Open Left - Texas

Tim Cole Panel Begins Study Texas Wrongful Convictions

John Terzano - The Justice Project — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:45:44 GMT

Texas has had more than its share of tragic wrongful convictions. Of the more than 40 people exonerated by DNA in Texas, one of the most heartbreaking cases is that of Timothy Cole. Cole was wrongly convicted in 1986 for a Lubbock rape. DNA testing conclusively exonerated him last year and identified the true perpetrator. But the exoneration came too late. In 1999, Cole died in prison of a severe asthma attack, an innocent man.

So far, Texas has been slow to respond to the long list of mistakes that exist in each of these wrongful convictions. These mistakes have forced innocent people to spend over 500 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. But that may be about to change. Last May, the Texas Legislature approved a bill creating the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions, and directing the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense to work with the panel on a report on needed reforms to prevent wrongful convictions. The Cole Panel's inaugural meeting is slated for today.
Fortunately, a great deal of work has already been done by similar state commissions across the country. It is remarkable, if not surprising, that most such inquiries have identified the very same sources of error, and have developed a remarkable consensus on what reforms are needed to reduce the risk of convicting the innocent.

The problems are well known. Eyewitness error is, by far, the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Invalid forensic testimony, false confessions elicited in undocumented interrogations, and witnesses with incentives to lie are also common causes for wrongful convictions. Finally, bad lawyering in the form of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of defense counsel has too often undermined justice.

Just as no one disputes the factors that lead to error, there is also a remarkable consensus among those that have studied wrongful convictions on what is needed to fix the system. New, more accurate lineup procedures ensure a more objective assessment of witness memory and better documentation, leading to more reliable identification testimony. Electronically recording interrogations of suspects provides a reviewable record for judges and juries that allows for a more accurate assessment of voluntariness and reliability thereby eliminating disputes about what took place in the interrogation room. Subjecting in-custody informant testimony to greater scrutiny and transparency would help keep unreliable testimony out of court. Creating more accountability mechanisms for prosecutors who step over the line of fairness would fix a system that too often turns a blind eye on misconduct. Finally, continuing to move Texas toward public defender systems of indigent defense that include robust performance standards, reasonable caseloads, and professional development and support make sure that courtroom contests are fair and more accurate.

Given the track record of wrongful convictions in Texas, the Cole Panel is a good idea in addressing wrongful convictions, but it is only the beginning. The members of this study group must help all criminal justice stakeholder groups become aware of the issues and build support for common sense change.

No bureaucracy accepts change easily, and our criminal justice institutions are no exception. But they can do much better. All the parties, police, prosecutors, judges and defense lawyers, need to recognize that reforms will enhance the accuracy of our system, and will generate better, stronger evidence against the guilty, while protecting the innocent.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Texas Cannot Wait for Good Science in the Courtroom

John Terzano - The Justice Project — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:09:05 GMT

Last week, Texas Governor Rick Perry removed three members from the Texas Forensic Science Commission. The changes come at a critical juncture in the investigation of the flawed forensics behind the conviction of Cameron Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for allegedly setting the fire that killed his three daughters.

Governor Perry's removal of these three members from this commission has drawn national attention and sharp criticism because there is concern that his appointed replacement of the commission chair, John Bradley, may slow or stifle the investigation. Bradley has already cancelled a scheduled meeting on October 2, where the commission's retained fire expert, Craig Beyler, was to present and discuss his report. Beyler's report, released to the media under public information laws, confirms findings from three other expert reviews: that the arson evidence in the Willingham case was without scientific validity.

The canceled meeting is not the only casualty of this drastic change. Commission members have also decided to postpone a series of important roundtable discussions focused on a recent report of the National Academies of Science (NAS) about serious weaknesses in the nation's forensic systems because of the distractions caused by the shakeup.
Against the backdrop of an intense gubernatorial primary battle between Governor Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Perry's critics have pointed to the appearance that political considerations are behind the move to replace the commissioners, especially given the absence of any substantive reasons from the governor for the changes.

In the middle of the subsequent media firestorm, and with competing agendas in play, it is easy to lose sight of why the Texas Forensic Science Commission and its investigations are so important. This is ultimately not about politics or the death penalty. At stake is the integrity of scientific evidence in Texas courtrooms, and the erosion of public confidence in its criminal justice system that occurs when that science is unreliable or flat wrong.

Willingham's case is a troubling example of the kinds of forensic failures documented in the NAS report. Thousands of criminal cases will proceed this year in Texas and across the country in which forensic evidence will play a crucial role. But just as scientific evidence is increasingly relied upon, we are learning that that evidence is coming out of a system that, according to the NAS, is "badly fragmented," and lacks the oversight, independence, objectivity and quality standards needed to ensure reliability. Many issues identified in the NAS report are explored in The Justice Project's policy review, Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science.

The sooner Texas comes to a full reckoning with the problems in the Willingham case, the sooner we can begin to develop the kinds of oversight systems that can prevent bad science from undermining justice. The job of the Forensic Science Commission is first and foremost to investigate allegations of forensic negligence or misconduct. But its true value is not in looking back. It must look back in order to confront mistakes so that we can improve reliability moving forward. Until we put in place appropriate oversight and safeguards, innocent defendants will be at risk of conviction based on flawed forensics.

All of the Forensic Science Commissioners, including the three replaced by the governor, have done an excellent job serving the state. They have proceeded methodically, with great caution and with the highest regard for fairness and duty. After years of delay in getting the commission funded, these public servants had finally begun to conduct the business they were asked to. It is troubling that the commission's work is now derailed when they are finally poised to deliver on their mission.

Governor Perry and the new chair of the Forensic Science Commission have the chance to prove their critics wrong: the governor, by filling the remaining vacancy quickly, and the new chair, by promptly resuming the commission's business, without regard to politics or hot button issues, but solely in the service of science, truth and justice.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Sonnier's Release Highlights Continuing Problem

John Terzano - The Justice Project — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:32:26 GMT

Another innocent man is free in Texas. Ernest Sonnier was released from custody on Friday after DNA testing implicated two different men in the 1986 rape for which Sonnier was convicted. Sonnier has spent twenty-three years in prison, always maintaining his innocence.

The release of Ernest Sonnier is just the latest case that highlights the ongoing problem of wrongful convictions in Texas. In May, Jerry Lee Evans was freed after DNA testing proved another man committed the crime. He spent twenty-two years in prison. And in March, The Justice Project published Convicting the Innocent: Texas Justice Derailed, which highlights thirty-nine other cases of wrongful conviction in Texas.
Like many other wrongful conviction cases, Sonnier's conviction was based on the faulty testimony of a forensic analyst. Blood type testing completed shortly after the crime showed no trace of Sonnier's blood type. But the analyst never mentioned this at trial, instead testifying that the lack of evidence pointing to Sonnier was simply a result of circumstances of the crime. Knowing that the prosecution was looking for a conviction, this analyst created a new theory of the crime that did not match the evidence or any of his notes.

Ernest Sonnier was another victim of the Harris County crime lab. Inaccurate evidence, improperly conducted testing, and erroneous testimony have caused at least seven men to spend time behind bars for crimes they did not commit. Earlier this year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report calling for, among other things, funding to assist all forensic laboratories in the states to become independent from law enforcement agencies. Only when crime labs are independent from the state can we expect a more fair and unbiased examination of forensic evidence. Independence will help deter analysts from feeling like members of the "crime fighting team," and will help to assure that the most accurate evidence is being presented at trial.

Ernest Sonnier's release is just another reminder of the continuing struggle we face as we attempt to fix our nation's broken criminal justice system. Problems with our nation's forensic science labs continue to emerge, and until serious reforms are enacted, innocent people will still be in danger of wrongful convictions.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

False Confessions: What would it take to make you confess?

John Terzano - The Justice Project — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:13:40 GMT

Why would anyone confess to a crime they did not commit? What would it take to get you to confess to a crime? For Christopher Ochoa, it took twenty hours of questioning and badgering and threats to get him to falsely confess to the murder of a woman in Austin, Texas. As a result, he spent twelve years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Most people find it hard to understand how anyone could ever confess to a crime they did not commit. But it happens over and over again. False confessions are a well-documented reality, especially among vulnerable populations like juveniles and the mentally-impaired. Of all the DNA exonerations nationwide, false confessions occur in over 20 percent of them.

Last week, two major newspapers highlighted two different cases where the confessions of the defendants had been called into question.
As recently reported in the New York Times, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen were released in late June after new DNA evidence from an unknown individual cast doubt on their confessions in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin, TX. Attorneys for both men claim the confessions were the result of police coercion and misconduct. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, Ronald Kitchen spent twenty-one years in prison following a confession he made about the murders of five people. After allegations of abuse and torture on behalf of the officer responsible for securing the confession surfaced, his case was turned over to the Attorney General's office to re-investigate. Kitchen was released when prosecutors dropped all charges against him because they found no evidence he was involved in the crime.

To a jury or judge, a confession is an incredibly powerful piece of evidence. It can overwhelm evidence pointing to a defendant's innocence, and judges and juries will sometimes convict an individual based on a confession alone. Given the weight of this evidence, special care must be taken to ensure that confessions are accurate.

How can we prevent against false confessions? States can adopt a policy that requires law enforcement officers to record custodial interrogations, from the delivery of a suspect's Miranda rights to the end of the interview, without interruption. Electronic recording of custodial interrogations has emerged as a powerful innovation and fact-finding tool for both sides of the criminal justice system. It helps protect innocent suspects and helps convict the guilty.

When interrogations are recorded, officers are free to study the suspect's reactions instead of scribbling notes. Judges and juries are able to see exactly what took place during the interrogation, allowing them to more effectively weigh the evidence. In addition, recording can protect officers from false claims of abuse or coercion and provide an excellent tool for training new officers on proper interrogation techniques. Ultimately, recording is in the best interest of all parties - the defense, the prosecution, and the public - that strong safeguards exist to protect against wrongful imprisonment and reduce the number of convictions overturned on appeal.

Many detectives and prosecutors enthusiastically embrace electronic recording. Over 450 police and sheriff's departments across the country have independently adopted recording procedures. Unfortunately though, only ten states have statewide laws that require electronic recording. The virtue of electronic recording of custodial interrogations lies not only in its ability to help guard against false confessions, but also in its ability to develop the strongest evidence possible to help convict the guilty. Electronic recording incurs minimal costs to the state in terms of implementation, and when compared to the human and monetary costs of wrongful convictions, it is a sound policy. Every state has a responsibility to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. Electronic recording is a simple reform that can help states live up to that responsibility by helping to create a more fair and accurate criminal justice system.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

The Future of Democrats in Texas

Mike Lux — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:07:55 GMT

Crossposted at Burnt Orange Report

I have been involved in national politics in one way or another for about 25 years now, and have been part of literally thousands of national discussions on political targeting. For most of that time, the state of Texas sticks out as the great oddity, the exception to all other demographic trends that seem to hold true around the rest of the country. At the beginning, people in targeting meetings are always saying things like "If you look at the demographics in Texas, it ought to be winnable." By the end of every cycle, none of us at the national level is targeting the state and the state-wide Democratic candidate loses by 10-12 points.

It wasn't always this way. In the 1960s, a President from Texas led the way in getting civil rights legislation, Medicare and Medicaid, and many of the other progressive reforms of that decade. Even as the rest of the south was turning to the right and the Republican Party in those years, Texas elected crusading liberal Ralph Yarborough in 1964. A couple of decades later, Democrats - including legendary populist progressive Jim Hightower - swept to power in the 1980s, culminating with Ann Richards historic victory in the 1990 Governor's race.

But that was a while ago now. The Rove-DeLay machine has been remarkably effective over the last couple of decades. Democrats have not won a gubernatorial race since Richards' victory (and they haven't won a Presidential race since Carter in 1976). Republicans have controlled both Senate seats since Lloyd Bentsen stepped down in 1993. They have had the majority in both legislative chambers since 2003. And this has all happened as the number of Hispanics in Texas has steadily, inexorably risen year after year.

I explain why that's so important, and what I think the future of Democrats in Texas looks like, in the extended entry.
In the other big state where Hispanics have grown so dramatically and consistently as a percentage of the population, California, the state has become overwhelmingly blue in Presidential, Senate, congressional, and state legislative elections, even though it had consistently supported Republican Presidential candidates in prior decades. Only the most moderate Republican governor in the country has kept the gubernatorial chair in GOP hands. All the smaller states in the southwest with steadily growing Hispanic populations - ~~Arizona~~, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada - have gone from being Republican strongholds to being purple - and all of them went for Obama last year.

Look at these Texas statistics (according to data from the Forward Texas Foundation):

Anglos will be down to 52% of the adult population by 2010, and 49.99% - less than half - by 2012.
85% of the new adult citizens eligible to vote since 2002 are minorities, most of them Hispanics.
Barack Obama, who didn't spend a dime targeting Texas in the 2008 general election, lost Texas by about 950,000 votes. Between 2008 and 2012, there are projected to be 1.2 million additional eligible minority voters added to the population of the state.

With statistics like these, and the trends in other formerly Republican southwestern states, you would think Democrats would be confidently developing a Texas strategy for 2010 and 2012. With George Bush gone and discredited, the DeLay machine out of commission, and a really nasty 2010 gubernatorial primary in the works between Kay Bailey Hutchison and goofy incumbent Rick Perry, you would think Texas would be at or towards the top of Democratic target lists. But in two recent trips to Texas, one to Austin and one to Houston, my talks with Texas Democrats did not reveal anything close to that kind of optimism. Sentiments ranged from being very pessimistic about the gubernatorial race to some folks who thought it was "possible if everything went our way." And very few people I know either in Texas or in the Obama political operation are taking Texas seriously as a potential swing state in the 2012 election.

So what is going on in Texas? It's not that there aren't some smart Democratic political operatives doing good work there. For example, Matt Angle, Martin Frost's former head of the DCCC, has led an effort to revitalize the state Democratic Party, and has made significant progress in picking up competitive state legislative seats, rebuilding the party's voter file, increasing candidate fundraising, and creating a strong opposition research and rapid response capability. Another example is the great work of Burnt Orange Report in becoming the Texas blogosphere's online hub for progressive political activism.

But the fundamental problem for Texas Democrats will not be solved until the political class there and nationally finally does something about the elephant in the room: the abysmal turnout of minority voters, especially Hispanics. In 2008, Hispanics made up 32% of eligible voters in Texas, a number which will likely be about 35% by 2012, but they were only 20% of the electorate. In the 2006 off-year elections, while 45% of eligible Anglos voted, only 37% of African-Americans, 24% of Asian-Americans, and 25% of Hispanics voted.

These voter turnout problems are not inevitable. Texas is 47th in the country in turnout of eligible voters. And other states, with investment of resources to make it happen, have shown dramatic increases in Hispanic voter turnout that Texas has not seen: Colorado increased Hispanic turnout by 86% in 2008 over 2004, while New Mexico had 50% Hispanic turnout in the 2006 off-year elections compared to 25% in Texas.

It is a simple, undeniable fact: if Texas got the number in Hispanic turnout that these other states got, they would become a purple or even blue state overnight.

This hasn't happened in part because Texas is a big state and it would cost a lot of money to run the kind of voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives that have happened in other states, and national Democrats have written off Texas year after year as unwinnable, so they haven't invested the resources. But money alone is not the reason: Texas Democrats have raised and spent tens of millions of dollars per election in statewide races over the last couple of decades, but they've spent the vast majority of their money on expensive TV advertising buys. The consultants who run Texas Democratic politics don't make money on voter registration or GOTV drives, they make money on TV ads, and they have never invested in the kind of project that would pick up far more voters for Democrats than most media campaigns. And while I don't believe you can win a statewide campaign without spending money on TV, I also don't believe you can win in Texas as a Democrat if you don't devote a whole lot more to the field.

It's time to change this dynamic once and for all. Democrats already are the dominant party in California, New York, and Illinois, while Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan are purple. In the next tier of states in the electoral college, Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana became purple in 2008, joining long time blue (Massachusetts, New Jersey) and purple (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri) double digit states. Imagine if the last of the big states became purple again, making Georgia the biggest solidly Republican state. It would be extremely tough for the Republicans to put together an electoral college majority if that were the case.

It's time for Texas and national Democrats to make this kind of investment in voter engagement work in Texas.

Texas Case Highlights Problems in forensics lab

John Terzano - The Justice Project — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:10:52 GMT

George Rodriguez is seeking justice. In 2004, DNA testing exonerated Rodriguez for the 1987 abduction and sexual assault he had been convicted of seventeen years earlier. During his trial, a Houston Police forensic analyst testified that biological evidence pointed to Rodriguez's guilt; it was later discovered that the analyst lied. Rodriguez is one of forty individuals exonerated by DNA in Texas, and one of six exonerated in Harris County. Read more about DNA exonerations in Texas.

A trial is now underway in Rodriguez's civil lawsuit against the City of Houston, and the city is claiming that there was nothing it could have done to prevent the misconduct of their lab analyst, whose lie led to Rodriguez's wrongful conviction. Houston city attorney Arturo Michel stated:

"I think what you have here is a person who was simply not honest and it doesn't matter how many funds you put into something, how good a program you have, that cannot guard against a person's dishonesty."

This argument is very troubling because it ignores the tragic history of mistakes and misconduct within the Houston Police Department's crime lab. Independent research conducted in 2007 found that the crime lab repeatedly incorrectly tested DNA samples, and in some cases, made up the results without actually testing the evidence. It was also discovered that serology work, the same type of forensic evidence used against George Rodriguez, was not properly performed in over four hundred cases. With a history of producing flawed and inaccurate analysis, it is little wonder that the problems of the Houston crime lab led to the false testimony of the crime lab analyst.

Forensic science is not flawless, and its use in the criminal justice system is in great need of reform. To ensure a more fair and accurate criminal justice system, it is critical to improve the reliability, objectivity, and independence of forensic analysis and forensic expert testimony in criminal investigations and trials. Last year, the Justice Project published a policy review that outlined policies for improving the quality of forensic evidence. One of the central recommendations was the need to create forensic labs that were independent of law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. Earlier this year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) echoed The Justice Project's recommendations in their report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, in which they recommended, among other things, funding to assist all forensic laboratories in the states to become independent from law enforcement agencies. With nearly all state forensic labs under the jurisdictions of police departments or the attorney general, analysts may come to see their role as part of the "crime-fighting team" rather than as neutral and objective agents of science. This bias hinders justice. Just ask George Rodriguez. His attorney is arguing that the analyst in Rodriguez's case had a habit of altering findings to match the theories of the police and prosecution.

Of course, structural independence of the labs is only one needed step. Because we know the risks of both misconduct and inadvertent bias, we should make sure that labs have appropriate internal safeguards to regulate the flow of information between analysts and police and prosecutors. By providing forensic analysts only with discreet forensic questions and limiting unnecessary contextual information about the crime, we can help ensure that the most accurate and reliable evidence is presented in the courtroom.

Forensic labs provide critical evidence in countless cases, but without the proper safeguards, evidence can be misused and misinterpreted with disastrous consequences. All of us have a vested interest in making sure the necessary reforms are implemented to make forensic evidence as accurate and reliable as possible.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Politics and Media Frenzy Feed Voter ID Battles; Efforts to Make Voting More Accessible Go Under Ra

project vote — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Cross posted at Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

By Erin Ferns

Although there are other election reforms - good and bad - that deserve the spotlight, voter ID remains a hot button issue for legislators and the media, primarily in Southern states. These battles are drawing as much attention for their political divisiveness as for the unfair burden they put on voters.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case on the oft-challenged Georgia voter ID law, thereby upholding a three judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the "state's voter ID law is final," according to the Associated Press. The high court's decision to not hear the case comes as no surprise to voting rights advocates, considering its 2008 ruling to uphold another strict ID law in Indiana, the AP reports. The state is currently being scrutinized by the U.S. Department of Justice for its discriminatory voter list maintenance procedure, which haphazardly checked for voters' citizenship, and may also be under review for the recent passage of a controversial bill requiring all voter applicants to present proof of citizenship before being registered to vote.

Still, the fight to amend or abolish Georgia's strict law does not appear to be over. The AP reports that yet another lawsuit over the law is still in state courts. Additionally, "the next step for voter ID opponents would be legislative, [Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU voting rights project] McDonald said, but that would have to take place in Congress."

"I don't think the state of Georgia ... will change its mind," he said. One of the state's biggest supporters of its controversial election laws--which are frequently challenged for being discriminatory if not disenfranchising--is Secretary of State Karen Handel, who also plans to run for governor in 2010.

Two state legislatures with highly publicized voter ID battles this session have come to an explosive but inconclusive ending that only points to another spirited round in the near future. Last week, a Texas voter ID bill and political games were blamed for stalling any significant bill movement in the legislature. After failing to pass a similar law in the past, the Republican-controlled Senate "changed long-standing Senate rules on the second day of the session to guarantee the passing of a voter ID bill on their side of the Capitol," the San Antonio Express-News reported. In the last week of the legislative session, House Democrats kept the bill from reaching the House floor, letting it die along with other unrelated bills.

House Speaker Joe Straus lamented in March that such issues "suck all the political oxygen out of a session" and that they "shouldn't dominate the legislative session when we have a very challenging economy, a long-term budget problem in Texas that's going to be completely ignored for two more years."

"Both sides are taking a really hard position and exaggerating it," said Straus. "Democrats exaggerate the danger of a more modest bill, and Republicans exaggerate the depth of the problem that needs to be addressed."

On Tuesday, Republican Governor Rick Perry announced that the state will hold a special session, though he did not indicate when it would be or whether the voter ID fight may be rehashed, according the Dallas Morning News. Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurt are among the state's biggest voter ID supporters. They "are running in next spring's GOP primary - and Voter ID remains one of those red-meat issues for hard-core Republicans," according to the Express-News.

Nor does the battle appear to be over in another state with a widely publicized voter ID fight this session. Mississippi Senator Joey Fillingane (R-Sumrall) declared "victory" when a judge declined to make a judgment on how signatures should be collected to put a voter ID initiative on the ballot, according to the Associated Press. The question was if the signatures should come from the five former House districts, or the current four. Although the legislature failed to pass any of the nine voter ID bills introduced this year, Fillingane, along with voter ID advocates, Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann and Attorney General Jim Hood agreed that signatures should come from the five former House districts.

"Voter ID has been a hot-button issue at the Capitol for more than a decade. Hosemann and other supporters say it can prevent fraud at the polls," the AP reported. "Opponents say there's little evidence of people voting under the names of others. They also believe an ID requirement could diminish turnout among older black voters who still recall the Jim Crow era poll taxes and literacy tests."

Fillingane said he has collected 10,000 signatures in support of a constitutional amendment for a strict voter ID law. He needs a total of 90,000 to get the proposal on the statewide ballot.

Although not as hyped Texas and Mississippi, some active state legislatures have quietly moved bills relating to photo ID requirements, both restrictive and expansive, in the last week.

A photo ID bill passed the Rhode Island House last week, though it is unclear that its passage through one chamber indicates any viability. A similar photo ID bill recently failed in a Tennessee House subcommittee after passing the Senate, according to the Associated Press.

Although not nearly as popular as bills to enact photo ID, at least two of the eight states with photo ID laws have introduced legislation to expand the list of acceptable voter ID in order to make voting more accessible for voters who lack the necessary ID. These states include Arizona and Indiana. While Indiana adjourned in May without passing any significant election bills, Arizona recently moved identical bills, HB 2627 and SB 1344 to expand the state required voter ID list to include Military IDs, U.S. passports, and driver's licenses with outdated addresses.

The House bill was adopted by the House on Tuesday and the Senate bill is currently in both the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committees.

To monitor Arizona's SB 1344 and other voter ID bills, visit www.electionlegislation.org or subscribe to the weekly Election Legislation digest, featuring election bills in all 50 states, by emailing Erin Ferns at eferns [at] projectvote.org.

Lack of Consistency Leads to Lack of Justice

John Terzano - The Justice Project — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:28:27 GMT

The continued lack of standard policies in the states for post-conviction DNA testing is troubling. It is time for states to act. With so many exonerations across the country proving that our criminal justice system is broken, post-conviction DNA testing offers the unique opportunity to correct mistakes and help make our criminal justice system more fair and reliable. Public safety is served when the correct person is held responsible for his or her crimes. Post-conviction DNA testing helps boost the public's confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the criminal justice system. Yet, few states have adopted standards and prosecutors often fight to deny access to such testing.
In recent months, the discussion around the right to access to DNA testing has been heating up. In March, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case of District Attorney's Office v. William G. Osborne, where the Court addresses the issue of whether a prisoner has a right to post-conviction DNA testing. In recent weeks, the New York Times and Boston Globe have highlighted cases in which prosecutors are resistant to allowing inmates access to DNA testing that may prove their innocence. Each of these cases represents an opportunity for states to step forward and adopt standardized procedures.

Only thirteen states follow the model laid out in the Innocence Protection Act (IPA), which provides federal funding to states that enact laws for access to testing and preservation of biological evidence. Passed in 2004, the IPA proposed a uniform national standard for access to DNA testing. If all states adopted the IPA model, which would standardize procedures for obtaining access to post-conviction DNA testing, the criminal justice system would be fairer and more reliable.

For example, The Justice Project recently released a report on thirty-nine DNA cases of wrongful conviction in Texas. Collectively, these thirty-nine innocent men served almost 500 years for crimes they did not commit. The report, Convicting the Innocent: Texas Justice Derailed, highlights their cases and in many cases shows the difficult process many of them had to navigate to obtain access to post-conviction DNA testing. Often times, it is through a series of miracles that innocent people have been able to obtain DNA testing. Standardized procedures contribute to a more accurate and fair criminal justice system.

Without the commitment of state leaders, the discussion about post-conviction DNA testing will simply remain a discussion. States need to recognize the value of post-conviction DNA testing in allowing the innocent a claim for relief. In 2004, the federal government passed the IPA to protect the innocent and help make the criminal justice system more fair and accurate. All states should follow suit.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Missed Opportunities in Texas

John Terzano - The Justice Project — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:39:44 GMT

Last night, as the Texas House of Representatives hit the deadline to consider Senate bills, the state lost the opportunity to act on a host of important legislative initiatives, including several significant criminal justice reform bills. A partisan meltdown over a bill requiring photo identification for voters led to parliamentary maneuvering and delay. SB 116 and SB 117 would have demonstrated Texas's increasing commitment to a more fair and accurate criminal justice system. Instead, these bills now represent two missed opportunities for justice in Texas.

SB 116 states that, when practical, police should electronically record custodial interrogations in their entirety from the Miranda warnings forward. The Justice Project's policy review on recording interrogations highlights the use of electronic recording as a vital tool to help protect the innocent as well as convict the guilty. If passed, SB 116 would have put the legislature on record in support of this important policy, and provided leverage for pushing police departments to implement recording policies.
Another victim of last night's partisan debate was SB 117, which would have required every police agency in the state to adopt detailed written procedures for the conduct of photo and live lineups based on scientifically sound best practices. In 2008, The Justice Project released a report that found that only 12% of Texas law enforcement agencies have any written policies or guidelines for the conduct of photo or live lineup procedures. The report also found that eyewitness misidentification played a role in 82% of 38 DNA exonerations in Texas. SB 117 would have helped to improve the quality of evidence in Texas courtrooms.

All indications are that these bills would have passed handily had they come to a vote. Sponsors of this innocence protection legislation are scrambling to find another live bill that could be amended to include these key bills, but legislative rules strictly limit those opportunities. These bills were just two among many initiatives, both Democratic and Republican, that became casualties of this partisan meltdown.

While these missed opportunities are discouraging, the House did pass SB 1681 last week. SB 1681, which was sent to Governor Perry last Friday, would require all testimony given by jailhouse informants to be corroborated by other evidence. As outlined in The Justice Project's publication, In-custody Informant Testimony: A Policy Review, unregulated in-custody informant testimony compromises justice and leads to unreliable results. By requiring higher scrutiny and transparency of informant testimony, states will improve the quality of evidence presented at criminal trials and ensure that judges and juries are able to make informed decisions about the trustworthiness of informant testimony.

The success of SB 1681 is commendable, but its fate is still uncertain. Governor Perry's signature is needed to turn this important step toward a more fair and accurate criminal justice system in Texas into law.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Hanging In the Balance: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

project vote — Sat, 16 May 2009 04:00:00 GMT

This blog entry is cross posted at Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

By Erin Ferns and Donald Wine II

In 1965 the course of American democracy changed when the Voting Rights Act was enacted to ensure proper enforcement of the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which grants equal voting rights to people of color. While many strides have been made since the VRA's enactment, including rising voter participation among the nation's historically underrepresented citizens, voting rights advocates argue that it is still a long road to truly non-discriminatory voting practices and a balanced electorate. Now, the course of American democracy may change again as the U.S. Supreme court is considering a high profile case that challenges the constitutionality of a key provision of the VRA.
In addition to prohibiting against voting standards, practices, or procedures that have a discriminatory impact on minority groups, the VRA requires 16 states and areas that have a history of discrimination to seek federal approval or "preclearance" before making changes to their voting laws or election procedures. According to a summary of the Act by Project Vote, "a substantial increase in African-American voter registration took effect" as a result of the law's passage.

On April 29, the last day of oral arguments of the 2008 term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, a case that may determine the constitutionality of the provision under Section 5 of the VRA. At issue is whether the Texas utility district ("NAMUDNO") would qualify as a political subdivision that could petition to exempt itself or "bail out" of the provisions under Section 5. Attorney Gregory Coleman of Yetter, Warden & Coleman in Austin, Texas, argued on behalf of NAMUDNO, while Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal argued on behalf of Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department. Debo Adegbile, of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, argued in favor of Section 5 of the VRA.

During the arguments, it was clear that the constitutional arguments were the most contentious. The constitutionality debate centered around the question of whether the VRA preclearance provision's renewal in 2006 came with sufficient Congressional justification of pervasive racial discrimination in voting. While many of the Justices focused on why this small utility district should be made to conform within those rules when it had done nothing wrong, others focused on the data that indicates voting discrimination still exists in several areas of the country, including those states that fall under the preclearance provision of Section 5. Although the "bailout" provision was also a point of contention, the majority of the lengthy argument, which went beyond the allotted hour time limit, was dedicated to the constitutionality of the preclearance provision.

Discussed at length was Congress' reauthorization of the VRA in 2006 without adapting changes to some of the rules in light of what some call the nonexistence of voting discrimination. However, "the Obama administration and civil rights groups argue that the law still is needed to prevent discriminatory election changes and that Congress amassed a lot of evidence in support of its position," the Associated Press reported on April 29.

"In 2006, Congress reauthorized Section 5 by overwhelming margins after holding 21 hearings, taking testimony from some 200 witnesses and experts and compiling a record of more than 17,000 pages," according to NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund president and director-counsel, John Payton in the New York Times blog, Room for Debate. "That record revealed that some 2,400 discriminatory changes in voting practices and procedures had been caught by the Section 5 process since it was last reauthorized in 1982 to 2006...If Section 5 had not existed, those 2,400 discriminatory changes would have gone into effect - provoking years of litigation in the federal courts at a cost of millions of dollars."

"I don't understand, with a record like that, how you can maintain as a basis for this suit that things have radically changed," Justice David Souter asked NAMUDNO attorney, Gregory Coleman, after citing "what he characterized as evidence of discrimination - including a 16-point difference in Hispanic and non-Hispanic voter registration in Texas and 600 lawsuits throughout the country alleging voter discrimination," according to an April 30 Atlanta Journal Constitution report. "They may be better. But to say that they have radically changed ... [is] to deny the empirical reality."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that while discrimination in voting rights was at one time "blatant" and "overt," what she called "second generation discrimination" now is "more subtle, less easy to smoke out," according to an April 30 Associated Press report. For instance, voter discrimination can be seen in the lower voter registration and turnout rates among the nation's minorities, and voting rights advocates argue that this is the result of unequal access due to inconsistent implementation of voter registration and restrictive voting procedures such as voter ID and inconsistent database matching standards.

It is difficult to predict how the Court will rule this summer, but what is in doubt is nothing less than the future of Section 5 of the VRA. Given the long history of voter suppression in America, preclearance of certain states with a history of discrimination is a vital practice that helps underrepresented citizens register to vote and cast their ballots without a cloud of intimidation about them. Its removal, on the other hand, would allow these states to proceed unchecked with discriminatory changes to election laws and procedures, potentially creating new barriers for already-underrepresented citizens in the electoral process. The Supreme Court has Section 5 of the VRA in the balance, and their opinion will determine the integrity, credibility, and authority of the hard fought and valuable Voting Rights Act.

Voter Fraud Myth Used to Push Voting Policies that Harken Back to the Jim Crow Era

project vote — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Cross posted at Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

By Erin Ferns

Recent studies show that a more diverse electorate turned out last November, including historically underrepresented young and minority voters. Since the election, Republican operatives have continued to use the specter of voter fraud to loosen regulations on voter suppression activities while pushing policies to make voting more difficult for the crop of new voters.
Last week we reported how the Republican National Committee (RNC) had quietly filed a motion to dissolve a consent decree prohibiting them from practicing voter caging and other voter suppression activities. The decree had been established in the 1980s after so-called "ballot security programs" to prevent voter fraud resulted in wrongful voter disenfranchisement of largely low-income and minority voters.

"The RNC claims that the lack of evidence of voter fraud is due to liberal voting laws that make fraud hard to detect," said Project Vote election counsel, Teresa James in last week's column. "Yet legislatures in the past decade have pushed through the most restrictive voting codes we've seen since the Jim Crow era. Complicated voter ID rules, barriers to voter registration, and arbitrary rules on verifying provisional or absentee ballots all disenfranchise qualified voters, especially minority voters. Despite this frenzy of allegedly anti-fraud legislation, this political party wants carte blanche to also use questionable tactics that suppress targeted voters, all in the name of mythical voter fraud."

Mythical voter fraud is currently being used in states with widely reported battles to pass strict voter identification requirements as their legislative sessions come down to the wire.

Last week, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan spoke in defense of the 230,000 eligible voters in the state who would be disenfranchised because they lack the necessary ID required under pending House Joint Resolution 9. The effort to pass a strict voter ID law continues despite a similar bill's failure to pass last year as well as a recent report by Carnahan's office that showed there were no instances of voter impersonation at the polls during the last three elections.

According to the Richmond Daily News, "the amendment would provide free government issued photo ID cards to voters" - a provision that other states with pending voter ID battles are considering. However, Carnahan's study points out that "documents needed to obtain the ID can be hard or expensive to obtain," referring to a Jefferson City man who would be "a perfect example of someone who would be denied the right to vote."

"I have my Illinois birth certificate, but I was turned away because it doesn't have a raised seal," said 25-year-old citizen, Greg Butler. "I'm trying to get a new copy from Illinois, but the process is complicated. If this passed, I'm worried that I wouldn't be able to vote in Missouri."

"It's my job to protect the rights of all Missouri voters," said Carnahan. "This proposal would make it difficult or impossible for thousands of eligible Missourians to cast a ballot. I hope our legislators will take a closer look at this list and see that there are people in communities all over the state who risk being disenfranchised by this proposal."

According to Carnahan's April 2009 report on the 2008 election, election administration problems dealing with long lines, overzealous poll workers who wrongfully asked for photo ID, and confused voters who were unaware that they needed to re-register every time they change residence in order to be eligible to vote were the real issues in the election, not polling place fraud. In fact, only one St. Louis voter illegally cast an absentee ballot for his recently deceased mother, a case that was not only caught by authorities, but would also have not been prevented under a photo ID provision since it was a mail ballot.

"This single instance showed that the security checks in place are effective at keeping Missouri elections fair and free of fraud," Carnahan reported.

A voter ID bill in Texas will likely reach the House floor if a "compromise" to allow voters to show two forms of non-photo ID is included among other provisions, over the objections of House Representatives who prefer a stricter photo ID requirement, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Earlier this year, the much publicized voter ID debate "conjured up the civil rights struggles of the 1960s" as Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Fort Worth)" said "proposals for tighter ID measures are the modern equivalent of the Jim Crow laws that were used to suppress minority turnout for decades," according to the Associated Press in April.

"This is a racial issue, make no mistake about it," said Veasey. "Can you really sleep with yourself at night knowing that if this bill is passed, that most of the people that would be denied the right to vote are going to be black, brown and poor?"

Rep. Todd Smith's so-called compromise bill attempts to "mitigate the potential for disenfranchisement," a "natural" outcome of voter ID, according to Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas), the Morning News reported. The compromise, "designed to draw support across party lines," includes provisions for increased funding for voter registration efforts in the state as well as "free identification for people who need it to vote."

Unlike Missouri and Texas where high profile battles to pass strict photo ID laws have occurred in recent years, the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee shocked voters and advocates by supporting photo ID legislation 11-2 last week. According to the Providence Journal, "it was believed to be the first time that any Rhode Island legislative committee has approved such a requirement."

The bill, HB 5097 requires all voters to present a document that shows the voter's name and photograph. A state voter ID would be issued upon request "at locations and in accordance with procedures established by rules and regulations promulgated by the secretary of state," according to the bill's text.

A statement issued by the ACLU and a coalition of organizations deemed the bill more harmful than helpful. "Rather than putting hurdles in the way of voters, lawmakers should be working to lower barriers to voter participation," according to the Providence Journal. "Should the bill become law, it would 'lead to the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters in Rhode Island, and particularly racial minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities.'"

To monitor voter ID and other election bills, visit www.electionlegislation.org or subscribe to the weekly Election Legislation digest, featuring election bills in all 50 states, by emailing Erin Ferns at eferns [at] projectvote.org.

Around the Country, Calls for Lawmakers to Address "Real Problems, Not Imaginary Ones"

project vote — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:00:00 GMT

As several states enter critical phases in their legislative sessions, the debate for one of the most controversial election reforms continues to dominate headlines and legislative hearings. This year, more than 26 states introduced legislation to go above and beyond federal election law relating to voter ID, despite near consensus among voting rights advocates that it hurts the process far more than it helps. Last week, the hysteria around voter ID reached an all time high in six states, evoking public concern from advocates and citizens alike.
The once divisive issue now has citizens questioning their states lawmakers' obsession with voter ID when there are larger problems in the administration of elections - including voter access issues - that trump the virtually non-existent issue of polling place voter fraud.

"We should be thinking of ways to make voting easier and more accessible to people, rather than scheming up ways to disenfranchise voters," said Pennsylvania resident Tim McCann in a Philadelphia Intelligencer letter to the editor last week. McCann criticized the Intelligencer for supporting voter ID in the state in a March 25 editorial.

"Some states are experimenting with Internet voting, early voting and voting by mail. Instead, we have a bunch of Republican senators who are trying to make it harder to vote - and your newspaper is supporting that effort."

McCann's sentiment was voiced by a number of voting rights advocates who ultimately pressured the Senate to "delay further action" on voter ID last week, according to another March 25 Intelligencer report.

"There's not an issue with impersonation voter fraud" (the only type of illegal activity a voter ID law would prevent), Kathy Boockvar of the nonpartisan group Advancement Project told the Intelligencer.

"Many people, including legislators, may not realize that as many as 25 percent of African Americans, 18 percent of senior citizens, and 15 percent of low-income Americans simply do not have the types of current photo ID required by this bill," Boockvar said.

While the threat of voter ID in Pennsylvania is now in limbo, citizens and advocates in South Carolina and Tennessee are broadcasting their dissent for pending bills in their states.

In a Tennessean opinion piece last week, ACLU National Board Representative Joseph Sweat commented on how his 82-year-old mother in law - who had been voting "since Harry Truman ran for president in 1948" - would be disenfranchised by pending voter ID bills in Tennessee that conflict with current, unrelated law. Sweat's mother-in-law "took advantage of the Tennessee law that allows drivers over 65 to choose not to have their photographs on their driver's license," he wrote. "So, for abiding by this law she may soon be denied the right to vote unless she goes through a lot of unnecessary and downright un-American hassle and expense."

Calling it a "straw man" argument because "proponents of voter ID have failed over and over again to demonstrate that individual voter fraud is a pervasive problem anywhere in the country," Sweat said the passage of such law would equate to a poll tax, impose more problems at the polling place, and cost taxpayers several hundred thousands of dollars despite the already existing economic crisis in the state.

Sweat concluded that, with the state already in economic crisis, the associated costs might quash legislators' thirst for passing one of the seven pending ID bills. Currently, Senate Bill 150 is the only bill to have advanced in the Tenn. legislature in the last week.

A widely reported - and widely opposed - South Carolina voter ID bill (SB 3418) would reportedly affect the voting rights of 343,000 South Carolinians, The bill was scheduled to be heard last week, according to the Associated Press, but rescheduled for today. The outcome of the scheduled hearing is unknown at this time. Opponents of the bill include American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, NAACP and AARP, the AP reported.

Three more states have exhibited greater threats of voter ID, one of which actually enacted a voter ID bill just last week.

Although it went largely under the radar, the governor of Utah signed House Bill 126 into law last week, requiring all voters to present either one form of photographic proof of identity (unless it is a tribal ID) or two non-photo IDs proving name and address before voting in person. Earlier this year, the bill was strongly opposed by advocates because it "will disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of voters in Utah in order to solve [the] nonproblem," of voter fraud, according to advocates at local blog, Utah Legislature Watch.

Following in Utah's footsteps, the Oklahoma legislature approved a "preventive measure," voter ID Senate Bill 4 yesterday, despite Democratic Governor Brad Henry's "serious concerns about unintended consequences" relating to voter ID legislation, according to the Oklahoman today.

"While the voter ID concept sounds good on the surface, there are valid concerns that such requirements would keep some eligible voters at home, particularly senior citizens," said Henry's spokesperson, Paul Sund. "The right to vote is one of our country's most precious freedoms, and Governor Henry believes lawmakers must be especially careful when they attempt to tinker with this basic right."

If Henry vetoes the bill, SB 4 author Sen. Charles Ford plans to "work on another bill that would bypass the governor and send the question of voter ID to a vote of the people," the Oklahoman reported. However, "House Democratic leader Danny Morgan opposed SB 4, saying legislators' time would be better spent addressing real problems, not imaginary ones" Morgan said that even the Republican House author of the bill could not "offer a case of voter fraud. "It's funny to me that we took up this unnecessary legislation on the same day as we were supposed to finalize a budget for common education," he said.

Despite Oklahoma's intensive efforts to pass voter ID, Texas takes the cake for the dramatic measures legislators have taken to pass or fight voter ID in recent years. After a 23 hour Senate hearing in March that lead to the passage of voter ID Senate Bill 362, the House plans to hold a two-day hearing next week in an effort to "spare the House from a partisan bloodbath," according to the Austin American-Statesman.

"Rep. Todd Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Elections, wants that panel to hear invited testimony April 6, with members of the public welcome to speak April 7," according to the report.

Other "compromises" are being made in alternate drafts of the voter ID bill that "could bring members of both parties together." Rep. Joe Heflin (D-Crosbyton) hopes to present a draft that would phase in voter ID over a four-to-six year period, exempt voters over the age of 65, provide photos on voter registration cards, and ensure the state has money to pay for ID as well as support and expand voter education and registration efforts.

Last week, "he outlined some of his ideas to [Republican chairman of the House committee on Elections, Rep. Todd] Smith, who didn't reject any out of hand, though he said he wants to hear testimony about their feasibility and potential costs before making commitments."

Compromise or not, the Texas publication the Lubbock Avalanche Journal questions lawmakers' priorities in the legislature at such a critical time. "With other seemingly more pressing matters demanding lawmakers' attention, such as the state budget for the next two years and the struggling economy, photo ID is what they're focusing on?"

Opinion writer Jaime Castillo at the San Antonio Express-News wondered the same. "There isn't a district attorney in the state of Texas who says there is a crisis involving people trying to impersonate others in the voting booth," he wrote. "So, to put it into perspective, the Legislature will literally spend weeks debating a voter ID bill that solves no problem."

With one bill enacted, one bill withdrawn, and four more high profile bills pending, it is clear that lawmakers continue to focus on voter ID over other, serious election administration problems, doing nothing to make elections truly fair, honest, and accessible. As the citizens who are less likely to possess required ID tend to already be historically underrepresented in the electorate, it's time for lawmakers to stop the partisan politics and focus their attention on expanding access to the polls, not restricting it.

To monitor voter ID bills in these states, visit www.electionlegislation.org or subscribe to the weekly Election Legislation digest, featuring election bills in all 50 states, by emailing Erin Ferns at eferns [at] projectvote.org.

New Report Analyzes Texas Wrongful Convictions Exposed by DNA

John Terzano - The Justice Project — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:28:19 GMT

It is difficult to fathom that thirty-nine innocent Texans have spent more than five hundred years in prison for crimes they did not commit. This alarming figure is detailed in a new report issued this week by The Justice Project: Convicting the Innocent: Texas Justice Derailed.

Unfortunately, five hundred years does not reflect the actual amount of time all innocent people have spent wrongfully imprisoned in Texas because the report only focuses on individuals who were exonerated by DNA evidence, which is available in only a fraction of cases. Each DNA exoneration exposes flaws in our criminal justice system that lead to unreliable evidence and inaccurate verdicts in our courts. It is time Texas and the rest of the country confront these flaws and learn from these costly mistakes.

The costs of wrongful convictions are profound, and begin with the devastation suffered by the wrongfully convicted person and family. Everyone involved in these cases is affected, from jurors who are presented with faulty evidence, to the crime victims who are denied the justice of seeing the real perpetrator convicted. Further, every wrongful conviction undermines public safety. When the wrong person is prosecuted and convicted, the actual perpetrator remains free to commit more crimes-crimes that could have been prevented.
While some error is inevitable in a system run by human beings, many of the mistakes leading to wrongful convictions can be prevented with the right safeguards in place. An analysis of all wrongful convictions in Texas reveals distinct patterns in the types of mistakes that lead to convicting the innocent. As a result, these patterns guide a clear path toward reforms that will improve the reliability of evidence in our courts.

The overwhelming majority of wrongful convictions in Texas, as is the case in the rest of the country, are a result of eyewitness misidentification. Decades of research on eyewitness memory reveals that changes in the way we present photo and live lineups can reduce the risk of error. Despite the fact that more accurate procedures have been endorsed by the U.S. Department of Justice and other organizations for years, most police departments do not follow them. In fact, the vast majority of police departments in Texas do not have any written procedures for conducting lineups. By requiring police to follow written policies that include proven strategies for reducing error, Texas can improve the reliability of eyewitness evidence and significantly reduce the risk that a false identification will lead to another wrongful conviction.

Eyewitness reform is a small part of the broader reform needed to effectively prevent wrongful convictions in Texas. Texas is long overdue in requiring electronic recording of custodial interrogations to false confessions, which are a documented reality. Unreliable testimony from informants must be subjected to greater scrutiny and more transparency. Forensic oversight should be improved and its standards strengthened. Until these reforms are implemented, Texas will continue to make preventable mistakes in criminal trials, and wrongful convictions will continue to occur.

Each wrongful conviction undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system. It is time the state of Texas to takes action to restore public confidence and ensure that no more innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. More than five hundred years of time spent for wrongful convictions is more than enough of a reason for Texas to take action.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Senate Committee Hearing Examines Flaws in Voter Registration System

project vote — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:38:03 GMT

Calling voter registration "the lifeblood of our republic," Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, opened the committee's hearing this morning on current problems in America's voter registration system. A focus of the discussion was a new study produced by the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey-conducted by researchers at thirty universities across the country-that finds that up to three million voters actively tried to vote in 2008 but were denied, and an additional four million were discouraged from voting due to administrative barriers.
In their opening statements both Chairman Schumer and ranking minority member Robert Benett (R-UT) described the need to balance what Benett called the "two compelling and sometimes competing interests": ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote can, while at the same time preventing those who are not qualified to vote from voting. While referring to this "yin and yang" of election administration, however, the testimony of the witnesses and the discussion that followed made it clear that the first issue-the systemic problems with the voter registration system that risks disenfranchising millions of eligible voters-is the area most in need of attention.

"In the 21st century people shouldn't be denied their constitutional right to vote because of problems caused by an antiquated voter registration system that was set up in the 19th century by the Whig Party," said Chairman Schumer.

Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard University-one of the lead researchers on the study-testified as to the stark realities of the numbers. According to Dr. Ansolabehere, an estimated 79 million eligible American voters did not participate in the 2008 election -44 million because they were not registered, and 35 million who were registered but did not vote. According to data from the study, two to three million of these voters were prevented from voting because of registration or authentication problems, and another two to four million registered voters were discouraged from voting because of administrative problems. "Registration continues to create significant barriers to getting into the electoral system and to voting on Election Day," Dr. Ansolabehere said in his written testimony.

As Jonah Goldman, Director of the National Campaign for Fair Elections of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law said, the antiquated voter registration system "prevents more eligible voters from casting a ballot than any other part of the process."

"The United States continues to make voting more difficult than any other industrialized democracy," agreed Dr. Nathaniel Persily of Columbia Law School, who identified two major factors in this problem. The first is that Americans have a high mobility rate; an estimated 90 million eligible voters move every five years, and therefore are required to re-register each time-a problem that disproportionately affects certain vulnerable populations including low-income Americans, minorities, young voters, and military voters. The second factor, according to Persily, is that the American government takes a very limited role in affirmatively registering voters.

In her testimony Kristen Clarke, co-director of the Political Participation Group of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, raised the issue of "widely disparate practices among local election officials," including confusing application form design, implementation of HAVA's database matching requirements, felon disenfranchisement laws, and state purge programs, all of which improperly remove eligible voters-disproportionately low-income and minority Americans-from the rolls. "While we turn our attention to exploring the corrective action that must be taken," Ms. Clarke testified, "we must remain mindful of the particular challenges faced by those who are among the most vulnerable and marginalized in our society-the poor, those incarcerated, and our nation's racial and ethnic minorities."

Access to voter registration has always been particularly challenging for low-income citizens and racial minorities. One proven but neglected current solution received unfortunately little discussion today: the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requirements that states register voters through public assistance agencies. Despite South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson's testimony today that public assistance registration is one of the reason's the voter registration system is "easy and accessible," too many states are neglecting the public agency provisions of the NVRA-as Project Vote has documented-and getting away with it due to a history of lack enforcement by the Department of Justice on this and other voting rights issues.

Another problem Project Vote identifies in its testimony is the failure of local election boards to send timely notices to applicants on the disposition of their registrations-which not only denies applicants an opportunity to correct any problems, but also encourages "useless re-registration" by individuals who are not sure their application was processed. This contributes to the duplication problems that plague local election boards, choke databases, and hamper voter registration efforts.

"What is most vexing is the intractability of some of these injustices, which should have been remedied long ago," Project Vote's testimony concludes. "It is perhaps not surprising, though, with literally thousands of election districts operating with some measure of autonomy that a problem solved in one town is bound to crop up in another. That is why federal regulation and oversight is so essential in ensuring that our system of registration and voting will soon be worthy of the public's confidence."

To read Project Vote's written testimony, click here.

Red State Officials Appear Intent on Reducing Voter Participation

project vote — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:12:46 GMT

Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

by Erin Ferns

Last week we wrote about how partisan-fueled voter fraud rumors are leading election reform debates, potentially changing the way many Americans vote in future elections. With at least one state swiftly moving a bill to require all voter applicants to present proof of citizenship before registering to vote, and another strongly supporting the passage of voter ID, the threat of voter disenfranchisement looms ahead.
Overzealous Citizenship Requirements at Registration

Current law requires voter applicants to take an oath of citizenship when registering to vote. In February, bills requiring voters to go beyond current law to present proof of citizenship gained media attention. The Georgia Legislature introduced a number of related bills, with the approval of Republican secretary of state and gubernatorial hopeful, Karen Handel. She endorsed the bills despite the fact that her office's investigation had yet to substantiate any claims of illegal voting by non-citizens as a result of fraudulent voter registration, according to a Feb. 4 Associated Press report.

"These citizenship bills are even more devastating than the ID bills; they hit a lot more people,'' Neil Bradley, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project told the AP. Up until this year, the state had endured several battles over the constitutionality of its requirement for voters to present photographic proof of identity when voting in person.

Despite the lack of evidence pointing to a need for the requirement, which "violates the National Voter Registration Act" and "creates a poll tax by forcing people who are missing their birth certificates or naturalization papers to have to buy new ones," proof-of-citizenship bill S.B. 86 was expected to pass the Senate on Tuesday, but not without hearing from voters and advocates, according to a blog entry at the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The League of Women Voters of Georgia urged its members to call their senators and ask them not to pass the bill, which would leave "countless U.S. citizens...needlessly inconvenienced." "[A]s a result of the increased hassle," the LWVG wrote, those citizens may "simply choose not to register to vote."

Despite the uproar and a two-hour "heated debate," S.B. 86 passed in the Senate 34-20, the Associated Press reported yesterday. "It now moves to the House."

As we wrote in a blog entry on Feb. 12, in enacting a citizenship requirement "Georgia would join Arizona in legalizing voter disenfranchisement. Since adopting the measure in 2004, more than 38,000 voter registration applications in Arizona have been thrown out, according to a May 2008 report in the New York Times. "More than 70 percent of those registrations came from people who stated under oath that they were born in the United States, the data showed."

"At some point, at some time, we've got to say enough is enough. And ask, do we have any shame?" said state Sen. Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta)in yesterday's AP report. "This is nothing but a poll tax. you can amend and soften it out however you want to, but this is a poll tax."

A Partisan Battle to Pass Strict Photo Voter ID

Currently, the Help America Vote Act requires first-time applicants who register by mail to provide proof of identity at the polls that includes a broad range of documents. However, eight states go above and beyond federal law by requiring or requesting current, photographic proof of identity only, a measure that has been repeatedly battled on constitutional grounds as the number of legitimate voters without proper ID trumps the number of fraudulent votes that occur in elections. This issue, often divided on partisan lines, appears to be gaining ground - as well as a reputation for being rife with partisan politics - in Texas.

"Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, has alerted senators he plans to bring up the bill before a special committee that includes all senators March 10," according to the San Angelo Standard Times. "That could make Voter ID legislation the first substantive, non-emergency bill to hit the Senate floor during the 2009 session."

"Democrats say the legislation is designed to bolster GOP strength at the voting booth because it will discourage minorities, the elderly and other voters who lean Democratic not to show up at the polls." According to the report, Democratic Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio said Republican officials in the Red state are "desperate" to pass a voter ID law out of fear that "Democrats can pick up seats in the house next go around." Additionally, "Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican said to be eyeing higher office, supports the voter ID and may cast a rare vote. Dewhurst can vote when the special Senate panel - called the 'committee of the whole' - convenes."

The bill is expected to pass the Senate since Republicans weakened filibuster rules in an effort to "break the logjam on legislation" earlier this year. However, Senate Democrats are hopeful that "their counterparts in the House, where Republicans have a narrow 76-74 majority, can block it."

Quick Links:
www.ElectionLegislation.org
Voter ID Requirements. Project Vote.
Politics of Voter Fraud. Lorraine Minnite, Ph.D. March 5, 2007.

In Other News:

OPINION: Voting reforms have made elections worse - The Denver Post
The Colorado Election Reform Commission (CERC) was created in the last legislative session to study possible election reforms. It has now adjourned after three months. Several election bills are already being considered in the legislature, and more will follow as a result of the CERC's recommendations.

Having their say: PUSH HEIGHTENS FOR ELECTION DAY VOTER REGISTRATION - Worcester Telegram & Gazette
WORCESTER - In last year's presidential election, 1,046 city residents showed up at the polls to cast their ballots, only to be told that their names did not appear on the voting rolls.

Irrational Fear of Voter Fraud Inspires Irresponsible Election Reform

project vote — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:09:00 GMT

Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

by Erin Ferns

Nationwide, budget concerns seem to be rendering most of this year's threatening election reform proposals impassable. However, that does not prevent these measures from perpetuating the irrational distrust in elections (and voters) that come with restrictive voter ID and voter registration proposals. Instead of focusing on resolutions that would create more transparency in election administration without disenfranchising voters, lawmakers in Oklahoma, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas made headlines for their battles to move voter ID laws last week, while two more states are discussing bills that would negatively impact young voters.
Claiming voter ID is "about integrity," Minnesota voter ID advocates push House Bill 57, despite criticisms that the issue of voter fraud is "statistically insignificant to the point of being nonexistent," according to the Minneapolis Daily Planet. In addition to the danger of disenfranchising low income and minority voters, opponents fear that the provisions described in the bill could be costly for the state, and could hurt provisional voters as past elections show only one-third of provisional ballots are actually counted.

"The problems we have seen in Minnesota's current election system are frequently a result of unnecessarily complicated systems that allow multiple opportunities for error. This bill adds another layer of responsibility and complication," said Keesha Gaskins, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Minnesota.

While studies have consistently showed that voter purging from faulty list maintenance procedures, varying provisional voting rules, and overzealous election challenger laws compromise election integrity and disenfranchise legitimate voters more than the rare crime of voter impersonation, little effort has been made to resolve these flaws in the administration of elections, and voter ID proposals continue to dominate election reform discussions across the country.

Perpetuating the myth of voter fraud, and perhaps taking advantage of hysterical media exposure on the controversial issue over the last year, Mississippi Senator Joey Fillingane (R-Sumrall) is trying to take the voter ID fight away from legislators and into the hands of voters. Democratic lawmakers, who have "relented to a degree in their opposition" to voter ID, question Fillingane's motives since voter ID legislation- amended to exclude elderly voters or expand the list of acceptable ID - is finally moving through the Legislature, according to the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. "Fillingane has one year from Feb. 11 to gather the signatures," though he has reportedly not organized a petition campaign.

At least one media outlet in Texas, and voting rights advocates in Oklahoma, have spoken out against pending voter ID bills in their states with a common theme that the measures are, at best, pointless.

The League of Women Voters of Norman, Okla. said the proposed laws were "discriminatory" and "not in the public interest" in a Norman Transcript opinion piece on Saturday. "Oklahoma has one of the fairest and most efficient election systems in the nation. There is no evidence that voter fraud is or is likely to become a problem here. Oklahoma voters would be better served by focusing on the real issue -- maintaining the integrity of our fine state elections process."

The Waco Tribune-Herald in Texas, while dismissing opponents' argument that voter ID is a "defacto poll tax," also criticized voter ID supporters' arguments that illegal voters are diluting legitimate votes. "That, coupled with the fact some in Texas' emerging Hispanic population see this as racist, leaves us to wonder: Doesn't the Texas Legislature have more important business to do, especially when few instances of such fraud have actually been found?"

Fear of voter fraud is also being used to promote a reform regulating voter registration procedures in Georgia and to discourage a measure to expand the list of acceptable voter ID in Indiana. Both reforms appear to have an impact on young citizens - a consistently underrepresented constituency in the U.S. electorate.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, which faces serious budget issues, lawmakers are trying to put the spotlight on a bill to limit voter registration drives, according to local publication, the Albany Herald. Calling it a "proactive approach," or a reform to stop a voter fraud problem before it starts, lawmakers in Georgia hope to pass H 225, or at the very least "make a splash" in the legislature.

The bill would restrict unregistered voters from handling voter registration cards or conduct voter registration drives in the state.

"One of the objections bill sponsors have encountered as they've debated the measure is wording that would allow only registered voters to take part in voter registration drives. That would eliminate participation by Georgians under the age of 18," the Herald reported. Fear of voter fraud is nothing new to the state, which currently practices a strict photo ID law and has moved at least two bills to require voters to submit proof of citizenship before registering to vote this session.

Indiana, another state that requires photo voter ID, has stalled a bill to expand the list of acceptable ID to include student identification out of fear that it would "weaken current law." The state made headlines during the 2008 primary and general elections when numerous students were turned away from the polls for not meeting the state's requirement of current, state-issued photographic ID.

"How much is too much to ensure the integrity of our electoral process?" asked Minnesota Republican state representative and voter ID supporter, Tom Emmer. If paying the price of legitimate votes and complicating election administration in order to prevent a virtually hypothetical crime is not considered "too much," another question should be asked. How integral is democracy when it comes to election integrity?

Quick Links:
Minnite, Lorraine. "The Politics of Voter Fraud." Project Vote. March 2007.

In Other News:

House OKs registration, voting on the same day - Associated Press
New Mexicans could register to vote at early voting sites and cast a ballot on the same day under legislation approved by the House.

Judge blasts law as vote-fraud prober is paid - Cincinnati Enquirer
Hamilton County taxpayers will pay almost $15,000 to a special prosecutor who investigated allegations of voter fraud, an effort that a judge said Wednesday was a futile exercise and waste of money because of Ohio law.

All Cost, No Benefit: States Aim to Raise Voting Barriers to Prevent Rare Crime

project vote — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:45:07 GMT

Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

by Erin Ferns

As we predicted last December, legislation designed to prevent so-called voter fraud has dominated election law debates in several states this year. Last week alone, Georgia's controversial voter ID law was upheld by a federal appeals panel, the Texas Senate "sparked deep partisan tensions" by eliminating the majority rule in order to aid the passage of a voter ID law, and nine more states introduced numerous voter ID bills.
With several studies pointing to the potential disenfranchisement of certain communities, including already underrepresented elderly, young, minority and low income voters that disproportionately tend to not have photo ID, along with the fact that there is no significant evidence of polling-place voter impersonation anywhere in the country, this largely partisan debate appears to have only one cost - the right to vote - and no benefit.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, as many as 11 percent of U.S. citizens would not be able to the meet strict government issued photo ID mandates that five states currently enforce and several more are considering. Based on U.S. mobility figures, the number of Americans unable to present ID with current address is just as significant. According to U.S. Census data, between 2005 and 2006, 13 percent of Americans changed residence, an average that skyrockets when reviewing mobility among voting age youth and minorities. Whereas 21 million Americans would be unable to prove identity to meet these strict requirements, no one has been able to prove there is any real problem with voter impersonation at the polls

On Jan. 14, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the oft-challenged Georgia voter ID law, claiming that concerns of disenfranchising voters were simply "outweighed by the interests of Georgia in safeguarding the right to vote." However, the law's most recent challenger, the NAACP, "claims the state never proved a valid reason for the new requirements," according to the Associated Press. The group estimates that between 289,000 and 505,000 Georgians do not have a driver's licenses and "argued it was 'implausible' that all of them would have another form of approved ID."

Using a similar argument that voter ID was imperative to protect the "fundamental right to vote," Republicans have "sparked deep partisan tension in Texas" by moving to weaken filibuster rules with the ultimate purpose of advancing a voter ID bill, according to the Associated Press. The voter ID fight is nothing new to the state, which had "deadlocked on the issue two years ago."

Although Governor Rick Perry recently claimed that asking for voter ID "is not asking too much" in a Jan. 15 Fort Worth Star-Telegram report, he did not cite a reason why the state would need such a law in the first place. Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst claims protecting the right to vote while preventing voter fraud is key, saying that "at the end of the day, there is nothing more fundamental than the right to vote and the sanctity of one person, one vote." However, a recent investigation by the state Attorney General's office found 22 prosecutions for election-related crimes, none of which are cases of voter impersonation at the polls, the only crime a voter ID law would prevent, according to the Star-Telegram on Tuesday.

Therefore, "there is no reason to believe that there is a need for more onerous identification requirements to ensure election security," said Dustin Rynders, an attorney with Advocacy Inc, a group that represents people with disabilities.

Like Georgia and Texas - states that have yet to prove the necessity for voter ID - Mississippi Sen. David Jordan (D-Greenwood) concluded that the state had no "significant number of cases of fraud involving voter ID" after pressing Republican Elections Committee Chairman Terry Burton for examples of how voter ID could have prevented voter fraud.

Just as the evidence of voter fraud is lacking in the state, so is the concern for voters who would be affected by a voter ID requirement. Last week, the Mississippi Senate passed a voter ID bill, much to the disappointment of Republican officials who disapproved of an added provision exempting voters born before 1946 from the providing voter ID, according to the Associated Press. The provision, added by Sen. David Blount (D-Jackson), appeared to lessen opposition to the bill, lending to its passage.

''We need a law that respects our seniors, especially those who personally experienced having their constitutional right to vote denied,'' Blount said.

With Republican officials considering the exemption of elderly voters a "loophole," the bill has since been held on a motion to reconsider, "a move designed to get a stronger bill," according to the Desoto Times earlier this week.

A similar bill in the House also received criticisms by state Republican Chairman Brad White, who said it was "watered down" election reform that would "do nothing to enhance the security or integrity of our election system," according to another AP report.

Last week, nine states filed or introduced bills to require voters to present identification at the polls. To monitor these bills, visit www.ElectionLegislation.org (registration required).

Quick Links:
Voter ID Requirements Web Page. Project Vote.
Policy Brief on Voter Identification. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. 2006.
Minnite, Lorraine. The Politics of Voter Fraud. Project Vote. March 2007.
Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans' Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. 2006.
Barreto, M. et. al. The Disproportionate Impact of Indiana Voter ID Requirements on the Electorate. Nov. 2007.
Hood, M.V. And Charles S. Bullock. Worth a Thousand Words? An Analysis of Georgia's Voter Identification Statute. University of Georgia. 2007.

In Other News:

Make Absentee Voting Easier for Military Members - Roll Call
Ever since the 2000 election's Florida controversy, problems with absentee voting by our military personnel overseas have been on the minds of election reformers - but not so much on the agenda of election officials.

Bills aim to recast elections - Tulsa World [Okla.]
OKLAHOMA CITY - A number of bills filed for the upcoming session propose changes to the state's election laws.

Disenfranchisement Reform: Lawmakers Move Toward Expanding Voting Rights in 2009

project vote — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:17:49 GMT

Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

by Erin Ferns

The 2008 presidential election was an inspiration for many citizens to take part in the American democratic process, including first-time voter and convicted felon Eric Stephen Willems of Minnesota. Unfortunately, that vote cost Willems, who was on probation, a trip back to jail, according to the Associated Press last week.
Before voting on Election Day, Willems left a telephone message with his probation officer of his plans to vote, as he was required to do under "intensive supervised release." He was later called back and informed that he had just committed a felony.

When asked if he had been informed of his loss of voting rights upon release from prison, (a commonly neglected procedure that often leaves former felons confused and unnecessarily disenfranchised or, in Willems' case, casting illegal votes) Willems claims he "must have gapped out" that information.

"I was just excited that the presidential election was coming up and I would be able to vote," Willems said. "I had never voted in my life."

Like many states, Minnesota disenfranchises convicted felons until all terms of their sentences are complete, an issue that advocates and lawmakers have long battled over, weighing the cost of stripping citizens who have already paid their debt to society of their civil rights and the subsequent impact it has on social re-integration.

This year looks promising for disenfranchisement reform as "the issue continued to garner editorial support in the media, gain legislative momentum from policymakers, and catch the attention of researchers and advocates alike" in 2008, according to criminal justice public policy group, the Sentencing Project in a recent news report.

Today, more than five million people are not allowed to vote as a result of felony conviction. "As many as four million of these people live, work and raise families in our communities, but because of a conviction in their past they are still denied the right to vote," according to a 2008 report by Erika Wood of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, a leading advocate for automatic post-incarceration restoration of voting rights "in each of the 35 states that still disenfranchise people who are no longer in prison."

Under a system of automatic post-incarceration restoration of rights, "citizens released from prison would be immediately eligible to vote while on probation and parole, as are those who are sentenced to probation without serving any time in prison," wrote Wood. "These citizens would be permitted to register in precisely the same way as other eligible citizens, without submission of special paperwork."

"Restoring the right to vote to ex-offenders is an integral aspect of reintegration into society," according to a 2007 Project Vote report, which notes a disproportionate over-representation of low-income and minority citizens in the criminal justice system. "Consistent policies are necessary to prevent large-scale disenfranchisement not only of the ex-offenders themselves, but also of the communities to which they belong. Society as a whole benefits when a representative government truly represents all its citizens."

While advocates like the Brennan Center push for such reforms, expanding voting rights to all citizens - including former felons - has become the focus of lawmakers on the both the state and federal levels. Since 1997, 19 states have amended felon disenfranchisement policies, leading to the restoration of voting rights for at least 760,000 people, according to a 2008 Sentencing Project report.

Last fall, two federal bills were introduced to secure the federal voting rights of individuals who are no longer incarcerated. Although neither bill progressed in the Congress, another bill was introduced for the 2009 session just last week. House Bill 59, sponsored by Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-IL), is currently in the Judiciary committee. On the state level, several legislatures are pre-filing and introducing bills related to felon voting rights, most of which are designed to reduce current restrictions. For example, Wyoming Rep. Dan Zwonitzer (R-Cheyenne) is sponsoring a bill to reduce the waiting period for non-violent criminals to restore their voting rights, according to local publication, the Caspar Star-Tribune. Currently, all former felons in Wyoming must wait five years to have their voting rights restored.

States considering legislation to expand voting rights to certain felons include Georgia, Kentucky (which currently is one of two states to permanently disenfranchise felons), New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Virginia. At this time, Mississippi is the only state to introduce legislation to increase felon voting restrictions (S 2443 and SCR 514). Visit www.electionlegislation.org for more information on these bills.

Quick Links:

Felon Voting Laws By State. Project Vote. 12 Sept. 2008.

Restoring Voting Rights to Former Felons. Project Vote. 2007.

In Other News:

Federal panel upholds Georgia voter ID requirement - Associated Press
ATLANTA - An oft-challenged Georgia law that requires voters to show photo identification before they cast their ballots was again upheld Wednesday, this time by a federal appeals panel.

Early partisan bitterness erupts in Texas Senate over voter identification laws - Associated Press
AUSTIN -- It didn't take long for partisan bitterness and the simmering battle over voter identification laws to mar what was supposed to be a peaceful start of the 2009 Texas Legislature.

Mills wants birth certificate required for voter registration - Gainesville Times [Ga.]
GAINESVILLE - State Rep. James Mills, R-Chestnut Mountain, introduced a bill Monday that would require voters registering for the first time to present their birth certificate.

Bill to ban election-day voter registration swamped by opponents - Billings Gazette [Mont.]
HELENA - Groups representing college students, the elderly, American Indians, women, labor unions and environmentalists turned out in force Tuesday to oppose a Bozeman Republican's bill that would no longer allow people to register to vote on Election Day.

Voter ID still a Looming Threat for 2009

project vote — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:32:32 GMT

Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

by Erin Ferns

After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld one of the country's strictest voter ID laws in April, several states rushed to pass similar bills before the year's end. By December, more than 25 states introduced legislation to require voter ID at the polls. Though none of these bills were successful this year, lawmakers in several states are hoping to revive such restrictive requirements in 2009.

Since July of this year, at least seven states have pre-filed or carried over voter ID legislation for the 2009-2010 sessions, including Nevada, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
Oklahoma Senator and author of Senate Bill 4, John Ford (R-Bartlesville) is confident the voter ID bill will pass in 2009, despite resistance from the legislature to pass a similar bill earlier this year. However, opponents maintain that such a measure would "suppress the vote among the elderly and among minorities," according to the Tulsa World earlier this month. Furthermore, "there's no documentation of any fraud anywhere in the voting system," said Sen. Jim Wilson (D-Tahlequah).

Last week, Maryland Senator Andrew P. Harris (R-Baltimore County) pre-filed S 43, a bill requiring all voters to provide government issued photo ID when voting at their polling place. Two days later, the Baltimore Examiner reported an effort to require the voters in Anne Arundel County to provide photo ID at the polls. It would be the only jurisdiction in the state to require photo ID.

"My goal is to improve voter confidence in the election system," said Republican Anne Arundel County delegate and voter ID supporter, Nic Kipke. "There is skepticism over the validity of elections."

Despite this assertion, Kipke also admits that there were no instances of voter fraud in the county or the state to inspire the legislation, according to the Examiner.

Voting rights advocates are opposed to such measures in Maryland because such requirements "suppress turnout by intimidating people [away from the polls]," said state ACLU legislative director, Cindy Boersma."They'll feel as if their vote is being tracked. You shouldn't be able to prevent people from voting if they are constitutionally eligible to vote."

In May of this year, voting rights advocates, including Project Vote, helped defeat a voter ID/Proof-of-Citizenship bill (HJR 48) in Missouri. Last week, however, the state appeared to be re-igniting this battle by pre-filing another constitutional amendment to require photo ID (HJR 9).

Other states, including Mississippi, have recently made headlines for similar legislative plans for the new year. Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann is reportedly proposing to "expand the powers of the secretary of state," by way of multiple election reform measures, including voter ID. In 2008, voter ID was a top election issue in the state with the introduction and failure of several voter ID bills in both the regular and special sessions. In 2009, Elections Committee Chairman Sen. Terry Burton, R-Newton, "said he would produce [voter ID measures] and other legislative measures on a piece-by-piece basis rather than inserting all Hosemann's voter legislation in a Senate omnibus bill this year," according to the Jackson Free Press.

Currently, eight states either require or request government issued photo ID. Eighteen more states exceed Help America Vote Act requirements and request both photo and non-photo ID in order for voters to cast their ballots.

Beginning next week, states will begin convening for the 2009-2010 legislative sessions. To monitor voter ID or other election reform bills in 20 states, visit www.ElectionLegislation.org (registration required). To receive a weekly update on election legislation in 50 states and related news, please email eferns@projectvote.org.

Quick Links:
www.ElectionLegislation.org
"Voter ID Requirements." Project Vote (Web page).
"Voter ID Requirements by State." Project Vote

In Other News:

N.C. voter participation swelled in 2008 - Raleigh News & Observer [N.C.]
Democracy North Carolina says 2008 was the Year of the Voter.

Voting changes proposed: Measure would allow early voting, more absentees - Associated Press
RICHMOND (AP) - Virginia voters would find it easier to avoid long lines on Election Day if legislation submitted for the 2009 General Assembly becomes law.

After 2008 Election, Some States Want to Make Voting Easier; Others Determined to Make it Harder

project vote — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:32:40 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Following an historic turnout in the 2008 election comes a flurry of election reform agendas from both sides of the battle over voting rights. Since November 4, some state lawmakers have seized on the success of early voting and Election Day Registration (EDR) as models for facilitating voter registration, while others appear to have been threatened by the heightened turnout and inspired to introduce restrictive voter ID and proof-of-citizenship bills for the 2009 legislative session.

Following what appears to be significant progress this year in closing participation gaps among historically underrepresented young and minority voters, we review Election Day stories in states with voter ID and EDR laws, and preview next year's legislative battle for election reform.
Election Day Registration

In North Carolina, lawmakers report being "proud" of the implementation of the state's 2007 Same Day Registration law, which permits early voters to register and vote at established "One-Stop" voting sites, according to the Raleigh News and Observer. In the 2008 primary and presidential elections, the law seemed to boost voter registration while cutting the use of provisional ballots by more than half, compared to figures from the 2004 election. On average, EDR states tend to outperform non-EDR states in election outcome by a minimum of 10 percentage points, according to public policy group, Demos.

"State Rep. Paul Luebke said he expects other states to model North Carolina's early voting system," according to the report. "The only change he would suggest for the next elections would be to standardize the hours, encouraging local boards of elections to stay open longer in early voting."

Despite the smooth success of Same Day Registration at early voting sites in North Carolina and other states,Republican lawmakers in Ohio are pushing to end the state's new mandate to allow voters to register during the early voting period.

State Republicans recently announced that they would file legislation to move the voter registration deadline to 65 days before Election Day, according to an Associated Press report. They hope to pass the bill before the 2008 session ends "and a new, Democratic-controlled House takes over in January."

However, election law expert Dan Tokaji said the bill will likely run into opposition as "federal law clearly prohibits states from having registration deadlines earlier than 30 days before an election."

Before the Nov. 4 election, the "Republican Party sued Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to stop the same-day window...but state and federal courts upheld it."

Brunner has planned an election summit in December to review the elections process and will likely not adhere to any changes before the new legislature takes over, according to the AP report.

Meanwhile, states like West Virginia are considering implementing Election Day Registration, which currently exists in about eight other states in its traditional form whereby eligible citizens may show up at their polling place on Election Day, register to vote and cast a ballot. First implemented in Maine in 1973, EDR is also practiced in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire and Wyoming. Other states, like North Carolina, Ohio and Connecticut permit variations of the option to register and vote at the same time, either during an early voting period, or-in the case of Connecticut-on a special ballot that only allows them to vote for the president.

"I lost my card, and I didn't think I could do it too close to the time," said one West Virginia voter and supporter of an EDR law, according to Parksburg, W. Va. News station, WTAP. "So, if it was that way, I could have voted."

However, Woods County clerk, Jamie Six, who "studied the idea for the state clerk's association" is against the implementation of EDR.

"The poll workers have a long and very busy day already," Six said. "And to add this to their plate to take care of on election day, we don't feel it would be fair."

While EDR in the state is unlikely, Six says it is possible to allow voters to register during the early voting period. "A committee of the West Virginia Legislature is to hear from Six on Monday," according to WTAP.

In the 2008 session, about 19 states introduced EDR legislation. Bills are pending in four states: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. None of these bills have moved since this summer.

At least two states, Texas and Montana, which currently practices EDR, have pre-filed several bills relating to EDR for the 2009 session.

Voter ID

While some states were facilitating voter registration and voting this year, Indiana - home of the country's strictest voter ID law - reportedly turned some of its young voters away without casting a regular ballot, and even encouraged poll workers in other states to mandate voter ID when no such law existed in the first place.

Despite being properly registered and equipped with out-of-state and student ID, the young voters were only allowed to vote provisionally on Nov. 4, leaving some discouraged and others in tears, according to a letter to the Indianapolis Star by Leon Riley, an election official at Butler University's Hinkle Fieldhouse precinct.

"The Indiana voter ID law amounted to disenfranchisement for a number of young, well-informed voters, as well as some voters who have various limitations of resources, transportation and problem-solving ingenuity. Is this what we want for some of our brightest and best, or for some who need help along the way? In fairness, this unnecessary barrier must be abolished," wrote Riley.

The day before the election, an emergency motion was filed to stop enforcement of the voter ID law based on constitutional violations. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago denied the motion a week later without citing any reasons why, according to the Indiana Lawyer.

With the controversy over the U.S. Supreme Court's upholding of Indiana's voter ID law, and a flurry of voter registration fraud allegations in the weeks before the election, poll workers in some states appeared confused over their own states' laws. Voters in Mecklenburg County, Virgina, for example, complained that poll workers illegally asked them to provide proof of identification, including photo ID, according to the Smith Hill Enterprise. There were also reports of misleading signs outside of polling places that indicated photo ID was required.

The misinformation amounted to a misinterpretation of the Help America Vote Act, which required voters who registered by mail after 2003 to provide proof of ID.

"The voter being asked to present a photo ID is not the preferred language to use," said Jessica Lane of the State Board of Elections. The preferred language, she said, is to ask for "a form of ID."

Whatever the intention, voters were set back after waiting hours in long lines, leaving to get their IDs, or possibly, not return at all, according to the Enterprise.

"I am registered with neither party. I am a devout independent with libertarian leanings, but I believe in the constitution and the fact that everyone needs to get out and vote," wrote one concerned voter. "Was anyone denied the right to vote? If they did not have a photo ID and saw the sign, did they say 'Oops. I guess I can't vote' and leave?".

For voter ID advocates, preventing the extremely rare crime of individual voter fraud is worth the risk of compromising a voter's right to cast a ballot. However, preventing many eligible voters from casting a ballot just to prevent a rare crime hardly seems on par with democracy. A four year investigation by the federal government found only 24 instances of voter fraud out of more than 214 million votes cast. Several studies have found that a number of already under-represented Americans - primarily young, elderly, minority and poor - would have a difficult time meeting the requirements. These studies include a Brennan Center survey that found 21 million Americans were without the required identification; a University of Washington study that found about a quarter of Indiana's young, African-American and low income voting-age populations lack the necessary ID; and a University of Georgia study found the state's Latino and Black voters were twice as likely not to posses required ID compared to White voters.

Yet despite the lack of evidence of voter fraud, and a well known, recent history of young and elderly voters missing out on the democratic process in Indiana (including Indiana nuns and Notre Dame University students who were turned away in the 2008 primaries) lawmakers in states like Oklahoma and Texas are hoping to make voter ID a reality in 2009.

While acknowledging that Oklahoma Speaker of the House Chris Benge "and the others pushing for a voter ID system have a certain level of common sense on their side (one idea is to offer free ID with their plan), Wayne Greene of the Tulsa World dismisses the argument that if people are required to show photo ID to cash a check, they should be required to show ID when they vote. Greene points out that there is plenty of evidence of people attempting to cash fraudulent checks, but no evidence of people attempting to cast fraudulent votes in Oklahoma.

"Benge told me he didn't have any examples of fraudulent voting to justify what sounds like a pretty expensive free ID system," Greene says. The state, which introduced and failed seven voter ID bills this year, will convene for the 2009-2010 session next February.

Immediately after Election Day, lawmakers in Texas - where there was a serious voter ID battle during the 2007 session - pre-filed a few bills requiring voter ID as well as proof-of-citizenship at registration.
Supporters of voter ID hope to have it in effect by the next gubernatorial election, according to local publication, Athens Daily Review.

In total this year, 25 states introduced voter ID bills, and bills are still pending in four states: Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Track these and other election-related bills by visiting www.ElectionLegislation.org.

After this presidential election's phenomenal turnout that showed the American electorate is finally closer to representing all of its citizens, lawmakers should recognize that voters take this fundamental right seriously. The passage of laws that help facilitate that right are far more conducive to a fair and healthy democracy than the passage of those that prevent some citizens from voting at all.

Quick Links:
www.ElectionLegislation.org

In Other News:

More minorities voted this year, but white turnout dropped - McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's 8.5 million-vote margin over John McCain was fueled by a more than 20 percent surge in minority voting, a new analysis of exit polling data suggests.

Minnesota group asks feds to investigate problems with state's voter rolls - Associated Press
ST. PAUL (AP) - A group opposed to Minnesota's same-day voter registration law has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate problems it suspects with the state's voter rolls.

Woman seeks limits on mentally disabled voters - Associated Press
GRINNELL - A Deep River woman wants to change a[n Iowa] state law to require that mentally disabled voters be supervised when they cast a ballot.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD