Federal Election Legislation to Consider for 2010

Federal Election Legislation to consider supporting in 2010

This is just a list of bills that may be worth supporting this year. Still we do need to think outside of the box if possible.

• Curtailing Citizens United - The Shareholder Protection Act H.R. 4790 and the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826), and Public Citizen has a petition in favor of a constitutional amendment entitled "Free Speech for People Amendment"Outlaw
• Voter Caging - Caging Prohibition Act of 2009 H.R. 103 and S. 528.
• Re-enfranchising ex-felons -The Democracy Restoration Act H.R 3335 and S. 1516 of 2009 If you are living in the community you have right to vote.
• Veteran Voting - Veteran Voting Support Act H.R. 6625 S. 3308 of 2008 The VA acts as voter registration agency, helps vets vote, and allows reg drives.

Curtailing Citizens United The Shareholder Protection Act H.R. 4790 and the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826), and Public Citizen Petition

Letters to Congress in Support of the Shareholder Protection ActBy Brennan Center for Justice – 04/12/10The Brennan Center urges adoption of the Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 4790). The Act would provide shareholders with notice of corporate political spending, as well as providing shareholders with the ability to vote on future political spending by corporations.

Today we sent two open letters to Congress urging support of the bill.
Citizens United: What Would Justice Brennan Do? (WWJBD)By Ciara Torres-Spelliscy – 03/30/10...So it is in the spirit of Justice Brennan that the Brennan Center has urged Congress to take strong policy responses to Citizens United including adopting public financing for congressional elections through the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826). ...But we have also urged another approach which is consistent with Justice Brennan’s clearly stated belief in shareholder protection: providing shareholders a vote on future corporate political spending as embodied in the Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 4790). This is a constitutional way to honor the rights of the investors who may be otherwise pulled into political battles after Citizens United against their will. This is precisely what Justice Brennan would do

More about the Fair Elections Now Act from HuffPo.
"Justice Thomas' Reasoning -- Dangerous for Democracy" ~ Frances Moore Lappe"
...One immediate step we can take right now step is to ensure passage of the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act--S.752, H.R.1826. It establishes a workable system of small donations combined with voluntary public financing for congressional races. It builds on an approach that's already proven itself in three states. (Watch this inspiring example of its impact.) The Fair Elections approach has not been blocked by the Supreme Court. While it can't avert all the threats embodied in the Count's decision, it enables a candidate to run for office without becoming beholden to corporate money."

Public Citizen proposes an amendment to the US Constitution:...we must pass a constitutional amendment to ensure corporate money does not overwhelm our democracy and clarify that the First Amendment is for people -- not corporations. Add your name to the petition to Congress today! http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190 http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190#Petition

Outlaw caging and purging

Voter Caging Legislation in the 111th Congress HR 103 and S528
H.R. 103 Caging Prohibition Act of 2009 [view bill text]Rep. Conyers and 10 co-sponsors [view all]January 6, 2009 [view status] S. 528 This bill would prohibit election officials from preventing individuals from registering to vote or voting in any federal election or from permitting formal voter challenges to voters' registration status or eligibility if the basis of information gathered from voter caging documents or lists or unverified match lists. It would also establish requirements of individuals who wish to challenge the voter eligibility of another individual and prohibit challenges based on voter caging documents or lists or unverified match lists.

Deceptive Practices S 453 and HR 1281

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act 2007 (S. 453 & H.R. 1281) The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act (H.R. 1281 and S. 453) would criminalize the knowing and intentional communication of false and misleading information about the time, place, or manner of elections, and the rules governing voter eligibility and voter registration. It would also ensure that voters affected by deceptive or intimidating practices are provided with correct information from a reliable source in a timely manner.

Re-enfranchisement HR 3335 and S1516

The Democracy Restoration Act, is now pending before Congress. That bill would restore the right to vote in federal elections to every American citizen who is out of prison, living in the community.

The Democracy Restoration Act (DRA) is federal legislation that seeks to restore voting rights in federal elections to the nearly 4 million disenfranchised Americans who have been released from prison and are living in the community. The bill was introduced by Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Representative John Conyers (D-MI) as H.R 3335 and S. 1516 on July 24th, 2009.

Correcting a Centuries-Old InjusticeBy Brennan Center for Justice – 04/11/10 by Deborah J. Vagins and Erika WoodOriginally published at ACS Blog.In our recent Issue Brief for the American Constitution Society, The Democracy Restoration Act: Addressing a Centuries-Old Injustice, we examine an ongoing and deeply problematic barrier to the fundamental right to vote for millions of Americans. Currently, 5.3 million American citizens are denied this right because of a criminal conviction in their past. Nearly 4 million of those who are disfranchised are out of prison, working, paying taxes, and raising families, yet they are without a political voice.

Supporting info: Kentucky’s Disturbing Disenfranchisement NumbersBy Benjamin Rattner – 03/12/10A new report by the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights finds that nearly one-in-four African Americans has lost the right to vote in Kentucky.Kentucky is one of the last two states [see pdf map] in the country (Virginia is the other) that denies the right to vote for life to anyone with a felony conviction, unless the current Governor restores the right through his clemency powers

Helping Veterans Vote HR 6625 and S 3308

Veteran Voting The legislation would would open the VA to registration drives and require the VA to make voter registration services available at VA facilities in states that request it. It would require the VA to help veterans request and cast absentee ballots. And it would open VA facilities to non-partisan groups and election officials, so that they could provide veterans with information on registration and voting. All these services will go a long way to ensuring that veterans are able to exercise their most fundamental right as citizens: the right to vote....

Veteran Voting Support Act H.R. 6625 S. 3308
Brennan Center Letters in Support of Veteran Voting Support Act
Letter to Senate Rules Committee in Support of S. 3308 (7/24/08)
Letter to House Administration Committee in Support of H.R. 6625 (7/29/08)
Letter to Sen. Feinstein in Support of S. 3308 (9/12/08)
Letter to Rep. Brady in Support of H.R. 6625 (9/15/08)
Letter to U.S. Senate in Support of S. 3308 (9/25/08)
Blog Entries
Adam Skaggs, "Help Vets Vote; They Deserve No Less" (8/1/08)
Adam Skaggs, "Congress Considers Reversing VA Ban" (9/19/08)
Adam Skaggs, "No Time to Vote" (1/7/09)

Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Disenfranchising Our Wounded Warriors

We now help our active duty troops register to vote, why don't we help our wounded warriors? Yesterday I received an email from Attorney Scott Rafferty about a client of his who wants to help veterans institutionalized on VA campuses have the opportunity to register to vote.

Wounded veterans shouldn't have to rely upon outside help to register to vote. The VA would be the best choice to help its own clients register to vote. Not only does the Veterans Administration fail to assist our wounded and also homeless veterans in registering to vote, but "During the 2004 and 2008 campaigns, the VA banned both individuals, party organizations, 501(c)(3)s and even the SoS of Connecticut herself from entering VA campuses for the purpose of individually registering voters."

As a federal agency, the Veterans Administration falls under the "Motor Voter Act" and should offer voter registration assistance to its clients. The executive order implementing motor voter requires federal agencies to accept designation by state's top election official to perform motor voter registration duties. But loopholes exist that can allow the VA to refuse to help register voters.

Why doesn't the VA help veterans register to vote? It is purely a policy decision - there is no law to prohibit assisting our veterans in voting. Who can right this wrong? Eric K. Shinseki, The Secretary of Veterans Affairs could immediately order the Veterans Administration to act as a voter registration agency.

The United States government policy has been to disenfranchise our active duty military and veterans. Only this past December 2009 did the Department of Defense agree to act as a voter registration agency and assist our military personnel in registering to vote, updating their registration and casting a ballot.
[ NY Times: "All Military Installations to Aid in Voter Registration" Dec 18, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/politics/18vote.html?_r=1 ]

Who can right this wrong? Eric K. Shinseki, The Secretary of Veterans Affairs could order the Veterans Administration to act as a voter registration agency.

Please see below Attorney Rafferty's email which brought the issue to my attention:

From: Scott Rafferty
Date: 12 April 2010
Subject: Helping Wounded Warriors Register to Vote


We had an opportunity to work together during the Kerry for President campaign. On behalf of my client, Santa Clara County Democratic Chair, Steve Preminger, I am asking for advice on how we can resolve a piece of unfinished business - getting homeless and institutionalized veterans the opportunity to register. The matter raises important issues for veterans rights, voter registration, and administrative law. But italso raises a policy issue - why do the Civil Division and the United States Attorney continue to defend a former administration policy that Senator Obama called "shameful" and introduced (with Senators Kerry and Feinstein) legislation to overturn? My client would be grateful for any assistance in obtaining policy review by the new Administration. And I would be grateful for legal guidance that any of you may be able to volunteer.

In 2007, after three years of litigation over a 2004 incident in Menlo Park, Steve filed a rulemaking petition seeking some solution that would comprehensively register veterans who live on VA campuses. In the middle of the 2008 campaign, the VA circumvented an adverse Federal Circuit decision (and notice-and-comment procedures) by issuing a "directive" that allowed 1400 facility heads to restrict voter registration according to their own local policies, none of which has been published. According to the VA, this directive resulted in the registration of 350 veterans nationwide in 2008, since only 176 volunteers had been "authorized" nationwide. Former VA Secretary Peake waited until 5 days before the election before denying it, stating that the unpublished directive was adequate.

During the 2004 and 2008 campaigns, the VA banned both individuals, party organizations, 501(c)(3)s and even the SoS of Connecticut herself from entering VA campuses for the purpose of individually registering voters. Additionally, the VA provides no affirmative voter registration services, and most of these wounded warriors do not get motor-voter aid from DMVs or state health and welfare agencies. The Kerry Obama bill to extend motor-voter passed the House by voice vote, but did not come to a vote in the Senate.

This basis for these restrictions was originally a Nixon-era rule that provides six months in jail for conducting an "authorized demonstration." The VA interprets this to include any private political conversation, even voter registration. After four years of litigation, Judge Fogel dismissed the "as applied" case because the Federal Circuit held the rule was "facially" constitutional. The Federal Circuit decision later recognized a Circuit conflict on unfettered discretion in non-public forums and granted rehearing.

On rehearing, the Federal Circuit held, as a matter of regulatory interpretation, that this particular rule cannot be used as a prior restraint to censor any subject matter or to discriminate based on party affiliation. In the Ninth Circuit, Preminger prevailed on standing. However, without briefing or reference to the intervening Federal Circuit decision, the Court "affirmed on the merits" the district court judgment, which had not addressed the injunctive claim. On rehearing, the Ninth Circuit amended this decision to acknowledge that it was limited to the single incident, which had given rise to a damage claim. Judge Fogel acknowledges that the issue of injunctive relief is unadjudicated and has indicated that he would entertain a Rule 60(b) motion.

The Federal Circuit heard argument last Thursday for more than an hour. The Civil Division took the position that the Federal Circuit could neither review the directive, nor require a rulemaking, but could only send Preminger's petition back for more reasons to be stated for its denial. "There is no end to this," Chief Judge Michel observed. The Rule 60(b) motion was filed Friday before Judge Fogel, with
hearing sought before the May 2010 registration deadline.

Again, my client and I would be grateful for your help reversing this "shameful" policy and guaranteeing our wounded warriors an opportunity to register.

Scott Rafferty
4730 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20016
mobile 202-380-5525

Respectfully yours;

Joyce McCloy, Editor
Voting News Blog
http://votingnews.blogspot.com/
336-794-1240



Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

Press Release: Prestigious Pinocchio Award Goes to Maryland Elections Chief Linda Lamone

PRESS ADVISORY

#

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Prestigious Pinocchio Award Goes to Maryland Elections Chief Linda Lamone

North Carolina, Wednesday April 14, 2010/NCVVNewswire/ The NC Coalition for Verified Voting is pleased to present the first ever Spring 2010 Election Pinocchio Award to Maryland State Election Director Linda Lamone, for her "creative" elections budget forecast.

"Maryland's top elections chief deserves to be recognized for her ability to spin her state's expensive, buggy, paperless voting machines as accurate, reliable, and affordable in spite of the facts." said Joyce McCloy, Director of the North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting. McCloy went on to say that: "These misleading claims have been used in other states, but nowhere as successfully as in Maryland. Ms. Lamone has truly outdone herself and all other defenders of paperless voting systems." says McCloy.

Linda Lamone is famous in her own right for her tireless advocacy of expensive unverifiable elections run on paperless machines. Lamone has overcome opposition of voters, nationally recognized computer experts, voting rights advocates, two Governors and even the Maryland State legislature. Lamone's battle is a matter of life or death, with Lamone on record saying the state would have paper ballots "over my dead body."

Now Lamone's achilles heel may be the bad economy. Lamone delayed the implementation of paper ballot systems by arguing that it would be far less expensive to keep the current paperless system. This tact has worked before, but in this bad economy Lamone has to account for her numbers.

The Maryland group SAVE our Votes found discrepancies in Lamone's cost claims:

The SBE provided cost projections ... to Board of Public Works members last October showing that the cost of switching to a new optical scan voting system would be roughly $19 million for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 while the cost of using the existing equipment would be about $6 million. However, after procurement of the new system was postponed, the SBE requested nearly $11 million to operate the existing equipment in this year’s elections.

The Maryland General Assembly has ordered an independent study of voting system costs:

"The study will examine the current and projected operating and maintenance costs and the projected lifespan for the state’s existing touch-screen voting equipment as well as the costs of procuring and implementing an optical scan system in the most cost-effective manner. It will also review the voting system costs and contracts of other jurisdictions that currently use paper ballot/optical scan voting systems. The report is due December 1, 2010...." ~ SaveOurVotes.org press release.

More background:

Read
Why Maryland STILL Does Not Have Paper Ballots
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Maryland-STILL-Does-No-by-Joyce-McCloy-100320-69.html

# # #

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 website http://www.ncvoter.net/

Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at

http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US

NC SBoE says Alamance Co. in violation of Voter Registration Act

Alamance County is in the doghouse with the NC State Board of Elections. According to the State Board of Elections, the Alamance Dept of Social Services has "substantially failed to comply with the requirements of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act.” Burke and Johnston Counties have also been a problem until recently. Is Alamance County, North Carolina's Department of Social Services helping clients register to vote (as required by law) or not? The problem is that we don't know, since the Department of Social Services (DSS) has not been sending in the required paperwork to the North Carolina State Board of Elections. The DSS has made excuses but that dog won't hunt since 97 other counties complied without whining. If the DSS truly is assisting clients in registering to vote, then why not send the paperwork in?

DSS, state elections board still at odds
April 03, 2010 3:20 PM
Robert Boyer / Times-News

The squabble over voter registration record-keeping continues between the Alamance County Department of Social Services and the state Board of Elections.

This week, the county DSS sent 560 voter preference forms to the county Board of Elections. Among other things, the forms list whether clients register to vote or decline to register.

Osborne said until this week, the DSS has been storing the preference forms, but hasn’t been sending them to the county Board of Elections.

A 1993 federal law requires agencies that provide public assistance to ask clients if they have registered and help them register if clients wish.

Don Wright, the state elections board’s top attorney, said such practices violate state and federal election law.

According to a Feb. 25 letter from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the DSS offices in Alamance, Burke and Johnston counties “have consistently and substantially failed to comply with the requirements of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act.”

The letter went on to ask the agencies to comply. “The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring compliance with the NVRA and will, where appropriate, bring enforcement actions in federal district court to ensure such compliance ...” wrote T. Christian Herren Jr., the acting chief of the division's Voting Section.

Osborne countered Wednesday that her agency has “always” complied with Section 7 requirements. “We have lots of work to do, work that we are mandated to do. We’ve been meeting the mandate of the law. We just haven’t been doing some of the extra steps” the state Board of Elections is requiring. The state requirements are policy and are not law. Wright said they are part of state law.

But Gary O. Bartlett, the state board’s executive director, continues to side with his attorney.

In a March 17 letter to Herren, Bartlett wrote that his “office continues to have difficulty in working with” the Alamance County DSS. “We will be happy to provide you with any data you request about voter registration statistics coming from Alamance County and specifically generated at the Alamance County Department of Social Services.”

Sign up to receive email updates from our blog at http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2378974&loc=en_US