GOP: Voter maps aided Democrats

Republicans trying to discredit Arizona's current legislative-district map told a federal court Monday that the new political lines were drawn deliberately to benefit Democrats and dilute the power of GOP voters.

Monday's session kicked off a weeklong hearing before a panel of three federal judges who must decide if the new map was skewed so heavily that it unconstitutionally denied Republicans their right to equal protection under the law.

At stake is whether the new boundary lines, which were used in the 2012 election, will hold or whether the panel will send the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission back to the drawing board.

On Monday, attorney David Cantelme laid out his case that everything from the way the five-member commission picked its attorneys to the way it set about drawing 30 new legislative districts was designed to benefit Democrats.

And he suggested the commission had access to incumbent politicians' home addresses, which showed up in a computer file of the commission, although it later could not be found.

Access to such data, and using it to create a legislative map, would be a big "no-no," Cantelme observed as he questioned Commissioner Richard Stertz.

Stertz, a Tucson Republican appointed to the panel by then-Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, agreed it would be improper but said he had no knowledge of such a file.

The commission consists of two Republicans, two Democrats and a registered independent, who serves as chairman.

Through his questioning of Stertz, Cantelme established that the commission quickly split along partisan lines, with Chairwoman Colleen Mathis voting with the Democrats on the commission's more pivotal issues.

Cantelme zeroed in on the changes made to the commission's 10 "majority minority" districts, which were key to ensuring that the Arizona map would meet the criteria of the federal Voting Rights Act. The U.S. Department of Justice must preclear any changes to election law in Arizona to ensure the ability of minorities to elect a candidate of their choosing is not diminished.

Once it was clear the 10 districts would likely pass Voting Rights muster, Cantelme said, the commission continued to adjust the lines and in most cases reduced the number of minority voters in those areas while still keeping them at levels that would help boost Democratic candidates.

That, Cantelme argued, allowed the commission to "pack" Republican voters into a smaller number of districts while relying on a combination of minority voters and non-minority Democrats to dominate more districts than they otherwise should have. However, Stertz testified that he had complained that the commission was "hyperpacking" districts with Democrats.

After the commission completed its work in early 2012, it was widely believed that Republicans could stake claim to 16 or 17 of the 30 districts and Democrats to 10, with the remainder being competitive.

After the 2012 election, Democrats gained seats, ending the GOP's supermajority. The Senate has 17 Republicans and 13 Democrats, while the House is split 36-24.

A handful of Republican voters, including the wife of Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, filed the lawsuit last year challenging the new boundaries.

Today, the court will hear from a state Democratic Party official who closely followed the redistricting process. Cantelme is expected to grill the official, D.J. Quinlan, over an e-mail he received from then-state Rep. Richard Miranda, D-Phoenix, outlining four districts that would favor minority candidates.

Quinlan forwarded the information to Democratic Commissioner Linda McNulty, and court filings have suggested that this might be evidence of a Democratic conspiracy.

The e-mail outlined the preferences of the Arizona Redistricting Minority Coalition for four minority-dominated districts. Other groups also submitted their own versions of legislative maps, which the commission welcomed.

Stertz testified that the four districts were "untouchable" as the map was being drawn.

Commission attorneys, who had just begun their cross-examination of Stertz late Monday and have yet to call their own witnesses, have said the plaintiffs' arguments are thin at best.

"In the end, plaintiffs can only point to the pattern that the Republican plurality districts are generally slightly overpopulated and Democratic plurality districts are slightly underpopulated, but that alone is not evidence of partisan bias," commission attorneys wrote.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Pennsylvania's Voter ID Law Spurs Debate

Marc Levy/Associated PressPennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai at the Capitol in Harrisburg in 2011.

A top Pennsylvania Republican’s remark this weekend that the state’s new voter ID law would help Mitt Romney win the state has reignited a debate over whether the law is intended to curb fraud, as Republicans say, or to depress Democratic turnout, as Democrats charge.

The remark was made by Mike Turzai, the state’s House majority leader, when he spoke over the weekend to a meeting of the Republican State Committee and ticked off a number of recent conservative achievements by Pennsylvania’s Republican-led legislature.

“Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” he said, according to a report on PoliticsPA.com, a Web site that covers political news.

When Pennsylvania passed a law this year requiring voters to show photo identification before casting ballots, Democrats warned that it would make it harder for many of their supporters — including young voters, and members of minorities — to cast ballots. A number of the state’s colleges, for instance, will have to change the identification cards they issue so students will be able to use them to vote.

A spokesman for Mr. Turzai, Stephen Miskin, said that the remarks, which were made Saturday in Hershey, Pa., were simply meant to underscore that combating voter fraud was important and that doing so would level the playing field in the next election.

He declined to say if he thought that fraud had played a role in past presidential elections in Pennsylvania.

View the original article here

Democrats continue fight against voter ID laws (Daily Caller)

Democrats are battling a growing number of states that are preparing to implement tougher voter identification laws.

Stopping voter ID laws is crucial to Democrats who argue college students, the elderly and minorities will be prevented from voting under the new laws.

“It’s no surprise that these voter suppression efforts are being pushed by Republicans in key swing states,” said Democratic Governor Association spokeswoman Lis Smith.

Republicans pushing to pass such legislation counter that tougher laws will prevent voter fraud and keep ineligible voters from the polling booths.

Now, opponents of the laws don’t just have Republicans to worry about.

Rhode Island’s independent Gov. Lincoln Chafee is the latest to join the voter identification law spree—he signed a tougher bill into law Tuesday after it was passed by the state’s Democratic-controlled house and senate. The governor told The Providence Journal the new law would increase “accuracy and integrity” shortly after signing the bill.

Nearly 20 other states are considering more stringent voter photo identification laws, which has many Democrats crying out in retaliation.

More than 15 Democratic senators have signed a letter calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the legality of states’ “highly restrictive photo identification requirements,” which they allege violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act and, ultimately, civil rights.

Holder’s office would not confirm or deny if it is complying with the request from the senators.

“The Justice Department is monitoring, as it routinely does, this type of legislative activity in the states,” Holder’s office told The Daily Caller.

The letter comes weeks after the Democratic Governors Association embarked on a $50,000 fundraising effort to combat voter ID laws.

The Supreme Court has previously upheld voter photo ID laws. The high court ruled in favor of allowing Indiana to enforce photo identification legislation at voting booths in April 2008. High profile Republicans such as current House Speaker John Boehner praised the decision while civil rights groups like the League of Women Voters and many Democrats denounced it.

The fundraising, which ended June 30, surpassed the $50,000 mark, Smith said.

So far, the DGA has specifically targeted Florida and Wisconsin, where Republican governors recently signed voter ID bills into law.

But the DGA isn’t stopping there.

“It’s definitely a big priority of ours,” Smith said. “I think you’ll see we’re going to be involved in additional states in coming weeks and months, Pennsylvania’s one, Ohio’s another.”

Smith said the issue, which the DGA believes is “aimed directly at Democratic voters,” is a priority because it will stop thousands of eligible voters from coming to the polls in 2012.

Before 2011, nine states already required photo IDs at polls. Seven states have inked new voter ID laws this year.

“If this legislation is successful, it will prevent seniors, students, low income folks, women who’ve gotten their names change because they were married, from being able to cast their vote in the 2012 elections,” Smith said.

Not to be outdone, the Democratic National Committee has started its own push back to stop voter ID legislation from becoming law.

The DNC has focused its energy on the exposing the cost of implementing “unnecessary” new voter ID laws. The DNC estimates the cost of the laws could range between $276 million and $828 million for states, attributing the millions to educating voters.

“The concern is the really isn’t a problem,” said DNC spokesperson Alec Gerlach. “It’s more of a solution in search of a problem. Voter impersonation is not a problem”

Gerlach said the stringent voter ID laws make it difficult for minorities and the elderly to vote.

“I think that minority voters and elderly voters are harder to reach as far education is concerned, if you change the law you have to make the effort to educate,” Gerlach said.

No matter how many attack ads Democrats run against the voter ID laws, Republican-controlled legislatures are undeterred. Ohio’s GOP legislature is expected to vote on a series of voter identification reforms during special session in coming weeks.

“The Ohio Republican Party favors an identification provision that is strict and consistent to ensure integrity in our election process,” Ohio GOP Chairman Mike DeWine said to The Daily Caller in a statement. “Identification requirements should comply with the requirements for registration and remain consistent across all 21 days of voting.”

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Democrats continue fight against voter ID laws

SEC cedes leasing power after putting taxpayers on line for $550 million SNAFU lease

Four governors add names to Cut, Cap and Balance pledge

Senators introduce Sense of the Senate resolution against President acting alone on debt limit

Was Obama almost put up for adoption?

View the original article here

Pennsylvania's Voter Photo ID Bill Passes in House (ContributorNetwork)

Voter photo identification is becoming a huge issue as the 2012 presidential elections approach. A frequent complaint heard from some Democrats is that many voters will become disenfranchised due to the more stringent voting regulations being passed in several states.

Republicans point to close elections as good reason to ensure the integrity of America's electoral processes through electoral reform legislation.

Meanwhile, Monroe-Pike County State Rep. Rosemary Brown voted yesterday with 107 members of the state assembly for a voter photo identification bill meant to maintain the integrity of the state's election systems. If the bill is approved in the Pennsylvania Senate and then signed by Gov. Tom Corbett, it will require that voters present valid photo identification each time they go to the polls.

The bill was opposed by many Democrats who say that it will impact the poor, minorities, and other groups. The vote favoring House Bill 934 was debated and voted upon yesterday, after several amendments were turned back during the week.

Though the vote in favor of the bill was split largely along party lines, Brown feels that ensuring the integrity of the state's elections is not a partisan issue.

Brown referenced the recommendations of the 2005 Commission on Federal Electoral Reform co-chaired by former President Carter and by former Secretary of State James Baker. The Commission report cited examples in which illegal votes determined election outcomes in Wisconsin and the state of Washington in 2004.

With regard to the assertion that photo identification voting would discriminate against certain groups, the committee recommendation was that election officials would develop initiatives to locate voters without suitable IDs and to provide them with IDs free of charge.

Representative Brown pointed out that suitable photo identification was required to board airplanes, cash checks, and enter federal buildings.

As things stand now, seven states have strict photo identification requirements although the election rules governing those states, in some cases, are not yet in effect. The new photo ID rules in those states are expected to be applicable to voting in 2012, and so the new initiatives to validate voter rolls has become a hot political issue.

In addition to those seven states where strict voter identification rules will apply in the presidential elections of 2012, there are seven more states where non-photo-ID voters can vote if they identify themselves through other means. It is the variability of other means that could invite illegal voters to game the system.

Some poll monitors allow identification with such documentation as utility bills or bank statements which can be manipulated by those so disposed. Others allow provisional voting if the voter provides acceptable documentation within 48 hours of the provisional vote. The lack of uniformity in validating legitimate voters and weeding out fraudulent ones is one of the reasons voter identification initiatives have become popular.

Requiring acceptable photo identification may ultimately be the least expensive way to curtail vote fraud of all types, even if additional state resources must be spent to assist some voters. Another Washington State voter fraud case wasn't intended to determine the outcome of an election, but rather to line the pockets of the voter registrants.

In 2007, seven paid employees and supervisors of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) were hit with felony charges and fines for attempting to register voters from phone book listings.

Anthony Ventre is a freelance writer who has written for weekly and daily newspapers and several online publications. He is a frequent contributor to Yahoo in news pertaining to Pennsylvania.

View the original article here

How and Why Republicans Suppress Voter Rights (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Republicans often accuse Democrats of voter fraud, despite the activist judges and squelched recounts that won them the 2000 presidential election. These accusations continue today, even though there's little substance to back them up, for one reason:

Republicans consider all Democratic votes to be illegitimate

Tea partiers compare Democratic leaders to Nazis, and scrutinized Obama's birth certificate to a degree that no white, Republican candidate has ever faced ... even one who was born outside the United States, as Sen. John McCain was. To them, no Democratic leader is legitimate, and many preach the use of the "ammo box" to get their way if the ballot box fails them. Unfortunately, the less stable among them heed these calls.

One of this year's earlier Republican presidential hopefuls, Mike Huckabee, said at the Rediscover God in America conference that he "almost wish[ed]" all Americans would be "forced at gunpoint" to listen to revisionist historian David Barton. Barton misquotes America's founders, in order to teach that the United States were meant to be a "Christian nation." His website even promotes "Biblical slavery" for unbelievers.

A party whose leaders and pundits proclaim such views can be expected to act on them. That's why a new crop of voter suppression laws is coming into effect, in states brought under Republican control during the 2010 elections.

Voter suppression 101

Naturally, laws designed to suppress the vote are never described as such. Not except in especially candid moments, like when New Hampshire's Republican House Speaker said letting people register to vote on Election Day led to "the kids coming out of the schools and basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is voting as a liberal." In other words, he admitted that the laws he promotes, such as that one and photo ID laws, are designed to suppress Democratic votes.

An innocent observer might ask, what's wrong with tightening our laws to make sure no voter fraud happens? The problem is two-fold. First, there is no real voter fraud problem to begin with; and second, tougher laws make it harder for society's weakest members to vote.

Students, minorities, the poor and disabled, and America's working class all have less ability to learn and comply with these laws, and may not know about them until it's too late. Even a photo ID requirement could be the last straw, for a student or single mom working two jobs. And it's exactly these harried people who are likely to be hardest hit by a law that says they can't register at the polls.

An unsympathetic conservative might reply with an anecdote about pulling himself up by his bootstraps, and how these kids and poor people have to learn responsibility (that's why they're poor, you know). But a more cynical observer might note that those most affected by these laws are more likely to vote Democrat, and that the Republican winners of 2010 are writing them -- effectively kicking the working poor while they're down. Even voter outreach programs are being curtailed, so that "get out the vote" efforts stall.

Might makes right

To a conservative enough Republican, there are no legitimate Democrat votes. And as long as the ballot box is a way to make your voice heard in government, they will do their best to deny it to everyone who disagrees with them. Especially the most vulnerable members of our society, who don't have an "ammo box" to fall back on and wouldn't use one if they did.

View the original article here