voting rights

ACLU: Michigan voter ID bill and what you can do to help today/this weekend

Sarah M Donnelly

Friends,

As you are aware, a strict voter ID bill is currently being rammed through the Michigan legislature. It has passed the House and will be considered by the Senate next week. The bill will be before the Senate Elections Committee on Tuesday, and it could reach the Senate floor potentially as early as that day, or on Wednesday or Thursday (the last day of session). I am told that it would be most effective if pressure were applied directly to certain key Senators (listed below), through an avalanche of both e-mails and phone calls. Also, note that all State Senators in Michigan are up for reelection in 2018.

Michigan voter IDs are issued out of the SOS branch offices (https://services2.sos.state.mi.us/servicelocator/), not the DMV, and I am told that Senators from rural areas may be particularly moved by communications from constituents (or others) describing the difficulties of travelling to the remote SOS office especially if they are only open during limited hours. Of course, constituents and others should feel free to include any other argument against voter IDs, reminding them about the disproportionate impact that these laws have on racial minorities, including the fact that nearly half of the 18,000 votes cast by affidavit were from Wayne County, which is about 40% African American (compared to 14% statewide), or any other written materials about the disparate impact of voter ID laws. Note that the bill does not require ID for mail-in absentee ballots, and in Michigan anyone age 60 years or older or persons with disabilities (persons “unable to vote without assistance at the polls”) can vote absentee, but emphasizing the importance to many elderly persons or persons with disabilities of being able to cast a ballot in person may also be helpful.

Because the Senate Committee meeting has not been formally scheduled yet, written comments cannot yet be sent to the committee clerk for inclusion in the record (that probably will not happen until Monday at which point I can let folks know), but comments can of course be made directly to the Senators right now.

Senate Elections Committee

  • David Robertson (R) Committee Chair, 14th District, 517-373-1636, sendrobertson@senate.michigan.gov
  • Patrick Colbeck (R) Vice Chair, 7th District, 517-373-7350, senpcolbeck@senate.michigan.gov
  • Judy K Emmons (R) 33rd District, 517-373-3760, senjemmons@senate.michigan.gov
  • Mike Shirkey (R) 16th District, 517-373-5932, senmshirkey@senate.michigan.gov
  • Morris W Hood III (D) Minority Vice Chair, 3rd District, 517-373-0990, senmhood@senate.michigan.gov

Senators with rural districts (In order of priority)
District 38 – Tom Casperson, 517-373-7840, Sentcasperson@senate.michigan.gov
District 37 – Wayne Schmidt, 517-373-2413, senwschmidt@senate.michigan.gov
District 36 – Jim Stamas, 517-373-7946, senjstamas@senate.michigan.gov
District 35 – Darwin Booher, 517-373-1725, sendbooher@senate.michigan.gov
District 19 – Mike Nofs, 517-373-2426, senmnofs@senate.michigan.gov
District 26 – Tonya Schuitmaker, 517-373-0793, sentschuitmaker@senate.michigan.gov
District 34 – Goeff Hansen, 517-373-1635, senghansen@senate.michigan.gov
District 33 – Judy Emmons, 517-373-3760, senjemmons@senate.michigan.gov
District 31 – Mike Green, 517-373-1777, senmgreen@senate.michigan.gov
District 21 – John Proos, 517-373-6960, senjproos@senate.michigan.gov
District 25 – Phil Pavlov, 517-373-7708, senppavlov@senate.michigan.gov
District 16 – Mike Shirkey, 517-373-5932, senmshirkey@senate.michigan.gov
District 17 – Dale Zorn, 517-373-3543, sendzorn@senate.michigan.gov

Onward,
Voting Rights Project
ACLU

Federal Judge Orders Satellite Polling Places on Two Nevada Reservations

Sarah M Donnelly

Here are the briefs and order in the matter of Sanchez et al v. Cegavske et al, 16-cv-00523 (D. Nev. Oct. 7, 2016):

Doc. 1 – Verified Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Doc. 10 – Verified First Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Doc. 26 – Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Memorandum or Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Oral Argument Requested)

Doc. 37 – Defendant Secretary of State’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Relief

Doc. 39 – Mineral County Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Doc. 43 – Statement of Interest of the United States of America

Doc. 45 – Reply to Defendant Secretary of State’s Opposition to Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Relief

Doc. 46 – Reply to Mineral County Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Doc. 60 – Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Federal Court Enjoins North Dakota Voter ID Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Brakebill v. Jaeger (D.N.D.):

Doc. 50 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Prior materials here.

NARF press release here.

NYTs coverage here.

ACLU of Montana Seeks Indigenous Justice Outreach Coordinator

Sarah M Donnelly

Link to job announcement here.

Applications will be reviewed beginning the week of July 25, 2016 and will be accepted until the position is filled.

Law in Support of Preliminary Injunction Against North Dakota Voter ID Law

Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Link to press release from NARF here.

Download Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support here.

Doc. 45 Brief in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2016 07 05 (00137735x9D7F5)

Doc. 48 Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injuction 2016 07 18 (00138490x9D7F5)

Link to previous coverage here.

Pine Ridge Reservation Voting Rights Case Fails

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Poor Bear v. County of Jackson SD (D. S.D.):

46 Motion to Dismiss

51 Opposition

56 Poor Bear Motion for Summary J

66 Reply

92 DCT Order Granting 46

Lumbee Tribal Members Amicus Brief in Challenge to North Carolina’s Voter ID Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the brief of Pearlein Revels, Louise Mitchell, Eric Locklear, and Anita Hammonds Blanks in Support of Plaintiffs in North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCory:

Amicus Brief

One of our great friends Jeanette Wolfley is counsel for amici!

Nooksack Tribal Council Advertises for Chief Judge

Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Link to Craigslist ad here.

United States Files Statement of Interest in Brakebill v. Jaeger

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Doc. 25 – Motion for Leave to File Statement of Interest of the United States of America – Filed 4-1-2016 

Doc. 25-1 – Statement of Interest of the United States of America – Filed 4-1-2016 

Complaint and motion to dismiss here and here.

Patty Ferguson-Bohnee on Indian Voting Rights in Arizona

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Patty Ferguson-Bohnee has posted “The History of Indian Voting Rights in Arizona: Overcoming Decades of Voter Suppression,” which she published in the Arizona State Law Journal. Here is the abstract:

Native Americans “have experienced a long history of disenfranchisement as a matter of law and of practice.” This comes from a complicated and contradictory history of laws and policy that has recognized tribes as separate sovereigns, reduced tribal status to that of domestic dependent nations, sought to remove, relocate, or assimilate tribal citizens, terminated numerous indigenous nations, and has now moved to a policy of tribal self-government. Unfortunately, the right to vote for Arizona’s first people has only recently been achieved, and there are continuing threats to the electoral franchise.

Voter suppression has been used to discourage or prevent Indian people from voting in Arizona. Voter qualifications such as literacy tests were used to prevent Indians from participating in elections for approximately fifty years. Once Native Americans started voting, redistricting and vote dilution were used to reduce the effectiveness of the Native vote.

This article will review the history of Indian voting rights in Arizona. The author begins by reviewing the history of Native American voting rights and the history of voting discrimination against Native Americans in Arizona. The Voting Rights Act turned the corner for Native people to participate in the state and federal election processes. The article then discusses the current challenges faced by Native American voters and specifically discuss the voter ID law passed in 2004. The voter ID law is a roadblock that impedes full participation by all Arizona Indians. The last part of the article focuses on strategies to protect Indian voting rights. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Section 5 coverage formula in Shelby County, tribes should consider proactive measures to ensure that tribal citizens can participate in elections.

Highly recommended.