Washington Democrats’ ambitious new voting rights agenda

Ian Millhiser

Ian Millhiser Senior Constitutional Policy Analyst, Think Progress

Last November, Democrats gained control of the Washington state senate — and, with it, the entire state legislature and the governor’s mansion — when Democratic Sen. Manka Dhingra defeated her Republican opponent in a special election. On Friday, Gov. Jay Inslee and a handful of his fellow Democrats announced the voting rights agenda they hope to push forward now that they control the state’s government.

Broadly speaking, their ideas include three proposals to prevent voter registration from being an obstacle to the franchise, additional disclosure rules for election donors, and legislation intended to reform municipal elections in the state to keep voters of color from being locked out of city government.

The Democrats’ proposals combine automatic voter registration and same-day registration, along with a provision allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to pre-register as a voter before they become eligible to vote on their 18th birthday. Automatic registration is a relatively new reform — the first automatic registration bill became law in Oregon in 2015, and it led to record participation in the 2016 election. Since then, a bipartisan mix of nine states plus the District of Columbia enacted similar laws.

Additionally, Washington Democrats are rallying behind a bill pushed by Sen. Rebecca Saldaña (D), which targets city elections that tend to exclude candidates of color.

In 2014, a federal court ordered the city of Yakima, Washington to abandon its system of electing all city council members on an at-large basis, and replace it with a system that divided the city up into multiple electoral districts. Although 41 percent of the city was Latino, Yakima had never elected a Latino candidate to the city council or the school board, because the city’s sizable Latino minority was outvoted. After the city moved to district-based elections, by contrast, it elected three Latina city council members in a single election.

Since then, at least two Washington cities have tried to follow suit, but were thwarted by a state law that makes it difficult to shift away from at-large elections.

The “Washington Voting Rights Act of 2018” would permit these cities to voluntarily change their electoral system, while also allowing private citizens to challenge local election systems that effectively exclude voters of color. This bill would encourage more municipalities to move either towards district-based elections, or towards variations on at-large elections that are less likely to disadvantage minority candidates.

The Washington Democrats’ proposals to increase access to the franchise are, in many ways, the mirror image of legislation enacted by Republican-led states that appears designed to restrict voting rights. Voter ID laws, which target young voters, low-income individuals, and voters of color — all of whom tend to favor Democrats over Republicans — thrived in red states after the Supreme Court allowed Indiana’s voter ID law to take effect in 2008.

North Carolina, meanwhile, enacted an omnibus voter suppression law that matched voter ID with a number of restrictions on voting methods often used by African Americans. Though this law was struck down by a federal appeals court, the Supreme Court split 4-4 on whether to reinstate the law for the 2016 election. Had Neil Gorsuch, who occupies the seat Senate Republicans held open for a year until Donald Trump could fill it, been around to cast the ninth vote, North Carolina’s law would almost certainly have taken effect in 2016.

Voter suppression efforts like this North Carolina law are likely to continue in Republican-controlled states. And, with Gorsuch now ensconced on the Supreme Court, the judiciary is unlikely to provide a meaningful safeguard against many laws attacking the franchise.

The best solution to bad voting laws, in other words, is likely to be good voting laws which repeal tactics such as voter ID and press forward with provisions such as automatic registration.

***

Reposted from Think Progress

Ian Millhiser is a Senior Constitutional Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Editor of ThinkProgress Justice. He received a B.A. in Philosophy from Kenyon College and a J.D., magna cum laude, from Duke University. Ian clerked for Judge Eric L. Clay of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and has worked as an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center’s Federal Rights Project, as Assistant Director for Communications with the American Constitution Society, and as a Teach For America teacher in the Mississippi Delta. His writings have appeared in a diversity of legal and mainstream publications, including the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, U.S. News and World Report, Slate, the Guardian, the American Prospect, the Yale Law and Policy Review and the Duke Law Journal; and he has been a guest on CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English, Fox News and many radio shows.

Posted In: Allied Approaches

Union Matters

The Clock is Ticking, Mr. President

Richard Cucarese
USW Local 4889

There was a time during the history of America that our elected officials did their best to act expeditiously on the behalf of their constituents when it came to dealing with the ‘hot button’ issues of the day.

But over the past few decades especially, the most important issues seem to be pushed aside in the interest of partisan politics and media posturing while the proletariat suffers under the weight of indecision.  Within this framework of political grandstanding, the Section 232 cases for the steel and aluminum industries are no exception.

Contending these measures that would help save the industries and create jobs in these vitally important sectors, candidate Donald Trump used Section 232 as a dangling carrot to a workforce that has recently become resentful of presidents whom we thought were our allies promising us job security, only to have them deliver a hard slap to the face by decimating our ranks under the guise and false promises of the benefits of Free Trade.

Riding into the White House with not much wiggle room to have a mandate, President Trump still acknowledged that one of his key achievements would be to move along Section 232 expeditiously in the interests of national security due to their level of importance in the military sector and the resurrection of our once-mighty but now-crumbling national infrastructure.

More ...

Delve Deeper for Justice

Delve Deeper for Justice