The Washington Post

Challengers of voting-law changes win some battles, but outcomes still unsettled

Legal battles across the nation over who is eligible to vote and whether and how their ballots will be counted are far from settled, even as early voting in some states is set to begin this month.

The latest battleground-state challenge comes Thursday in Pennsylvania, where the state’s Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments about whether a new law requiring voters to show specific forms of photo identification violates the state constitution’s guarantee of the fundamental right to vote.

A Commonwealth Court judge ruled the Republican-backed law was a reasonable demand to protect the integrity of the election process, rejecting arguments from Democrats and minority groups that it could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters who lack the required ID.

That is only one in a series of court decisions and appeals that illustrate the murky nature of the nation’s voting debate.

The Pennsylvania decision aside, Democrats, minority groups and civil rights organizations have had a successful few weeks challenging an unprecedented number of voting-law changes enacted largely by Republican-led states where officials said they were trying to prevent voter fraud.

“There’s no question that we’ve won many more of the lawsuits than we’ve lost,” said Lawrence Norden, an official at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, a leading opponent of the laws. He said seven laws in six states have been successfully challenged.

Florida on Wednesday agreed to terms with groups that alleged the state’s efforts to cull potential non-citizens from voting rolls targeted Hispanics. The state said it would have election officials contact 2,600 potential non-citizens on a list released this summer to tell them they were eligible to vote in the fall.

The state said Wednesday that after gaining access to a federal database of those registered as non-citizens, it found 207 names on voting rolls. The state originally had identified 180,000 possible noncitizens out of the state’s 11.2 million voters.

The state has not discovered whether any of the 207 had ever voted or were registered by accident, but Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner said it showed the state has a “successful process to identify illegally registered voters.”

Those who opposed the state’s efforts said that they agreed non-citizens should not be on the rolls but that the state had spent much effort for little results and may have discouraged legitimate voters in the process.

“I still do not believe there is a big problem of non-citizens on the voting rolls,” said Penda Hair of Advancement Project, one of the groups that sued Florida.

Similarly, a search in Colorado turned up 141 potential non-citizens, but the state said it is too late to begin removing them from rolls if they are indeed non-citizens.

Much of the attention on the voting changes has centered on new voter-ID laws passed by many states, including several swing states.

Two state judges in Wisconsin have blocked implementation of that state’s law, saying it violates the state constitution’s protection of voting rights. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R) has asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the decisions, but it is unclear whether the court will accept the challenge.

A panel of three federal judges in Washington has blocked Texas’s voter-ID law, saying it would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens” on poor and minority voters. Texas will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but said it is too late to try to implement the law in time for the November elections.

A similar panel of judges is considering a South Carolina voter-ID law.

There are two reasons for the seemingly contradictory judicial views on voter-ID laws.

The first is the burden of proof. Texas and South Carolina are among the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, requiring them to prove to the Justice Department or federal judges that any new election standards would not harm minorities.

The evidence offered by Texas was “unpersuasive, invalid, or both,” according to U.S. Circuit Judge David S. Tatel.

In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, the burden was on challengers to prove that the law would prevent certain people from voting. Judge Robert Simpson said that the challengers still had time to obtain proper ID and that it is a “reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-severe burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life.”

The second reason is that not all voter-ID laws are the same. The Justice Department, for instance, has approved laws in Virginia and New Hampshire that provide alternatives to a strict photo requirement but opposed the Texas and South Carolina laws.

Thomas Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which supports the laws, said they reflect common sense and public acceptance.

“Despite all the noise, more than 30 states are going to have a voter ID requirement in the coming election,” he said.

Fitton said that will protect the electoral decision. Norden, of the Brennan Center, said it could lead to disenfranchisement.

Even if the recent challenges are upheld, Norden said, “in November 2012 it is going to be more difficult for many people to vote than it was in November 2010.”

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The Democrats debated Thursday night. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Chris Cillizza on the Democratic debate...
On Clinton: She poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast him as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.

On Sanders: If the challenge was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal. But he did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past.
The PBS debate in 3 minutes
We are in vigorous agreement here.
Hillary Clinton, during the PBS Democratic debate, a night in which she and Sanders shared many of the same positions on issues
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 18%
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.