![]() Supporters argued the change was needed to boost security, though ultimately the bill failed to pass as the state’s legislature adjourned Tuesday without taking a final vote on it.Ĭritics said the proposal would have made it difficult for voters who are older, low-income, ill or who do not feel comfortable with the already cumbersome absentee ballot process, which includes a requirement to submit a copy of a photo ID.īetty Shinn, a 72-year-old Black woman from Mobile testified against the bill, saying it was a vehicle for suppressing votes: “It’s no different from asking me how many jellybeans are in that jar or asking me to recite the Constitution from memory.” The recent wave of voting changes have been pushed by Republican lawmakers who point to concerns over elections that have been fueled by former President Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.Īt least 104 restrictive voting laws have passed in 33 mostly GOP-controlled states since the 2020 election, according to an analysis by the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks voting legislation in the states.Īlabama, where two of the major challenges to the Voting Rights Act began, considered legislation this year that would have made it a crime to help a non-family member fill out or return an absentee ballot. But congressional efforts to address the enforcement gap created by the June 2013 Supreme Court decision on what was known as preclearance - federal review of proposed election-related changes before they could take effect - have languished amid increasingly partisan battles over the ballot box. In the meantime, the US Congress should take action to shore up voting rights in the US, passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For The People Act to help safeguard against all forms of voter suppression.Core parts of the law have been reauthorized with bipartisan support five times since it was signed by then-President Lyndon Johnson, the most recent in 2006. ![]() The ruling will likely not be issued until mid-2023. Our brief shows the harmful impact of discriminatory actions to limit civil and political rights in Sri Lanka and Iran, showing how it is against US interests to pursue policies akin to those of anti-democratic governments. It is dangerous for the court to consider ending that right. The US is obligated to guarantee the right to vote free from partisan gerrymandering and discrimination and the right to an effective remedy when rights are violated. The ISLT violates the US’s international human rights obligations, as detailed by Human Rights Watch in a court brief in October. Their argument is based on the untested “independent state legislature theory” (ISLT), which would eviscerate checks and balances, meaning state legislatures could advance extreme gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and potentially upend election outcomes without judicial oversight. ![]() Republican lawmakers took the case to the US Supreme Court arguing courts have no right to intervene in elections. The maps drawn by the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature were so extreme, the state’s supreme court intervened and adopted an independently drawn map. These maps are often redrawn to dilute the voting power of marginalized populations, in particular Black voters. State legislatures draw these maps, and partisan gerrymandering – creating congressional districts to ensure one party will win – is rife in the US. The right to remedy is crucial in protecting the rights of all citizens, including against discrimination in voting based on race, religion, or other protected class. The Supreme Court will be deciding whether it is necessary to preserve the ability for citizens to be able challenge the redrawing of a voting district map in court if they feel their rights have been violated. But fundamental human rights are at stake, and how the court decides could shape the future of US democracy. The issue at the center of the case appears unremarkable at first, the drawing of maps for congressional districts in North Carolina. The case could determine the nation’s fidelity to basic democratic principles about checks and balances and allocation of power. Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a very consequential case over voting rights. © 2022 Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images via AP Photo Voting booths on the first day of early voting in Orlando, Florida, October 24, 2022.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |