Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Is tomorrow the big day?
Next Post: Kasper explains the non-disclosure
Posted in:
* Most of the mainstream media continues to ignore this story…
Five groups, led by the ACLU, are asking a federal judge today to preserve Election Day registration in local polling places in advance of the November presidential election. U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan is presiding over the case.
The argument, from the ACLU: “The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Better Government Association, the League of Women Voters of Illinois and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform in Harlan v. Scholtz, an effort by a political candidate to block implementation of the current EDR system approved by the legislature, piloted during the 2014 general election, and used in the March 2016 primary election. “This election has generated interest and fervor across the nation,” said Colleen K. Connell, Executive Director of the ACLU of Illinois. ‘Eliminating Election Day registration in local precincts so close to an election could leave thousands of people unable to vote.’”
Unmentioned above is that the lawsuit was filed by an arm of the Bruce Rauner-allied Illinois Policy Institute. The group wants the federal court to halt all precinct-level election day voter registration this year because smaller counties are only required to provide a central location for election day registration, while larger counties are required to provide in-precinct election day registration. To them, that’s not fair.
If the Court determines that preliminary injunctive relief is required, it should extend Election Day registration at polling places in low-population counties, rather than deprive voters in high-population counties of that opportunity. Such a remedy would support, rather than undermine, the public interest in allowing qualified voters to vote, would appropriately respect legislative intent, and would more directly remedy the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. […]
(T)he requested injunction will overturn voters’ reasonable expectations. In preparation for November’s election, voter education and get-out-the-vote organizations have undertaken massive voter education campaigns, getting the message out to thousands of voters that they can vote on Election Day even if they have not registered or their registration is out of date. Those voters have every right to rely on a state statute guaranteeing their right to vote at their local polling place on Election Day. Turning those voters away at the polls would betray those expectations. Voters in high-population counties – including both Republican and Democratic leaning counties – would be confused at precinct polling places and face long lines at EDR sites, assuming that they make it to an EDR site at all. Meanwhile, short- staffed election personnel would have to spend significant additional resources in assisting voters at both types of locations, all thanks to plaintiffs’ decision to file suit more than a year after the statute’s effective date and less than three months before the election.
Moreover, the burden of an injunction limiting EDR is likely to fall disproportionately on identifiable sub-groups. For example, the research surveyed by plaintiffs’ expert suggests that those most likely to be disenfranchised by such an injunction include “the young, the residentially mobile, and those with moderate level of income and education.” Additionally, although plaintiffs do not mention it, the Fourth Circuit recently found that the elimination of same-day registration unlawfully discriminated against African Americans. The Court noted that “African American voters disproportionately used same-day registration when it was available,” and that African Americans “are more likely to move between counties and thus are more likely to need to re-register.” The possibility of a disproportionate racial impact is another reason the public interest weighs heavily against the proposed injunction.
Finally, the plaintiffs incorrectly assert that “a preliminary injunction would simply preserve the status quo ante.” The current EDR system went into effect in June 2015 and was in place for the March 2016 primary election. Plaintiffs’ proposed remedy would disrupt the status quo. […]
Shutting down EDR at precinct polling places in high-population counties will deny many qualified voters the right to vote, in derogation of the public interest. The plaintiffs have the burden of proving that (1) allowing those citizens to vote will cause the plaintiffs irreparable harm; and (2) the alleged harm to plaintiffs outweighs the harm to those citizens. They have made no such showing. […]
In this case, an injunction requiring low-population counties to provide EDR at all polling places would be far more respectful of state legislative policy judgments than an injunction prohibiting high-population counties from doing so. The plaintiffs would have this Court order a direct violation of state statute: Counties that are required by Illinois law to provide EDR at polling places may not do so. By contrast, an injunction extending EDR to all counties would be wholly within the bounds of existing state law, which already allows the low-population counties to offer EDR at polling places. The choice is between ordering some counties to do something that state law prohibits, or ordering other counties to do something that state law allows.
We’ve seen lots of stories this week about a mythical Russian government hack on the state board of elections, and almost nothing this month about a very real lawsuit that could have a serious impact on election day.
Odd.
*** UPDATE 1 *** The attorney general also filed a brief yesterday. Click here to read it.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Another amicus brief was separately filed by a coalition that includes Asian-Americans Advancing Justice, Common Cause, Change Illinois, Illinois PIRG and ICIRR. Click here to read it.
*** UPDATE 3 *** The federal judge also allowed Cook County to intervene. Click here to read its brief.
*** UPDATE 4 *** The Illinois Policy Institute’s latest filing is here.
*** UPDATE 5 *** The League of Women Voters’ press release about its amicus brief is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:04 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Is tomorrow the big day?
Next Post: Kasper explains the non-disclosure
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s obvious to me that the Rauner controlled media doesn’t want this stuff getting noticed.
Perfidy
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:09 am
If the person who owns the news does not want this lawsuit to be made public, the news outlets will not publish it.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:40 am
Anonymous is me.
Comment by Mama Retired Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:41 am
Russian hack: Simple
Election-law suit: Complicated
New audience: Simple
Do the algebra
Comment by Ray del Camino Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:47 am
It can’t be reduced to 140 characters, so our depleted press corps isn’t sure how to cover it?
Comment by northsider (the original) Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 11:48 am
Rauner reminds me of the French King played by Mel Brooks in History of the World
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 12:11 pm
I happen to work closely with the election commission in one of the collar counties. I can tell you that the ability to offer EDR at all precincts is a logistics nightmare; the commission has spent the last two election cycles planning for EDR implementation in November 2016. One key requirement is a secure online connection to the permanent voting database that is stored at the county seat. This cannot be done over a regular Wi-Fi or Ethernet connection for obvious reasons. Instead they require a secure Cellular connection and if the cell signals are not great that have a second option. No way that the election officials in the smaller counties could be ready for EDR by November.
Comment by lech W Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 12:59 pm
Something tells me the IPI would not want the remedy of extending same-day registration to the whole state, even though that would cure the purported inequity.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Aug 31, 16 @ 1:13 pm
Too bad there’s not a way to force payment of attorney’s fees and punitive damages when frivolous cases like this are brought clogging up the courts.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 7:36 am
Sorry, me above
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Sep 1, 16 @ 7:36 am