The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Oct. 3, 2024

Today’s Script

(Variations occur with audio due to editing for time. Today’s Links below the script)

You’re listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.

Our report on court challenges to undated or misdated mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania mentioned the “Materiality Provision” of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Just what is the Materiality Provision, and how can it help protect voters?

In question are ballot envelopes from otherwise eligible voters, received on time and correct except for a missing or incorrect date on the outer envelope.  Pennsylvania’s election law invalidates those ballots, and as many as 10,000 voters were affected in 2022.

The materiality provision, part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s Title 1, was designed to keep racist election officials from rejecting voter registrations for minor mistakes – used as a voter suppression tactic throughout the South.  For instance, White voters were given assistance and alerted to mistakes, while Black voters were disenfranchised for a simple spelling error.    

For years, federal courts found that Title 1 applies to the whole voting process, and ruled that missing dates, envelopes, and postmarks are “immaterial” to the validity of the ballot. Only recently have Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and other Conservative judges argued that it should apply ONLY to registration, and overturned such appeals.  

If a voter does everything else right, but makes a trivial mistake, shouldn’t we make every effort to honor the intent of the voter?  The ACLU’s high court appeal may answer that question.

We’ve linked more at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:

Congressional Research Service – The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Eleven Titles at a Glance
Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum – Helen L. Brewer – Title I of the Civil Rights Act in Contemporary Voting Rights
Litigation
Protect Democracy – The Constitutionality of the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Democracy Docket – Pennsylvania Orgs Ask SCOTUS To Decide if Rejecting Mail-in Ballots for Date Errors Violates Civil Rights Act
Campaign Legal Center – (2018) CLC Argument Used in Georgia Absentee Ballot Cases
Democracy Docket – This Civil Rights Provision Protects Your Vote from Simple Mistakes

Groups Taking Action:

ACLU, NAACP PA , League of Women Voters PA, Black Political Empowerment Project 

Check Your Voter Registration:

• U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your State
• USA Vote Foundation – Registration, Eligibility, State Election Office Links
• Vote.Gov – Register to Vote in Your State
• Vote.Org – Check Your Registration to Vote
  
  

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #VoterSuppression #CivilRightsAct #Pennsylvania #SCOTUS

The post What is the ‘Materiality Provision’ of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and How Can it Help Protect Voters? appeared first on American Democracy Minute.

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Aug. 2, 2024

Today’s Script

You’re listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a racially gerrymandered South Carolina Congressional district and made future racial gerrymandering cases more difficult.  July 29th, pro-voter groups filed a state suit, claiming the gerrymander violated the state constitutional provision to an “equal right to elect officers.”  

In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that partisan gerrymandering was a matter for states to decide, but racial gerrymandering could still be challenged under the Voting Rights Act.  The South Carolina NAACP sued when 30,000 Black voters were moved to a more White district, diluting their voting power and creating a White Republican majority district.   

The South Carolina legislature claimed it did so for partisan, not racial, reasons. The U.S. Supreme Court not only allowed the racially gerrymandered district, but raised the bar for proving future racial gerrymandering cases.  The NAACP withdrew further challenges on July 26th.   

July 29th, the ACLU and the League of Women Voters asked the South Carolina Supreme Court to rule on the state constitutionality of the same Congressional District, citing Article 1, Section 5.   Lynn Teague of the South Carolina League of Women Voters said in a statement, “South Carolina’s Constitution protects its citizens’ right to exercise equal influence over our elections.  We are asking the court to establish redistricting standards consistent with our Constitution.”

We have a link to the case at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:
U.S. Supreme Court – Opinion & Dissent in Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP

American Democracy Minute – U.S. Supreme Court Finds South Carolina Gerrymandering Case ‘Bleaching’ Congressional District Not Racially Motivated
Democracy Docket – Nearly Three-Year Legal Battle Over South Carolina’s Congressional Map Comes to an End, Unfair Districts Remain in Place
ACLU & League of Women Voters SC – ACLU and LWV File Lawsuit Against Partisan Gerrymandering of South Carolina’s Congressional Districts

ACLU & League of Women Voters SC  –  Complaint for League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Thomas Alexander
Justia Law – South Carolina Constitution Article 1, Section 5

Groups Taking Action:
South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, ACLU South Carolina, League of Women Voters SC

Check Your Voter Registration

• U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your State
• USA Vote Foundation – Registration, Eligibility, State Election Office Links
• Vote.Gov – Register to Vote in Your State
• Vote.Org – Check Your Registration to Vote

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #SouthCarolinaNews #FairMaps #VotingRights

The post The End of One South Carolina Gerrymandering Lawsuit and the Beginning of Another, as the Fight for Fair Maps Continues appeared first on American Democracy Minute.

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for June 27, 2024

Today’s Script

(Variations occur with audio due to editing for time. Today’s Links below the script)

You’re listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.

We reported recently on the impact of Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court majority’s decision invalidating Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  Anticipating even more erosion of the VRA, some states have passed their own state VRAs. 

It’s not only the dismantling of Section 5, the preclearance requirements for states with a history of discrimination.  The conservative justices also just made proving racial gerrymandering harder under Section 2, and they’ve made it easier for a state legislature to dilute minority voting power.  And in the lower courts, more cases attempting to keep individual voters from bringing voting rights lawsuits under the VRA are pending. 

With dwindling protections from the federal government, California, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, New York, Connecticut, and Minnesota, have enacted State VRAs. Michigan, Maryland, New Jersey, and Florida have efforts underway. 

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund recommends that state VRAs should have preclearance requirements for counties or municipalities which have patterns of discrimination.  Rules should include a prohibition against vote denial or dilution through gerrymandering; strong protections against intimidation or deception; language assistance; a statewide database to make evidence-based decisions on election administration; and a directive to the state judiciary to support pro-voter and pro-democracy decisions.

We have the Legal Defense Fund’s recommendations and links to state VRAs at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:
NAACP Legal Defense Fund – State Voting Rights Acts Provide Critical Protections to Black Voters and Other Voters of Color
Campaign Legal Center – Protecting the Freedom to Vote Through State Voting Rights Acts
Center for American Progress – The Protection of Voting Rights Requires State Action

State of Oregon via Casetext – Text of the Oregon Voting Right Act
State of Connecticut – Text of the Connecticut Voting Rights Act
NAACP Legal Defense Fund – Proposed Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Voting Rights Act of Florida (FLVRA)
NAACP Legal Defense Fund – The Proposed New Jersey Voting Rights Act (NJVRA)
Democracy Docket – Several States Look To Pass Their Own Voting Rights Acts

Groups Taking Action:

NAACP Legal Defense Fund, ACLU,  Campaign Legal Center, MALDEF, Voters Not Politicians

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #VotingRightsAct #StateVRA #MDVRA #MIVRA #FLVRA #NJVRA

The post The SCOTUS Majority is Bent on Dismantling the Voting Rights Act.  Lacking Federal Protection, Pro-Democracy States are Enacting State VRAs appeared first on American Democracy Minute.

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for April 1, 2024

Today’s Script

(Variations occur with audio due to editing for time. Today’s Links below the script)

You’re listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.

Three federal court actions last week in South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida cases let stand racially-gerrymandered maps diluting Black voting power.  Those diluted maps neutralize the voice of Black voters in those districts for 2024. 

The majority minority North Florida 5th Congressional district was reconfigured by a map proposed by Governor Ron DeSantis into a white majority district.  That map was later struck down by a lower federal court.  Democracy Docket reports that March 27th, a federal district judge held that the plaintiffs did not prove Florida legislators intended to racially gerrymander the maps, and dismissed the case.   A Florida Supreme Court case is still pending.

Also March 27th, a federal appeals panel affirmed a decision over a new North Carolina Senate district which dismantled a former majority minority opportunity district.  The majority of the panel said it was too close to the election, and allowed it to stay through November 2024.

A U.S. Supreme Court case from South Carolina STILL doesn’t have an opinion. So with the June 11th state primary imminent, a lower court allowed a Congressional map diluting Black voting power to be used  for  2024.  The legislature had argued that it didn’t racially gerrymander, it gerrymandered for partisan reasons, which SCOTUS ruled in 2019 was an inherently state political issue. 

We have links to the decisions at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:
Democracy Docket – Federal Court Upholds Florida’s Congressional Map That Eliminated Historically-Black District
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (via Democracy Docket) – Decision in Common Cause Florida v. Byrd
Democracy Docket – 4th Circuit Declines to Block New North Carolina Senate Map for 2024 Elections
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT  (via Democracy Docket) – Decision in Pierce v. North Carolina Board of Elections
Democracy Docket – South Carolina Will Use Gerrymandered Congressional Map in 2024, District Court Rules
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA (via Democracy Docket) – Decision in South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Alexander

Groups Taking Action:
South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP,  Common Cause Florida, Common Cause NC, NAACP Legal Defense Fund

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #FairMaps #RaciallGerrymandering

The post Federal Courts Leave Racially Gerrymandered South Carolina, North Carolina & Florida Maps in Place for 2024 Election appeared first on American Democracy Minute.

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Feb. 1, 2024

Today’s Script

(Variations occur with audio due to editing for time. Today’s Links below the script)

You’re listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.

In Nov. 2023, an 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s radical ruling that Arkansas voters did not have the right to sue under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  Despite being widely panned as a fringe ruling, the 8th Circuit refused to re-hear the case January 30th.  

The Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, represented by the ACLU, contested racially gerrymandered state house  maps under the Voting Rights Act Section 2.  

In 2022, an 8th Circuit federal district court ignored decades of “private right of action” precedent allowing voters, civil rights groups and democracy advocates to bring suits to protect the rights of voters.  The court restricted standing to only the U.S. Department of Justice, though for the moment, it applies only to states in the 8th Circuit:  Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.   

The decision started a chain reaction in the 8th circuit and other districts, with anti-voter state officials attempting to re-open VRA cases they had lost, including in North Dakota and Louisiana.  Other district courts refused those requests. 

Taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court would likely be a gamble, given the willingness of the court’s most conservative and radical justices to gut the Voting Rights Act. 

We have more on the case, and the groups taking action, at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:
Democracy Docket – Arkansas Legislative Redistricting Challenge
ACLU – (2023) FEDERAL APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS RADICAL RULING IN ARKANSAS REDISTRICTING CASE
Democracy Docket – 8th Circuit Rules Private Plaintiffs Cannot Sue Under Section 2 of Voting Rights Act

Arkansas Advocate – Federal appeals court won’t rehear closely watched Arkansas redistricting case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit – Opinion in Arkansas State Conference NAACP and Arkansas Public Policy Panel   v.  Arkansas Board of Apportionment
NPR – A federal court declines to revisit a ruling that could weaken the Voting Rights Act

Groups Taking Action:
ACLU, Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, Arkansas Public Policy Panel

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #VotingRightsAct #PrivateRightofAction #Arkansas #EightCircuit #RacialGerrymandering

The post Federal Appeals Court Denies Rehearing of Radical Arkansas Voting Rights Act Ruling Shutting Out Voters & Democracy Groups from Bringing Cases appeared first on American Democracy Minute.