Voting Rights Act denies equal right to discriminate, says Ariz Attorney Gen

08/24/2012

 
Picture
Next week, state attorney general Alan Wilson will attempt to contest the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s rejection of South Carolina’s “voter ID” law.

The case is taking a new twist, however, thanks to the AG of another state.

Today, Arizona’s Thomas Horne filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, claiming that one particular part of the Voting Rights Act unfairly affects the nine states that are subject to its laws.

Section Five of the Act notes that any change to voting laws in subject states must be approved by the federal government.

Some other states not subject to VRA, though, have already changed their own laws pertaining to voting and didn’t require federal approval for those changes, Horne notes.

Different formats of voter identification requirements are used in some of those other states, Horne notes, and the federal government didn’t interfere in those cases. Minority voters are still subject to discrimination in those states, too, he says.

Because South Carolina and nine other states are the only ones subject to the Voting Rights Act, Horne concludes, it has unfairly lost its own right to discriminate. Section Five of the VRA “undermines the principal of equal sovereignty,” he says.

“Because the VRA’s purpose is to eradicate voting discrimination for all United States citizens, treating States differently is not congruent with the Act’s purpose.”

In other words, Horne says that if they can do it, so can we.

What Horne overlooks, however – and right along with South Carolina’s Alan Wilson and all of the state legislature that first voted for this bill back in May 2011 – is that the state already had requirements for voters to present identification before being allowed to partake in an election.  Citizens had to provide a voter registration card, a driver’s license, student ID or other means to clarify their identity before being allowed to vote.

The new law, which the Dept. of Justice overruled last December, attempted to restrict the format of acceptable ID to that of a picture-bearing card issued by the state. Had it been accepted, over 239,000 South Carolinians – who were already registered, mind you – would have lost their right to vote.

The other states that incorporated new voter identification requirements still accepted practically all other formats of ID, including the ones South Carolina was set to refuse – student IDs, non-picture IDs and even expired drivers’ licenses (which senior citizens do not have to legally renew, provided they no longer operate a motor vehicle).  And in those other states, anyone lacking such identification could still vote; poll workers could simply verify the voter’s signature with the original registration on file.

In the Palmetto State, however, the law demanded that no vote could be cast without an unexpired, state photo ID. Not only did this disproportionately affect minority voters and senior citizens, but the state Dept. of Motor Vehicles made it worse by even blocking renewal of licenses for some, even denying them to many new residents, too.

Wilson and the DMV partnered up shortly after to continue their goal, claiming that 900 dead citizens were listed to have voted in the last election.  The humility they suffered when the state election commission proved them wrong in each and every case, though, apparently didn’t set in.

Now armed with support from Arizona’s attorney general, Wilson’s case will be heard by a federal appeals court from Aug. 27 to 31.

Let’s hope that Horne’s argument – which blatantly calls for equal rights to discriminate – gets Wilson’s appeal shot down again.

Also read:
"Dead voter' claims quickly dying
DOJ rejects South Carolina's Voter ID law
Voter ID law can't be enforced this year, says DOJ
Haley breaks promise to aid voter ID access
Voter ID at the DMV
Colbert Report on Voter ID
Potential loophole to Voter ID proposal, but challenge still needed, says SC ProNet

 

Recent Amendment 2 unconstitutional, says NLRB

01/15/2011

 
On November 2, South Carolina voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that challenges federal law, according to the National Labor Review Board.

And if the State Assembly attempts to enact Amendment 2 in its new 2011 session, NLRB is ready to sue, says its acting general counsel.

In a letter to Alan Wilson, newly-elected state attorney general, NLRB’s Lafe E. Solomon wrote “(the Amendment) conflicts with the rights afforded individuals covered by the National Labor Relations Act.”

And if the state tries to use the new law, “I have been authorized to bring a civil action in federal court to seek to invalidate the Amendment.”

Solomon gave Wilson two weeks to respond to the January 13 letter before filing suit.

The ballot description of the amendment in November 2’s elections read: “A ‘Yes’ vote will give employees the constitutional right to vote by secret ballot when they are voting on whether to be represented by a labor union.”

Amendment 2, which results in changes to Article II of the state constitution, received support from 86 percent of voters in the recent General Election.

Organized labor in the state argued against the amendment, though, claiming its wordage to be misleading.  

Workers already have that secret-ballot option, and despite its description that insinuates protection of rights, the amendment actually removes another right.

The National Labor Relations Act allows two methods of union formation: workers can form a union by secret ballot in an election overseen by NLRB; or an employer can be asked to recognize a union after a majority of workers sign authorization cards.

The recent amendment, however, would actually take away the latter option.  

Because Amendment 2 would conflict with this federal law, it violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, says the NLRB, which cited many legal precedents in its letter to Wilson.

The Amendment could also conflict with the Employee Free Choice Act, a legislative bill still under review by both houses of U.S. Congress, and which is anticipated to pass following revisions.

The Employee Free Choice Act would “amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join or assist labor organizations to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.”

Currently, after being approached by workers who recently voted to unionize, a company can delay union formation by insisting on a later secret-ballot vote.  Before that additional voting procedure, those companies can apply pressure on employees not to form a labor union, and even fire workers who helped organize the union vote.

Under the Employee Free Choice Act, however, employers would no longer have that tactic. Companies that engaged in such procedures could be substantially fined, as well.

The proposal to add Amendment 2 to the ballots was introduced to the State Assembly by state Rep. Eric Bedingfield, and was co-sponsored by 73 other Republican state representatives.

Bedingfield openly stated his intentions behind the bill were to challenge “legislation being proposed in Washington.”

NLRB sent similar warnings to Arizona, which also passed a similar amendment in the last election, and to Utah and South Dakota, where such laws are already in effect.