Note: The Voting Rights Roundup will be on hiatus next week and will return the following week.
Leading Off
● Oregon: Redistricting reformers have filed three related initiatives seeking to put an independent redistricting commission on the 2020 ballot. The effort is run by a group called People Not Politicians, and it has the support of nonpartisan good-government groups, including state chapters of the League of Women Voters and Common Cause. Democrats currently have full control over state government and are likely to retain it in 2020, so these reforms would prevent them from gerrymandering after the next census and result in relatively fair maps if they become law.
Campaign Action
The proposal itself, which is split into multiple initiatives to avoid potentially running afoul of the state's limitation on the number of subjects a single measure may address, would create an independent commission consisting of four Democrats, four Republicans, and four members unaffiliated with either major party.
Applicants would be reviewed by a panel of three administrative law judges, one from each party grouping. The judges would narrow down the pool to 50 applicants for each party grouping by unanimous vote, and two applicants would be randomly selected to serve from each group, for six in total. Those six would then choose the remaining six members with at least one commissioner from each party approving.
Once selected, the twelve commissioners would draw districts using the following criteria: (1) compliance with federal law; (2) equal population and contiguity; (3) minimizing the division of local government jurisdictions and communities of interest; and (4) competitiveness. Commissioners would be prohibited from considering where incumbents or candidates live, from favoring or disfavoring a candidate or party, and from diluting the voting strength of a language group or ethnic group.
After holding a number of public hearings, the commission would be able to pass new maps only with a majority that includes at least one member of each party grouping. If the panel fails to pass a map, a minority of four commissioners (including one member from each group) could recommend a map to the state Supreme Court. The court would have the authority to review any maps the commission passes, and if it rejects them, the commission could pass a new proposal that would be subject to judicial review.
These measures would create a system similar to the one voters passed in Michigan in 2018 (the campaign organization's name, People Not Politicians, is even reminiscent of the Michigan group, Voters Not Politicians). The measures would each need approximately 149,000 signatures to make the 2020 ballot.
Redistricting
● North Carolina: With a legal challenge to North Carolina's new congressional map still pending, the state court hearing the case has enjoined the filing period for all candidates for the U.S. House. Candidates for all other offices may file as normal during the period, which runs from Dec. 2 to Dec. 20. Once the matter is resolved, the court will institute a new filing period for congressional candidates.
The court has also set a hearing for Dec. 2 to consider the plaintiffs' motion to reject the new map Republicans just passed last week, along with Republicans' motion to declare the current lawsuit is moot. If the court grants the latter motion, that would require the plaintiffs to file a new lawsuit and risk further delay.
● Oklahoma: Opponents of a new ballot initiative campaign to create an independent redistricting commission have filed challenges with the state Supreme Court seeking to block it from the 2020 ballot. These opponents contend that the initiative violates Oklahoma's restrictions on the number of subjects a single initiative may address, that its voter petition summary insufficiently explains what the proposal would do, and that it violates their First Amendment rights. Republican leaders in the legislature have also criticized the initiative.
Appointees of Democratic governors hold five seats on the nine-member Oklahoma Supreme Court, but of course this does not guarantee that the initiative will survive judicial review.
Felony Disenfranchisement
● Florida: Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is appealing an October ruling by a federal district court that temporarily blocked the GOP's modern-day poll tax. This law requires citizens convicted of felonies who've served their sentences to also pay off any outstanding court fines and fees before they can regain their voting rights.
● North Carolina: A newly filed lawsuit in state court is seeking to invalidate North Carolina's felony disenfranchisement law, which bans voting for those who are still serving any prison, parole, or probation sentence. Many of those on parole or probation are only still there because of outstanding court fines and fees. The plaintiffs argue that disenfranchising citizens who aren't incarcerated violates the state constitution's provisions guaranteeing free and fair elections, freedom of speech, and equal protection, as well as its ban on property qualifications for voting.
According to the Sentencing Project, North Carolina currently disenfranchises 1% of its adult population, but black adults are banned from voting at three times the rate of whites. African Americans therefore make up just under half of the disenfranchised population in a state that is only one-fifth black overall.
If the plaintiffs succeed, an estimated 70,000 citizens would regain their voting rights. North Carolina would also wind up with the least restrictive felony disenfranchisement system in the South, putting it more in line with Northern and Western states.
Voter Registration and Voting Access
● California: California's Court of Appeal has ruled that voting materials in certain jurisdictions must be made available in 14 Asian languages after finding that Democratic Secretary of State Alex Padilla had applied the wrong standard to determine when such materials must be provided in languages other than English.
Padilla had used the threshold set out by the Voting Rights Act to ascertain when a minority language group is sufficiently large to require voting materials in their language, which is triggered when such a group reaches 5% of the population in a local government subdivision. State law, however, sets a lower threshold of 3%. The 14 languages included in the ruling are Bengali, Burmese, Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Lao, Mien, Mongolian, Nepali, Tamil, Thai, Telugu, and Urdu, which are spoken by an estimated 57,000 residents in the affected counties according to the plaintiffs.
● Missouri: Missouri's Department of Revenue, which handles driver's licenses, has reached a settlement with voting rights advocates that will make it easier for voters to update their registrations when they update their addresses online. The settlement will require that voters be directed to the secretary of state's website when they update their addresses. Plaintiffs sought this change to reduce confusion that led to some voters showing up to vote only to find that their registration hadn't been updated when they moved.
● New Jersey: In a setback for voting access, New Jersey's Council on Local Mandates has blocked a Democratic-backed law that automatically signed up voters who cast an absentee mail ballot in recent years to receive a mail ballot in all future elections,. deeming it an unfunded mandate for local governments. No appeal is possible as the council's decisions are not subject to judicial review under state law.
Consequently, the Democratic-run legislature would have to allocate new funding to ensure local governments have the resources to mail absentee ballots to affected voters for the 2020 election cycle. If it fails to, these voters would have to make a new absentee ballot request instead of automatically receiving a ballot. As an alternative, New Jersey could save money by switching to a universal vote-by-mail system.
● Virginia: After winning unified control of state government for the first time in a quarter century, Virginia's incoming Democratic legislature is looking at ways to end the state's status as one of the very worst states for voting access. The first bill that will be introduced when lawmakers reconvene in January—symbolically designated HB 1—would create a 45-day period for excuse-free absentee voting, and it's likely that other voting reforms will be taken up as well.
Voter Suppression
● Michigan: The Democratic super PAC Priorities USA has filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to block several restrictions on voter registration in Michigan. Last year, voters approved a ballot initiative that included a number of provisions to improve voting access, including automatic and same-day voter registration. However, following those elections—and before Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer took office—Republicans used their lame-duck majorities to pass legislation undermining these reforms.
Plaintiffs have therefore brought this suit to challenge GOP measures that restrict: (1) what counts as proof of residency for voters registering on Election Day or within two weeks before it; (2) which voters can be automatically registered based on their age; and (3) the availability of same-day registration to the local clerk's office instead of local polling places.
The first of these measures requires proof of residency in the form of a Michigan driver's license or state ID card with a current address. If a voter lacks those documents, they must provide both another form of ID, such as a student ID card or an affidavit, and a document like a utility bill or bank statement that has their name and current residence. Since out-of-state college students are less likely to possess such documents despite still being eligible to vote, the plaintiffs argue this creates an undue burden.
The second measure prevents citizens under the age of 17-and-a-half who conduct business with the state motor vehicle department from being automatically registered and added to the voting rolls when they reach voting age. Instead, it requires they make a further transaction with the DMV once they reach 17-and-a-half. (Under Michigan law, there is no minimum age to obtain a state ID, and the equivalent of a learner's permit is available to those age 14 and nine months.)
Lastly, the plaintiffs argue that the restriction on the locations where same-day registration is offered creates a burden on those with limited transportation options.
This latest lawsuit is the third that Priorities has launched in Michigan in recent weeks, following on the heels of a pair suits filed in federal court to prevent the unlawful rejection of absentee ballots and to block two state laws that restrict who may drive others to the polls and who may help others to complete an absentee ballot request.
● Mississippi: The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Jim Crow-era Mississippi law that imposes restrictions on voter registration for naturalized citizens, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
The law in question is unique to Mississippi and requires that naturalized citizens show their naturalization certificate or related documentation to their circuit clerk when registering. By contrast, U.S.-born citizens are only required to check a box (under penalty of perjury) confirming that they are a citizen.
The plaintiffs argue that the law discriminates against naturalized citizens, many of whom aren't even aware of the requirement, since it isn't listed on any registration materials from the secretary of state's office. Despite this omission, plaintiffs say the secretary's office has told them that the law is in fact currently being enforced.
● Wisconsin: Democrats have filed a federal lawsuit that challenges part of Wisconsin's Republican-backed voter ID law for imposing restrictions on college student IDs. The law mandates that those IDs include the date issued, an expiration date of no more than two years later, and the voter's signature. It also requires that students independently prove they're enrolled in classes. The lawsuit contends that these restrictions violate the 26th Amendment, which guarantees the right to vote to anyone 18 or older, by specifically singling out students, since student IDs are the only ones that face these particular restrictions.
Court Cases
● Michigan: Former legislators from both parties have filed a new federal lawsuit seeking to invalidate Michigan's term limits law, which voters enshrined in the state constitution in 1992 and is the strictest in the country. Currently, Michigan imposes a lifetime limit of no more than three two-year terms for state House and two four-year terms for state Senate. The plaintiffs argue that such strict term limits violate their First and 14th Amendment rights, along with the Constitution's guarantee of a "republican form of government."
It's unclear, however, how likely this lawsuit is to succeed. In 1998, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit brought by voters and public interest groups that challenged these limits. However, the plaintiffs in this new suit say they could succeed because they are former lawmakers who were denied the ability to run for office, though notably, their complaint does not address the 1998 ruling.
Ballot Measures
● Massachusetts: Supporters of an effort to put an initiative on the 2020 ballot to adopt instant-runoff voting have turned in approximately 130,000 voter signatures. If roughly 80,000 of their signatures are deemed valid, the measure would go before the heavily Democratic state legislature, which could either pass it into law (thereby obviating the need for it to appear on the ballot) or reject it. If legislators reject it, supporters would need to collect another 13,000 signatures to qualify for next year's ballot.
If this measure were to become law, it would apply to congressional, state, and some local elections, but not presidential elections.
