Current Cases
League of Women Voters of Ohio, et al. v. Blackwell
The United States Constitution, the laws of the United States and the laws of Ohio guarantee that all eligible Ohioans have the right to cast a meaningful ballot that is counted. However, over the past 30 years, Ohio has administered the electoral system in such a way that tens of thousands of eligible voters are disenfranchised in each major electoral cycle.
Through its work in Election Protection during the November 2004 presidential election, PFAWF witnessed first hand the enormity of Ohio’s voting administration problem, which starts with an unresponsive registration system that lacks necessary resources and safeguards, and extends to inadequately trained poll workers, long lines, misallocation of voting machines, absentee ballot complications, misinformation relating to provisional ballots and voting machines break downs without a back up.
In response to this wholly broken system, PFAWF and other voting rights organizations filed suit in federal court on July 28, 2005 on behalf of The League of Women Voters and a group of individual plaintiffs seeking a change in the state’s maladministration of the voting process. The litigation is still pending.
Diaz v. Hood
PFAWF is co-counsel on this case on behalf of a group of voter registration organizations and individual plaintiffs who sued in federal court to stop the state of Florida and its county election supervisors from disenfranchising thousands of eligible before the November 2004 general election because of certain non-material omissions in voter registration applications.
The defendant county election supervisors rejected thousands of timely submitted Florida Voter Registration Application Forms because of the applicant’s failure to check the “yes” box next to the question "Are you a citizen?" even when the applicant had signed the affirmation on Line 17 attesting that he or she was a U.S. citizen. On October 26, 2004, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of standing reasons. The plaintiffs appealed and on September 28, 2005, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the decision of the district court and remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs’ to file an amended complaint.
The sole issue remaining on remand to the district court is whether, if a voter submits his or her registration form prior to the deadline, the state must allow some "grace period" in which voters may correct any inadequacies or incomplete information, even if those corrections are received by the state after the voter registration deadline. The court denied cross-motions for summary judgment on this issue, and trial on this issue is scheduled to take place in February 2008.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board; Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita
In 2005, Indiana’s Republican-controlled legislature enacted a new law requiring voters to show a current, government-issued photo ID at the polls in order to be allowed to vote, allegedly to prevent voter fraud. The plaintiffs in these two consolidated cases challenged the law, claiming that it imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. In particular, the plaintiffs contend that the poor and the elderly will be unduly burdened by the requirement to show this type of identification. They also demonstrated that concerns about voter fraud have been exaggerated.
In a 2-1 ruling in January 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the law, rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims that it imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. In a majority opinion written by Judge Richard Posner (a Reagan appointee) and joined by Judge Diane Sykes (a George W. Bush appointee), the court was dismissive of the notion that requiring current photo IDs is an undue burden on certain groups of voters, including lower income voters.
Judge Terence Evans (a Clinton appointee) dissented, bluntly stating "Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic." Judge Evans noted that "no one — in the history of Indiana — had ever been charged" with the crime of voter fraud.
This case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. People For the American Way Foundation joined with several other groups to file an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court making clear that Indiana’s restrictive law, which could disenfranchise thousands of eligible Indiana voters, does nothing to improve the integrity of elections, in that the only fraud it is allegedly designed to prevent — in-person voter impersonation fraud at the polls — doesn’t really exist at all. Oral argument was heard on January 9, 2008, and a decision is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June 2008.
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Gonzales
Shortly after it was signed into law in August 2006, the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Act (VRARA), which extended the key portions of the Voting Rights Act for another twenty-five years, was challenged in federal court by a small utility district in the Austin, Texas area. People For the American Way intervened on behalf of its members, defending the constitutionality of the VRARA. Argument before the three-judge court was heard in September 2007; no ruling has yet been issued.
Fedder v. Gallagher (Circuit Court, Leon County Florida)
Immediately after Election Day 2006, it became clear that something had gone wrong in Sarasota County, Florida. County election officials were reporting that there had been 18,000 "undervotes" in the race for the 13th congressional district (ironically to replace Katherine Harris) between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings — votes not recorded in that race for voters who did cast votes in other races on the electronic voting machines used in the county. The total number of votes separating the two candidates was fewer than 400. The number of undervotes, however, was so staggeringly out of proportion to the undervote percentage in the same race in other counties in CD-13 using different voting machines that PFAWF immediately began investigating.
Our investigation, including a town hall meeting held the week after Election Day, revealed that Sarasota County voters attempting to cast votes in the congressional race had been subjected to serious voting machine flaws and irregularities. Among other things, voters reported that while they were certain that they had selected a candidate in the congressional race as they went through the ballot, that selection did not show up on the summary screen at the end of the ballot.
On November 21, 2006, PFAWF, along with the ACLU of Florida, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Voter Action, filed suit in state court on behalf of voters in Sarasota County to contest the result of the election and ask for a re-vote in the congressional race as the only way to remedy the disenfranchisement of so many thousands of voters. The court consolidated this case with a separate lawsuit filed by Jennings. Meanwhile, Congress and the GAO are conducting the first truly independent review of the machines, in the context of the election challenge filed by Jennings in Congress, and in light of that independent review, Jennings has dismissed her complaint in the Florida courts. The voters’ litigation is still pending.
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al. v. Jan Brewer, et al. (U.S.D.C. AZ)
In November 2004, Arizona passed the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, commonly referred to as "Proposition 200," which, among other things, imposed for the first time documentary proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration and election day photo identification requirements in order to vote. To compound the problem, Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer announced that the state would also not be accepting registration applications submitted on the Federal Mail Voter Registration form — a form that states are required to use and accept for the registration of voters in elections for federal office — if they are not submitted with sufficient proof of citizenship even though the federal form does not require such proof.
Because these provisions of the Act pose such an undue and unnecessary burden on the exercise of the fundamental right to vote by some Arizona citizens and not others, PFAW Foundation joined as plaintiff and co-counsel in representing a wide variety of affected groups — including the elderly, Native Americans, married women, and others who may not have sufficient proof of citizenship or identification but are otherwise eligible to vote — in challenging the Act on state and federal constitutional grounds. The lawsuit was filed on May 24, 2006, and trial is expected later this year.
Project Vote, et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, et al.
At the beginning of July 2006, People For the American Way Foundation joined with a coalition of organizations and individuals involved in voter registration activities in Ohio and filed a federal lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio seeking to challenge portions of recently enacted OH legislation regulating voter registration efforts.
The suit also challenges Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell’s interpretation of particular provisions of that legislation. The new OH laws placed a number of unreasonable and vague restrictions and requirements on individuals and groups involved in voter registration activities, subjecting them to criminal penalties for failing to adhere to the onerous restrictions. As a result, many groups had to curtail or completely halt their voter registration activities in Ohio. The litigation is still pending.
Prior Cases
NAACP, et al. v. Robin Carnahan, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State of Missouri, et al. (U.S.D.C., WD-MO)
In June, 2006, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt signed into law one of the most restrictive photo ID requirements for voting in the country, requiring all voters to show one of a limited number of photo identifications in order to cast a ballot.
Despite admitting that elections in the state are "fraud-free," and despite undisputed evidence that the photo ID law would not do a thing to combat any potential voter fraud, if it did exist (including exempting absentee ballots from the requirement, which both Republicans and Democrats agree is where voter impersonation fraud is most likely to occur, if it occurs at all), Missouri imposed these obstacles to the ballot box, which both the Democratic Secretary of State and the Republican Director of the Department of Revenue agreed would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of eligible voters in the state. Because this law imposed such an undue and unnecessary burden on the fundamental right of Missourians to vote, PFAW Foundation joined as co-counsel in representing a wide variety of groups — including the NAACP, and other groups representing the disability, minority, and economically-disadvantaged communities — to challenge the law on federal constitutional and statutory grounds.
The lawsuit was filed on September 6, 2006, and we sought an injunction in federal court preventing the restrictive ID law from being enforced during and after the November 7, 2006 general election. Prior to the federal court’s hearing this action, the Missouri state Supreme Court ruled in a separate state lawsuit that it violates the Missouri state Constitution, and issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law. As this relief was the same relief we had sought in federal court, we subsequently dismissed the federal case as effectively moot.
Acorn, et al. v. Susan Bysiewicz
In 2003, approximately 7,400 Connecticut citizens registered to vote during the 13 days before municipal elections held in May and November, but were unable to vote because of Connecticut’s burdensome and unnecessary 14-day registration deadline. At least 3,700 citizens were disenfranchised as a result of the deadline during the federal and state elections in 2004.
DIn anticipation that the same result would occur during the general election of November 2004, wherein thousands of Connecticut residents would once again be denied the opportunity to vote for every office on the ballot, PFAWF joined as co-plaintiff and co-counsel in a lawsuit against Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz in September 2004. We argued that the 14-day registration deadline is a violation the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, pointing out that the state already allows same-day or day-before registration for certain elections and has a statewide computerized registration database that can immediately verify registration applications. Specifically, the lawsuit sought a declaration by the court that the statute providing a 14-day registration deadline is unconstitutional so that Connecticut voters will be able to register and vote on Election Day.
An amended complaint was filed on November 12, 2004 to add plaintiffs who learned on Election Day that they had been disenfranchised by the registration deadline. The trial commenced on May 2, 2005 and oral arguments were held on June 29, 2005.
On December 20, 2005, the court rendered its decision and found in favor of the defendants on all claims, finding that the State’s registration deadline was neither discriminatory nor severe and that it withstood constitutional challenge because it serves important regulatory interests. The plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling.
ACLU, et al. v. Florida Department of State
Florida’s stautory scheme specifies how and when Florida election officials must perform recounts. In the event that the margin of victory is one-quarter of a percent or less, the law requires that "a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office or ballot measure" shall be conducted. In early 2004, the Department of State attempted to abolish the manual recount for electronic voting machines by setting forth a new administrative rule that expressly provided that when a touchscreen voting system is used, "no manual recount of the undervotes and overvotes cast on a touchscreen system shall be conducted."
In response PFAWF joined other grassroots and voting rights organizations in challenging the new rule before the Division of Administrative Hearings and on August 22, 2004, the administrative court struck down the administrative rule prohibiting manual recounts on electronic voting machines.
League of Women Voters of Virginia v. Allen (1995)
In this consolidated action, PFAWF and the Richmond law firm of Little, Parsley & Cluverius represented four citizens organizations in a suit against Governor George Allen and the Commonwealth of Virginia for refusing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA"). The district court upheld the constitutionality of the law and also held that Virginia was required to comply with the law by March 6, 1996, a year earlier than the Commonwealth had claimed.
League of Women Voters of Virginia v. Allen (1995)
In this consolidated action, PFAWF and the Richmond law firm of Little, Parsley & Cluverius represented four citizens organizations in a suit against Governor George Allen and the Commonwealth of Virginia for refusing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA"). The district court upheld the constitutionality of the law and also held that Virginia was required to comply with the law by March 6, 1996, a year earlier than the Commonwealth had claimed.
ACORN v. Engler 129 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1997)
PFAWF has represented a community group in a suit consolidated with several other challenges to Michigan Governor Engler and other state officials, who refused to implement the NVRA as applied to public assistance and disability agencies.
Acorn v. Casey
To help carry out People For the American Way Foundation’s mission to mobilize American citizens to promote and protect fundamental democratic freedoms, People For the American Way and PFAWF worked to ensure enactment of a strong national voter registration law, often referred to as "motor voter." Since then, People For the American Way Foundation has played a major role in defending that law from attack by a handful of states, both in the courts of law and public opinion.
The "motor voter" law represents landmark legislation to revitalize citizen participation and the fundamental right to vote in our country’s democracy. As a bi-partisan Congress found in enacting the law, well over one-third of eligible Americans, approximately 65 million people, were not registered to vote, causing the United States to have the lowest voter turnout of any industrialized democracy in the world. Congress found that unfair and discriminatory state and local laws posed continuing barriers to the ballot box, which were in some cases as restrictive as the poll taxes and selective purges eliminated during the civil rights movement by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Thus, Congress passed the NVRA in order to increase voter registration and participation by reducing such barriers, while at the same time ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the electoral process against potential fraud.
Specifically, the NVRA requires states to provide people with the opportunity to register to vote, or to update their registration for change of address, when they get or renew drivers’ licenses, and when they apply for services at public assistance, disability, and other designated offices within the state. The NVRA also requires that the states offer people the ability to register to vote or to update their registration through the use of simple mail-in forms. Finally, the NVRA contains provisions to ensure the maintenance of accurate and up-to-date voter registration rolls, and prohibits purging voters from the rolls for not voting in prior elections.
The NVRA went into effect for most states on January 1, 1995. Over two-thirds of the states are currently implementing the NVRA and results to date show a marked increase in voter registration with over 12 million new registrants at the time of the 1996 elections. Unfortunately, a handful of states including California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia actively resisted compliance with the law. Consequently, citizens groups and the United States Department of Justice have filed lawsuits against these states to compel their compliance with the law. To date, the federal courts have unanimously rejected the constitutional challenges posed by the recalcitrant states. PFAWF served as co-counsel in successful suits against the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Virginia resulting in orders that all three states comply with the NVRA.
In late December, 1994, People For the American Way Foundation filed one of the first NVRA lawsuits in the country, seeking to compel Pennsylvania officials to comply with the law. Prior to the suit in November, 1994, the Pennsylvania state Senate had defeated NVRA enabling legislation and Pennsylvania then decided to oppose NVRA implementation. In the ongoing lawsuit, People For represents 11 plaintiff citizen organizations: the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania; ACORN; PICA ("Project Vote"); the NAACP, Philadelphia Chapter; Pennsylvania Council of Churches; Pennsylvania Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities; Liberty Resources, Inc.; Common Cause/PA; Citizen Action, Pennsylvania Chapter; Pennsylvania PIRG; and the American Jewish Congress, Pennsylvania Region. Pro bono co-counsel in the case are the Philadelphia law firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and Steve Bachmann, general counsel of ACORN. People For the American Way Foundation has also received legal assistance in the case from the D.C. law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and the Philadelphia law firm of Rudovsky, Kairys, Kalman & Epstein. Subsequently, in January, 1995, the United States Department of Justice also sued Pennsylvania under the NVRA and the two cases were consolidated together.
On March 30, 1995, People For the American Way Foundation won a favorable decision on the merits when federal Judge Buckwalter granted our motion for summary judgment. Judge Buckwalter ruled that the NVRA is constitutional. Pennsylvania decided not to appeal the decision, and People For the American Way Foundation worked with co-counsel and Pennsylvania’s lawyers to craft implementation plans and orders which required full compliance with the NVRA.
People For the American Way Foundation and the Justice Department continue to monitor and push the state to ensure full implementation of the NVRA. Plaintiffs continued to seek redress for specific compliance enforcement problems, which have focused primarily on disability and public assistance offices where registration has been extremely poor or non-existent. On May 12, 1998, the parties entered an agreement, which, among other things, improves voter registration policies and procedures at public assistance offices and creates a statewide program to ensure state monitoring and provide incentives to improve performance at county public assistance offices.
Subsequent to this written agreement, as a result of the litigation, the state agreed to provide voter registration at some of the larger state-funded disability programs administered by the counties pursuant to the NVRA’s requirements, which the state previously had refused to do. On May 24, 1999, private plaintiffs joined the U.S. in filing a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to require defendants to provide voter registrations in connection with these two state-funded disability programs.
The state subsequently agreed to a settlement with respect to voter registration in connection with special and education programs. On January 14, 2000, plaintiffs won an important legal victory when the federal court ruled that the Commonwealth must provide voter registration in connection with paratransit programs for citizens with disabilities. The parties continue to work on a final plan for implementing that decision.
To date, as a result of the suit, well over a million Pennsylvania citizens have registered to vote or update their registration at motor vehicle and social service agencies which refused to provide registration prior to the lawsuit.
 |