First Semester Round-Up
We are a month into the second semester of 2009, so I thought maybe it was time I made a few comments on the first.
Electronic Absentee Voting
The Alabama Legislature missed a wonderful opportunity to finally provide some voting assistance to Alabamians who are overseas, be they members of the military, military dependents, missionaries or other citizens living in a foreign country. Passage of the bill to allow the Secretary of State to proceed with a system of electronic voting for these individuals was within reach during the regular session of the Legislature. Both the Senate and House of Representatives passed their own versions of the bill. The only hurdle was to reconcile the two. The difference to be resolved: the Senate version included language from Senator Roger Bedford that would have prohibited candidates from transferring money from federal candidate campaign committees to state campaign committees.
Bedford said he thinks that "you should not allow special interest money from Washington to affect state races". However, he did not explain why, if this issue was so important, the ban was not introduced earlier in the session and in the form of its own bill.
Intentional or not, the Bedford language served as a poison pill to kill the electronic voting bill. What is not clear is whether Bedford (and perhaps other members of the Senate) wanted to kill the electronic voting bill or whether other motives were at play. Either way, Alabama lost a prime opportunity to finally assist a vast array of Alabama voters who live and work in foreign countries.
The Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act
The U.S. Supreme Court took up a challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Specifically at issue was "preclearance", the requirement that covered jurisdictions (such as Alabama) must submit any change in election procedures to the U.S. Department of Justice for review and approval. If the Justice Department does not grant preclearance, a covered jurisdiction cannot implement the change unless it gets approval from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
In the case Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, the Justices did not specifcially address the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirements. They more narrowly ruled that the utility district has the right to exercise the Act's "bail out" provision and request that it be relieved of preclearance responsibilities. The Act permits covered jurisdictions to "bail out" if they can show they meet certain standards regarding voting rights.
However, the Justices also noted that America in the 21st century is not the America as it existed leading up to passage of the Voting Rights Act. It appears from the language of the Court's opinion that they are interested in seeing 1) how the bail out provision is applied and 2) whether it provides substantive relief for those jurisdictions that no longer practice systemic racial discrimination in the voting process.
The path laid out by the Court seems like a fruitful one to explore. For jurisdictions that have made a concerted effort to hold free and fair elections for all of their citizens, it is only right to commend their progress and relieve them of the preclearance procedures. For those jurisdictions that continue to discriminate by race, it is only right for the Department of Justice to continue its oversight.
Electronic Absentee Voting
The Alabama Legislature missed a wonderful opportunity to finally provide some voting assistance to Alabamians who are overseas, be they members of the military, military dependents, missionaries or other citizens living in a foreign country. Passage of the bill to allow the Secretary of State to proceed with a system of electronic voting for these individuals was within reach during the regular session of the Legislature. Both the Senate and House of Representatives passed their own versions of the bill. The only hurdle was to reconcile the two. The difference to be resolved: the Senate version included language from Senator Roger Bedford that would have prohibited candidates from transferring money from federal candidate campaign committees to state campaign committees.
Bedford said he thinks that "you should not allow special interest money from Washington to affect state races". However, he did not explain why, if this issue was so important, the ban was not introduced earlier in the session and in the form of its own bill.
Intentional or not, the Bedford language served as a poison pill to kill the electronic voting bill. What is not clear is whether Bedford (and perhaps other members of the Senate) wanted to kill the electronic voting bill or whether other motives were at play. Either way, Alabama lost a prime opportunity to finally assist a vast array of Alabama voters who live and work in foreign countries.
The Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act
The U.S. Supreme Court took up a challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Specifically at issue was "preclearance", the requirement that covered jurisdictions (such as Alabama) must submit any change in election procedures to the U.S. Department of Justice for review and approval. If the Justice Department does not grant preclearance, a covered jurisdiction cannot implement the change unless it gets approval from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
In the case Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, the Justices did not specifcially address the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirements. They more narrowly ruled that the utility district has the right to exercise the Act's "bail out" provision and request that it be relieved of preclearance responsibilities. The Act permits covered jurisdictions to "bail out" if they can show they meet certain standards regarding voting rights.
However, the Justices also noted that America in the 21st century is not the America as it existed leading up to passage of the Voting Rights Act. It appears from the language of the Court's opinion that they are interested in seeing 1) how the bail out provision is applied and 2) whether it provides substantive relief for those jurisdictions that no longer practice systemic racial discrimination in the voting process.
The path laid out by the Court seems like a fruitful one to explore. For jurisdictions that have made a concerted effort to hold free and fair elections for all of their citizens, it is only right to commend their progress and relieve them of the preclearance procedures. For those jurisdictions that continue to discriminate by race, it is only right for the Department of Justice to continue its oversight.
Labels: Electronic Voting, Preclearance, Roger Bedford, US Supreme Court, Voter Suppression, Voting Rights Act
posted by Ed at 5:57 PM
1 comments
links to this post
