Voting Rights Act

Suits Against Texas’s 2021 Voting Law Move Forward, Promise Lengthy and Complex Legal Battle

Election Law Society · February 27, 2023 ·

By Kate Dopkin

Fueled by conspiracy theories and former President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was rigged, last year, conservative states moved to pass legislation to restrict voting. The Republican-dominated Texas Legislature was no exception. In September of 2021, the Texas Legislature passed S.B. 1, a voting law that attempted to restrict how and when Texas voters can cast ballots. The far-reaching legislation banned drive-thru and 24-hour voting, protected partisan poll watchers, and imposed new requirements for assisting voters who need help filling out their ballots. The law also banned the distribution of mail-in ballot applications, created new ID requirements for voting by mail, and provided a correction process for mail-in voting. The ACLU of Texas described the legislation as “Omnibus Voter Suppression.”

Civil and voting rights groups have challenged S.B. 1 under the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The private plaintiffs included La Union del Pueblo Entero, Friendship-West Baptist Church, The Anti-Defamation League, and Texas Impact, among others. At least five different cases have been consolidated into a single lawsuit in the Western District of Texas. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case, arguing that the plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a claim of intentional discrimination under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Additionally, in November 2021, the U.S. Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas and the Texas Secretary of State, alleging that SB 1 violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act by improperly restricting assistance in the polling booth for voters with disabilities that make it difficult for them to read or write. The lawsuit further alleged that the law violated Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act by requiring rejection of mail ballots and mail ballot request forms because of certain paperwork errors or omissions that are not material to establishing a voter’s eligibility to cast a ballot. In May of 2022, Judge Xavier Rodriguez, denied the State’s motion to dismiss and allowed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to move forward.

Attempts to dismiss the private plaintiffs’ complaints have largely been unsuccessful. The defendants asked the court to dismiss claims raised by various voter advocacy organizations, including those filed by LULAC, Voto Latino, Texas Alliance for Retired Americans, and Texas AFT. On July 12, 2022, the district court allowed the majority of the claims to move forward, holding that the State defendants could not claim sovereign immunity; some of the plaintiffs had associational standing; all plaintiffs had organizational standing; and the plaintiffs had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court has also granted LULAC’s motion to compel documents and communications from the state legislators concerning claims of criminal conduct in Texas elections, the anticipated effects of S.B. 1, and communications with third-party organizations concerning S.B. 1. Texas legislators have appealed this order to the 5th Circuit.

On August 2, 2022, the District Court allowed most of the LUPE Plaintiffs’ claims to proceed, dismissing without prejudice certain claims under the 14th and 15th Amendments, sections 276.016, 276.017, and 276.019 of the State Election Code, and the ADA. State defendants have appealed that decision to the 5th Circuit, as well. The litigation is ongoing, and promises to be a lengthy and complex legal battle. The trial is currently scheduled for the summer of 2023.

Montana: Changes To Voting Laws In Wake of 2020 Election

Election Law Society · March 23, 2022 ·

By: Kelsey Nickerson

Montana is one of the largest states in the county, but unlike its counterparts Texas and California, it is home to relatively few people and only accounts for 3 electoral votes. The state had some close elections as of late, and with a relatively small population, a small number of votes can play aa large part in election results. As in most states, the 2020 Election inspired Montana to enact much more stringent voting laws relating to registration, identification, and absentee voting. Many of these laws, despite the obvious problematic result of disenfranchisement of indigenous voters, were upheld under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court’s decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee this past summer. In Montana, however, a new group has challenged the restrictive bill: young voters.

HB 506, along with instating various redistricting criteria, requires that “[u]ntil the individual meets residence and age requirements, a ballot may not be issued to the individual and the individual may not cast a ballot” via mail. Though it may seem like a reasonable limitation to place on mail-in voting, it does burden a certain portion of the population. Young people, whose participation has surged in Montana over the past few years, object to stringent absentee requirements that target both their age and transient nature. For example, young Montanans who will be 18 and eligible to vote on Election Day, but will not reach that age before the extremely early deadline to request a mail-in ballot, are prevented from voting if they can’t return to their district on Election Day. Additionally, residency requirements require 30 days of presence in a new location before an absentee ballot may be requested. With large portions of teens in Montana moving both away from home and out of state in the fall, there is little room for error in requesting an absentee ballot, and sometimes the request is impossible.

Beyond Brnovich – How an Arizona Voting Rights Case Will Have Sweeping Consequences

Election Law Society · March 11, 2022 ·

By: Mike Arnone

In July, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brnovich v. DNC, arguably its most significant voting rights decision since Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. Two Arizona election restrictions were at issue in Brnovich, but the Court’s holding will have far-reaching consequences beyond the Grand Canyon State.

The restrictions at the heart of Brnovich prohibited out-of-precinct ballots from being counted and criminalized the collection of ballots for delivery to polling places, a common practice sometimes called “ballot harvesting.” In a 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court upheld both provisions under Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The majority ruled that Section Two of the VRA could only be used to invalidate voting restrictions that place “substantial and disproportionate burdens on minority voters.” Because Arizona provided multiple ways to vote, “any burden associated with one option cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.” Burdens on voting, then, must be evaluated by the totality of the circumstances.

Virginia Passes State-Level Voting Rights Measure Mirroring Original Federal 1965 Voting Rights Act

Election Law Society · February 2, 2022 ·

By: Sarah Fisher

In March 2021, Virginia—a state historically marked by racially discriminatory practices in voting—became the first state formerly covered by the landmark federal 1965 Voting Rights Act to adopt state-level voting rights legislation modeled off of the Civil Rights Era measure.

Under the 1965 Act, certain cities, counties, and states with a history of race-based discrimination in voting were required to seek approval (called “preclearance”) from the United States Attorney General before making any changes to their election laws, regulations, or practices. The group of states and municipalities required to seek preclearance was determined by a formula that considered the jurisdiction’s use of certain discriminatory voting practices (such as poll taxes) and the jurisdiction’s voter registration and participation rates as of 1968.

“Colorful Colorado”: State Redistricting Maps In The 2020 Election

Election Law Society · November 15, 2021 ·

By: Weston Zeike

“Colorful Colorado” is one nickname of the “Centennial State.” Perhaps it’s fitting, then, that the state has been making headlines on the way it decided to color in its maps during the 2020 redistricting process.

Redistricting reform has received increasing attention in recent years, with Colorado being no exception to the national trend. In 2018, Colorado voters amended the Colorado Constitution to task an independent redistricting commission with drawing lines. Requiring 55% of the vote while receiving over 70%, these amendments gave the new independent redistricting commission authority to draw both state and congressional lines. Three years after the vote (and only months after the release of the requisite decennial census data release), we have a final congressional redistricting plan drawn by the commission.