Welcome to the return of our war on voting series, a joint project of Meteor Blades and Joan McCarter.
Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns & Money catches up on everyone's favorite vote suppressor, Hans von Spakovsky, and finds him advocating for very specific voter fraud.
Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation fellow, last week argued that the Supreme Court should count the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's votes in cases in which the justices have already cast preliminary votes.
During an interview with American Family Radio's Sandy Rios, von Spakovsky noted that after hearing oral arguments, the justices meet and cast votes in the case before writing the decision.
"So that's the point at which they know how a case is going to be decided and the chief justice then makes assignments of who will write the majority opinion etc.," von Spakovsky said, according to audio posted by Right Wing Watch. "I think the chief justice has an absolute obligation to give credit to Scalia's vote in those cases that have already been decided, even if he didn't write his opinion yet, because they know how he would have voted."
Dead? You can still vote, as long as you're a dead Republican white Supreme Court justice. Now's a good time to revisit Scalia's views on voting rights, and the law that had trapped Congress into voting for a "racial entitlement" oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, where Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was struck down in a 5-4 vote.
Now, I don't think [the near unanimous support for the voting Rights Act is] attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. [. . .] I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless—unless a court can say [the Voting Rights Act] does not comport with the Constitution.
Which explains why von Spakovsky thinks this dead justice should be able to continue to vote.
In related news, the South Carolina Democratic primary is today. There are 63,756 nonwhite registered voters who don't have the voter ID that is now required for voting in the state.
"Notably, seven counties with the highest percentages of registered voters who lack DMV-issued identification are also among the ten counties in South Carolina that have the highest percentage of voting-age persons who are non-white," according to the Department of Justice.
Below, you'll find some briefs about what happened this week in the war on voting.
- As usual, when voter fraud happens, it's being done by a Republican. From Tuesday's Nevada GOP caucus:
- An elections expert testified in Richmond, Virginia, this week in a suit challenging Virginia's photo ID law that there is no evidence that voter fraud is a justification for voter ID laws, in Virginia or anywhere.
Lorraine C. Minnite, author of "The Myth of Voter Fraud" and co-author of "Keeping Down the Black Vote: Race and the Demobilization of American Voters," said the sort of fraud that photo ID is meant to prevent is so uncommon there is a concern it would cause more legitimate ballots to be lost than fraudulent ballots cast.
"If there is no voter fraud, the question is, what is this all about? ... Why are the two parties fighting so intensely?" asked Minnite, a witness for the plaintiffs, including the Democratic Party of Virginia. Minnite contends parties can win by expanding their own base or by decreasing the other party's.
"It goes to the logic and the strategy of trying to win elections," she said.
- The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law kicks off Election Protection 2016: #ProtectOURVOTE:
This 2016 presidential election year is like no other in recent history. At the onset, some voters face unprecedented challenges, while others benefit from recently enacted election reforms. It is critical that voters understand the state of the franchise and how it may impact their experiences participating in the political process.
This briefing is the first in a series that will "educate, engaged, and empower voters" in this first presidential election in which Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act won't be in effect.
- A State Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin has become one of that state's motivated voting rights activists.
"It makes no sense to me that this proud patriot with a veterans card displaying his photo would be turned away from the polls and denied the right to vote," Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote to the Republican governor.
In her letter, Bradley said her uncle had fought at Iwo Jima, the bloody World War II battle that was immortalized in a photo of the U.S. flag being raised on the tiny Pacific island. […]
Bradley's uncle, Leo Olson of Reedsburg, tried to use his veterans ID card to vote in last week's primary for a seat on the state Supreme Court, but that form of identification can't be used under the state's voter ID law.
Olson does not have a driver's license. […]
"He considers voting part of his patriotic duty," Bradley wrote to Walker. "Yet, last week this proud patriot of 90 years of age was embarrassed and confused when he went to the polls and was denied his right to vote.
"When he presented his veterans administration card with his picture on it, he was told that the card was not listed as 'acceptable' proof of his identity. He responded: 'You mean veterans can't vote?'"
Not in Scott Walker's Wisconsin. At least not at the moment. The legislature is considering a bill to allow veterans IDs as proof of eligibility. How big of them.