Welcome to Bad News Weekly, your rundown of key attacks on voting rights and independent elections across the country – it’s a way to keep up with what the opponents of democracy are up to. We’ll highlight some of the worst anti-voter efforts, with a spotlight on the South, the original frontline in the fight for voting rights, and still its fiercest.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
“If the far-right justices rule that creating a majority-minority district to comply with Section 2 is unconstitutional “race-based redistricting,” they would strip away one of the last remaining tools to protect Americans from unfair maps that weaken their votes and political representation.” – A new report from Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund on the potential impacts of Louisiana v. Callais.
NOTABLE TRENDS
Case to be Reheard by the Supreme Court Next Week Could Lead to Gutting of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act And One-Party Control of Congress: On October 15, the Supreme Court is set to rehear Louisiana v. Callais, a case centered on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), one of the key safeguards against racially discriminatory redistricting. If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 of the VRA, then racially discriminatory maps could spread across the country.
According to a new report from Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund, the elimination of this safeguard could allow Republicans to redraw up to 19 House seats to favor themselves and “crush minority representation in Congress.” After encouragement from President Trump, some states, including Texas, have already been working to redraw their maps. During a hearing in federal court on the recently redrawn maps in Texas, Adam Kincaid, the director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust and the drawer of the maps, testified that he was hired by the Republican National Committee (RNC) to draw the map, that he only received directions from the White House, and that he received no direction to preserve minority congressional districts while drawing the new maps.
STATE ACTIVITY
California • USPS Warned Some Voters to Mail Ballots Back A Week Early: After state Attorney General Rob Bonta warned voters that ballots put in the mail on Election Day may not be counted, San Luis Obispo (SLO) County Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano told voters to mail their ballots at least a week before Election Day, citing USPS’s advice. Cano stated that USPS cannot guarantee that any SLO County ballots will be counted if they are sent after October 28, and that voters who return their ballot after October 28 should bring their ballot into their local post office in-person to have their ballot hand stamped to ensure it is counted. These warnings come because, under new USPS policies, mail dropped off more than 50 miles from a regional process center will not be picked up and postmarked until at least the following day. For SLO County, the postal hub is in Goleta, which is more than 50 miles away from any county resident.
Wisconsin • Judge Ordered the State Election Commission To Verify Citizenship Status of Registered Voters And New Applicants: Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Maxwell ordered the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) to determine whether any noncitizens were registered to vote and to stop accepting all voter registrations without verifying the citizenship status of the applicant. Judge Maxwell’s order did not specify how WEC and local clerks should check citizenship status of new registrants or of people registered to vote, only called for the parties to figure out the process and for it to be substantially completed before the next statewide election, which is February. Wisconsin state agencies later filed a motion asking Judge Maxwell to stay his order, stating that any new citizenship verification process for online voter registration would require months of testing and development and that this system goes beyond what state law requires, which is only proof of residency for new registrants, which Judge Maxwell has granted.
ANTI-VOTING GROUP ACTIVITY
Judicial Watch’s Case Pushing for Candidates to be Allowed to Challenge Election Laws Was Heard by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.), as a candidate, had standing to challenge Illinois law that allows ballots mailed by Election Day to be counted for up to 14 days after polls close, a case brought by the right-wing legal group Judicial Watch. Lower courts ruled against Bost, finding that he had failed to show he was individually harmed by the law since he won. If the justices return an opinion that Bost suffered an injury from the state law and does have standing, it could lead to more election-related lawsuits filed. However, Bost’s lawyer, former solicitor general Paul Clement, also argued that any federal candidate should have automatic standing to challenge election laws, which, if adopted by the justices, could lead to a flood of election law challenges across the country.
Public Interest Legal Foundation Asked the Supreme Court to “Turn Pro-Voting Law Into Tool for Voter Purges”: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) asked the Supreme Court to take up its lawsuit against Michigan after lower courts sided with the state. PILF’s petition focuses on the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), particularly a provision of the law that requires states to make “reasonable” efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls. PILF argues that “reasonable” demands far more aggressive voter removals than states currently do. Their petition also argues that the NVRA’s public disclosure provisions empowers the organization to sue states for voter data when they decline to provide it.
It’s a little difficult to push the “like” button since I don’t like what I’m reading, but thank you for keeping track of these unpleasant and frightening efforts against voting rights.