Separate Federal and State Voting Rules Threaten to Disenfranchise Voters
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona could not require individuals to present proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport, tribal identification, or naturalization documents, in order to register to vote in federal elections. In response, Arizona joined Kansas last week to set into motion a costly plan to create a separate voter registration system, with separate ballots, for state and local elections.
The creation of two separate voter registration systems could translate into thousands of disenfranchised voters. Ninety percent of the 31,000 voter registration applications that were denied after Arizona adopted Proposition 200, the initiative requiring proof of citizenship, belonged to U.S. citizens. Nationwide, as many as 13 million Americans do not have ready access to proof of their citizenship. Many racial minorities, students, elderly, and poor individuals do not have the types of government-issued identification documents being required by Arizona. In addition, as many as 34 percent of American women, who often change their names after marriage or divorce, do not have a government issued ID that reflects their current name. These documents can be costly and difficult to obtain.
Arizona Proposition 200 passed in 2004, requiring all individuals to provide proof of citizenship when they registered to vote in the state. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, however, that with respect to federal elections, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires states to use a uniform federal voter registration form, controls, not the Arizona law. NVRA does not require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. The federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) creates federal voter registration forms. States can ask the EAC to approve state-specific instructions on the form, like proof of citizenship. Arizona had requested that the EAC approve its proof-of-citizenship requirement in 2005, but the EAC took no action on the request and Arizona did not challenge the EAC in federal court. In making its ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that Arizona could reapply to the EAC to approve its proof-of-citizenship requirement.
Media Resources: The New York Times 10/11/13; The Wichita Eagle 10/4/13; Arizona Attorney General Press Release 10/7/13; The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; The Supreme Court; Bloomberg 8/22/13
1/23/2015 #HeForShe Campaign Launches Pilot Effort Aimed at Institutional Equality - The United Nations' gender equality campaign #HeForShe has launched a new program called IMPACT 10X10X10.
United Nations Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson, together with UN Women Executive DirectorPhumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, introduced the one-year pilot effort aimed at encouraging corporations, universities, and governments to play an active role in enhancing women's empowerment and equality in Davos, Switzerland today at the World Economic Forum.
"Women need to be equal participants in our homes, societies, in our governments, and in our workplaces," Watson said.
First introduced in September, HeForShe is a solidarity movement that calls on men and boys to confront gender inequalities that face women and girls globally. . . .
1/22/2015 BREAKING: House to Vote on Abortion Coverage Ban - After they were forced to scrap plans for a 20-week abortion ban, House Republican leaders decided late last night to instead ram through a vote today on a different extreme anti-abortion bill.
House Republicans are now pushing HR 7, a bill promoted as a ban on federal funding of abortion that would actually prevent women from using their own money to purchase health insurance that includes abortion care. . . .
1/22/2015 House Cancels Abortion Ban After GOP Congresswomen Drop Support - House Republicans cancelled plans to vote on a 20-week ban on abortion after Republican Congresswomen removed their names publicly as co-sponsors of the bill.
The vote on the unconstitutional 20-week ban had originally been scheduled for today, the anniversary of Roe v. . . .