Hey, What About the 24th?

in

Hey, What About the 24th?

by Anonymous | May 12 2008

By Bruce Ackerman
& Jennifer Nou, Slate

The constitutional amendment about voting rights that the Supreme Court forgot.

Americans have long fought hard to protect the right to vote and a generation ago emphatically rejected the idea of paying for the ballot. As the civil rights revolution reached its peak, Congress and the states in 1964 enacted the 24th Amendment, forbidding any "poll-tax or other tax" in federal elections. Yet, remarkably enough, this basic text went unmentioned by the Supreme Court when it upheld Indiana's photo-ID law this week.

Indiana's law insists on a photo ID to vote, which in turn requires documents, like a birth certificate or passport, that verify identity. Getting these papers costs voters money as well as time and effort. This leads to the question the court failed to ask: Does the extra expense violate the absolute ban on all "taxes" imposed by the 24th Amendment?

The leading Supreme Court decision about this amendment provides a starting point. In Harman v. Forssenius, Virginia responded to the new constitutional prohibition by allowing citizens to escape its poll tax if they filed a formal certificate establishing their place of residence. Otherwise, they would be obliged to continue paying a state tax of $1.50 if they wanted to cast a ballot.

"Voice of the Voters!" & "American Voices" present: "We the People": The Constitution, Our Vote & Election 2008

in

"Voice of the Voters!" & "American Voices" present: "We the People": The Constitution, Our Vote & Election 2008

by Voter Action | May 7 2008


Join us tonight for an Important Discussion/Debate:

Top Constitutional Experts, Media Leaders and Voting Integrity Advocates explore the Dichotomies, Legal History and Challenges Facing us Today, as well as report on the Latest Update on North Carolina and Indiana Election Results & Reported Problems

2 Hour Radio & Internet Special
7PM EST WEDNESDAY, MAY 7

LISTEN ON 1360 AM (Philadelphia)
& ON THE WEB AT www.voiceofthevoters.org

CALL IN questions LIVE:
856-227-1360
SUBMIT questions in advance:
www.voiceofthevoters.org
ALTERNATE Internet Access: http://wnjc.duxpond.com/


SPECIAL GUESTS:

Constitutional Panel | Alex Keyssar, Professor of History & Social Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government & Voter Action Board member, Jamin Raskin, Professor of Law, American University & Maryland State Senator, John Bonifaz, Legal Director of VoterAction.org and Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media Studies at New York University

Election 2008 & EAC | Brad Friedman, BradBlog.Com & John Gideon, VotersUnite.org

Are We Really Voting? | Ellen Theisen, VotersUnite.org & Susan Pynchon, Florida Fair Election Coalition

HOSTED BY:
Jim Strait, Lori Rosolowsky & Mary Ann Gould

(Archived Voice of the Voters! programs can be found at www.voiceofthevoters.org)

 

Election Experts: Today’s Supreme Court Ruling Will Add to Long List of Hurdles Already Facing American Voters

in

Election Experts: Today’s Supreme Court Ruling Will Add to Long List of Hurdles Already Facing American Voters

by Voter Action | Apr 28 2008

Call for New Standards to Ensure Fair and Secure Elections

For Immediate Release | WASHINGTON, DC —Election experts fear that today’s ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board will not only prompt state election officials to enact similarly restrictive ID laws, but will also lay the foundation for them to impose other restrictions that unnecessarily burden voting. These restrictions, including laws targeting civic groups that help register voters and improper implementation of federal laws intended to protect voters from being wrongly purged from voter lists, could exacerbate difficulties voters already face complying with existing voting laws.
"Today's decision is disappointing because it upholds a new hurdle for voters unsupported by any evidence of voter impersonation in Indiana." said Bob Brandon, Co-founder and President, Fair Elections Legal Network. "With more states imposing their own rules, it's clear we need sensible reform to bring fair standards to all eligible voters."
"At a time of increased participation in our election system, we need to move toward lifting burdens on voters and creating a streamlined, fair system. The Court’s decision is an unfortunate step backward for our nation," said John Bonifaz, Legal Director for Voter Action. "We need broad reform to make the system easier for all eligible voters to register, remain registered, and vote."

The Court’s ruling means that large numbers of registered voters, many of whom have been voting for most of their lives, including senior, student, rural, disabled, minority and low income voters may not be able to cast a ballot in next week’s primary or in the November elections.

The 2008 Presidential Primaries and Caucuses and "What we've learned so far"

in

The 2008 Presidential Primaries and Caucuses and "What we've learned so far"

by Voter Action | Apr 9 2008

Voter Action's John Bonifaz testified before the US House Administration Committee for a hearing on voting rights problems identified to date via the 866-MYVOTE1 hotline this primary election season. Along with John, the Committee heard testimony from nationally-syndicated radio talk show host Tom Joyner, Ken Smukler, President of InfoVoter Technologies, and Greg Moore, Executive Director of the NAACP's National Voter Fund. View the archived webcast and get more details here...

View the archived webcast of the hearing: the 2008 Presidential Primaries and Caucuses and "What we've learned so far".

Letter to New Jersey's Attornery General

in

Letter to New Jersey's Attornery General

by Voter Action | Mar 6 2008

The New Jersey primary on Feb 5th, 2008 led to reports of serious problems with Sequoia voting machines. See below for our letter to NJ Attorney General Anne Milgram calling for a full investigation to address these problems.

Dear Attorney General Milgram:
Local newspapers recently reported that election administrators in Mercer, Union, Ocean, Bergen, Gloucester and Middlesex counties discovered that some of the Sequoia Advantage voting machines reported incorrect ballot counts in the February 5th presidential primary.

Election Integrity Blog

in

Election Integrity Blog

by Alan-PA plaintiff | Feb 7 2008

Tomorrow, I will have my day in court. I will be represented by smart lawyers, well-versed in election law, and computer scientists, who understand the workings of touchscreen voting machines better than the vendors who sell them. My case is solid; according to the Pennsylvania constitution, voting machines must be auditable and the votes verifiable on a recount. My county’s touchscreen voting machines can do neither.

The story starts in 2006 when Northampton County was given the carrot of $1.5 million from the federal government to upgrade from lever machines to computerized voting machines. The Department of Justice waved the stick of litigation if we hesitated in our purchase. The County Commissioner labored under the misconception “paper is unconstitutional”, which he repeatedly announced at the meeting. Citizens’ concerns about the hazards of computerized voting were ignored by the County Council, who purchased $2.2 million of Advanced Voting Solutions WINvote DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) voting machines.

Citizens’ concerns about the accuracy and verifiability of the DREs, directed to the Pennsylvania Department of State, were ignored. Following the procedure for challenging the certification, I filed a legal petition requesting re-examination of my county’s voting machines. A total of 14 similar petitions were filed from around the state. Secretary of State Cortes responded that there was no need for re-examination, or concern, because his certifications were perfect and accurate.

Paper Ballots for NY!!!

in

Paper Ballots for NY!!!

by nystateleader | Jan 28 2008

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Mohandas Gandhi
I'm pleased to announce that after five years of hard work on the part of voting integrity advocates, New York State has rejected DREs and approved only the Automark and the Sequoia ImageCast scanner/marker for use in 2008 polling places.

This momentous decision by the State Board of Elections virtually guarantees that New York State will vote on paper ballots and ballot scanners when it finally replaces lever machines in 2009. 

WELCOME!

in

WELCOME!

by johnbonifaz | Nov 11 2007

Welcome to Voter Action's new website. We are proud to be part of a growing movement in the country seeking to reclaim public control of our public elections. We hope our website will serve as a valuable resource for this movement and that you will sign up to receive regular updates on our projects. We stand ready to work with you in the ongoing fight for our democracy here at home.

Thanks for visiting, and be sure to check back soon as we continue to build our site and add updates about our successes and current endeavors.