Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Voices warns about stopgap budget impact
Next Post: Indiana ain’t no shining state on the hill
Posted in:
* As we’ve already discussed, the Illinois Policy Institute’s legal arm filed a lawsuit to block implementation of the state’s election day registration law because it allegedly applied unevenly and unfairly to different parts of the state. Large counties were required to have same day registration at the precinct level, while smaller counties only had to provide a single central registration/voting location.
US District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan sided with the plaintiffs today and issued a preliminary injunction. Unless this is successfully appealed, precinct registration on election day in the state’s ten largest counties will be prohibited.
Click here for the full ruling…
*** UPDATE 1 *** Press release…
Joint Statement of
ACLU of Illinois and the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
RE: Decision in challenge to Illinois’ Election Day Registration System
September 27, 2016Earlier today, U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan granted a motion to block Election Day voter registration at polling places in Illinois for the November general election. The decision comes in the case of Harlan v. Schotz, in which plaintiffs claimed that election day registration (EDR) as authorized in Illinois is unconstitutional because while it is mandated in all 102 of the state’s counties, only larger population counties are required to have EDR available at each polling place. All counties are required to have EDR available at their central election headquarters, often the county seat. The court’s order today undermines the wide availability of Election Day registration at polling places.
A group of voting rights advocates, including the ACLU of Illinois, Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Better Government Association, League of Women Voters of Illinois, and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, filed an amicus brief in August urging Judge Der-Yeghiayan to reject the effort to eliminate EDR so close to the November general election. EDR has been in place in Illinois since the 2014 general election. In the March 2016 primaries, more than 100,000 eligible persons registered and voted using EDR, including Democratic and Republican voters.
The following can be attributed to Edwin C. Yohnka, Director of Communications and Public Policy, ACLU of Illinois:
“We are concerned about the impact of this decision, changing the rules of voting so close to this hotly-contested election. We must continue to use every available method to ensure that every eligible voter in our state can access the ballot – not create obstacles to the franchise. We encourage the State of Illinois and the Cook County Clerk – parties in this matter – to explore all legal options to protect voters’ rights. Thousands of people who are depending on EDR could lose the ability to vote if this ruling stands for the November general election.”
The following can be attributed to Ami Gandhi, Director of Voting Rights and Civic Empowerment:
“We are extremely disappointed in this decision, on National Voter Registration Day, to restrict ballot access across the state. We want to be clear: scaling back Election Day Registration threatens to silence thousands of eligible voters in Illinois. We urge the Illinois State Board of Elections and the Cook County Clerk’s office, who are parties in the action, as well as all election authorities across the state to pursue all options to promote voter access and minimize confusion for voters this close to Election Day.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** Press release…
Common Cause Illinois and other members of the Just Democracy Illinois coalition are disappointed by the federal judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction that would suspend Election Day Registration in polling places for the November Presidential election.
“To suspend Election Day Registration and suppress the vote less than two weeks before the voter registration deadline will hurt communities across Illinois who were counting on being able to register and vote on November 8,” said Trevor Gervais, Lead Organizer for Common Cause Illinois. “The court’s decision to side with a conservative group with ties to ALEC and the Koch brothers, combined with Governor Rauner’s recent veto of Automatic Voter Registration, signals a step backwards for voting rights in Illinois and continues a nationwide trend of coordinated and well-funded voter suppression efforts.”
The challenge to Election Day Registration is a troubling tactic to limit voter turnout during such a crucial election year. This decision further threatens communities with a history of experiencing voter suppression, at a time when voter interest is anticipated to be extremely high.
“Election Day Registration breaks down barriers to the ballot and ensures that the right to vote is accessible to all citizens,” said Andy Kang, legal director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice | Chicago. “We will fight this ruling on the appeal and also continue our efforts to override the veto of Automatic Voter Registration. Ensuring that these two measures are law will help restore Illinois as a national leader in ballot access.”
More than 110,000 people registered to vote on Election Day last March.
It is fully anticipated that the Illinois Attorney General’s Office will be appealing the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The next court date is set for October 27th, with the appeal to be heard as soon as possible. Common Cause Illinois and other voting rights advocates are confident that there will be a favorable ruling in the appeals process.
*** UPDATE 3 *** From the League of Women Voters…
Today’s decision in Harlan v Schotz (in which plaintiffs claimed that election day registration (EDR) as authorized in Illinois is unconstitutional because while it is required in all 102 of the state’s counties, only counties with populations greater than 100,00 0 must have EDR at each polling place. All counties are required to have EDR available at their central election headquarters), by the United States District Court is a disappointing one – not so much based on the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying argument that smaller counties are at a disadvantage when it comes to EDR but the fact that the decision comes so close to the 2016 election. One voter registration deadline is less than two weeks from today.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:11 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Voices warns about stopgap budget impact
Next Post: Indiana ain’t no shining state on the hill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The suppressionists win a round.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:24 am
It’s incredible how today’s Republican party has to fight to keep people from voting in order to compete at the ballot box. The idea of actually moderating their policies apparently is less appetizing.
Comment by slow down Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:27 am
“the availability of polling place registration as part of the EDR results in significant increase in voter turnout. That in turn shows that in a low-population county without electronic polling books there will be a significant decrease in voter turnout.”
No. Voter turnout is not a zero-sum game.
An analogy: You have a yellow dog and a gray dog. First, both dogs are supplied with one can of dog food. Then you make a second can of dog food available to the yellow dog.
The availability of the second can of dog food will likely result in significant increase in food consumption by the yellow dog. That DOES NOT in turn show that there will be a significant decrease in food consumption by the gray dog. Regardless of how much food the yellow dog eats, the gray dog may still eat one can of dog food.
The availability of additional food for the yellow dog does not in any way diminish the food available for the gray dog, i.e. they are independent variables.
The same is true for election day voter registration.
There may be reasons to block implementation of the state’s election day registration law, but a significant decrease in voter turnout in a low-population county without electronic polling books is not one of them.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:28 am
Interesting turn of events, great news for Raunerites.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:28 am
“That in turn shows that in a low-population county without electronic polling books there will be a significant decrease in voter turnout.”
What did the judge miss in this statement? Low population counties are more than available to have electronic polling books. Nothing in the law states they cannot, they choose not too.
I look forward to the successful injunction filed in the court of appeals. MrJM is spot on with his analogy.
Comment by Dee Lay Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:37 am
What a shame.
So the only defensible alternative is to require same-day at the precinct level statewide? Presumably IPI would resist that too.
I thought the “top ten” requirement was a nice break for the smaller county clerks.
Comment by Handle Bar Mustache Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:37 am
I’m not a lawyer but I feel very confident this will be overturned on appeal.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:40 am
IPI, protectors of the new Jim Crow.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:44 am
If you don’t think this is racist, you aren’t paying attention. Everything IPI does is aimed at limiting the political power of people of color because they are the ones who are being disproportionately harmed by the policies of their godshead, Bruce Rauner.
Comment by Albany Park Patriot Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:44 am
** IPI, protectors of the new Jim Crow. **
Please. Everyone has the same opportunity to register in advance as has been the case for decades.
Comment by DD Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:46 am
==I’m not a lawyer but I feel very confident this will be overturned on appeal.==
Equal protection applies to everyone. And since the case is in a court system where the judges didn’t get on the bench because they walked the most precincts for Mike Madigan, supporters are going to have to show how this passes constitutional muster.
Comment by so... Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:49 am
===I’m not a lawyer but I feel very confident this will be overturned on appeal.===
“I’m not a doctor, but I feel confident the patient will live?”
We’ll see how this goes… Very Respectfully.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:50 am
Prima fascia appears that the judge made the correct ruling based on case law. It may get overturned but I would not bet a paycheck on it. But then using MrJM’s dog analogy just might be enough to sway the appeal.
Comment by Madigan's Lapdog Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:53 am
Where is Michael Kasper when you need him to save us?!
SNARK
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:55 am
The last sentence of the excerpt is on point, there is disparate treatment of Illinois residents when it comes to who can register at their polling place and who cannot. The EDR law was understandably written to favor larger counties since it would financially burden smaller counties which may have polling places with few voters, but someone should have raised this red flag prior to passage. It’s pretty simple, you can’t let some citizens have an advantage in access to the polls and others not.
Seeing comments about “suppressionists” “fighting to keep people from voting”. and “great news for Raunerites” is troubling to me because if the GA were to solely run the pilot in rural and/or majority white counties you know full well the Democrats would running to the courts.
The GA and the party in power will always try to game the system to remain in power, and I’m pleased to see the courts ensuring equal access to the polls for all citizens of the state.
Comment by Jon Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:55 am
MJM,
Your feeding of animals analogy is a good one. If an area has two species of rabbits, and you provide supplemental feeding to one species of rabbit, and not the other, eventually, the rabbits that don’t get supplemental feeding will die out, not outcompeted, but strictly because of the supplemental feeding of their competitors. This is a pretty good analogy as to why the decision came out as it did.
Comment by some doofus Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:02 am
===if the GA were to solely run the pilot in rural and/or majority white counties you know full well the Democrats would running to the courts.===
Is that Whiteside County? A typo maybe?
Please elaborate. Thank you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:04 am
In a perfect world, the judge would have stricken the optionality for less populous counties and required all counties to provide EDR. The way the statute is written it would have probably been reversible error to do that. The failure is with the General Assembly in not requiring EDR to be the same everywhere–even if county clerks do not like it.
Also - MrJM - is not wrong in the analysis of the Judge’s words. Still, similar arguments have been used to support restricted hours or fewer polling places in areas with large minority populations. Those arguments would rightly be rejected, as should allowing EDR on different terms in different counties in Illinois.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:07 am
This decision (whether or not it stands) is not the end of voter rights as we know it. Hopefully, though, it will be the catalyst to get things right for the future.
The plain truth, which is understood by most anyone who was in a polling place as a voter or a watcher or served as an election judge during the recent IL primary, is that the entire bollixed process for same day registration needs to be fixed, communicated and normalized administratively across the state. In an admittedly limited sample size from my own experience any voter “suppression” I witnessed that day was suppression encountered by already registered voters who had to leave the lines WITHOUT voting so they could get to work, catch a train, pick up a child from daycare, etc., while the ones trying to register in the wrong place with the wrong (or often no documentation) clogged the process beyond reason.
Let’s cut the finger pointing and hysteria and actually fix the system for same day registration.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:09 am
=== Equal protection applies to everyone. ===
In precinct same day registration is the law for every voter in every county. However the law does allow for smaller counties to opt-out if they so choose, yet nothing requires that they do so. Any county may provide in precinct same day registration so that any voter may take advantage. Equal protection applies to everyone.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:11 am
==- Jon - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 10:55 am:
I’m pleased to see the courts ensuring equal access to the polls for all citizens of the state. ==
Ensuring access to the polls would have meant requiring all polling places to provide same day registration, not shutting it down entirely.
Comment by interesting Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:14 am
To the update:
==Thousands of people who are depending on EDR could lose the ability to vote if this ruling stands for the November general election.”===
If they’re “depending” on it at this date, why don’t they simply register now?”
Are the thousands depending on it, candidates? That’s kind of a strange rationale. For the record, I don’t have a huge objection to EDR, I just find the argument to be a little off here.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:40 am
“The application of this legislation favors the urban citizen and dilutes the vote of the rural citizen”
Prediction: that sentence — and that reasoning — will not survive the appeal.
Comment by Pc Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:41 am
In this very weird year this ruling may have the unintended consequence of shutting out more than a few Trump voters, many of whom are not regular election participants.
Comment by northsider (the original) Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:43 am
Interesting that so many have to wait to election day to register to vote. I will be out of state on election day and I will go to the County courthouse, about 20 miles away, and take the time to submit an absentee ballot.
It is more than reasonable for people to have to register at least a couple of weeks, or whatever time it takes the to verify the information is correct, before they vote
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:52 am
The GOP strategy around the country to make it more difficult for qualified citizens to vote is a pretty sad testament as to their own opinion of their ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
As a long-term strategy, it’s a loser. Why not try to win those votes in the street, instead of using the mechanisms of government to deny them, like Old Jim Crow?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 11:59 am
@MrJM - so it’s fair that the yellow dog gets twice the food of the gray dog because he’s yellow? What if they are both training to be sleigh dogs - the difference in nourishment surely gives the yellow dog an advantage, no?
Comment by UnderfedGreyDog Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:08 pm
“If an area has two species of rabbits, and you provide supplemental feeding to one species of rabbit, and not the other, eventually, the rabbits that don’t get supplemental feeding will die out, not outcompeted, but strictly because of the supplemental feeding of their competitors.”
Falls apart with your first three words. The bunnies in your example do not act independently because they are in the same area. Voters in different counties, by definition, register and vote in distinct and exclusive areas. An increase of voter registration/turnout in one county does not decrease voter registration/turnout in another county.
Voter registration/turnout is not a zero-sum game.
In addition, the bunnies compete for limited resources. There is no limit on voter registration. No one needs to be disenfranchised for additional persons to be added to the electoral roll. Just as my free speech rights are not infringed upon when you exercise your free speech rights, my right to vote is untrammeled by your registering to vote.
As I said previously, there may be legitimate reasons for blocking implementation of the state’s election day registration law, but fear of a “significant decrease” in voter turnout in low-population counties without electronic polling books isn’t one of them.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:19 pm
Interesting to see the groups normally in favor of broad ballot access for all walking a tightrope with their reactions, especially the LWV. They limited their reaction primarily to the timing issue rather than the substance, perhaps because the law as written can provide easier access to registration to some rather than all depending on geography. Surprised the ACLU wasn’t a bit more cautious as well given their usual positions on issues like this.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:21 pm
This ruling doesn’t preclude EDR at designated Early Voting locations.
For Suburban Cook, there are 10 additional locations compared to the last election. Though I’m not sure if David Orr planned to staff them on election day.
Comment by MikeMacD Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:23 pm
For once a ruling that favors southern Illinois. If someone truly wants to vote there is ample time to do so before election day.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:34 pm
We need to make sure everyone is registered to vote before the Nov. election.
Comment by Mama Retired Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:47 pm
“so it’s fair that the yellow dog gets twice the food of the gray dog because he’s yellow?”
The straw man argument is logical fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:48 pm
Election day registration is good for people who moved to a new state or community, and they do not know where to go to registered to vote. I think the law should have included all election places registering new voters, not just the ones with ovr 100,000 people.
Comment by Mama Retired Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:53 pm
Nuts to EDR, I want to know why Mr. JM is starving the gray dog. /s
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:54 pm
Most rural communities have a computer, and that should be all they need to help them register voters.
Comment by Mama Retired Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:56 pm
@MrJM - I’m arguing that the yellow dog has an advantage over the grey dog, or that urban voters have an advantage over rural voters and that skews voter turnout.
Yellow dogs in Anchorage (urban) get twice the food of grey dogs in Juneau (rural). Sled team A using a majority of yellow dogs competes against a sled team using a majority of grey dogs. The sled team A has an advantage over sled team B because they had more food, whether or not that was the intent, same as the urban voters have over the rural voters.
Comment by UnderfedGreyDog Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 12:59 pm
Mama - If somebody is new to a community, they are not necessarily going to know the location of the.polling places. The logical place to start is either village hall or the county court house.
I agree that most small towns are computerized. However, the same cannot be said of the small rural townships. Quite often, the Township commissioner and supervisor were using their personal email address and computers to conduct business.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:01 pm
The judge is right. One’s access to EDR should not dependent on the population of the county the prospective voter resides in.
What’s the big deal. Provide EDR at sufficient locations and be done with it. Why treat small population counties differently?
I assume there may be objections due to staffing difficulties, but perhaps a technological solution could pass muster to address that issue.
Comment by plutocrat03 Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:04 pm
Der-Yeghiayan is saying having EDR results in increased voter participation so we SHOULDN’T do it?
How does that make sense…unless you’re worried these late registrants are unlikely to vote for your policies or candidates.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:18 pm
>Let’s cut the finger pointing and hysteria and actually fix the system for same day registration.
And the way to do that is by automatically updating existing registrations when anyone gets a driver’s license or state ID. This eliminates the governor’s objection to the automatic registration bill the legislature passed (it registered non-citizens and then hoped to get them off the rolls after the fact), but also takes away the huge majority of transactions that would happen under EDR, since most people are already registered. It also cleans up old registrations at former addresses, a persistent complaint of Republicans.
Automatic updates would have been a consensus bill. Which is probably why it wasn’t advanced - who wants a bill that would allow the other side to claim they were reasonable people.
Comment by some doofus Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:20 pm
Had this initiative been funded properly so that all counties could implement it in the same fashion, this wouldn’t be an issue. Just like redistricting, do it right the first time and there would be no need to complain.
Comment by DD Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:20 pm
It may be true that this ruling would hurt the Trump vote, to the extent it attracts some people who normally don’t vote. But the state GOP doesn’t give a rip about Trump, since he’s going to lose here anyway and the gov won’t even mention the Donald’s name.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:21 pm
There is AMPLE opportunity for people to register to vote. The court was absolutely correct in ruling against this overt political legislation designed to help one party.
Comment by 4 percent Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:27 pm
===Which is probably why it wasn’t advanced===
It passed both chambers and was vetoed.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:30 pm
Does anyone publish the number of EDR voters who voted in the last few elections? It should be a diminishing number since once registered the voter stays registered until they move.
We may be getting all bent out of shape over a small number of individuals.
Comment by pluotocrat03 Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:34 pm
– Does anyone publish the number of EDR voters who voted in the last few elections? –
ACLU statement above says over 100,000 in the March primary, so not a small number.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:52 pm
Rich,
You’ve missed the distinction I’m making.
There is a difference between automatic registration and automatic updates. Automatic registration was the bill advanced, passed by both houses and vetoed. They explicitly chose to register non-citizens and try to weed them out on the back end because of concern that asking someone whether they were a citizen at the DMV would create hostile atmosphere for non-citizens at the DMV. This concern may be reasonable, but it definitely created a setting in which the governor was more likely to veto, or, if he had an interest in vetoing anything, it gave him a hook.
There had always been a fallback option - automatic updates, in which those who are already registered see their registrations automatically updated. Others who’ve never registered in Illinois would have to affirmatively register themselves once before getting into the updated-automatically pool.
There would have been no plausible pretext for a veto of such a bill. It would have missed a few people. But it would be law today, with no possibility of a legal challenge. And it would make Election Day Registration simple everywhere. There would be little argument about the cost of EDR from downstate clerks if automatic updates swept 80% of EDRs off the table.
The other curious aspect of all this is that on my reading, automatic updates is already the law, under a little-known provision of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
A generation of Democrats in Springfield have chosen not to follow that provision. Will Norseman call Jesse White a suppressionist?
Comment by some doofus Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:54 pm
“urban voters have an advantage over rural voters and that skews voter turnout.”
But that’s not what the judge said, e.g. “The magnitude of the impact of the EDR upon voters in low-population counties without electronic voting books will be enormous…” The judge says that EDR would have an enormous impact upon low-population counties’ voters.
But EDR wouldn’t have an “enormous” impact upon the rights of voters in low-population counties without electronic voting books. In fact, EDR would have NO IMPACT — none, zero, zip, zilch — on their rights as voters.
On election day, without EDR, 100% of those legally entitled to vote in low-population counties will be permitted to cast ballots.
On election day, with EDR, 100% of those legally entitled to vote in low-population counties will be permitted to cast ballots.
No male voter lost his voting rights when women were newly enfranchised. In the same way, the registration of new voters in high-population counties does not strip away the voting rights of any voter in low-population counties.
As I’ve said (repeatedly) there may be valid reasons to block implementation of the state’s election day registration law — but the judge’s claim that the “magnitude of the impact of the EDR upon voters in low-population counties without electronic voting books will be enormous”? It’s simply not true.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 2:07 pm
What else could the judge do? The legislation seemed to be crafted to favor counties where the newly registered voters were more likely to be Democrats. Insofar as possible election laws are supposed to be uniform and equal. Downstaters would have to travel to their county clerks while Cook County residents could register in precinct. Not close to a level playing field.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 2:55 pm
It’s laughably easy to register to vote. Just today I have been reminded by Facebook and Tumblr. I have no sympathy for anyone who can’t get it done by election day. The only thing funnier is anyone calling this suppression.
The Democrats got “too cute by half” on this one.
Comment by Indochine Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 4:19 pm
Not all counties that had EDR in March were more likely to be Democratic. McLean County is heavily Republican and we had EDR in every precinct.
Comment by Nearly Normal Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 4:23 pm
EDR wasn’t an instance of Dems gaming the system; the original plan was to do precinct-wide for all counties, but they threw the smaller counties a concession since there was serious capacity concerns on their part about EDR. To clarify, the smaller counties can still do precinct-wide but don’t have to if they lack the electronic poll books. For giving that reasonable flexibility, the reward is a lawsuit that was cynically sat on until right before the elections so the better remedy - mandating EDR statewide at every polling place - is less feasible. So yes, this is voter suppression and I think folks should just own up to what is really happening. Let’s be honest.
Comment by Veil of Ignorance Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 4:24 pm