Latest news with #NationalVotingRightsAct
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Nebraska lawmaker pushes to overhaul elections, early voting over integrity concerns
Teresa Ranken, 59, of Lincoln, hangs up signs reminding voters of acceptable forms of identification cards needed for voting on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024, at Sower Church in Lincoln, Neb. (Sammy Smith/Nebraska News Service) LINCOLN — State Sen. Rick Holdcroft of Bellevue says he wants to eliminate online voter registration, restrict absentee voting, provide more security for ballot boxes and require hand-counting of election results, citing election integrity concerns. State and local election officials testified against Holdcroft's Legislative Bill 541 during its public hearing Wednesday before the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, questioning the need for changes to election law and raising concerns about possibly violating federal law and the potential costs to taxpayers. Other bill opponents said the changes would introduce unnecessary burdens to voters and make it harder for Nebraskans to participate in elections. Holdcroft said while he has confidence in the integrity of Nebraska elections, the bill is 'simply to give peace of mind to the electorate and our state regarding the security of our elections.' Supporters of the bill claim it would prevent voter fraud and 'cheating' in state elections, pointing to the 2020 election, when President Donald Trump falsely claimed victory but lost to former President Joe Biden. The Nebraska proposal is being discussed as Republicans across the country ramped up unproven claims of non-citizen voting and fraud. Deputy Nebraska Secretary of State Wayne Bena, who oversees the state's Elections Division, said state elections officials appreciated Holdcroft's interest in election integrity. He said Secretary of State Robert Evnen agrees with some provisions of LB 541, such as tightening security around ballot boxes, but said Evnen has practical concerns about hand counting and legal concerns about voter registration changes. '[Hand] counting, which is statistically the least reliable way that you can count ballots, add significant times and add significant cost to conducting an election,' Bena said. Tracy Overstreet, Hall County Election Commissioner, said during the hearing that the proposed changes would require her to hire more staff and violate the federal National Voting Rights Act because of the way the bill would restrict voter registration by mail. According to the bill's fiscal note, the changes Holdcroft seeks would cost the state nearly $1 million when Nebraska is facing a significant budget shortfall. Danna Seevers, who testified in support of the bill, said the committee 'should act to honor the will of the people who overwhelmingly elected Donald Trump in 2024 and carry out his agenda,' adding that LB 541 delivers on that with 'surgical precision.' Trump met with state governors late last month, including Gov. Jim Pillen, and urged them to modify their voting laws to implement paper ballots, one-day voting, voter ID and proof of citizenship. However, Most states, including Nebraska, already have voter ID laws and utilize paper ballots, often as backups, and only U.S. citizens are legally allowed to vote in federal elections. 'This isn't just a bill,' Seevers said. 'It's a battle cry for election integrity that echoes Trump's call to action.' Voting advocacy groups said the bill would place unnecessary burdens on voters. 'By restricting early voting to a handful of the scenarios, voting in Nebraska will become more challenging and less convenient,' said Cesar Garcia, a Nebraska Appleseed's Community Organizer. 'As a consequence, our state will likely see lower voter turnout.' Nebraskans passed a state constitutional amendment in 2022 requiring the Legislature to implement voter ID in Nebraska. Fewer voters were turned away under the law than in other states with similar laws. The committee took no immediate action on the bill. Bena said the Secretary of State and the county election commissioners would implement the Holdcroft bill if the Legislature passes it. 'However, if you're asking our office [if] such a law is justified?' Bena said. 'The answer is no.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court blocks Arizona laws targeting ‘federal only' voters
Photo via Getty Images A federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked portions of two Arizona voter registration laws, affirming a lower court's ruling that the provisions violated federal law. 'Although some provisions of the Voting Laws are legitimate and lawful prerequisites to voting, many of the challenged provisions are unlawful measures of voter suppression,' Judge Ronald Gould wrote in the majority opinion. Gould and Judge Kim Wardlaw, two members of the three-judge panel that heard the appeal in September, agreed with a group of voting rights activists and the May 2024 ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton that sections of the laws violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Voting Rights Act. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down portions of the laws that would require Arizona voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote by mail and in presidential elections. In their majority opinion, Wardlaw and Gould — both appointed by President Bill Clinton — also rejected Bolton's conclusion that the bills were not passed with discriminatory intent, ordering her to revisit the issue. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, disagreed with most, but not all of the majority ruling. Bumatay wrote that he agreed with the decision to block a provision that directed county recorders to check the citizenship of 'federal only' voters if the recorders have 'reason to believe' they aren't citizens. All three judges agreed that provision violated the Civil Rights Act. The laws at the center of the case, House Bill 2492 and House Bill 2243 were passed by the Republican-led Arizona Legislature and signed by then-Gov. Doug Ducey in 2022. The laws — which aimed to stop noncitizens from voting — were passed in the wake of Trump's loss in the 2020 election, after Republicans claimed without evidence that the presidency was stolen from him. Arizona has a uniquely bifurcated voter registration system stemming from a 2004 voter-approved law requiring residents to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. That law was challenged in court, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately concluded in 2013 that the state can't mandate proof of eligibility beyond an oath on federal forms under the National Voting Rights Act. As a result of both the federal and state laws, voters who prove their citizenship can vote in every race in Arizona, while those who do not — but attest to being citizens under penalty of perjury — can vote in federal contests only. Around 32,000 Arizona voters are registered as 'federal only.' In a post on the social media site X, Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, said he would appeal the appellate decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Just 6 months after the 9th circuit was reversed by the Supreme Court for blocking Arizona's proof of citizenship to vote requirement, the 9th Circuit strikes again,' Petersen wrote. 'In a world only possible in the liberal 9th circuit, two judges disregarded the Supreme Court's ruling and have again blocked Arizona's law.' But Petersen's comments are a mischaracterization of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last August, which temporarily allowed the state to stop accepting state-created voter registration forms from Arizona residents unless they provide proof of citizenship. That decision was the result of an emergency motion from the Republican National Committee, made in response to Bolton's May 2024 ruling that blocked numerous provisions of both laws and a series of whiplash-inducing reversals by appeals courts. The RNC's emergency motion asked the high court to overrule Bolton's block on portions of the laws ahead of the November election, while a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was pending. The high court's decision was temporary and did not include an explanation of the reasoning behind it, which is typical of emergency rulings. Danielle Lang, a litigator with the Campaign Legal Center, which represented several voting rights groups in the lawsuit, told the Arizona Mirror that nowhere in the temporary pause order last August did the high court instruct the appeals court that it was bound by the decision. She accused Petersen and others who claimed Tuesday's decision was an attempt to overrule the nation's highest court of 'distorting the public's lack of knowledge about intricate Supreme Court procedure to make something ordinary sound nefarious.' Voting rights advocates, who argued that the laws weren't genuine attempts at increased election integrity, but a way to spread the 'Big Lie' that voter fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, celebrated the appellate court's decision. 'Since 2022, All Voting is Local Action, along with other voting rights advocates and legal groups, have spoken out against these harmful bills that targeted specific communities under the guise of election security,' Natalia Sells, the organization's campaign manager, said in a written statement. 'From their introduction, these bills raised serious concerns among voting rights advocates about potential disenfranchisement and the erosion of trust in the electoral process.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
