A bill filed yesterday by U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA) would permit voters lacking a state-required photo or other ID to vote nonetheless in federal elections, so long as they submit a sworn statement attesting to their identity and their status as a registered voter. The only exception would be first-time voters who registered by mail; they would still be required to show identification.

The Constitution permits states to set “[t]he times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives,” but Congress may “at any time by law make or alter such regulations.”

Enactment of the bill, along with voter ID laws in North Carolina, would give rise to any number of practical problems during elections when both state and federal candidates are on the ballot, including the possibility of separate ballots and voting lines.

Add that to the list of reasons why lines are about to get a lot longer here should the package of voting bills (photo ID, no same day registration, no Sunday voting, shortened early voting) become law in N.C.

Maybe we should all vote by absentee ballot.

Senate Bill 10, which would eliminate dozens of boards and commissions, is out of conference committee and on the House calendar today.

As originally filed, the bill eliminated 12 special superior court judgeship positions. But the House balked, pulling that provision from its version of the bill.

The committee substitute now recommended resurrects the provision but allows sitting special superior court judges to complete their terms. The three business court judgeships remain in tact.

Though the compromise may sidestep constitutional questions about whether the legislature can remove judges, its passage would still add to the chronic understaffing of the courts.

While North Carolina may be leading the nation in efforts to restrict the vote, several other states are moving to expand voting rights and modernize their election systems, according to an ongoing analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.

Here, state legislators are currently considering bills which would, among other things, impose a strict voter ID requirement; shorten early voting; eliminate same-day registration;  and impose a tax penalty on parents whose children choose to vote on campus.

Elsewhere, though, states are taking a more expansive view of voting rights:

Nearly 200 bills to expand voting access were introduced in 45 states in 2013. Of those, 41 bills in 21 states are currently active, meaning there has been some form of activity, such as a hearing or vote. Three states, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Virginia, have already passed expansive laws.Many of these new bills are drawing bipartisan support. The GOP introduced an online registration bill in Pennsylvania and passed it in Virginia. New Mexico’s new law streamlining registration at state DMVs received broad bipartisan support and was signed by a Republican governor. And in Colorado, Democrats in the legislature worked with the mostly-Republican Colorado County Clerks Association to draft a modernization bill, which passed the House Friday.

Like North Carolina, other states are also considering restrictive voting measures, according to the center’s analysis. At least 80 restrictions have been introduced in 31 states. Of those, 25 bills are active in 12 states, and three are already signed into law.

The trend, though, is moving towards expansion. According to Wendy Weiser, Democracy Program Director at the Center:

Although states continue to push restrictions, others have gotten the message from the 2012 election. Americans deserve better and want a higher functioning, more modern voting system. Both Republicans and Democrats, in states from Colorado to Pennsylvania to Nevada, are working to give them one. It’s time to end the partisan voting game and ensure every eligible citizen can make their voice heard on Election Day.

 

With the endorsement of former governors Democrat Jim Hunt and Republican Jim Holshouser, North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections and Justice at Stake today announced a campaign to save the state’s judicial public financing program.

The Judges Not Politicians campaign comes at a time when three separate Republican-sponsored bills — H451, S495 and S541 — are pending in the General Assembly to eliminate the public financing system — the first of its kind across the country and the model for other states seeking to control the influence of special interests in judicial elections.

The threatened elimination of that system has triggered a bipartisan pushback from state judges, politicians and members of the business community who see the inherent value in keeping political money away from the bench.

Even before the current bills were introduced, a group of NC business and civic leaders along with Hunt and Holshouser wrote state legislators in support of the program:

. . . we join together to urge you to protect the integrity of the judicial system and preserve the judicial public financing program and Public Campaign Fund. Many of us would prefer a different model for selecting judges, but as long as we elect the members of our state’s top courts, we should continue this vital program.

Hunt and Holshouser reiterated their support for public financing this weekend in an editorial that appeared in newspapers across the state:

As former Republican and Democratic governors, we often disagree. But here’s one area where we agree: North Carolina’s courts must be protected from the corrosive influence of special-interest campaign money.

Sitting Court of Appeals Judge J. Douglas McCullough, a Republican, likewise praised the public financing system during an interview on WUNC last week. McCullough discussed his own campaign, saying that he appreciated the integrity it helped maintain in the courts:

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear a pay dispute between six federal court judges and their employer, the United States.

In U.S. v. Beer, the judges claimed that Congress violated the Compensation Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which was intended to protect judicial pay from the political process, by denying them cost-of-living pay raises in 2007 and 2010, and for four years during the 1990s.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case means that the circuit court of appeals ruling stands and the judges will recover some amount in back pay.

What impact that ruling has on a later class action filed by a group of seven federal judges on behalf of themselves and some 1000 colleagues across the country is unclear, and their counsel, Harry Sussman of Sussman Godfrey in Texas was unavailable for comment– though it would seem to be good news, since the class action complaint is based at least in part upon the Federal Circuit’s decision in Beer.