills that were adopted.

"From the 'unfair districts' proposal to anti-choice and anti-women's rights amendments, legislators took power away from Floridians and expanded the power of government to control people's lives," said Courtenay Strickland, ACLU of Florida Public Policy Director.

"Every proponent of this bill might as well have declared in floor debate: 'I am not a doctor, I just play one in the Florida Legislature.' "The manner in which legislators are encroaching into the private medical decisions of Floridians reminds us that big government is very much alive, despite all the political rhetoric about the need for smaller government," continued Strickland.  "It is as if our legislature, once again dictating medical practice, learned nothing from the disgraceful Schiavo episode."

HB 1143 Anti-choice Bill

This bill is political interference in a woman's most personal, private medical decisions.  Women, in partnership with their physicians, should decide what medical procedures are necessary. Every woman should have the information she needs to protect her health and make the best decision for her circumstances. Doctors, not Florida legislators, are the best people to make these decisions.

The information a woman receives from her doctor should allow her to protect her health and to make the best decision for her circumstances – it should not be written to coerce or shame or pressure the woman into making a decision that is not right for her.

Although Americans do not all feel the same way about abortion, what's most important is that women's health and well-being are protected, and that medical decisions are not politicized.

This legislation will result in hundreds of thousands of women losing employer-based health insurance coverage of abortions. The bill goes far beyond the federal plan by prohibiting health insurance companies that are part of the health exchange from offering policies that cover abortions. Businesses that receive tax credits will be restricted from providing their employees with health insurance that covers abortion even if they don't utilize federal or state subsidies to purchase their plan. In theory, a separate rider could be purchased with private monies, but to-date, those riders are not available in any of the five states with similar laws – and there is no reason to think that they will be available in Florida.

The practical effect of this legislation is to eliminate virtually all coverage by private health plans for abortion. Our legislature has now dictated what kind of insurance a private company can choose to provide to its employees.

"Unfair Districts"

Lawmakers also trampled on the rights of voters, undermining a ballot proposal that was signed by nearly 1.7 million Floridians to create a fair redistricting process. The proposal created by the legislature attempts to deceive voters into thinking it will clarify the Fair Districts proposals placed on the ballot by the voters, when in fact it will undermine those efforts and weaken protections for minority districts.

Floridians have spoken, editorial boards have spoken, interest groups from all persuasions have spoken – but our lawmakers are not listening.

"The most gerrymandered legislature in the U.S. voted to weaken a citizen-backed proposal to end gerrymandering. Disappointing, yes, but it should not come as a surprise," said Howard Simon, ACLU of Florida Executive Director. "To top it off, they did do so dishonestly – claiming that it was just a clarification of the citizen-backed redistricting initiative."

Decision Comes In ACLU Lawsuit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

CHEYENNE, WY – A federal court in Wyoming ruled late Thursday that the at-large method of electing officials to the County Board of Commissioners in Fremont County, Wyoming discriminates against American Indian voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits the use of voting practices that dilute minority voting strength. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of American Indian voters on the Wind River Reservation in Fremont County challenging the county's elections procedures.

"Every American has the right to participate equally in the political process," said Laughlin McDonald, Director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "The court recognized that voting in Fremont County is unfortunately polarized along racial lines and that the county's election procedures unfairly diluted the American Indian vote."

Today's decision overturns the at-large elections of Fremont County Commissioners and requires the implementation of district elections. A final hearing as to the remedy and a timetable for its implementation is set for August 13, 2010. Under an at-large system, where all voters can vote on all seats up for election, a bloc voting majority can control the outcome of all elections. District elections, where voters choose candidates from their area, are recognized as a remedy for minority vote dilution.

"At-large elections can severely hinder minority vote participation," said McDonald. "We're relieved that a much fairer system will be implemented."

Approximately 20 percent of Fremont County residents are American Indian, yet prior to the filing of the lawsuit no American Indian had ever been elected to the five-member board of commissioners. According to the ACLU, American Indian voters in the western United States face the same kind of voting discrimination that has plagued black voters in the south for generations.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in October 2005, and in response, Fremont County asked the court not only to uphold its elections procedures but to rule that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, in 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an official notice of intervention in the case arguing that the court should uphold Section 2 and supporting the ACLU's lawsuit. In January 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled that Section 2 was constitutional.

Attorneys on the case, Large v. Fremont County, include McDonald, Bryan Sells and Meredith Bell-Platts of the ACLU Voting Rights Project and Andrew Baldwin and Berthenia Crocker, ACLU cooperating attorneys in Lander, Wyoming.

Today's U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming decision can be found at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/large-v-fremont-county-opinion

The court's 2007 decision upholding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be found at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/large-v-fremont-county-order-denying-motion-summary-judgment

The ACLU's complaint can be found at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/large-v-fremont-county-complaint

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (786) 363-2737 or media@aclufl.org

MIAMI – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida today denounced the vote by Florida House members to place HJR 7231 – an anti-voter amendment – on the November ballot. HJR 7231 and its Senate companion, SJR 2288, dubbed the "Unfair Districts" proposal, would undermine and override ballot measures 5 and 6, which would create a fair reapportionment process in Florida.

Nearly 1.7 million Floridians signed petitions to place Amendments 5 and 6 – the Fair Districts proposal – on the ballot, availing themselves of Florida's citizen initiative process that gives citizens a voice in the lawmaking process.

"In passing HJR 7231, our legislators are making a mockery of our citizen initiative process and disrespecting the nearly 1.7 million Floridians who want the chance for a clean up/down vote on the Fair Districts proposals," said Courtenay Strickland, ACLU of Florida Public Policy Director. "HJR 7231 and its companion, SJR 2288, are intended to confuse voters and are nothing more than a blatant act of self-interest by politicians who are more concerned about holding onto power than about respecting the will of the people."

Neither SJR 2288 nor HJR 7231 prohibit the drawing of districts for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring a political party or incumbent, nor do the proposals have a provision for making districts compact or for requiring districts to follow local boundaries. Without these provisions, map drawers will have free reign to design districts to favor themselves or their colleagues.

"No one should be surprised that a one of the nation's most gerrymandered legislatures voted to dilute an amendment designed to eliminate gerrymandering in Florida," said Howard Simon, ACLU of Florida Executive Director. "What's worse is that it was not done honestly – proponents claimed that this amendment would 'clarify' the Fair Districts amendments when in fact they dilute them and override their intent."

Furthermore, SJR 2288 and HJR 7231's purported safeguards for minority voters – voters who have traditionally faced unfair barriers to exercising their right to vote – certainly provide no better protection, and likely much less, than the Fair Districts language, which has been studied and vetted and is known to add protections for minority voters that do not exist today.

"It's time for voters to be able to select their representatives, not the other way around," said Muslima Lewis, ACLU of Florida Senior Attorney and Director of the ACLU of Florida's Voting Rights and Racial Justice Projects. "Apparently, that notion is so threatening to some of our elected officials that they are willing to attempt to deceive and confuse voters in order to prevent that from happening. In the end, Floridians won't be hoodwinked by their shameful tactics."

Changes Would Dilute Minority Vote

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WINNSBORO, SC – In a letter sent today to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the American Civil Liberties Union urged the DOJ to object to changes to board elections for the Fairfield County School District in South Carolina because the changes would dilute the voting strength of minorities in Fairfield County. Because of its history of discrimination against minority voters, South Carolina is required under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to preclear changes to election procedures before they may be implemented.

The changes, authorized by a bill passed by the South Carolina Legislature, allow the Fairfield County legislative delegation to appoint two additional members to the Board of Trustees of the Fairfield County School District, increasing its size from seven to nine. The existing members of the board were elected by residents of Fairfield County in district elections. Fairfield County and the Board of Trustees of the Fairfield County School District are majority African-American.

"Allowing members of the state legislative delegation to appoint board members of the Fairfield County school district circumvents the power of county voters, the majority of whom are black, to elect their own local officials," said Laughlin McDonald, Director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "That violates one of the central tenants of our democracy, that every American citizen has the right to participate equally in the political process."

In its comment letter to the DOJ, the ACLU says that the changes to the board's elections would have a retrogressive effect on minority voting strength in the county in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The letter points out that appointing additional members to the board would dilute the power of the existing seven board members, six of whom are black. More importantly, it would dilute the power of voters of Fairfield County, which is 59 percent black, to select all the members of the Board of Trustees.

"It's clear that the changes to the school board elections in Fairfield County would dilute the minority vote in the county and don't meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act," said Herbert Buhl, the cooperating attorney in Columbia, South Carolina who co-wrote the letter to the DOJ. "The DOJ should object to them."

The South Carolina legislation authorizing the appointments was crafted by Sen. Creighton Coleman and Rep. Boyd Brown. Their stated purpose was to offset an existing four-member majority voting bloc on the Board of Trustees that the legislators claim is stymieing progress.

The ACLU letter outlines the long history of segregation and racial discrimination in South Carolina and Fairfield County and the obstacles to voting minorities have faced there, including racially polarized voting and as late as the 1980s, reports of whites threatening blacks to stay away from the polls. The ACLU has represented black voters in Fairfield County in two prior cases challenging discriminatory voting practices.

The ACLU's letter to the DOJ, co-authored by McDonald and Buhl, can found at: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-letter-doj-objecting-changes-fairfax-county-board-trustees-elections

More information about the ACLU Voting Rights Project can be found at: www.aclu.org/votingrights/index.html

Democracy Restoration Act Needed To Restore Fundamental Civil Rights, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – A House Judiciary Subcommittee is holding a hearing today on restoring voting rights in federal elections to millions of Americans who have been disfranchised because of criminal convictions. The American Civil Liberties Union commends the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties for holding the hearing, and submitted a written statement to leaders in the House to pass the Democracy Restoration Act, H.R. 3335, a bill that would restore one of the most fundamental rights – the right to vote – to millions of disfranchised Americans.

"Nearly four million people in America are working, paying taxes, and raising families in our communities, yet they are unable to cast a ballot," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The strength of America's democracy relies on the civic involvement of its citizens, and the Democracy Restoration Act would ensure that all citizens who are not incarcerated can head to the polls to have their voices heard."

The Democracy Restoration Act would restore voting rights in federal elections to millions of Americans who have been released from prison, ensure that probationers never lose their right to vote in federal elections and notify people about their right to vote in federal elections. The uniform federal standard in this bill would eliminate confusion for citizens and election administration officials alike due to variations in state law. Several law enforcement officials, members of the faith community and civil rights and legal organizations have spoken out in support of this legislation.

"By denying citizens the right to vote because of a criminal conviction, the government endorses a system that expects citizens to contribute to the community, but bars them from participating in the democratic process," said Deborah J. Vagins, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Thankfully, the Jim Crow era in which most of these voting policies originated is long gone – but its impact sadly continues. It's time that the polls opened their doors to allow all citizens in our communities the chance have their voices heard in the political process. The restoration of this basic civil right is long overdue."

States have vastly different approaches to permitting citizens with criminal convictions to vote. Some states permanently disfranchise some, but not all, citizens with felony convictions, while others allow voting after a sentence is completed or after release from prison. Two states, Virginia and Kentucky, permanently disfranchise citizens with felony convictions unless the state approves individual rights restoration. Two other states, Maine and Vermont, allow all persons with felony convictions to vote, even while incarcerated. Other states fall somewhere in between. Unfortunately, there has been widespread confusion about the proper administration of state laws that has contributed to the disfranchisement of even eligible citizens.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee's hearing on the Democracy Restoration Act can be streamed live at: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/caltoday.html

The ACLU statement submitted to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in support of the Democracy Restoration Act (HR 3335) is available at: www.aclu.org/racial-justice-voting-rights/aclu-statement-house-judiciary-subcommittee-constitution-civil-rights-a