District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos had previously ruled against the Texas law, also finding that it had “a discriminatory impact on minority voter turnout.”
The 2016 presidential election is the first since the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision to strike down two sections of the Voting Rights Act, both of which had served as crucial structural safeguards against voter disenfranchisement since the ‘60s.
Millions of New Yorkers will be unable to take part in today’s voting: aside from the scores of independent voters who are ineligible to take part in closed party primaries, in which only party members can vote, many thousands more have reportedly discovered recently that their voter registrations had been changed.
Eric and Ivanka aren’t the only ones shut out of the voting booth by obscure rules. These will be the first presidential elections since the 2013 Supreme Court decision to gut the Voting Rights Act.
While the national media has turned its attention to the upcoming primary in Wisconsin, voters in Arizona are fighting against the state’s weak response to complaints of long lines and a shortage of polling locations during its recent primary, last Tuesday.
Nevada Republicans — like Republican legislatures across the country — tried to solve a problem that doesn’t exist: there were only two cases of voter fraud in Nevada in 2014.
Fifty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act — and the most fundamental democratic exercise continues to come under attack.
Voting is not so simple for many poor people as I seemed to imply. But I do worry that portraying inconveniences as high barriers can discourage people from even trying.