The Republican Party’s 50-Year Assault on Voting Rights And how you can fight back !

by Sherwood Guernsey, Esq. Lee Harrison with Johanna Dombrowski

August 2015

Why Can’t I Vote?

WHY CAN’T I VOTE

November 2015

by Sherwood Guernsey, Esq. Lee Harrison with Johanna Dombrowski

CREDITS & THANKS

Striking cover design: Ben Hillman of Ben Hillman & Company – www.benhillman.com

Insightful review and editing: James Mahon, Woodrow Wilson Professor of Political Science, Williams College

Why Can’t I Vote?

CONTENTS 1 A NATION AT RISK ...... 1‐1

A nation at risk ...... 1‐2

What you can do! ...... 1‐3 2 ‘A BRIEF HISTORY OF VOTING RIGHTS IN AMERICA ...... 2‐1

Jefferson’s vision ...... 2‐1 LEST WE FORGET ...... 2‐2

African Americans ...... 2‐2

Freedom Summer ...... 2‐3

Women’s Right to Vote ...... 2‐3 3 REPUBLICANS’ 50‐YEAR ASSAULT ON VOTING RIGHTS ...... 3‐1

50 years in the Making ...... 3‐2

Operation Eagle Eye ...... 3‐3

How it began ...... 3‐3

Eagle Eye opens ...... 3‐4

How Eagle Eye worked ...... 3‐4

1. Purging Voter Lists through Vote Caging ...... 3‐4

2. The Distribution of Deterrent Paraphernalia ...... 3‐5

3. The Deployment of Poll Watchers to Challenge Voters on Election Day ...... 3‐5

Eagle Eye’s Legacy ...... 3‐7

Son of Eagle Eye ...... 3‐8

BEHIND THE CURTAIN ...... 3‐8

The Fear Driving tea party republicans ...... 3‐9

GOP Contempt for minority voters ...... 3‐10 4 THE THREAT TO VOTING RIGHTS TODAY ...... 4‐1

The Republican South Leads the Charge ...... 4‐1

iii Why Can’t I Vote

Lone Star Dimming ...... 4‐5

Virginia ...... 4‐6

South Carolina ...... 4‐6

Mississippi ...... 4‐7

Alabama ...... 4‐7

Arizona ...... 4‐7

Arkansas ...... 4‐8

Iowa ...... 4‐8

Indiana ...... 4‐8

Montana ...... 4‐9

Nebraska ...... 4‐9

North Dakota...... 4‐9

Tennessee ...... 4‐9

Florida ...... 4‐10

Outrage in Wisconsin ...... 4‐10

The Final Say ...... 4‐11 5 HEADING TO THE SUPREME COURT ...... 5‐1

The United States Supreme Court Decision: Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (U.S. 2013) ...... 5‐1

North Carolina ...... 5‐2

North Carolina: N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory, 997 F. Supp. 2d 322 (M.D.N.C. 2014) ...... 5‐2

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18764, 1 (4th Cir. N.C. 2014) ...... 5‐3

Wisconsin ...... 5‐3

WISCONSIN: Frank v. Walker, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59344 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2014)..... 5‐4

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Frank v. Walker, 766 F.3d 755, 756 (7th Cir. Wis. 2014)5‐4

Texas: ...... 5‐5

Why Can’t I Vote?

TEXAS: Veasey v. Perry, U.S. District Court of Southern Texas, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13‐CV‐ 00193 LEXIS 174916 (SD Tex Dec 11, 2013)...... 5‐5 6 THE VOTE YOU PROTECT COULD BE YOUR OWN ...... 6‐7

Together, We Have the Power ...... 6‐8

A Call to Action ...... 6‐8

Voter Registration for the 21st Century ...... 6‐9

Organizing a Voter Protection Campaign ...... 6‐12

Step 1: Organize a Core Group...... 6‐12

Step 2: identify the problem – Get Educated ...... 6‐12

Step 3: ID the people affected ...... 6‐13

Step 4: Raise Money ...... 6‐14

Step 5: Raise Awareness and Motivate ...... 6‐14

Social Media ...... 6‐15

Press Releases ...... 6‐15

Meetings and Local Events ...... 6‐15

Direct Mail ...... 6‐15

Phone‐Banking ...... 6‐16

Boots on the Ground ...... 6‐16

Getting Boots on the Ground...... 6‐16

A Few Basic Canvassing Do’s and Don’ts ...... 6‐17

Pilot Run ...... 6‐17

Adjust the Process...... 6‐18 7 REFERENCES ...... 7‐19 8 APPENDIX A ...... 8‐1

As American as Apple Pie ...... 8‐1

A History of Voting Rights in the United States ...... 8‐2

1700s – The Early Years ...... 8‐2

iii Why Can’t I Vote

1800s – Major Advances, Aetbacks, and Violent Struggles to Expand Rights ...... 8‐2

1900s – Moderate Progress ...... 8‐4

The New Millennium: Renewed Efforts to Restrict Voting Rights ...... 8‐6 9 APPENDIX B ...... 9‐1

Can You Pass a ‘Literacy’ Test? ...... 9‐1 10 APPENDIX C ...... 10‐1

Timeline of Women’s Suffrage in the U.S. (Source: Wikipedia.org) ...... 10‐1

1 A NATION AT RISK

or more than five years the foundation of the world’s oldest constitutional government – Fthe United States of America – has been under attack from within. Beginning with the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which allowed corporations and billionaires like the Koch brothers to stuff the pockets of conservative candidates with millions of dollars, to the dozens of voter‐suppression laws passed or proposed in most states – laws largely written by organizations funded by the Koch brothers empire –democracy in America has been threatened.

This period, which happens to coincide with the nation’s first African American President’s time in office, is unprecedented. Yes, there have been times in our history, like the Gilded Age, when corporations and the super‐rich ran rampant, but this time it’s different – and people are starting notice. As former president Jimmy Carter recently declared: The United States is now an “oligarchy” in which “unlimited political bribery” has Early on, fewer than 400 created “a complete subversion of our political system families were responsible for as a payoff to major contributors.” almost half the money raised in the 2016 campaign. Webster defines “oligarchy” as “a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people.” And if you have any doubt that we are becoming a Banana Republic that can no longer sustain a government of “We the People,” consider this: In July 2015, as the presidential primaries were starting to heat up, The New York Times reported that “Fewer than four hundred families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the 2016 presidential campaign, a concentration of political donors that is unprecedented in the modern era.”

And those wealthy donors – as Jimmy Carter makes clear –are not giving away their money for the fun of it: They are doing so to gain political power and the benefits that come with it. Radical conservatives like the Koch brothers and the political candidates they support hate the social safety net created by Franklin Roosevelt and want to do away with it. They also want to reintroduce their failed trickle‐down economic policies, including lowering wages and benefits for working people, while also eliminating those pesky environmental regulations – you know, the ones responsible for clean air, clean water, and limiting climate change.

Of course, they know that in order to turn the clocks back to the Gilded Age, they must capture the White House, and for them Citizens United was a critical step in that direction – but as it turns out, having virtually unlimited funds is proving not to be enough. Dissatisfied with their ability to sway voters with a constant barrage of TV ads, radical conservatives are now moving to prevent people – especially minorities and the poor – from voting. Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

A NATION AT RISK

From the beginning of this country, the struggle has not been over the concept of democracy; rather, it’s been over who has a voice in our democracy … over who has power and control. Put simply: It’s a struggle over who has the right to vote? For the Founding Fathers the answer was – only the propertied class – and only then if you were white and male. And ever since, voter suppression has been an ugly scar on the face of our democracy.

Clearly, if only a select few can vote, then, in effect, only those few have the power to make our laws and determine the direction of our country, and today’s economic inequality provides a case study in what happens when only a few have that power. Since the 1980s, wealth inequality in America has grown, reaching levels not seen since the Gilded Age. As Harvard Professor (now U.S. Senator) Elizabeth Warren Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Wrote back in 2006, before the Great Recession:

“Middle‐class families have been threatened on every front. Rocked by rising prices for essentials as men’s wages remained flat, both Dad and Mom have entered the workforce—a strategy that has left them working harder just to try to break even. Even with two paychecks, family finances are stretched so tightly that a very small misstep can leave them in crisis. As tough as life has become for married couples, single‐parent families face even more financial obstacles in trying to carve out middle‐class lives on a single paycheck. And at the same time that families are facing higher costs and increased risks, the old financial rules of credit have been rewritten by powerful corporate interests that see middle‐class families as the spoils of political influence.”

Senator Warren gets it.

Inequality only happens when legislators are elected by – and answer to – people who have “political influence.” And shortly after the Baltimore riots last spring, The New York Times economist, Paul Krugman, not only noted that “much though by no means all of the horror one sees in Baltimore and many other places is really about class, about the devastating effects of extreme and rising inequality.” And he debunked conservative claims that poverty, urban and rural, is a matter of values, “as if the poor just mysteriously make bad choices and all would be well if they adopted middle‐class values. Maybe, just maybe, that was a sustainable argument four decades ago, but at this point it should be obvious that middle‐class values only flourish in an economy that offers middle‐class jobs.”

Of course, Middle‐Class jobs have been increasingly scarce in America since Bill Clinton left office. But Krugman says it doesn’t have to be that way:

1-2 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

“The poor don’t need lectures on morality, they need more resources — which we can afford to provide — and better economic opportunities, which we can also afford to provide through everything from training and subsidies to higher minimum wages. Baltimore, and America, don’t have to be as unjust as they are.”

To make matters worse and as a contributing factor to policies helping to create inequality is the Republican party’s 50‐year effort to limit voting rights, an effort funded by the wealthiest of our country’s citizens, like the Koch brothers, who can now give virtually unlimited donations to candidates of their choice. The result: the election of reactionary politicians who further suppress the Middle Class and minorities and limit their right to vote, all of which reinforces Jimmy Carter’s assertion that we’ve become an oligarchy.

The United States of America is truly a nation at risk – at risk of losing our democracy. And that’s why we have written this guide book. We want to remind readers not only of the importance of our right to vote, but also how hard it was to establish, how many have struggled and died for that right (Section 2), how that right is constantly under attack and how fragile it truly is (Section 3), and – most important of all – we want to show readers how to end this threat to American democracy by expanding and guaranteeing voting rights (Section 4). In short, this book is a call to action.

WHAT YOU CAN DO!

And that action must begin soon, for the 2016 Presidential election has already begun. Here is an outline of many things that you can do to take action:

 Expand voter registration by advocacy with your legislators. Call, write, and draft petitions to your state legislators and governor to support voter registration modernization. Communicate with them regularly, and encourage others to do the same.  Use Voter Suppression as a “wedge‐issue” against the Republicans. Speak out against voter suppression by using the very existence of their voter suppression efforts against them to win the hearts and minds of voters not directly affected by those efforts as well as those who are! Our goal: overturning voter suppression laws and ensuring that everyone can vote.  Organize a Voter Protection Campaign. We’ll tell you how to ensure voters: a) know how to comply with existing voter suppression laws; and 2) are not intimidated/prevented from voting at the polls.  Contribute to organizations fighting voter suppression such as: o www.RuralVotes.com o Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (www.dscc.org) o Fair Elections Legal Network (http://fairelectionsnetwork.com/) o American Civil Liberties Union www.aclu.org/  Sign Our Petition in Section 4

1-3 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

 Petition your school committee to insert a civics course in the curriculum, one that includes an analysis of voting issues and gets students interested in and knowledgeable about how democracy works and the responsibilities of citizenship.  Google YouTube for voter suppression videos, and send links to everyone you know!

The alternative is doing nothing, which will not only deny the promise of America to a whole generation but will also contribute to our slide toward oligarchy. We find that unacceptable. In 21st Century America no one should have to ask, “Why can’t I vote?” Will you join us? See Section 6 for more action items, and go to www.NationAtRisk.us any time for more information and to learn what you can do NOW to return democracy to America.

Sherwood Guernsey, Esq. Lee Harrison

1-4

2 ‘A BRIEF HISTORY OF VOTING RIGHTS IN AMERICA

JEFFERSON’S VISION

Although voting rights are threatened in today’s America, we did start out with good intentions. Influenced by ancient Greece and the European Enlightenment, the leaders of our own Enlightenment – Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison – envisioned a country governed by the people, not by a king or dictator. The people would elect their leaders directly, and those elected leaders would serve for limited periods of time, returning to the voters at the end of their terms for re‐election. No hereditary rights. No leaders based on military power. No leaders based on religion. Since the age of Socrates, no western civilization had organized itself around the radical philosophy that people should choose their leaders by popular vote. That’s what made the American experiment exceptional.

So, it’s not surprising that in 1776, when Thomas Jefferson penned the phrase – “We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal” – it was the first time in recorded history that anyone had done so. But incredibly just 11 years after representatives of the 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution was silent on the issue. To garner Southern votes, the Founding Fathers opted instead to leave voting rights in the questionable hands of the states – the same states, mind you, that had refused to outlaw slavery. So, from our earliest days as a constitutional republic voting was largely restricted to free, white, property‐owning, Protestant males over 21 years of age. Women, the poor, Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Native Americans, Blacks, and immigrants were considered something less than equal, Mr. Jefferson notwithstanding. And things didn’t get better for a long while.

In fact, it wasn’t until President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 (above left) that we truly began to move toward Jefferson’s vision. But even then, as you will see in Section , dark forces were already at work to undermine our democracy. Indeed, the story of America is one of a continual struggle for voting rights. Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

LEST WE FORGET

Since the founding of the republic thousands of citizens from all racial and ethnic groups have marched, demonstrated, organized, lobbied, fought, and died to gain what should have been granted them as the most basic right in our democracy – the right to vote. Most contemporary writing does not do them justice, as individuals or families, who sacrificed all for the promise of America. Yet, the struggle waged by just two of these disenfranchised groups – African Americans and women – stands out. While the latter has largely won the battle, the former is losing ground. And in 21st Century America that cannot be tolerated. We should all be outraged because America’s future is at risk.

AFRICAN AMERICANS

In 2015, this country commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights March in Selma Alabama. Black Americans sought to secure their right to vote, already constitutionally guaranteed, but frustrated in practice at every turn by so many southern states. On March 7, 1965, a date that has become known as “Bloody Sunday,” hundreds of whites and blacks marched non‐violently across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, only to be met with tear gas, billy clubs, and terrific beatings by the Alabama State police. One of the organizers, Amelia Boynton, was beaten unconscious. A minister, James Reeb, was beaten to death. And John Lewis, a march organizer and currently an Alabama Congressman, suffered a fractured skull, but before he could be taken to the hospital, he appeared before the television cameras calling on President Johnson to intervene in Alabama.

The Black man’s struggles, of course, go back to the The Civil War led to the 13th 1600s, with the introduction of slaves into this country. Amendment, but not voting From the beginning, labeling Black men and women as rights for Black Americans. property immediately froze them out of any voting rights. It was insidious. By this simple legal construction, people could profess their belief in democracy, while denying a huge segment of Americans the right to participate. Clever but deceitful, it allowed feasible deniability by otherwise good people.

The ugly history of Black slavery and the Civil War hardly need repeating here. Suffice it to say that while the Civil War did, ultimately, lead to the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, it did not secure voting rights for Black Americans. That would take another hundred years, during which time voting rules and regulations were left to the states, and the former slave states tried all manner of ways to deny suffrage to African Americans – from poll taxes, to literacy tests, to residency requirements, to record keeping, to local registrar’s interpretations of state constitutions. [To see what Blacks have been up against, take the literacy test in Appendix B.]

With the advent of the 1960s, the Student Non‐violent Coordinating Committee (“SNCC”) and the Southern Christian Leadership Council (“SCLC”) worked to organize communities throughout the south to secure the right to vote already constitutionally guaranteed by the 15th

2-2 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

Amendment. At the same time, they were also leading efforts to defeat segregation and to end African American discrimination of all kinds. In 1961, the Freedom Riders famously challenged the segregation of bus terminals, already outlawed by Supreme Court decisions, but not enforced locally. The riders, both Blacks and Whites, rode interstate buses into the segregated south to Birmingham where, once again, they were met with violence and mass arrests.

FREEDOM SUMMER

In 1964, the Freedom Summer movement, unlike the earlier Freedom Riders of 1961, focused solely on voting rights. Working in towns throughout Mississippi, over 1,000 out‐of‐state volunteers joined thousands of Black Mississippians to register Black Americans to vote. Again, White residents of Mississippi resisted the campaign, harassing and intimidating the volunteers, calling them “unshaven and unwashed trash,” and subjecting outsiders and locals to drive‐by shootings, Molotov cocktails, arrests, arson, and beatings.

Over the course of 10 weeks that summer of 1964:

 1000 people were arrested  80 workers were beaten  37 churches were bombed or burned  30 Black homes or businesses were bombed or burned  4 civil rights workers were killed  4 four civil rights workers were critically wounded  At least 3 Mississippi Blacks were murdered because of their support for the civil rights movement.

The Freedom Summer campaign was memorialized in the movie “Mississippi Burning,” but so many other individual efforts to register Black Americans all over the south went unreported. How many real heroes there are, we do not know. They simply stood up for the right to vote and in many cases fought and died for it.

WOMEN’S RIGHT TO VOTE

Women were not quite considered property before 1920, but they sure didn’t have the right to vote, and their battle for suffrage was long and arduous. The struggle for women’s right to vote actually began in 1848 in Seneca Falls, N.Y., at the first women’s rights convention. There, Elizabeth Cady Stanton set forth her “Declaration of Sentiments,” which highlighted the many types of discrimination she and others at the convention sought to change – including getting women the right to vote. It is beyond the scope of this book to provide a history of how women have overcome each of the egregious “sentiments” Ms. Stanton expressed, but it took the women’s rights movement another 70 years to secure the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution: Both houses of Congress passed the Amendment in 1919, and 36 states

2-3 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

had ratified it by August 26, 1920. Only then, almost 150 years after the founding of the republic, did women finally secure the right to vote.1

Of course, the women’s suffrage movement did not face the same level of violence that confronted civil rights activists, but, oh, how difficult was the campaign. Early on the movement broke into two camps based on how best to focus their efforts. One, the National Women’s Suffragette Association, favored a national Constitutional Amendment and working on a wide range of the issues of discrimination against women; the other, the American Women’s Suffragette Association, focused its efforts on state‐by‐state campaigns to change state Constitutional provisions.

Then, critically, many women had to be convinced of their right to non‐discrimination in voting. As with so many issues of change in cultural traditions of The biggest obstacle discrimination, men and women alike had come to to women voting: Only men accept and justify this discrimination: voting for this were voting at the time! country’s leaders, many believed or accepted, was beyond what women’s work in the home prepared them to do. This cultural belief was similar to how the Southern slave states had justified slavery as essential to the South economy and way of life, and that slaves were better off as slaves.

Of course, the biggest obstacle to securing the women’s right to vote is that only men were voting!

The campaign wore on for decades. Progress was very slow. The western states were actually much more receptive and Wyoming, that present bastion of Dick Cheney conservatism, became the first state in 1869 to give the women the right to vote. Thereafter, state by state the effort continued. By the time the 19th Amendment passed in 1920, 36 states had given women the right to vote. (See Appendix C for a Timeline of Women’s Suffrage in the U.S.)

Many people found it difficult to support or join the women’s suffragette organizations directly. For many, it was easier, more respectable, to join the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, whose main focus was advocating temperance because so many men were taking their wages and using them for liquor. But the Christian Union realized that if they could get the right to vote, then they could influence the laws to give women more rights overall.

Nevertheless, the campaign wore on for decades. Progress was very slow. For example, by 1918, only 15 states had given women the right to vote. The western states were actually much more receptive because women had a much more equal role with men homesteading in the west. By 1913, two women, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, became increasingly impatient with the

1 North Carolina Digital Library

2-4 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

incredibly slow progress, and formed the Congressional Union. The campaigns became more aggressive, and soon the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (a combination of the two national organizations) joined the Union in its efforts.

The organizing strategy became a very multi‐faceted campaign, with a lot of “boots on the ground” and media attention. Their actions included many of the following which have become the basis for political issues campaigns ever since:

 Organizing special days for different occupations to take protest actions  Clergy preached  Theatres and movie houses allowed intermission speeches  Creating campaign schools for workers  Organizing town by town, sending women to one community after the other to talk to newspapers, organize town committees, get speakers for rallies, then move to another town and finally go to Washington to report to their Congressman.  For the first time, picketing the White House, which had never been done before, with different states, different occupations, different colleges and universities leading separate picketing days.

The picketing of the White House drew special attention. Many arrests took place and women were jailed, with national stories about the terrible conditions in the jails or workhouses, bringing more supporters. Paul led marchers to speak with President Wilson and had to fight their way through the streets. Taunts, spitting, slapping, and burning cigars being thrown at them caused army troops to be sent out. All of this aggressive action was gaining a great deal of attention and national sympathy.

By January of 1918, the House voted in favor of a Constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, but the Senate would not vote on it until September, when the vote failed. It was not until May of 1919 that the Senate finally passed the Amendment by just the necessary 66 votes. It took until August 26, 1920 to get the necessary 36 states to ratify it before the Amendment became the law of the land.

Since the Seneca Falls convention, 71 years before, it took women marching in the streets, organizing town by town, going to jail and finding every possible way to reach the voters. In summary, the suffragettes had organized:

 56 referendum campaigns  480 state legislative campaigns  277 state party conventions to get state constitutions changed  19 Congresses had introduced suffragette amendments  15 months to get states to ratify the Amendment once passed by the Senate.

2-5 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

Clearly, campaigns for major changes in cultural and political issues are long, contentious and extremely difficult. They require huge sacrifices and personal acrimony, and they are not for the faint of heart. But stand up we must. Isn’t it time you joined this fight?

2-6

3 REPUBLICANS’ 50‐YEAR ASSAULT ON VOTING RIGHTS

s if she were out to prove the truth of the old maxim that “No civil rights battle is ever A won,” ultra‐conservative Fox News commentator Ann Coulter recently declared that she favors literacy tests as a prerequisite for voting. "I just think it should be, well for one thing, a little more difficult to vote," Coulter said. Welcome back to the 1960s!

While Coulter’s remarks are typical of Fox News commentators and throughout the conservative blogosphere, her support of literacy tests and voter suppression in general runs counter to the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence – indeed, to the promise of America – and should have died with Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. Yet, in the run‐up to the 2016 Presidential election the conservative noise machine, lubricated with Koch Brothers money, is giving voter suppression new life, and every American should be outraged. 2

Bernie Sanders is outraged.

“Republicans can’t win a fair contest based on ideas, so

they try to rig the game by reducing the size and “Republicans are cowards shaping the composition of the electorate,” Sanders who are stealing the votes told a group of Latino elected officials in June 2015. of millions of Americans.” “Republicans violate the very democratic principles that the country was built on when they engage in voter suppression. Voter suppression is a moral issue, and the Republican support for suppressing the vote demonstrates a party wide lack of character.” Further, he said: “Republicans are cowards who are stealing the votes of millions of Americans. The best way to thwart Republican efforts to steal the vote is for an outraged and informed electorate to come together and fight back.”

And so is Hillary Clinton.

“Forty years after Barbara Jordan fought to extend the Voting Rights Act, its heart has been ripped out,” Clinton said in June. “What is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the other.” Clinton noted that, “Since the Supreme Court eviscerated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, many of the states that previously faced special scrutiny because of a

2 To see for yourself how effective literacy tests can be in suppressing the vote, go to Appendix B and take the test Louisiana administered to black voters in the 1960s. Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

history of racial discrimination have proposed and passed new laws that make it harder than ever to vote.” But Clinton is already fighting back: Her legal counsel is taking aim at Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican Party’s efforts to suppress the vote in Wisconsin. And she’s speaking out against Alabama’s blatant Oct. 2015 attempt to disenfranchise Black voters.

“I strongly oppose Alabama's decision to close driver's license offices across the state, especially in counties that have a significant majority of African Americans. Just a few years ago, Alabama passed a law requiring citizens to have a photo ID to vote. Now they’re shutting down places where people get those photo IDs. This is only going to make it harder for people to vote. It's a blast from the Jim Crow past.”

Although the 1965 Voting Rights Act did outlaw Jim Crow‐type literacy tests and other methods to prevent minorities from voting, the Supreme Court gutted the most important provisions of that law, known as preclearance requirements, in 2013. And while no state has yet to reinstitute literacy tests, they have found more complex and subtle ways to restrict voting rights. More to the point, as un‐American and as 19th Century as Ms. Coulter sounds, she was simply voicing a position held by conservatives since post‐Civil War Reconstruction. While it’s generally not voiced openly today, it is a position currently held by a majority of Republican governors, legislators, secretaries of state, and apparently by a majority of the High Court’s Justices. Stated bluntly: It’s OK to restrict voting rights to retain raw political power.

As The New York Times noted in April 2015, “[T]he Justice Department and private groups are doing what they can to combat the flood of new discriminatory laws with the surviving provisions of the Voting Rights Act. But without preclearance requirements for places with the worst records on racial discrimination, they will always be a few steps behind.”

50 YEARS IN THE MAKING

These latest assaults on voting rights had their origins a half‐century ago, when three things sent the Republican Party into bouts of apoplexy:

 President Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the Civil Rights Act in June 1964  Johnson’s humiliating defeat of ultra‐conservative Republican Barry Goldwater later that same year  Passage of the Voting Rights Act – which banned discriminatory voting practices – just one year later, in 1965

It’s important to note that the 1964 Republican standard‐bearer, Barry Goldwater, voted against both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. As Chandler Davidson et al put it in their study [2], The “Republican nominee for the Presidency was unalterably opposed to intervention by the Federal Government to secure the human liberties and civil rights of all its citizens, black or white, in any state where such fundamental rights might have been denied by previous Constitutional interpretation of states’ rights.”

3-2 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

Even though Goldwater carried just six states in 1964 (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and his home state of Arizona), Johnson feared passage of these bills, in particular the Civil Rights Act, would have dire political consequences for Democrats – and for America. In fact, on the evening after passage of the Civil Rights act, in a mood described by White House aide Bill Moyers as “melancholy,” Johnson predicted that “we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” And he was right.

Where Goldwater left off, Nixon and Reagan picked up, and their “Southern Strategy” of appealing to Southern whites through racially charged campaign messages Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy” proved a winner. As Davidson notes: “many succeeding of appealing to whites with Republican candidates and almost all Republican racially charged messages presidents made racial appeals – some subtle, some was a winner. otherwise – to southern whites still angry at federal abolition of the Jim Crow system.” And “one of the least subtle of these appeals was presidential candidate Ronald Reagan’s decision to launch his post‐convention campaign in 1980 by appearing at the Neshoba, Mississippi, County fair—the county still notorious for the murders of [civil rights activists] Goodman, Schwerner, and Cheney.”

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s overwhelming popularity in the polls at the time – just a year in after taking office in the aftermath of Kennedy’s assassination – and his relentless talk of civil rights and voting rights heightened Republican National Committee concerns and swung the door wide open for voter suppression strategies of all kinds. It was in this context that the infamous Operation Eagle Eye was born. As shameful and un‐American as it was, RNC’s goal was simple – to develop a strategy around voter suppression to win elections – and it has been effective.

OPERATION EAGLE EYE Operation Eagle Eye has been the most highly organized and financed – yet still virtually unknown – effort by the Republican Party to suppress minority voting. As Mariah Blake wrote in The Atlantic, Republicans had already begun plotting to limit the power of black voters “during the run‐up to the 1964 presidential election. In 1962 the Republican National Committee launched Operation Eagle Eye, the nation’s first large‐scale anti–voter fraud campaign. As part of the program, the RNC recruited tens of thousands of volunteers to show up at polling places, mostly in inner cities, and challenge voters’ eligibility using a host of tools and tactics, including cameras, two‐way radios, and calls to Republican‐friendly sheriffs.” In just a few years, this assault on everything the Founding Fathers believed would intensify as the Republican National Committee and Tea Party Republicans across the nation fought for political power.

HOW IT BEGAN In the fall of 1971, Republican ballot security programs made national news during the Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. The hearings revealed that Rehnquist was involved in a GOP‐sanctioned ballot‐security program in Arizona during the 1958

3-3 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

congressional elections [19]. Indeed, several witnesses alleged that Rehnquist, in his position as a poll watcher for the Republican Party, both intimidated and harassed Democratic voters, many of whom were minorities [19]. At the time Rehnquist denied personally taking an active part in the GOP voter suppression efforts and was confirmed by the Senate. In 1986, the charges resurfaced when President Reagan nominated Rehnquist for Chief Justice. This time, witnesses who actually knew Rehnquist personally testified to his direct involvement in the voter suppression efforts in Arizona [19], but once again they were largely disregarded, and Rehnquist was confirmed. Although the 1986 hearings did not prevent Rehnquist’s elevation to Chief Justice, Davidson, Dunlap, Kenny, and Wise argue that the hearings “dramatically brought attention to the Republican Party’s practice of purposefully targeting and intimidating minority voters under the guise of ballot security” [19]. And further, many now believe that the 1958 Arizona ballot security program was the model for Operation Eagle Eye.

EAGLE EYE OPENS The Republican National Committee announced its plan to conduct a nationwide ballot security program entitled “Operation Eagle Eye” (“OEE”) in October 1964. They would use it during the upcoming November presidential election between Republican candidate Barry Goldwater and Democratic President Lyndon Johnson in effect to prevent minorities and students from voting. The RNC claimed that OEE was necessary to protect the sanctity of the American ballot and protect against voter fraud [19]. Charles Barr, the national director of the program, stated that “100,000 poll‐watchers would be on duty in 35 big cities with the objective of challenging 1,250,000 voters”, although he stressed that, “no challenge [would] be made to anyone who [was] legally entitled to vote” [17]. Barr also denied that there was anything discriminatory in Eagle Eye “against race, creed, or economic status” [21]. The Democratic National Committee Chairman John Bailey quickly responded by emphasizing that the Democratic Party was as much opposed to fraud as the RNC, but that there was evidence that the Republican program was “an organized effort to prevent the foreign born, to prevent Negroes, to prevent ethnic minorities from casting their votes by frightening and intimidating them at the polling place” [18]. As the election approached, the numerous reports of voter intimidation and targeted misinformation lent support to Bailey’s assertion that OEE was in fact not an attempt to protect the sanctity of the ballot but rather was an effort by the RNC to suppress Democratic voters [17].

HOW EAGLE EYE WORKED

With Operation Eagle Eye, the RNC employed, and still employs, three basic tactics:

1. PURGING VOTER LISTS THROUGH VOTE CAGING The first tactic, voter list purging, is a routine and legitimate practice in which deceased or ineligible citizens such as convicted felons are removed from voting lists [41]. In practice, however, voter list purging is often rife with inaccuracies as common/duplicate names can be difficult to differentiate and street addresses are frequently misspelled or mischaracterized,

3-4 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

e.g., John Jones from Blossom Avenue, Lane, Place or Street, etc. Eligible voters thus sometimes find themselves off the rolls and unable to vote due to a clerical errors or typos. Vote caging, a method of purging often employed by Republicans, makes this process even more unreliable. It consists of sending mail to addresses on voter registration rolls, compiling a list of mail returned as undelivered, and then using the resulting list as a basis to purge voters from registration lists or to challenge voters trying to submit a ballot [23]. However, mail can be returned for any number of reasons that would not make a person ineligible to vote: routine errors, mistakes in the spelling of names or addresses, or confusion over exact addresses in multi‐unit dwellings [41]. But Republicans didn’t blink any eye. In the fall of 1964, they sent out 1.8 million pieces of mail to entire precincts of “suspect” voters in cities across the country [41]. Republican operatives then used the lists they compiled in a variety of ways. In some cases, Eagle Eye crusaders challenged voters’ eligibility by going door to door to check addresses and verify names.

2. THE DISTRIBUTION OF DETERRENT PARAPHERNALIA The mailings sent out to precincts of “suspect voters” were also used in other ways. They used the compiled lists to engage in the second suppressive tactic employed during OEE, the distribution of misleading materials. Republican operatives often targeted minority populations with intimidating mailers and other deceptive paraphernalia [27]. In Houston, for instance, they distributed handbills in predominantly African American precincts warning that any voter who had committed a traffic violation or a number of other minor offenses would be arrested after voting [17]. Similar stories emerged out of Los Angeles and San Francisco where minority voters reported receiving anonymous threatening phone calls warning them that they would be challenged at the polls [17]. In perhaps the most offensive use of this tactic, a Republican operative circulated a pamphlet in New Jersey neighborhoods urging black voters to write in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s name for president [27], knowing full well that doing so would essentially nullify their votes.

3. THE DEPLOYMENT OF POLL WATCHERS TO CHALLENGE VOTERS ON ELECTION DAY On Presidential Election Day in 1964, poll watchers also used the lists compiled by the vote‐ caging canvasses. Any voter’s name that appeared on one of the lists was considered a legitimate target for a challenge, regardless of whether they were actually ineligible or not. Poll watchers were instructed by official ballot security handbooks distributed by local OEE leaders to “remain alert, and to immediately challenge whatever or whomever may be suspicious” [27]. ‘Challenging’ voters could manifest in any number of ways. Some poll watchers asked voters humiliating questions; others, dressed in official looking uniforms demanded proof of citizenship papers, which not required for voting. Still other poll watchers aggressively badgered voters, even after a voter was determined to be legitimate. GOP flying squads had three Further, the use of poll watchers as a legitimate ballot main purposes: investigation, security measure is undermined by the simple fact that first‐hand advice and assistance, and psychological deterrence. 3-5 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

often they were not from the counties they were assigned to. As a result, there was often no way that a poll watcher could verify whether voters were whom they claimed to be. In turn, this meant that poll watchers did not have the capacity to exonerate voters whose names appeared the vote caging lists but who asserted their eligibility. If poll challengers made a complaint but did not get adequate redress from election officials, their orders were then to contact the party’s country ballot security officers who would investigate the claim. If the county officials found the complaint to be credible, they would dispatch “flying squads” or teams of Republican lawyers who would protest the violation and attempt to take legal action [27]. In their paper “Republican Ballot Security Programs: Vote Protection or Minority Vote Suppression—or Both?”(the “Security Program Analysis”) Davidson, Kenny, Dunlap, and Wise argue that flying squads had three main purposes: investigation, first‐ hand advice and assistance, and psychological deterrence [27]. Psychological deterrence was a significant aspect of the OEE efforts. The Republican strategy attempted to discourage illegitimate voters from committing fraud by simply creating the appearance that the voters were being watched. It was for this reason that RNC leaders also encouraged poll watchers to bring cameras. One RNC official was quoted in The Wall Street Journal explaining that poll watchers could use the cameras to “obtain photographic evidence of flagrant irregularities”. He went on to say that “even if the poll watcher’s don’t know how to use the cameras, potential wrongdoers may be frightened off” [27], implying that the cameras, just like the flying squads, were as useful in their physical objectives as they were in their psychological effects on voters. Beyond the immediate impact on voters who were directly challenged, in many cases the mere presence of poll watchers and their coinciding ‘psychological deterrents’ had the reverberating effects of creating long lines and intimidating unchallenged voters, which ended up dissuading even voters deemed ‘eligible’ from submitting ballots [41] The message communicated by Republican operatives on Election Day was clear: preventing even one case of ‘voter fraud’ was worth the loss of a comparably greater number of eligible votes. If the motivation for Operation Eagle Eye was truly, as RNC officials argued, to uphold the sanctity of the ballot and to ensure the integrity of the election’s outcome, then it would seem counterintuitive not to balance ballot security goals with others that ensured that every person who was willing, able, and eligible to vote was not prevented from doing so. Lyndon Johnson’s overwhelming public support may have been behind their seemingly casual acceptance that their efforts would reduce turnout among eligible voters. The execution of Operation Eagle Eye, with its discriminatory targeting policies and its adverse effects on unchallenged voters, runs counter to the more noble goals put forth by Charles Barr at the beginning of this section. In practice, the actions undertaken by the RNC in Operation Eagle Eye aligned more closely with the fears of DNC Chairman John Bailey. Clearly, Operation Eagle Eye was an unprecedented, massive, and highly coordinated program undertaken by the RNC. The methods deployed during the Operation were a far cry from the disparate, disconnected, and localized measures used by both parties in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Although Goldwater lost the election as expected – and by a wide margin – It is

3-6 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

frightening to comprehend that Operation Eagle Eye proved the concept: Voter suppression could be carried out on a national level with the support of volunteers across the country. More importantly, as Davidson et.al points outs:

“Some of the methods employed by Eagle Eye became part of the modus operandi of subsequent Republican campaigns. These include challenging of Democratic voters at polls without cause, humiliation of uneducated voters, efforts to slow down voting in Democratic precincts, special targeting of minority, low‐income neighborhoods for challenges … and developing an attitude among ballot security teams that encourages stereotyping low‐income and minority voters as venal and stupid (38)”

As Chandler Davidson et al conclude in their Security Program Analysis, voter suppression efforts put forth by Republicans under the guise of ballot security programs include:

1. An organized, often widely publicized effort to field poll watchers in what Republicans call “heavily Democratic,” but what are usually minority, precincts

2. Stated concerns about vote fraud in these precincts, proof of which is rarely justified.

3. Misinformation and fear campaigns directed at these same precincts, spread by radio, posted signs in the neighborhoods, newspapers, fliers, and phone calls, which are often anonymously perpetrated

4. Posting “official‐looking” personnel at polling places, including but not limited to off‐ duty police—sometimes in uniform, sometimes armed

5. Aggressive face‐to‐face challenging techniques at the polls that can confuse, humiliate, and intimidate—as well as slow the voting process—in these same minority precincts

6. Challenging voters using inaccurate, unofficial lists of registrants derived from “do‐not‐ forward” letters sent to low‐income and minority neighborhoods

7. Photographing, tape recording, or videotaping voters

8. Employing language and metaphors that trade on stereotypes of minority voters as venal and credulous

And the report makes no bones about placing responsibility for these un‐American efforts with the leadership of the Republican Party. “Ballot‐security programs employing these techniques … are not usually the work of a few renegades out of touch with the leadership structure. The history of such programs from the 1950s to the present reveals that lawyers, judges, election officials, and people high in the state or national command hierarchy of the Republican Party and its campaigns are typically the leaders of the disfranchising efforts.”

EAGLE EYE’S LEGACY Operation Eagle Eye may not have been successful enough to secure Goldwater the Whitehouse in 1964, but it was successful enough at suppressing Democratic votes for the

3-7 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

Republican Party to add many of OEE’s restrictive tactics to its permanent playbook. And, make no mistake, we will confront that playbook again in 2016. Indeed, the off‐year elections of 2014 were just a trial run.

Operation Eagle Eye is also partly responsible for the change in public perception of the parties that marked the 1964 election. As Timothy Thurber argues in his book Republicans and Race, at the end of 1964 “the public overwhelmingly saw the Democrats as pro‐civil rights, whereas Republicans were seen as hostile or at best neutral” [42]. Although Goldwater appeared to many to be a segregationist at best and a racist at worst, his opinions were merely rhetoric. Operation Eagle Eye confirmed in actions what many already feared: The Republican Party was willing to depart from its more moderate and progressive past in its pursuit of voters in the racially and fiscally conservative white South.

SON OF EAGLE EYE

The Republican National Committee was accused of violating the Voting Rights Act 30 years ago and ordered to cease its so‐called “ballot security” initiative. But the impact of that effort was not lost on Tea Party conservatives. Now an organization called True the Vote is picking up where the RNC left off by building a nationwide army to root out “voter fraud” – or, more to the point, to suppress voter turnout.

The 2010 midterms, where the Tea Party gained its stranglehold on Congress, was the culmination of the Republicans’ half‐century of plotting to undermine American democracy. As reported in The Atlantic, under the banner of True the Vote, a Houston Tea Party group “dispatched hundreds of observers to minority neighborhoods in and around Houston, where they gathered more than 800 complaints of improper voting. Their efforts made national headlines, and phone calls and emails began pouring in from activists around the country who wanted to join the cause.” Then, with the 2012 Presidential election looming, Tea Party leaders decided to go national. Since then, True the Vote has spawned replicants in 35 states. In their biggest success so far, they enlisted 17,000 Tea Partiers to help Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker defeat a recall, although ultimately lost the recall

BEHIND THE CURTAIN

Many of the new laws attacking the fundamental principles of American democracy were drafted by something called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This shady organization, bankrolled by the billionaire Koch brothers and other radical conservatives, crafts legislation to restrict voting and then offers its poison to Republican legislators around the country, who are more than happy to accept it, no matter how un‐American it is.

Thirty years ago, ALEC’s founder, Paul Weyrich, shamelessly outlined the conservative philosophy. “I don’t want everybody to vote,” he said. “Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” Ann Coulter couldn’t have said it better.

3-8 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

Clearly, the High Court has reinvigorated Republican attacks on voting rights, attacks that are endangering our democracy, and in doing so, hamstringing the country’s ability to deal with the problems of our inner cities and income inequality in general. The Party of Lincoln is making a mockery of the 16th President’s belief that our founders created “a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

THE FEAR DRIVING TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS

As Wisconsin Republican State Senator Schultz and so many others have said repeatedly, there is no massive voter fraud going on here. So what’s driving Republicans into this anti‐American frenzy? Clearly, the answer is raw fear –the fear of increased minority voting leading to a loss of power. The fear of an essentially all white Republican party becoming a truly minority party.3

As The Washington Post noted, Texas Republicans are deeply frightened that their state’s booming and Democratic‐leaning Hispanic population will gradually loosen their grip on the levers of power. By forcing through a new law that requires a government‐issued photo ID as a condition of Texas Republicans are deeply voting, they can weed out black and Latino voters, who frightened of their state’s (along with the poor and the elderly) are less likely to booming and Democratic‐leaning possess such documents. And as evidenced by the Hispanic population. number of Republican‐controlled legislatures passing voter suppression laws, the same fears are haunting Republicans across the nation.

Indeed, Republicans across the nation see voter suppression as a way to retain that power. With the percentage of minorities and women in the electorate ever increasing, their days in power may be numbered, and they know it. But the clock is not ticking fast enough to save our Republic. Tea Party Republicans already control legislatures and the governor’s office in a majority of states. They also control the U.S. House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and the Supreme Court (yes, it is recently a very political court), they have been very effective in obstructing the operation of government. (Even without the White House and the U.S. Senate, they were able to thwart virtually every one of President Obama’s initiatives since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010.) With Republicans in control in Congress and the Supreme Court, nothing will restore voting rights to Americans in the besieged states in the foreseeable future, and because of it civil rights, women’s rights, minority rights, Social Security, and Medicare all will be in jeopardy.

3 It does not take a scientific survey to see the racial difference in our two political parties: simply watch the crowd‐shots of the Republican National Convention and compare them with the Democratic National Convention. Indeed, the tea‐party has arisen predominantly in the South and Mid‐West. Is it a coincidence that the same area has a long history of racism?

3-9 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

GOP CONTEMPT FOR MINORITY VOTERS

In late May 2014, 2‐year‐old comments by Florida Republican Congressman Ted Yoho became public and immediately caused an uproar. So what did he say? “I’ve had some radical ideas about voting and it’s probably not a good time to tell them, but you used to have to be a property owner to vote.”

“You used to have to be a property owner to vote.”

It’s hard to believe anyone in 21st Century America would make that statement … would actually endorse an idea that was dismissed as un‐American generations ago. But of course, that is today’s radical Tea Party Republican Party. As Alexander Keyssar, Stirling Professor of History and Social Policy at Harvard University stated to Talkingpointsmemo.com:

“Congressman Ted Yoho’s interest in re‐imposing property requirements to vote is yet another sign of his party’s interest in rolling back two centuries of progress in American political life. Property requirements were, indeed, the norm for the first several decades of our history (as were gender and racial restrictions), but they were overturned almost everywhere by the middle of the nineteenth century” because the American people came to understand that these laws were profoundly un‐American.

By the way, in 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that any financial requirements for voting were unconstitutional. "A State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard,” said the court, adding, “Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth." [11]

Revisiting that decision might be a bridge too far for even the Roberts Court, but the fear in today’s Tea Party Republican Party is palpable: They see expanded voting rights in America as an existential threat, and like an animal that fears for its very existence, they will do anything to survive – even rewrite the Constitution through tortured decisions handed down by a very conservative High Court.

Now, let’s examine in detail what we’re up against in the each state.

3-10

4 THE THREAT TO VOTING RIGHTS TODAY

ccording to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 34 states have passed A laws requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. As of February 2014, 31 such laws were in force, with laws in two states still pending due to court challenges. Nineteen states rely on other methods to verify the identity of voters, such as a signature. But as the NCSL further notes, a number of those 31 states “have enacted stricter requirements with implementation dates in the future.” And which political party do you think is trying to move America back and erase all the electoral progress we’ve made in expanding voting rights since Lyndon Johnson passed the landmark Voting Rights Act in 1965? Please read on.

THE REPUBLICAN SOUTH LEADS THE CHARGE

As the authors of the revelatory 2013 study “Jim Crow 2.0?” [3] note, it is the geographic distribution of voter suppression legislation that is enacted that reveals the conditions driving policy adoption in the voter suppression arena. “It is clearly the case that legislation passed more frequently in the South and in battleground states like Ohio and Florida.” In each of these states, both the legislative and governorship were Republican controlled.

And further, the authors note, instead of working to mobilize voters, “[W]e argue that the Republican Party has engaged in strategic demobilization efforts in response to changing demographics, shifting electoral fortunes, and an internal rightward ideological drift among the party faithful.” And while Republicans have trumpeted new restrictive voting laws “as Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

protecting electoral legitimacy,” they have “intended to exclude the marginalized for a particular political party’s advantage.”

As The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law (BCJ) notes in its summary of “Laws to Restrict Access to Voting,” Republican legislatures not only passed new voter ID laws but also introduced numerous measures to make them more restrictive. In addition, Tea Party Republican voter suppression often goes far beyond just requiring an “official” ID. Here’s a list of some of the outrages voters in states controlled by Tea Party Republicans have to contend with:

Voter Registration is harder – According to the BCJ, 8 states introduced legislation to limit voter registration mobilization efforts and reduce other registration opportunities.

Citizenship Requirement‐ According to the BCJ, 2 states have introduced legislation requiring citizenship to vote.

Reducing opportunities to vote by mail ‐ According to the BCJ, at least 5 states have introduced legislation making it harder to cast ballots by mail.

Direct Threats and Intimidation – Using or threatening physical violence to discourage a person from voting. Example: Poll watchers or in‐person investigations.

Dissemination of false or inaccurate voting information – Example: Robo‐calls or flyers that give voters incorrect voting times/poll locations.

Reduced early voting opportunities and Shortened Voting Hours – Results in longer lines, more complications and more provisional ballots on Election Day. Note that in these restrictions and others, there is no connection to the Fraud prevention issue at all; just a blatant effort to limit voting often disguised in the façade of trying to save money.

Ending election‐day registration – Which makes it much more difficult for minority voters, who often have multiple jobs, to register to vote.

Restrictions on Third‐Party Registration – This disproportionately effects minority voters (Hispanics and African Americans specifically) who often register through third party organizations like Church or community groups.

Purging of Voter Rolls – Many states are pressured to purge their voting rolls of ineligible voters, a process that can be riddled with inaccuracies preventing some eligible voters from being able to cast their vote.

Voter Caging – Consists of sending mail to addresses on voter rolls, compiling a list of mail returned as undelivered, and using the list as a basis to purge or challenge voters’ registrations (unreliable and partisan).

4-2 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

Gerrymandering – a) packing majority‐minority districts, i.e., pushing minorities into a small number of districts to dilute their voting power or b) slicing up minority communities into multiple districts so they have little to no cumulative influence in any one place.

Further, voter suppression can include the more nuanced, less obvious tactics such as:

 Last minute changes of polling locations  The reduction in the number of polling locations and reduced voting times  At‐large elections, which often dilute the voting power of minorities

The Brennan Center keeps a running tabulation of all state voter suppression laws proposed and passed. As you can see in the graph to the left, conservatives are gearing up for the 2016 Presidential election. (Note: the figures for 2011/2012 represent an average of those two years.)

If you talk to any Tea Party Republican, he or she will tell you all these new laws are designed to protect the county, The Surge in Voter Suppression state, and federal Legislation government from voter fraud even though study after study [3] has 120 shown there is no such thing as massive voter 100 fraud. Voter # of Bills 80 suppression, however, is, and as you will see in 60 Chapter 5, the 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Republican Party has been organizing diligently to reduce minority voting since the early 1960s. Only now, they have a compliant Supreme Court to back them up.

But when it comes to hollering “fraud,” Republicans have no shame and Wisconsin is a particularly grievous case in point. We’ll examine the details of what Gov. Scott Walker is trying to do to voters in that state shortly, but as Wisconsin Republican State Senator Dale Schultz acknowledged recently, the claim that voter fraud is rampant in the Badger State is absurd on its face.

As expected, most Wisconsin Republicans continue to repeat the party line: Their new voter suppression law is really intended to prevent voter fraud. But Schultz freely admitted what most of us know: “It ought to be abundantly clear to everybody in this state that there is no massive voter fraud. The only thing that we do have in this state is we have long lines of people who want to vote. And it seems to me that we should be doing everything we can to make it easier to help these people get their votes counted.” Indeed, Schultz worries that his party may

4-3 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

be shooting itself in the foot. The rare Republican who voted against the bill, Schultz is concerned that “making it more difficult for people to vote is not a good sign for a party that wants to attract more people.” He went on to say it’s “sad when a political party – my political party – has so lost faith in its ideas that it’s pouring all of its energy into election mechanics.”

Intentionally or not, Schultz’s candor rips away the fig leaf obscuring Tea Party Republican hypocrisy – not only in Wisconsin, but around the nation – and that includes their creation of the Interstate Crosscheck Program mentioned earlier.

As the non‐profit news blog AxisPhilly reported recently: “Following his state’s participation in the Crosscheck program, Ohio Secretary of State John Husted announced: ‘This report demonstrates that voter fraud does exist,’ citing numbers in the hundreds to back up his claim. In fact, his office referred only 20 cases to law enforcement and none have resulted in charges so far.”

And the beat goes on: Earlier this year, “Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler announced that the Crosscheck had helped identify 17 cases of alleged fraud, which were submitted to the Boulder County District Attorney’s office for investigation. In July, the Boulder D.A. announced that none had involved fraud and called Gessler’s actions ‘politically motivated.’”

Thankfully, a few states are seeing the light. In April, the Miami Herald reported that Florida and Oregon had dropped out of Interstate Crosscheck, with Oregon election officials citing "unreliable" data from the program.

But the Interstate Crosscheck program still persists in many states. In states with Tea Party Republican governors, secretaries of state, and attorneys general, they are still passing voter suppression bills and using tax dollars to defend them in court (so much for the saving money arguments). Despite the Koch Brothers’ best efforts, not all of these un‐American voter suppression bills will become law. For instance, voter suppression bills filed by Republicans in Massachusetts, where Democrats hold overwhelming majorities in both houses of the legislature, have absolutely no chance of passage. In fact, in May 2014, in stark contrast to GOP‐controlled states, Massachusetts passed a law that not only makes it easier for residents to register to vote but also introduces early voting and expanded voting hours. Still, there are a lot of states where voters are likely to be disenfranchised both in the critical 2014 congressional elections and in the 2016 Presidential election.

This whole notion of Tea Party Republicans purporting to save President Abraham Lincoln the nation from hordes of fraudulent voters brings to mind a letter Abraham Lincoln wrote to his friend Joshua Speed in 1855. In the letter Lincoln refers to slavery in the antebellum South, but he might as well have been talking about voting rights in the U.S. today:

4-4 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

“Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know‐Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].”

Today, that “base alloy of hypocrisy” underpins Tea Party Republicans’ shameless efforts to retain power in multiple states by preventing minorities and the poor from voting. Let’s look at how Republicans are stifling democracy in other states, beginning with the biggest preclearance state: Texas.

LONE STAR DIMMING

Texas passed a strict voter photo ID law in 2012, but in August of that year a federal court rejected Texas’ voter ID law, calling it “the most stringent in the country,” as well as that state’s highly discriminatory redistricting maps.

Blatantly, in 2013, on the very day the Roberts Court struck down the preclearance provision, Texas Republican Attorney General (now Governor) Greg Abbott said the state would immediately enact the same voter suppression laws that a federal court had rejected only a year earlier.[4]

Texas’ now‐unrejected photo ID law requires voters to present a state‐approved photo ID. Prior to passage, mail, utility bills, or other proof of voter registration was deemed adequate. But the new law likely will affect Democratic voters disproportionately, and of course, that is the point. As ProPublica noted, the state’s own findings had shown Hispanic registered voters – who tend to vote for Democrats – were far less likely than white Texans – who overwhelmingly vote Republican – to have the sanctioned photo IDs. But that isn’t all. The new law also requires the name on the voter’s photo ID to match the name on the state’s voter rolls, which can be a problem for married women and others with name changes. (Note: studies have found that most cases of alleged voter fraud are due to clerical errors often resulting from name and address changes.) And, as the Washington Post noted, “it turned out to be a problem for Mr. Abbott, too, who goes by ‘Greg Abbott’ on the voter registration rolls and by ‘Gregory Wayne Abbott’ on his driver’s license. Under a provision of the law added by Democrats, which allows a voter to cast a ballot if the versions of his or her name are substantially the same – Mr. Abbott was ultimately allowed to vote — but only after he was made to sign an affidavit.” The law’s “chilling effect” on voting is clear.

One famous Democrat had a bit more difficulty. Jim Wright, a former Speaker of the U.S. House, who at age 90 no longer drives and has no valid driver’s license, was prevented from voting. It seems poll workers rejected his Texas Christian University faculty ID along with his voter registration card, which has no photo. Mr. Wright was told he would have to obtain a certified copy of his birth certificate to get an official, state‐issued ID before he could vote!

4-5 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

If that can happen to a former House Speaker, a man who was third in line to the Presidency, what do you think will happen to thousands of “regular” Texans? Of course, that is the Texas Republican strategy. As the Washington Post put it: “The new law, passed by the GOP‐ dominated state legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry, masquerades as a tool to combat election fraud. In fact, as in other states that have enacted similar measures, there is no statistically significant — or even insignificant — evidence of in‐person fraud at the polls in Texas.”

A number of states soon followed Texas’ lead, including: Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, South Dakota, and, sadly, Wisconsin. As you read the summaries that follow, you will see that some courts are burdening the plaintiffs with extensive evidentiary requirements. Ask yourself the question: should we be passing this kind of legislation to begin with or trying to expand voting rights?

VIRGINIA

In 2013, Virginia passed a photo ID law that won Justice Department approval, but apparently that wasn’t discriminatory enough for Old Dominion Republicans. Under a more recent law voters can no longer use utility bills, bank statements, government checks, or paychecks to prove residence, instead they must obtain the necessary ID from the state if they don’t already have one. But there’s more: The new law directs the Virginia State Board of Elections to: a) remove ineligible voters by comparing state voter rolls with the SAVE database, which we learned earlier is neither accurate nor designed for this type of use; and b) cooperate with other states to develop systems to compare voters and registration lists in order to ensure accuracy of voter registration rolls, to prevent duplicate registration, and to determine eligibility of individuals to vote. The Democratic Party of Virginia has rightly sued the state over these “interstate crosschecks,” maintaining, as others have, that: 1) the database is faulty and 2) the law will disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters. According to the Washington Post, a federal judge rejected the Democratic Party’s effort “to restore more than 38,000 names to the state’s voter rolls that it claimed were possibly purged in error, saying the evidence did not convince him that anyone had been disenfranchised.”

“I just don’t find that there’s a strong showing here of any inequitable treatment or the deprivation of anyone’s rights,” U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton said as he denied the Democrats’ request. Flag or no flag, the heart of the Old Confederacy still beats strong.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Implementation of South Carolina’s 2012 photo ID law was blocked by a federal court until 2013. At trial, the state said it would accept at face value any “honest” excuse from voters without a photo ID and allow them to vote if they sign an affidavit. Without that assurance, the law "could have discriminatory effects and impose material burdens on African‐American voters," wrote Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Still, the burden falls hardest on African‐American and poor voters who may be intimidated by the new law, all in the name of preventing a crime

4-6 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

(voter fraud) that exists only in the mind of Republican strategists. Again, there is virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud anywhere in the country. However, it is indeed intimidating, not to mention embarrassing, for people to be required to sign an affidavit at the polling place. Intimidating voters in long lines is a serious deterrence to voting.

MISSISSIPPI

Mississippi enacted a new stricter voter ID law to be effective in 2014, but it will provide free transportation to government offices where voters will be able to get them for free. Once again, the burden falls hardest on African‐American and poor voters who may be intimidated by the new law. It also imposes an additional step the elderly, poor, and minorities must take before they can exercise their Constitutional right to vote. Remember, these are people who are probably working more than one job to make ends meet or taking care of children and so often feel left out of the system, with little hope of advancement. Shouldn’t we be making voting easier for them, not harder?

ALABAMA

Like Mississippi, Alabama enacted changes to its photo ID law in 2011, but enactment was held up by the federal government’s preclearance requirement. As soon as that requirement was nullified by the US Supreme Court, new photo ID requirements were effective for the 2014 elections. And like Virginia, Alabama used to accept other kinds of non‐photo identification, such as utility bills and Social Security cards, but the new law requires voters to have photo IDs to vote, although the state says it will also provide free voter IDs to those who don’t have them.

ARIZONA

In the summer of 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona, formerly a preclearance state, could not unilaterally require voters to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote in a federal election. But the court said Arizona could sue the Election Assistance Commission to get the federal voter registration form amended to require proof of citizenship. Now, both Arizona and Kansas have sued the commission. According to The New York Times, the states are setting up a two‐tiered system of voter registration as a backup just in case their legal challenges prove unsuccessful: The states will require proof of citizenship for state and local races but not federal elections. Or as The Wichita Eagle put it: “Secretary of State Kris Kobach is laying groundwork for a system that would allow some voters to vote in all elections while others could only vote for Congress and presidential tickets.” Registrations were suspended for about 17,500 voters until they submitted proof of citizenship.

By the way, Mother Jones called Kobach “The legal mastermind behind the wave of anti‐ immigration laws sweeping the country.” And he’s the force behind the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, which he started in 2005 as a free service to states — almost exclusively those led by Republican lawmakers — to flag voters who may be casting ballots in multiple states in the same election. More on Kris Kobach later on.

4-7 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

All of the above states were preclearance states, i.e., because of their history of voter suppression they had to get Justice Dept. approval of any changes in their voting laws. However, a number of non‐preclearance states, those that were not directly affected by the Roberts Court’s decision, have also chosen to restrict voters rights.

ARKANSAS

In 2013, Republican legislators overrode the Governor Mike Beebe’s veto to pass a law requiring voters to show photo IDs. Beebe called the bill an expensive solution to a non-existent problem. If voters don’t have them, they can cast provisional ballots and return with IDs by the Monday after the election. The state will also provide free IDs to people who do not already have them. In each case, for the elderly, poor and minorities, the result is intimidation, impediments to voting, delay, and embarrassment. America needs to foster enthusiasm and pride in voting, not frustration and delusion.

State Rep. John Walker, a Little Rock Democrat and noted civil rights lawyer, warned lawmakers to “not go back on history” by enacting the requirement, which is really designed to make it harder for minorities, students, and the elderly to vote. Black lawmakers in Arkansas have compared the new voter ID law to poll taxes used in the Jim Crow era.

IOWA

In 2013, an administrative ruling allowed Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz to begin using the SAVE database to purge from voter lists immigrants whose legal status is questioned. Activists have sued Schultz in an attempt to stop the purge.

INDIANA

Indiana is spending $2.1 million to identify and remove voters who are dead or have moved out‐of‐state from its voter rolls, and it’s using postcards to do it. In May 2014 the state sent out postcards to all registered voters. If the postcard is returned as undeliverable, the state will send out a second postcard. If that card comes back, the voter is deemed inactive. If he or she fails to vote in the next two federal elections, his or her name will be removed from the rolls.

According to Project Vote, “Indiana has been gaining a reputation as one of the states most hostile to voting rights. It was one of the first states to implement strict photo voter ID, and earlier this year the legislature considered a rule to prevent students who pay out‐of‐state tuition from voting. Now, [the new law] would result in another reduction of voting rights in the state.”

Common Cause Indiana, Gamaliel of Indiana, Project Vote, and Transforming Action through Power (TAP) believe the new law may create risks for Indiana voters:

 The [new law] proposes engaging in a large‐scale data‐matching program for voter roll maintenance. These sorts of programs have repeatedly proven unreliable, and are likely to

4-8 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

remove eligible voters due to mismatching and data entry errors. [The law] does not contain clear enough safeguards to protect voters from wrongful purging.  Federal law ensures that applications postmarked by the voter registration deadline are to be considered submitted on time. However, [this law] ignores that law, and contains dangerously vague language about the submission of registrations that could result in confusion and missed deadlines.  The [new law] would change the state voter registration form to require unnecessary and burdensome information from the person collecting an application. This could discourage people from volunteering for voter registration drives. But the larger problem is that, even when an eligible applicant’s information is entered accurately and completely, that registration could be considered “incomplete” because of an error by the canvasser. Additionally, the language of the bill is troublingly vague as to how (or whether) incomplete voter registration applications would be processed.

MONTANA

Because the spectacle of Republicans spending millions of dollars to rid Montana of a problem that doesn’t exist is so clearly at odds with their core beliefs of limiting government spending and regulations, it exposes their real motive: retain political power at all costs.

In 2014, when Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed a measure that would have eliminated same‐day voter registration, the Republican‐led state legislature decided to make it a ballot measure. Backers of the measure said it would cut down on lines at the polls. But one Republican, State Representative Washburn, may have spilled the beans. As MSNBC reported, “When asked by a Democratic opponent of the bill who he thought should not vote, Washburn referred to “the 100,000 students that are here that don’t have Montana driver’s licenses, that don’t have any identification other than theirs at the college.” You see, “college students, like blacks and Hispanics, who also are often affected by restrictions on voting, tend to vote Democratic,” MSNBC concluded.

In November, the people voted and the result was decisive: 57% voted to retain same day registration, and only 43% voted against it. Finally, a victory against voter suppression.

NEBRASKA

In 2013, Nebraska cut early voting by 10 days, but early voting will still be allowed on the 25 days prior to an election.

NORTH DAKOTA

Incredibly, North Dakota is the only state without voter registration! However, an ID (driver’s license, non‐driver ID or other approved ID) is required to vote.

TENNESSEE

4-9 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

In 2013, Tennessee joined numerous other Republican‐Controlled states in restricting the kinds of IDs that voters are allowed to present at the polls. No longer are student IDs, out‐of‐state IDs, or library cards sufficient. Nor are IDs issued by counties or municipalities. Voters now must have an official photo ID issued by the state or the federal government. The Green Party of Tennessee has sued the state over the law. “There is no justification for having the photo ID requirement, as there is no such thing as voter fraud,” said Alan Woodruff, the attorney who filed the suit. “It's overly burdensome. It affects minorities and the progressive‐leaning voters more than the typical Republican conservative, and it was intended to.”

FLORIDA

Florida, already famous for disallowing “hanging chad” ballots – and electing George W. Bush – in 2000 and for extraordinarily long voting lines since then, was not to be outdone. According to the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, after the Supreme Court’s VRA ruling Florida resumed its plans to remove non‐citizens from its voter rolls using the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database. [7] State governments often use that Dept. of Homeland Security database to check the immigration status of people applying for a driver’s license, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc. But as with most data bases, SAVE is faulty and was never intended to be used to police elections. In fact, using this type of database to verify voter rolls is almost guaranteed to keep eligible voters out of the voting booth. In fact, The Miami Herald Blog [8] noted that “because most immigrants are of Hispanic descent in Florida, the attempted purging of the rolls disproportionately targets them.” And when “asked to clear up the controversy of whether the state is targeting minorities, Governor Rick Scott said ‘absolutely not.’” Of course, most turned out to be citizens anyway. At the time, Florida had flagged some 2,700 potential noncitizen voters and sent the list to county elections supervisors, “who have found the data and methodology to be flawed and problematic.” Even the Department of Justice has admitted that SAVE is not meant to be “a comprehensive and definitive listing of U.S. citizens.”

OUTRAGE IN WISCONSIN

In March 2014, Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker signed a bill limiting early voting in his state. The new law, aimed directly at suppressing the Democratic vote among urban minorities, limits in‐person absentee voting to no later than 7 p.m. on weeknights and prohibits weekend voting altogether. It could have been worse: Walker vetoed a portion of the bill that would have reduced early voting to no more than 45 hours a week. Instead, he opted to cap early voting at 55 hours, but the impact is essentially the same.

The new law outraged Wisconsin Democrats, who rightly fear it will suppress the vote in heavily Democratic Milwaukee and Madison. Indeed, some believe that if the law had been in place during the 2012 Presidential election, officials in Milwaukee would have had only 11 seconds to process each ballot submitted during early voting.

4-10 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

As Thinkprogress.org put it: “In 2016, the role of Florida – with its six hour voting lines in 2012 – could be played by Gov. Scott Walker’s state of Wisconsin….” This is the second time Walker has signed legislation to restrict early voting. In 2011, he signed a bill reducing early voting from three weeks to two and limiting it to just one weekend.

Of course, the issue of limiting voter hours is extremely significant because it exposes the Republican “Big Lie” about voter fraud: Limiting voting hours has no relationship to fraud. While Republicans claim their efforts to identify and purge supposedly ineligible voters are necessary to root out voter fraud, limiting voting hours for all has no such possible rationale: a person ineligible to vote on weekends, or any other now excluded voting hours, is just as ineligible to vote at 6:00pm on a weekday, or any other time still permitted for voting. Even where Republicans do not use the anti‐fraud campaign to justify the reduction in voting hours, however, they do so by professing the need to save money. How amazing it is that this desire to save money has arisen so suddenly and dramatically across Republican controlled states in 2013…the very year of the elimination of federal pre‐clearance and the re‐invigoration of Republican voter suppression agendas.

THE FINAL SAY

Yes, the race to erase all the gains of the 1960s is on – and the Roberts Court will, sometime prior to the 2016 presidential election, have the final say. If all this isn’t making you very nervous, then you haven’t been paying attention. So, let’s take a look at some recent court cases and the outlook for the Supreme Court.

4-11

5 HEADING TO THE SUPREME COURT

t’s very simple: the latest wave of voter suppression laws all started with the conservative’s Imajority on the Supreme Court overturning the key protection in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. With the Shelby County v Holder decision in 2013, the US Supreme Court struck down the requirement that certain states historically discriminatory to minority voting rights had to receive pre‐approval from the federal government before enacting any changes in their voting rights laws.

After the Shelby decision, historically discriminatory states, were free to enact whatever laws they could pass.

After the Shelby decision, challenging voting rights laws thought to be discriminatory became very burdensome and must be challenged in court only AFTER THE FACT (after the legislation passed) with lengthy and costly trials, exhaustive evidentiary showings, and years of appeals.

After the Shelby decision, Federal District Courts and Federal Courts of Appeal in different circuits have handed down different and conflicting decisions. Before the 2016 election, the fate of voting restrictions enacted by so many Republican state legislatures will likely be decided by our highest court, dominated by a Republican majority of jurists. It’s not promising for voting rights advocates.

The following is a review of the Shelby decision and the key cases decided in its aftermath in 2014.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION: SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER, 133 S. CT. 2612 (U.S. 2013)

In Shelby County the Supreme Court found that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, requiring certain States and counties to obtain preclearance before instituting changes to their voting laws, was unconstitutional.

Prior to the Shelby County decision, pursuant to Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act certain States or political subdivisions that had historically maintained discriminatory tests or devices as prerequisites to voting, and had lower voter registration or turnout, were not allowed to change their voting procedures until said procedures were pre‐approved by certain federal authorities in Washington D.C. Specifically, these States and political subdivisions had to get the prior approval of the Attorney General or a three‐judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia before implementing any changes to their voting procedures. See Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612, 2615 (U.S.2013). This process was called “preclearance.” Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

The driving force behind Justice Robert’s opinion was a federalist interpretation of the Constitution: “Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States.” Id. at 2623 (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, the Supreme Court did not hold that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was uniformly unconstitutional. Rather, the Supreme Court found that the statute was constitutional when it was first enacted in 1965, but is unconstitutional now because Congress reauthorized it using a coverage formula based on forty‐year old data. Id. at 2630‐31.

The Court reasoned that the statute was valid when originally enacted because racial discrimination in voting was so entrenched in certain parts of the country Congress was authorized to take extreme measures: “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.” Id. at 2618 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

NORTH CAROLINA

In 2014, a North Carolina federal district court denied the Plaintiffs’ request for a Preliminary Injunction to stop the implementation of that state’s new voting rights restrictions, including a voter ID and elimination of same day registration (“SDR”), but a Court of Appeals decision in a related case, subsequently overturned the federal district court case in part and ordered a preliminary injunction against the North Carolina’s SDR and the counting of out‐of‐precinct ballots.

However, the Appeals Court let stand the imposition of a new voter ID requirement, cutting off a week of early voting, closing polls on Saturday, and ending pre‐registration for 17 and 18 year olds in high schools.

The US Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court decision pending appeal to the Court.

NORTH CAROLINA: N.C. STATE CONF. OF THE NAACP V. MCCRORY, 997 F. SUPP. 2D 322 (M.D.N.C. 2014)

In N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP the Plaintiff brought claims attempting to strike down a North Carolina voting reform law pursuant to, inter alia, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Plaintiff brought a motion for preliminary injunction and the Defendants brought a motion to dismiss. The Court denied both motions.

The Court discussed both the Plaintiff’s discriminatory results and discriminatory intent claim brought pursuant to Section 2.

It noted that the existing case law indicated that “a bare statistical showing of disproportionate impact on a racial minority does not satisfy the [Section] 2 'results' inquiry.” Id. at 347 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Court therefore did not consider whether the new law would actually result in fewer African Americans voting or being able to vote, but instead applied the following standard: “whether the current electoral law interacts with historical discrimination and social conditions to cause black voters to have unequal access to the polls.” Id. at 348 (internal citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis added).

5-2 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

Following Shelby, the Court found that the Plaintiff’s historical evidence of discrimination was too old. Id. at 349. It reasoned that the Plaintiffs had not shown evidence of contemporary voting discrimination. Id. at 350. Therefore, when the Court weighed the Plaintiff’s evidence of voting discrimination against the State’s interest in getting rid of same‐say voter registration (“SDR”), it found that the State’s interest was valid. Id. at 354.

In its analysis of whether the Plaintiff was likely to succeed on its claim that the Defendant’s repeal of SDR violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because of a discriminatory intent, the Court inquired as to whether racial discrimination was a "motivating factor" in North Carolina’s decision to pass its voter reform law. Id. at 355. The Court considered a number of factors, including whether the impact of the decision bears more heavily on one race than another, the historical background of the decision, the sequence of events leading to the decision, the legislative history, and the State’s purported interest. Id. at 355.

The Court found that there was some evidence that the Defendant had acted with discriminatory animus. It therefore denied the Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Id. However, the Court found there was not enough evidence of discriminatory animus to warrant a preliminary injunction. Id.

FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS: LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF N.C. V. NORTH CAROLINA, 2014 U.S. APP. LEXIS 18764, 1 (4TH CIR. N.C. 2014)

The District Court’s decision in N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP was overturned in part by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18764, 1 (4th Cir. N.C. 2014)

In that decision, the Court of Appeals found that minority voters were entitled to a preliminary injunction enjoining the North Carolina statute insofar as its elimination of SDR, and its prohibition on counting out‐of‐precinct ballots, because same‐day registration and out‐of‐ precinct ballots were used disproportionately by minority voters.

The Court of Appeals further held that the district court erred in failing to consider North Carolina's previous voting practices and history of discrimination, and in considering each challenged provision separately.

WISCONSIN

In Frank v. Walker, the courts have really gone back and forth. The Federal District Court overturned the voter restriction laws in that state, granting a preliminary injunction, arguing that the statute would have a discriminatory impact on minority voters, without a showing that minorities couldn’t vote with the new restrictions. The Appeals Court then disagreed, reversed the District Court decision and stayed the injunction allowing the voting restrictions to apply to the 2014 elections. The US Supreme Court then vacated the stay, reinstating the injunction until the highest court either decided not to hear the case or made a decision.

5-3 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

WISCONSIN: FRANK V. WALKER, 2014 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 59344 (E.D. WIS. APR. 29, 2014)

The Court in Frank did not focus on the intent aspect of the Section 2 claim, but instead on the claim that the statute would lead to a discriminatory result. Noting that there was limited case law to look to for guidance, the Court instead relied on the text of the statute. Id. at *93. The Court quoted the statute as follows:

“[A] Section 2 violation is established ‘if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by [§ 1973(a)] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.’ 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b)." Id. at *87‐88.

The Court found that the meaning of the statute was clear: “Section 2 requires an electoral process 'equally open' to all, not a process that favors one group over another." Id. at *92. In other words, unlike the Court in N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP, the Court was willing to consider statistical evidence that African‐American and Latino voters were disproportionately impacted by the statute. Id. at *94.

The Court even considered the same language relied on by the N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP Court in reaching its holding “that ‘a bare statistical showing’ of disproportionate impact is not enough to prove a Section 2 violation.” Id. at *107. However, it reached a very different conclusion:

“[W]hat these cases mean is that beyond showing a disproportionate impact on minorities, a Section 2 plaintiff must show that the disproportionate impact is tied in some way to the effects of discrimination. There is nothing in these cases indicating that a Section 2 plaintiff must show that the challenged voting practice makes it impossible for minorities to vote or that minorities are incapable of complying with the challenged voting procedure.” Id. (emphasis added)

The Court then found that the Plaintiffs showed a “disproportionate impact of the photo ID requirement results from the interaction of the requirement with the effects of past or present discrimination.” Id. at *114. The main factor relied on by the Court was the fact that “Blacks and Latinos in Wisconsin are disproportionately likely to live in poverty.” Id.

The Court also considered the State’s interest in passing the voting law, although noted it was not explicitly required to do so by the text of the statute.

The Frank court, however, found that Wisconsin did not have a legitimate State interest in requiring photo identification for voting. Id. at *120

SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS: FRANK V. WALKER, 766 F.3D 755, 756 (7TH CIR. WIS. 2014)

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Trial Court’s decision.

5-4 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

The Court of Appeals held that the district court's findings regarding the statute requiring voters to present photographic identification at the polls did not justify an outcome different from the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, 128 S. Ct. 1610, 170 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2008), in which a similar voter identification law from Indiana was upheld.

Furthermore, the Appeals Court found that while the District Court's findings documented a disparate outcome, they did not show a "denial" of anything by Wisconsin, which it held is required for a successful claim under Section 2 of the Voter Rights Act. Id. at 753. Similarly, it reasoned that the District Court’s findings regarding the differences in economic circumstances were not attributable to discrimination by Wisconsin, and therefore did not show a “denial” of voting rights by Wisconsin. Id.

Finally, the Court found that the application of the statute to the vast majority of Wisconsin voters was justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. Id. at 755.

The Court of Appeals also allowed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction granted by the District Court, however that stay was vacated by the United Stated Supreme Court until it either determined not to hear the case or until it made a final decision on the case. Frank v. Walker, 190 L. Ed. 2d 245, 245 (U.S. 2014). Therefore, the preliminary injunction was in place during last November’s election and the statute was not applied.

TEXAS:

In Texas, the Court cases again brought differing results. In Veasey v Perry, the District Court held a full trial and determined that there was a discriminatory impact on Hispanics and African Americans, issuing an injunction against the implementation of the voting rights restrictions. The Appeals Court however, stayed the injunction until it heard the case. The Supreme Court upheld the stay of the injunction so the voter restriction laws were in effect for the 2014 elections.

TEXAS: VEASEY V. PERRY, U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTHERN TEXAS, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13‐CV‐ 00193 LEXIS 174916 (SD TEX DEC 11, 2013).

The District Court held that the Texas statute created an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African‐Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose therefore violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court further held that the statute constituted an unconstitutional poll tax. Id. at *2.

The Court therefore issued a permanent injunction on Texas implementing the statute. Id. at *142. The Court’s decision was issued on October 9, 2014.

5-5 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

However, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of the injunction until it had time to hear the appeal. The stay issued by the 5th Circuit was upheld by the United States Supreme Court on October 18, 2014 and the voting restriction statute was applied in November, 2014.

5-6

6 THE VOTE YOU PROTECT COULD BE YOUR OWN

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me. – Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

hether you live in a state controlled by Tea Party Republicans who have passed – or are Wthreatening to pass – voter suppression laws, or you live in a state where voters rights are celebrated, these un‐American laws – wherever instituted – not only mock Jefferson and Lincoln but also the very promise of America. Every time a Tea Party Republican is elected to the U.S. House or Senate, our republic is threatened because they will vote to push a radical conservative agenda that has already rigged the game in favor of the richest 1% of Americans. As The New York Times recently reported, “The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction…. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.” And this comes at the same time Tea Party Republicans aggressively seek to cut Social Security and Medicare, eliminate laws protecting clean air and water along with worker and food safety, gut funding for public education and public works, i.e., roads, bridges, water and sewer facilities, and much, much more. The social contract that Americans have lived under since Roosevelt’s New Deal is broken, but it can be repaired if we: a) ensure that everyone CAN vote; and b) get everyone out to vote.

Make no mistake, the Koch Brothers and the Republican National Committee are not going to rely on a) the sharpness and magnitude of their campaign ads and b) outdoing Democrats “boots on the ground” to make the top 1% even richer than it is. No, as they see it, the stakes are too high simply to rely on Campaign 101 tactics, which Democrats excel at. No, their not‐so‐secret weapon is the oldest club in their bag – a tactic that is both as American as apple pie Poster by Ben Hillman, Ben Hillman & Co. and as dangerous to the Republic as the Koch Brothers themselves. It’s called voter suppression. Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

[Note: First, we have to get our terms straight.]

Please don’t confuse “voter registration/expansion” with “voter protection.” Indeed, both are vital if Democrats are to regain control of state and federal governments, but voter registration and expansion involve reaching out to young people and minorities who have never voted to get them on the voter rolls so they are eligible to vote. Crucial? Absolutely. We need to register as many new voters as we possibly can. That’s how Obama won in 2008. However, “voter protection” is making sure all those who are registered – both newly registered voters AND our traditional, reliable base – can actually cast their votes on election day. This is not at all guaranteed in Republican Tea Party‐controlled states. So, while voter protection is mainly what we’re talking about here, voter registration efforts are also critical, and both require citizen involvement and citizen advocacy.

TOGETHER, WE HAVE THE POWER

Not since the America’s Gilded Age, when the robber barons like Rockefeller, Mellon, Gould, Astor & Co. held sway, has so much power and wealth been concentrated at the very top of the social pyramid in the U.S., and this has real and disturbing implications for our democracy. But we can’t wait for a second Teddy Roosevelt to kick off a new Progressive Era in American politics to take on these 21st Century robber barons – or replace Justices on the ultra‐ conservative Supreme Court. No, if you want to reverse this tragic trajectory of American political and economic history, you have to remember two things: First, the politically powerful never, ever relinquish their power voluntarily; and second, that doesn’t mean the rest of us have no power. We just have to get over the idea that we don’t have any. That’s why we’ve written this book. It’s a guidebook for fighting to restore voting rights in the United States of America, where the world’s oldest democracy is in serious jeopardy. As the authors of Jim Crow 2.0 came to acknowledge: “[O]ur findings expose elements of American electioneering reminiscent of how actors in competitive authoritarian regimes manipulate election practices so that voters are drawn almost exclusively from their own supporters.”

A CALL TO ACTION

Today’s America is not the America Jefferson or Lincoln fought for, nor is it the America most of us want to live in. Indeed, Lincoln’s words of more than 150 years ago still resonate today:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

This time, we are engaged in a great legal and political war for the soul of America, testing whether our nation “so conceived and so dedicated,” will endure. If you’ve had enough … and are ready to move America forward toward the Jefferson/Lincoln ideal … read on. Together, we can beat back Tea Party Republicans and restore democracy in America.

There are four approaches we need to take simultaneously:

6-8 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

1. Call, write, and draft petitions to your state legislators and governor to expand and modernize voter registration to allow: a. Automatic voter registration whenever a person interacts with a state agency such as the DMV. b. Registration portability, so that once registered, a voter’s records move with him or her. c. On‐line voter registration – including the ability to update registration information – over a secure web portal. 2. Organize a Voter Protection Campaign a. Assemble a core group of people to energize Democrats in your area. b. Get educated about the voter suppression laws in your state. c. Get lists of voters who are most likely to be affected by those voter suppression laws. d. Raise money to start the campaign. e. Raise awareness in the community and motivate people to stand up against voter suppression: Use social media, hold meetings, send direct mail, make calls (phone‐ banking), or knock on doors (door to door canvassing) to educate and motivate opposition to voter suppression. Our goal: overturning voter suppression laws and ensuring that everyone can vote. 3. Contribute to organizations fighting voter suppression such as: a. www.RuralVotes.com b. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (www.dscc.org) c. Fair Elections Legal Network (http://fairelectionsnetwork.com/) d. American Civil Liberties Union www.aclu.org/ 4. Petition your school committee to have a civics course in the curriculum, that includes an analysis of voting issues and gets students interested and knowledgeable about How Democracy Works.

VOTER REGISTRATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Saying “The voter registration system in much of our country is frayed,” The Brennan Center, on July 10, 2015, noted two critical problems with voter registration and voting rights in the U.S. today (aside from GOP attacks on voting rights, of course):

 One in four eligible citizens is not on the rolls.  One in eight registration records is invalid or has serious errors.

6-9 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

According to the Center, “the source of the problem is outdated technology and thinking. We use computers for virtually everything from depositing checks to chatting with our friends overseas, but too many states still rely on ink and paper for voter registration.” This is intolerable, and the Center urges a “21st century approach” where:

 Every eligible voter is on the rolls.  Only eligible voters are on the rolls.  The government automatically updates voters’ records where possible to ensure accuracy.

Such a 21st Century system would have four central features:

1. Automatic Registration: State election officials automatically register eligible citizens using reliable information from other government lists. All would be given the chance to “opt out,” or decline registration — nobody would be registered against their will. Many states have already streamlined the process at DMVs and other government agencies by making the registration process partially or fully electronic, and automatic registration takes this one step further. Voter Registration Modernization (VRM) requires states to assure that citizens are automatically enrolled whenever they interact with a government agency, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles. It mandates that they remain registered when they move within the state and are able to register or update their information at the polls.

Oregon became the first state to enact such a law earlier this year and the New Jersey Legislature has passed a similar bill, although Republican governor and presidential candidate Chris Christie has refused to sign it.

As you might expect, Democrat presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have endorsed automatic, universal registration, while Republicans have set up voting obstacles around the country to keep new voters — presumably young or minority voters inclined to vote Democratic — off the rolls. 2. Portability: Once an eligible citizen is on a state’s voter rolls, she remains registered and her records move with her. 3. Online Access: Voters can register, check, and update their registration records through a secure and accessible online portal. 4. Safety Net: Eligible citizens can correct errors on the rolls or register before and on Election Day.

The Brennan Center says such a system would:

 Upgrade our outdated, paper‐based registration system, by leveraging existing technology and reliable information on other government lists to update and expand the voter rolls.  Boost registration dramatically, adding up to 50 million to the rolls, and get us closer to the goal of registering every eligible American. Agencies with electronic registration have

6-10 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

boosted registration more than seven‐fold, and Election Day registration has increased turnout 5 to 7 percent. Oregon could add more than 300,000 eligible voters to the rolls when it implements automatic registration, and even more in subsequent years.  Increase convenience for voters, who can be added to the rolls in a seamless way and be confident their registration will be updated when they move. Automatic registration means more chances to be added to the rolls and update registration, portability means voters can vote at a new address, and online access provides additional convenience.  Prevent voting barriers due to registration. According to a Harvard/MIT study, nearly 3 million eligible citizens could not vote because of problems related to their voter registration record. In 2012, over 3.6 million Americans experienced registration problems. Inaccurate voter rolls also contribute to long lines at the polls. A more reliable registration system will mean fewer errors, and Election Day options mean voters are not disenfranchised.  Reduce errors on registration lists stemming from typos or other mistakes, and illegible handwriting on thousands of forms. Maricopa County, Arizona, found that registrations submitted electronically were five times less likely to contain errors.  Save taxpayer money. For example, Washington spent about $280,000 to electronically register voters at DMVs and introduce online registration. The Secretary of State’s office saved over $125,000 in the first year, and the counties saved even more. Maricopa County, Arizona, found processing a paper registration form cost 83 cents, compared to an average of 3 cents for applications received electronically through the DMV or online.

The Center reports that some states are already moving ahead on such a system:

 Electronic Registration: At least 30 states currently or will soon have fully or substantially electronic voter registration at DMVs. At least 3 states have expanded or are soon expanding electronic registration to public service agencies.  Automatic Registration: Oregon recently took this one step further, passing a breakthrough law to automatically register eligible citizens in the driver’s license database (and who do not ask to remain unregistered). Similar legislation is now pending in 17 states plus the District of Columbia.  Portability: Eight states have systems of portable registration that allow registered voters who move to cast valid ballots even if they do not update their registrations before Election Day.  Safety Net: 13 states currently offer, or have enacted laws which provide for, Election Day registration, allowing eligible citizens to register or update their records on Election Day.  Online Access: At least 28 states currently or will soon offer online voter registration. At least 34 states allow citizens to look up their voter registration information online.

6-11 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

Is your state doing this? If not, lobby your state representative and state senator and find out why not! Write letters, sign petitions, hold meetings and organize whatever other grassroots efforts will convince legislators to expand voting rights for more people.

ORGANIZING A VOTER PROTECTION CAMPAIGN

If you’ve been involved in organizing a get‐out‐the‐vote campaign (GOTV), at any level, you’re ahead of the game. For those who are new to political organizing, the first thing to understand is that there are several steps to this process. The second thing is that the goal is to focus on educating likely Democratic voters about the new Anti‐American voter ID laws, along with the restricted voting dates, times, and places they will have to confront in upcoming elections. But there’s more. To be successful, we must also help them:

1) Obtain the necessary IDs

2) Determine where and when they can vote

And on election day:

3) Make sure they are not bullied out of the polls

It’s a big job, but as Americans who believe in the Constitutional right to vote, we have no choice. We must do it. And if we are serious about it, we need to start now! Yes, there is action in some states, including court challenges and TV ads, but very little involves old‐ fashioned, boots‐on‐the‐ground political organizing, which is the most effective approach. The Tea Party Republicans, working to suppress the vote in your state, may very well be funded by one of the Koch brother’s right‐wing extremist groups, but their money won’t beat the kind of people‐to‐people communication program you can put together.

Here are the five (5) key steps to a successful campaign.

STEP 1: ORGANIZE A CORE GROUP

The first step is to gather together like‐minded people into a core group, an executive committee to organize your campaign. This will be a group of already energized Democratic activists in your area. Ask them personally to become a part of the committee. You can use Democratic committee lists and local legislators to get suggestions for executive committee members in addition to people you may know personally. There is no set number for your committee but a minimum of 8 to 10 people will be essential.

STEP 2: IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM – GET EDUCATED

With your committee, you first need to identify the problem. For instance, in your state, are voters confronting new laws that:

 Impose restrictive voter ID requirements that bar citizens who don’t have a proper photo ID from casting a ballot? Find out what types of IDs are acceptable under the law.

6-12 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

 Impose tougher voter registration requirements, i.e., the elimination of same‐day voter registration, new document requirements for registration? Find out what options are available to first‐time voters.  Reduce voting times and locations? Has early voting been eliminated or reduced? Are the polls opening and closing earlier, or are they closed altogether on certain days? Have early voting times been slashed?  Prevent cities and counties from extending polling hours in the event of long lines or other extraordinary circumstances? Get the details.  Make it harder for counties to accommodate elderly or disabled voters, say, with satellite polling sites at nursing homes? Get the details.  Make it easier for voter suppression groups like “True The Vote” to challenge any voter whom they think may be ineligible? Find out.  Vastly increase the number of “poll observers” along with what they’re permitted to do? In 2012, Think Progress caught the Romney campaign training such poll observers using highly misleading information.  Force citizens to vote in their specific precinct rather than casting a ballot in any nearby ward or election district? This can lead to widespread confusion, particularly in urban areas where many precincts can often be housed in the same building.

As Think Progress’ Scott Keyes wrote of recent changes in North Carolina’s voting rights law, “Each of these changes, on their own, would be a significant step away from increasing voting rights. Taken together, this is the voter suppression magnum opus.” The Second Step is to identify and educate yourself on the problem(s) you need to confront. This information will be critical to energize people in Step 5.

STEP 3: ID THE PEOPLE AFFECTED

The immediate consequence of these types of restrictions can be severe, especially in areas, both rural and urban, with lots of poor, minority, and elderly voters. Even super voters, people who have voted in the last one or two Presidential primary and general elections, will be affected in states with new laws suppressing the vote. These people, who have a history of voting, who want to vote, who have never had trouble voting in the past, will be required to present a formal, state‐approved ID to claim their rights as American citizens. Yet, research has shown that many of these people will be unaware that they will be asked for an ID. Indeed, you shouldn’t be surprised if many do not even know the new law exists. Of course, that’s a crucial part of the Tea Party Republicans’ plan to deny them their rights.

Clearly, these laws are designed to have a chilling effect on the affected voters from the second some of them walk into the polls for early voting until the polls close on election day. When unsuspecting voters, many of whom have voted without any trouble for decades, are confronted by someone asking them for their official state‐sanctioned IDs – what we call “The

6-13 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

Ask” – or when they have to “swear” on the record that they do not have an acceptable ID, the new law will be doing what it is meant to do: intimidate voters by making them feel uncomfortable and reducing the likelihood that they will stick around to vote.

So, the Third Step is to get a voting list of affected super voters in your area. First, concentrate on people who have voted in the last two primaries (the so‐called “super voters”) or in general elections in the two most recent non‐presidential years, or combine both groups. This list should contain rural or urban voters in heavy minority districts, but it could also include college students and the elderly, people who might not have all the information they need to comply with the new laws. Then, if you have enough volunteers, expand your list to those who have voted in any election in the last four (4) years.

Your State Democratic Party, state Board of Elections, or the League of Women Voters should be able to help you here. In fact, your State Democratic Party should be your first stop. It probably has an agreement with the Democratic National Committee to share voter lists through Votebuilder, a combination of VAN online field software, and the Democratic Party’s voter file.[14] It has provided an edge to Democrats for the last several cycles. Note: The VAN software can be downloaded to smart phones, bringing both canvassing and tallying the results into the 21st Century.

STEP 4: RAISE MONEY

Although we’re not talking about buying TV time or hiring lots of staff, you will need some money for printing, mailing, signs, and possibly to pay an assistant. Accordingly, once you have a solid group of activists who want to join you in this effort, you’ll need to get everyone reaching out to friends, relatives, business associates, political groups, etc. to build a kitty to cover your expenses. First of course you will need to plan your campaign and establish a budget. Be sure to contact an attorney who can advise you on the issue of any campaign finance laws with which you may have to comply. You are NOT raising money for a particular candidate but to support voting rights in general. Nonetheless, there may be applicable laws to follow.

STEP 5: RAISE AWARENESS AND MOTIVATE

You next need to develop a plan to get the critical information on the new, restrictive election laws to those people on your list. So, the Fourth Step is to Raise Awareness. To do that well, however, you need to boil the information down to easily understandable bullet points that can fit on a handout. And you should do this for several reasons: a) to focus your message and to get people on the same page; (b) to energize and motivate voters, and c) to make the information easily digestible by the very people you intend to reach. Once you have it, you can hand them out at shopping centers, ballgames, libraries, or wherever people gather, AND use the information on social media sites that are most used by your communities. The key here is to motivate. Educating is not enough. The information needs to be presented in a way to emphasize how dangerous voter suppression is for our democracy. It must emphasize how people have fought and died for this right. It needs to get people mad so they will stand up and

6-14 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

say, in essence: “I’m not going to take this anymore” and help to organize …or at least to go vote.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Depending on your target groups, Facebook and the other social media may be one of the most effective, and certainly the least costly, ways to get out the word. Unfortunately, some groups, especially the elderly and poor, may not have access to or familiarity with social media. Indeed, in rural areas access may be limited, but you should use it in any case, and your handout can be the basis for what you say on Facebook, Twitter, or whatever.

PRESS RELEASES

Leveraging free media, i.e., using newspapers, radio, and local TV, is an easy way to get the word out. For instance, your handout can be the basis for a press release about a stand‐alone public service announcement or as the foundation for a public event.

MEETINGS AND LOCAL EVENTS

From the initial organizing committee, you will need to continually expand your base of supporters. Monthly meetings are essential to continue and build momentum. Invite speakers to bring in more people. As your base expands, your outreach efforts can expand. Remember: your success will depend on the motivational effect of your message and the numbers of people you have to do the outreach efforts out outlined below. Again: you may be outspent, but don’t be out‐organized.

There are two kinds of public events where you can use a handout to educate and motivate: a) Those that are planned by others that you can attend; and b) those your group plans on its own. The former would include county fairs, farmers’ markets, etc. where you can distribute the handouts at a table and discuss the issues with passers‐by or just have group members stroll through the crowds handing them out and talking with folks. Both are effective.

You could also create an event – a public informational meeting especially with an invited well‐ known guest speaker – where you can also distribute handouts and discuss the restrictive new laws with at‐risk voters. Of course, you will need to get the word out about your public meeting, and you can use the same media: Newspaper, radio, TV (especially local access if you have it), and social media. You can send out a meeting notice by direct mail, but that’s expensive. As an alternative you may be able to get local political and service organizations to help you spread the word about your meeting by email or in their member newsletters. Always, always think about leveraging your efforts!

DIRECT MAIL

With everyone focusing on email and social media these days, consider sending affected super voters a direct mail piece. Whether you use it as a simple heads‐up on the new law and its

6-15 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

effects, or to announce a local meeting, these can be very effective IF THEY INCLUDE A MOTIVATIONAL MESSAGE AND CALL TO ACTION MESSAGE. But again, printing and postage takes money.

PHONE‐BANKING

The good old telephone is another tried and true campaign tool … and remember this is a campaign. The same Votebuilder lists that you use to find your target audience also come with phone numbers, and although we all get way too many junk calls, phone‐banking can be used very effectively to give people a heads‐up about the new laws so they won’t be shocked on election day, or to promote your upcoming public meeting. Whether people answer the phone or are screening their calls, you should have short script for callers that emphasizes that you are calling to protect their voting rights.

Note: phone‐banking is probably more fun if it’s done in a group in a large hall or office, but with today’s technology – and Votebuilder – people can do it from their homes just as effectively. If you’re lucky, and your state party, or another group, has access to the latest call technology, predictive dialing or whatever, you can make 50 calls an hour without breaking a sweat! The technology is that good. Ask around to see if it’s available.

BOOTS ON THE GROUND

Of course, good old‐fashioned door‐to‐door canvassing is still the best way to contact voters. It takes lots of organization up front – and lots of manpower – but it simply is the most effective way to get the word out to Democratic voters.

Door‐to‐door canvassing, if it is extensive enough, will augment positive media coverage or offset negative media coverage. But it all depends on the recruitment of volunteers to do the canvassing to reach enough of the voters to motivate them to vote.

People often say how they don’t want to go door‐to‐door because people may not want to be disturbed. The fact is, however, that a door‐to‐door visit is almost always received with a pleasant greeting. People would much rather receive a knock on the door by someone who is dressed nicely, and who cares enough about an issue to do the canvassing, than a blind phone call. Most people understand and appreciate the time and commitment you are making. For the few that do not, the canvasser just moves on to the next voter’s house.

People will also say that they do not know enough about the issues to knock on people’s doors. Experience shows ,however, that most voters will listen and ask few questions, and with training on how to answer the basic questions about voter suppression, the canvasser can easily respond, or tell the voter that someone will get back to him or her with the answer.

GETTING BOOTS ON THE GROUND

To organize your door‐to‐door campaign, start by simplifying a motivating message as outlined above and then:

6-16 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

 Get lists of voters you want to reach (all are available either on line or from the local registrar’s office).  Hold regular meetings and keep expanding your base, i.e., keep asking friends and neighbors to get involved.  Break‐down your voters’ lists into areas (often called “turfs”) that can be covered in two or three hours by one or two people (it will vary based on the density of the voters house/apartments) and have a turf sheet for each such area with space for canvassers to write the voters’ responses after they talk to them. Also, it’s a good idea to include a map of the area to be covered.  Start canvassing in the areas with the most reliable voters. That way you get the biggest bang at the polls for your efforts.  Train your canvassers. The training will include a review of the “do’s and don’ts” listed below, and a review of the voter suppression issues you are canvassing about. This way, canvassers will feel confident they can answer voters’ basic questions about voter suppression (what the restrictions are and why they are bad and what they can do). In addition, as noted above, tell each canvasser that if he or she cannot answer a voter’s question, the canvasser should take the voter’s contact information and tell him or her someone in the campaign will be in touch with the answer.

A FEW BASIC CANVASSING DO’S AND DON’TS  Be sure you have your voters’ list turfs for the area you are canvassing.  Dress appropriately, wear a smile – and comfortable shoes!  Make sure the coordinator has each canvasser’s cell phone number.  Have a succinct, i.e., short, message.  Have a handout to leave behind with key information highlighted.  Write a personal note on the handout if the person is not at home (it can be something as simple as “Sorry I missed you. See you at the polls”).  Time your visits for appropriate non‐invasive times: avoid dinnertime and religious times.  As you leave, always note on the voters’ sheet (paper or electronic) how the voter responded; if there is more than one voter in the household, mark each voter’s response.

PILOT RUN

If the universe of people you need to reach is large, or if they extend over a large geographic area, it’s probably a good idea to do a pilot canvassing run. Identify a manageable group of voters for a direct‐contact pilot run, prepare the “turfs”, make sure each turf has a map, and be sure to share cell phone numbers before people head out. Oh, and do make sure your canvassers are well trained.

6-17 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

ADJUST THE PROCESS

Compile the data your canvassers bring back from their door‐knocking, analyze it, and hone your approach as required, often based on the voters’ responses to the first canvasses. You may find that a change in voting precincts is causing a problem, or that people are having trouble getting the proper ID. Whatever you learn from the pilot run will help you to adjust and make the rest of the process that much more effective.

This process works. It takes commitment but remember you are working to preserve the very basis of our republic for your children and your grandchildren, so no American ever again will have to ask “Why can’t I vote?

6-18

7 REFERENCES

1. Jim Crow Stories, PBS.org, 2002

2. “The Ballot Cops,” The Atlantic, Mariah Blake, October 2002.

3. Jim Crow 2.0?: Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies; Keith Bentele, Erin O’Brien, University of Massachusetts Boston

4. “Time to Mess with Texas,” The New Yorker, by Eric Lewis, July 27, 2013.

5. “New GOP Bid to Limit Voting in Swing States,” The New York Times, by Steven Yaccino and Lizette Alvarez, March 29, 2014.

6. “Everything That’s Happened Since Supreme Court Ruled on Voting Rights Act,” Propublica.org, by Kara Brandeisky and Mike Tigas, Nov. 1, 2013.

7. “Florida Secretary Of State Prepares New Voter Purge,” Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, by Ashley Lopez, August 6, 2013.

8. “Rick Scott is ‘Absolutely Not’ Targeting Minorities in Non‐Citizen Voter Purge,” Miami Herald Blog, by Marc Caputo at 11:22 AM on Friday, Jun. 1, 2012

9. Republican Ballot Security Programs: Vote Protection Or Minority Vote Suppression—Or Both? A Report to the Center for Voting Rights and Protection; Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise, Sept. 2004

10. Talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the‐problem‐with‐yoho‐s‐property‐owner‐vote‐idea

11. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)

12. Oxford Companion to American Law, Oxford University Press; First Edition (May 2, 2002)

13. FairVote.org, The Center for Voting and Democracy, History of Voter Registration.

14. NGPVAN.org

15. "Attacks On Voting Rights." Fair Elections Legal Network. 2011. Accessed May 14, 2014. http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/attacks‐voting‐rights.

16. Berman, Ari. "The GOP War on Voting." Rolling Stone, August 30, 2011. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the‐gop‐war‐on‐voting‐20110830. Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

17. By Charles Rabb, Staff Reporter. 1964. "100,000 Assist GOP in Polls Watch Today." The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959‐1973), Nov 03, 1. http://search.proquest.com/docview/142116168?accountid=15054.

18. By Laurence Stern, Staff Reporter. 1964. "Democrats Will Watch GOP Watchers at Polls." The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959‐1973), Oct 31, 2. http://search.proquest.com/docview/142118635?accountid=15054.

19. Davidson, Chandler, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise. Republican Ballot Security Programs: Vote Protection or Minority Vote Suppression‐‐Or Both? Issue brief. September 2004. http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/GOP_Ballot_Security_Programs.pdf.

20. Davidson, Chandler, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise. "Vote Caging as a Republican Ballot Technique." William Mitchell Law Review 34, no. 2 (January 31, 2008): 533‐62.

21. "Democrats Charge G.O.P. Poll Watch Today Will Harass the Negroes and the Poor." 1964.New York Times (1923‐Current File), Nov 03, 22. http://search.proquest.com/docview/115908288?accountid=15054.

22. Greenburg, David. "Was Nixon Robbed?" Slate, October 16, 2000. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_r obbed.html.

23. Gumbel, Andrew. Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America. New York: Nation Books, 2005.

24. Kotkin, Joel. "The Changing Demographics of America." Smithsonian Magazine, August 2010. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/40th‐anniversary/the‐changing‐demographics‐ of‐america‐538284/?page=2.

25. "Party Groups Clash Over GOP Vote Challenging Operations." 1964.The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959‐1973), Nov 04, 1. http://search.proquest.com/docview/142112275?accountid=15054.

26. "Says GOP Trying to Scare Minorities from Democrats." 1964.Chicago Daily Defender (Daily Edition) (1960‐1973), Nov 03, 4. http://search.proquest.com/docview/494110984?accountid=15054.

27. Special to The New York Times. 1964. "G.O.P. Watchers Barred in some Wards, Party Group Says ‐‐ College Students Observe Irregularities in Voting." New York Times (1923‐ Current File), Nov 04, 30. http://search.proquest.com/docview/115918577?accountid=15054.

28. Sundquist, James L. Dynamics of the Party System; Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington: Brookings Institution, 1973.

7-20 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

29. Underhill, Wendy. "Voter Identification Requirements." National Conference of State Legislators. April 30, 2014. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections‐and‐ campaigns/voter‐id.aspx.

30. "Voting Laws Roundup 2014." Brennan Center for Justice. February 6, 2014. https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voting‐laws‐roundup‐2014.

31. " The Voting Rights Act of 1965." The United States Department of Justice. Accessed May 14, 2014. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php.

32. Weiser, Wendy R., and Vishal Agraharkar. Ballot Security and Voter Suppression. Issue brief. August 29, 2012. http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/ballot‐security‐and‐ voter‐suppression.

33. Wang, Tova, “The Politics of Voter Suppression: Defending and Expanding Americans’ Right to Vote,” Cornell University Press; 1 edition, August 21, 2012

34. Thurber,Timothy, “Republicans and Race: The GOP's Frayed Relationship with African Americans, 1945‐1974,” University Press of Kansas (September 17, 2013)

7-21

8 APPENDIX A

AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE

oter suppression in the United States is not a new phenomenon. Unfortunately, it has V been endemic to American politics since the country’s founding in 1776. We could say, legitimately, if sadly, that it’s as American as Apple Pie. As Hofstra University law professor Grant M. Hayden put it in the Oxford Companion to American Law: "The history of voting in the United States has not been characterized by a smooth and inexorable progress toward universal political participation. It has instead been much messier, littered with periods of both expansion and retraction of the franchise with respect to many groups of potential voters.”[12] It is our misfortune that we are living through a period in which the rise of radical conservatism has taken us back to such a period of retrenchment. But of course, one follows the other as naturally as sunset follows the sunrise.

Remember, at the country’s founding only free, white, property‐owning, Protestant males over 21 years of age were able to vote. By 1856 all states had at least removed property ownership as a prerequisite for voting and most had expanded suffrage to all white men over 21. Then in 1870 adoption of the Fifteen Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to all male citizens regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Seemingly, women were now the only major group of citizens who couldn’t vote, but many states, largely in the South, adopted other means of denying Blacks the vote, including poll taxes and literacy tests. With the adoption of the 19th Amendment in 1920 women finally did get the right to vote.

Today, it’s common knowledge that African Americans and women struggled to earn the right to vote, but less overt, more nuanced policies of voter suppression, reminiscent of today’s right wing‐policies, also hark back to the origins of our country. In fact, early voter registration laws, dating as far back as the early 19th century, disenfranchised voters. Back then, many states feared that if the large number of immigrants and transients living in America’s central cities began participating in elections, they would shift the balance of power in statehouses and city councils. Not something the power elite of the day could tolerate. So, to prevent voter fraud the states developed the system of registration that is still with us today.[13] That is, they wanted to ensure that these non‐citizens were not voting illegally. Of course, while these efforts did prevent non‐citizens from voting, in the process they also disenfranchised many poor Americans. Sound familiar? Most were excluded from the voter rolls because they worked during the daytime hours when assessors conducted registration. Then, as now, many who were disenfranchised were poor, immigrants, and members of other groups that tend to vote progressively, i.e., they tended to challenge entrenched interests.

As the following summary of the history of voter suppression laws shows, what the power elite started in our early years is still very much part of our country today. Voter suppression policies Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

are still marketed as tools to prevent voter fraud, but the underlying motivation is fear – of change, of loss of power, or of people that are different. Additionally, voter suppression laws today are likely to cast a much wider net than intended and disenfranchise people who already are poorly represented in our political system – people of color, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and immigrants.

A HISTORY OF VOTING RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES

1700S – THE EARLY YEARS  1776 The Declaration of Independence is signed

 1787 The U.S. Constitution is adopted

o There is no national standing for voting rights laid out in the Constitution, so states are given the power to regulate their own laws. Voting rights largely remain in the hands of white, property‐owning, Protestant males over the age of 21.

. Notable exceptions: Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and New Hampshire permit limited voting rights to some free African Americans

. Women, the poor, Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Native Americans, Blacks, and immigrants are a few of the groups unable to vote.

 1790 The Naturalization Act of 1790 is Passed

o Restricts granting citizenship and thus the right to vote to “free white” immigrants of “good character”

o In practice excluded Native Americans, Asians, indentured servants, slaves, and free blacks

1800S – MAJOR ADVANCES, AETBACKS, AND VIOLENT STRUGGLES TO EXPAND RIGHTS  1818 Connecticut restricts anyone convicted of a major felony from voting

 1819 Maine becomes the first state to prohibit people with mental disabilities from voting

o By 1940 more than 80% of states would have similar provisions

 1831 Delaware bans “paupers” from voting

o The argument was that since the poor live off of public funds under the care of others they might be easily influenced

 1848 The Treaty of Guadalupe‐Hidalgo is Passed

8-2 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

o Ends the Mexican‐American War and grants citizenship to Mexicans living in the territories that were conquered by the U.S.

o Although citizenship was granted, violent intimidation and English language requirements limited access to the polls

 1855 Connecticut adopts the nation’s first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit the next year

o These test were implemented to discriminate against Irish‐Catholic immigrants

 1856 North Carolina is the last state to remove property ownership as a prerequisite for voting

o Suffrage is expanded to all white men over the age of 21

 1868 Ohio passes “visible admixture” legislation that allows election officials to challenge the ballot of any voter who looks to be of mixed race descent

 1870 The Fifteenth Amendment is Passed

o The right to vote is legally guaranteed to all male citizens regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”

o A milestone of legislative achievement, but although the vote cannot be denied because of race explicitly—other discriminatory practices develop that accomplish the same goal

 1871 The Enforcement Act is Passed by Congress

o Provides criminal penalties for interfering with suffrage under the Fifteenth Amendment

 1873 Georgia enacts a law that allows local registrars to register new voters only during planting and harvesting periods

o Aimed at the black farm workers who would be unable to travel to a county courthouse and register during these times

 1875 Minor v. Happersett

o The Supreme Court of Missouri rules that women’s suffrage is not guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Constitution and that only states have the right to determine who can and cannot vote

 1877 Jim Crows Laws begin

o Between 1877 and 1965 a number of state and local laws made racial segregation a matter of law, making it nearly impossible for African‐Americans to vote in the South

8-3 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

 1882 The Chinese Exclusion Act is passed

o Legislation established restrictions and quotas on Chinese immigration and prevented Chinese persons and persons of Chinese descent from naturalizing and thus voting

o Repealed in 1943

 1888 Florida becomes one of the first states to implement a poll tax

o Eventually 10 other southern states will follow suit

o The law caused voter turnout among African American men to decrease from 62 to 11 percent over the next four years

 1890 The Indian Naturalization Act is passed

o Grants citizenship to Native Americans

 1890 Wyoming becomes the first state to grant women full suffrage rights, and Mississippi adopts a literacy test to keep African‐Americans from the polls.

 1898 Louisiana amends its constitution to include a ‘grandfather clause’ that allows disenfranchised illiterate people to vote if their fathers or grandfathers could vote in 1867

o Allowed poor illiterate whites a way around the literacy tests aimed at African Americans

1900S – MODERATE PROGRESS  1915 Guinn v. United States

o The Supreme Court finds literacy tests and their coexisting grandfather clauses to be in conflict with the Fifteenth Amendment making them illegal

 1917 North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Michigan, New York, and Arkansas all grant women suffrage; Interpreters for Mexican Americans are banned from the polls in Texas

 1920 The 19th Amendment is passed granting women the right to vote

 1924 The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 grants all Native Americans the right to vote including in federal elections

 1944 The Supreme Court prohibits “white primaries” in Smith v. Allwright

o Made the nomination process a public process which was subject to the terms of the Fifteenth Amendment

8-4 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

 1947 In Caddo Parish, Louisiana, the registrar enrolls only black voters who can produce three registered white voters to vouch for them.

 1949 Georgia passes a register then purge law that requires voters to reregister by passing a literacy test if they don’t vote within a two year time span

o Disproportionately aimed at black voters

 1961 The 23rd Amendment is passed giving the citizens of Washington D.C. the right to vote for president

 1962 The Republican National Committee launches Operation Eagle Eye a “nationwide campaign against voter fraud”

o The RNC sent threatening messages and false warning to minority populations urging them to stay out of the polls or risk incarceration etc.

 1964 The 24th Amendment is passed outlawing poll taxes a requirement for voting in federal elections

 1965 The Voting Rights Act is passed

o The VRA restricts any election practices that deny citizens the right to vote based on race and it forced counties with histories of discrimination to get federal approval prior to making any changes to their election laws

o Passed largely under pressure from protests and marches earlier that year in response to Alabama officials who used excessive violence during African American voter registration efforts in the state (i.e. Selma March)

 1971 The 26th Amendment is passed setting the voting age at 18

o The Amendment ended the long debate over voting age that had begun during WWII and had intensified during Vietnam War Era protests. People felt that if 18 year olds had the ability to fight in a war they should have the ability to vote

 1974 The Supreme Court rules that states have the ability to deny convicted felons the right to vote in Richardson v. Ramirez

 1975 Voting Rights Act is amended to require that certain voting materials be printed in languages other than English so that people who do not read English could participate

 1984 The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and the Handicapped Act is passed

 1990 The Americans with Disabilities Act is passed

o Law ensures that election workers and polling sites provide services to ensure that persons with disabilities can vote

8-5 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

 1995 The Federal “Motor Voter Law” came into effect allowing states to make registration services more readily accessible at DMVs, and other state agencies

THE NEW MILLENNIUM: RENEWED EFFORTS TO RESTRICT VOTING RIGHTS  2000 Federal Court rules that residents of U.S. colonies are citizens but cannot vote

o Citizens residing in the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (4.1 million people) cannot vote for president and do not have representation in Congress

8-6

9 APPENDIX B

CAN YOU PASS A ‘LITERACY’ TEST?

Take the Impossible “literacy” test Louisiana forced on black voters in the 1960s, as reported by Rebecca Onion in the online blog Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_rights_and_the_supreme_court_the_impossible_litera cy_test_louisiana.html

The test begins on the next page. Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

9-2 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

9-3 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

9-4

10 APPENDIX C

TIMELINE OF WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE IN THE U.S. (SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA.ORG)

1777: Women lose the right to vote in New York.[1]

1780: Women lose the right to vote in Massachusetts.[1]

1784: Women lose the right to vote in New Hampshire.[1]

1787: The U.S. Constitutional Convention places voting qualifications in the hands of the states. Women in all states except New Jersey lose the right to vote.[1]

1790: The state of New Jersey grants the vote to "all free inhabitants," including women.[2]

1807: Women lose the right to vote in New Jersey, the last state to revoke the right.[1]

1848: The Seneca Falls Convention, the first women's rights convention, is held in Seneca Falls, New York. Women's suffrage is proposed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and agreed to after an impassioned argument from Frederick Douglass.[1]

1853: On the occasion of the World's Fair in New York City, suffragists hold a meeting in the Broadway Tabernacle.[2]

1861‐1865: The American Civil War. Most suffragists focused on the war effort and suffrage activity was minimal.[2]

1867: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Lucy Stone address a subcommittee of the New York State Constitutional Convention requesting that the revised constitution include woman suffrage. Their efforts fail.

1867: Kansas holds a state referendum on whether to enfranchise women and/or black males. Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton traverse the state speaking in favor of women suffrage. Both women and black male suffrage is voted down.[3]

1867: The American Equal Rights Association, working for suffrage for both women and African Americans, is formed at the initiative of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.[1]

1869: The territory of Wyoming is the first to grant unrestricted suffrage to women.[2]

1869: The suffrage movement splits into the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association. The NWSA is formed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony after their accusing abolitionist and Republican supporters of emphasizing black civil rights at the expense of women's rights. The AWSA is formed by Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe, and Thomas Wentworth Higginson, and it protests the confrontational tactics of Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

the NWSA and tied itself closely to the Republican Party while concentrating solely on securing the vote for women state by state.[4] Elizabeth Cady Stanton was the first president of the National Woman Suffrage Association, a position she held until 1893.[5] Julia Ward Howe was the first president of the American Woman Suffrage Association.[6]

1870: The Utah Territory grants suffrage to women.[3]

1870: The 15th amendment to the U. S. Constitution is adopted. The amendment grants suffrage to former male African‐American slaves, but not to women. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton oppose the amendment, which for the first time in the constitution uses the word "males" with regard to a counting device for Congressional representation. Many of their former allies in the abolitionist movement, including Lucy Stone, support the amendment.[3]

1870: Wyoming territory grants its first women suffrage since 1807.[1]

1871: Victoria Woodhull speaks to the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, arguing that women have the right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but the committee does not agree.[3]

1871: The Anti‐Suffrage Society is formed.[1]

1872: A suffrage proposal before the Dakota Territory legislature loses by one vote.[2]

1872: Susan B. Anthony registers and votes in Rochester, New York, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives her that right. However, she is arrested a few days later.[3]

1873: Susan B. Anthony is denied a trial by jury and loses her case.[1]

1873: There is a suffrage demonstration at the Centennial of the Boston Tea Party.[1]

1874: In the case of Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court rules that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not grant women the right to vote.[2]

1874: There is a referendum in Michigan on women's suffrage, but women's suffrage loses.[2]

1875: Women in Michigan and Minnesota win the right to vote in school elections.[2]

1878: A federal amendment to grant women the right to vote is introduced for the first time by Senator A.A. Sargeant of California.[2]

1880: New York state grants school suffrage to women.[3]

1882: The U.S. House and Senate both appoint committees on women's suffrage, which both report favorably.[1]

1883: Women in the Washington territory are granted full voting rights.[2]

10-2 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

1884: The U.S. House of Representatives debates women's suffrage.[1]

1886: The suffrage amendment is defeated two to one in the U.S. Senate.[1]

1887: Women in Utah lose the right to vote.[1]

1887: The Supreme Court strikes down the law that enfranchised women in the Washington territory.[2]

1887: In Kansas, women win the right to vote in municipal elections.[2]

1887: Rhode Island becomes the first eastern state to vote on a women's suffrage referendum, but it does not pass.[2]

1890: The National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association merge to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Its first president is Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The focus turns to working at the state level.[1][2][4]

1890: A suffrage campaign loses in South Dakota.[1]

1893: After a campaign led by Carrie Chapman Catt, Colorado men vote for women suffrage.[1]

1894: Despite 600,000 signatures, a petition for women suffrage is ignored in New York.[1]

1895: Women suffrage returns to Utah.[1]

1895: The New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage begins.[2]

1895: The National American Woman Suffrage Association formally condemns Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Women's Bible, a critique of Christianity.[2]

1896: The National American Woman Suffrage Association hires Ida Husted Harper to launch an expensive suffrage campaign in California, which ultimately fails.[2]

1896: Idaho grants women suffrage.[1]

1897: The National American Woman Suffrage Association begins publishing the National Suffrage Bulletin, edited by Carrie Chapman Catt.[2]

1900: Carrie Chapman Catt becomes the new leader of the National American Woman Suffrage Association.[1]

1902: Women from 10 nations meet in Washington, D.C. to plan an international effort for suffrage. Clara Barton is among the speakers.[2]

1902: The men of New Hampshire vote down a women's suffrage referendum.[2]

1904: The National American Woman Suffrage Association adopts a Declaration of Principles.[1]

10-3 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

1904: Because Carrie Chapman Catt must attend to her dying husband, Rev. Dr. Anna Howard Shaw takes over as president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association.[2]

1906: Elizabeth Cady Stanton's daughter, Harriot Stanton Blatch, returns from England and disapproves of the National American Woman Suffrage Association's conservatism. She responds by forming the Equality League of Self Supporting Women, to reach out to the working class.[2]

1910: Emma Smith DeVoe organizes a grassroots campaign in Washington State, where women win suffrage.[2]

1910: Harriet Stanton Blatch's Equality League changes its name to the Women's Political Union.[2]

1910: Emulating the grassroots tactics of labor activists, the Women's Political Union organizes America's first large‐scale suffrage parade, which is held in New York City.[2]

1910: Washington grants women the right to vote.[7]

1911: California grants women suffrage.[1]

1911: In New York City, 3,000 people march for women suffrage.[1]

1912: Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party includes women suffrage in its platform.[1]

1912: Abigail Scott Duniway dissuades members of the National American Woman Suffrage Association from involving themselves in Oregon's grassroots suffrage campaign; Oregon women win the vote.[2]

1912: Arizona grants women suffrage.[1]

1912: Kansas grants women suffrage.[1]

1912: Alaska's territorial legislature grants women suffrage.[2]

1913: Alice Paul becomes the leader of the Congressional Union (CU), a militant branch of the National American Woman Suffrage Association.[2]

1913: Alice Paul organizes the women's suffrage parade on the eve of Wilson's inauguration. It is the largest suffrage parade to date and consists of 10,000 people marching down Fifth Avenue in New York City on May 10th. The parade is attacked by a mob. Hundreds of women are injured, but no arrests are made.[1][2][8]

1913: The Alaskan Territory grants women suffrage.[1]

1913: Illinois grants municipal and presidential but not state suffrage to women.[1]

1913: Kate Gordon organizes the Southern States Woman Suffrage Conference, where suffragists plan to lobby state legislatures for laws that will enfranchise white women only.[2]

10-4 Why Can’t I Vote? www.NationAtRisk.us

1913: The Senate votes on a women suffrage amendment, but it does not pass.[2]

1914: Nevada grants women suffrage.[2]

1914: Montana grants women suffrage.[2]

1914: The Congressional Union alienates leaders of the National American Woman Suffrage Association by campaigning against pro‐suffrage Democrats in the congressional elections.[2]

1915: Anna Howard Shaw's tactical conservatism culminates in a loss of support from the National American Woman Suffrage Association members. She resigns and Carrie Chapman Catt replaces her as president.[2]

1916: Alice Paul and others break away from the National American Woman Suffrage Association and form the National Women's Party.[1]

1916: Woodrow Wilson promises that the Democratic Party Platform will endorse women suffrage.[2]

1916: Montana elects suffragist Jeannette Rankin to the House of Representatives.[2] She is the first woman elected to the U.S. Congress.[9]

1917: Beginning in January, the National Women's Party posts silent "Sentinels of Liberty," also known as the Silent Sentinels, at the White House. The National Women's Party is the first group to picket the White House. In June, the arrests begin. Nearly 500 women are arrested, and 168 women serve jail time.[1][10][11]

November 14th, 1917: The "Night of Terror" occurs at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia, in which suffragist prisoners are beaten and abused.[12]

1917: The U.S. enters W.W.I. Under the leadership of Carrie Chapman Catt, the National American Woman Suffrage Association aligns itself with the war effort in order to gain support for women's suffrage.[2]

1917: Arkansas grants women the right to vote in primary, but not general elections.[2]

1917: Indiana grants women presidential suffrage.[1]

1917: Nebraska grants women presidential suffrage.[1]

1917: North Dakota grants women presidential suffrage.[1]

1917: Michigan grants women presidential suffrage.[1]

1917: Rhode Island grants women presidential suffrage.[1]

1917: The New York state constitution grants women suffrage.[1] New York is the first Eastern state to fully enfranchise women.[2]

10-5 Why Can’t I Vote www.NationAtRisk.us

1917: The Oklahoma state constitution grants women suffrage.[1]

1917: The South Dakota state constitution grants women suffrage.[1]

1918: The jailed suffragists are released from prison. An appellate court rules all the arrests were illegal.[1]

1918: The Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which eventually granted women suffrage, passes the U.S. House with exactly a two‐thirds vote but loses by two votes in the Senate. Jeannette Rankin opened debate on it in the House, and President Wilson addressed the Senate in support of it.[1][2]

1918: President Wilson declares his support for women suffrage.[1]

1919: Michigan grants women full suffrage.[2]

1919: Oklahoma grants women full suffrage.[2]

1919: South Dakota grants women full suffrage.[2]

1919: The National American Woman Suffrage Association holds its convention in St. Louis, where Carrie Chapman Catt rallies to transform the association into the League of Women Voters.[2]

1919: In January, the National Women's Party lights and guards a "Watchfire for Freedom." It is maintained until the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passes the U.S. Senate on June 4th.[1]

1920: The Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, stating, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," is ratified by Tennessee on August 18th. It becomes law on August 26th, 1920.[1][13]

1920: In the case of Hawke v. Smith, anti‐suffragists file suit against the Ohio legislature, but the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of Ohio's ratification process.[2]

10-6