JUNEAU — The state of Alaska on Tuesday sued to block enforcement of provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act.
Alaska is among the states required to submit redistricting plans or proposed election changes to the U.S. Justice Department for review to ensure the plans aren’t discriminatory. But the state, in its lawsuit, argues this is unwarranted — and that no evidence before Congress, at the time the act was reauthorized in 2006, indicated that Alaska should be considered among other states or jurisdictions “where voting discrimination has been most flagrant. Indeed,” the lawsuit states, “no such evidence exists.”
The state argues two sections of the act are unconstitutional: the approval requirement and the formula used to identify states to be approved, which the state says wrongly puts Alaska on the list. The state is asking a judge either to block enforcement of Sections 4 and 5, period, or at least, in Alaska.
The Section 5 approval, or preclearance, requirement “is onerous and time-consuming, creates uncertainty and delay and places Alaska’s elections at the mercy of Department of Justice attorneys in Washington, D.C.,” the lawsuit states. “Alaska cannot make the smallest change to its election procedures, even those that do not affect minority voting, without prior permission of the Department of Justice.”
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Washington, D.C., names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as the defendant. It says that state and federal laws “continue to require Alaska to ensure that every eligible voter can effectively participate in Alaska’s elections.”
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to an email request seeking comment.
The case picks up where another in Alaska left off.
Earlier this year, in a lawsuit over Alaska’s new redistricting plan, attorneys for the state argued the requirement that the plan be approved by the federal government was unconstitutional. The case was brought by several Alaska Natives, who sought to bar the state from implementing the plan, after it was approved for use in this year’s elections by the state Supreme Court, until the Justice Department weighed in. The case was dropped when Justice gave its blessing, or what’s known as preclearance.
But the matter “jeopardized the state’s ability to hold its elections,” the state said in the new lawsuit.
“Had the plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining the injunction they sought and had the Department of Justice not precleared the plan when it did, Alaska likely would not have been able to hold a timely 2012 primary or general election,” the lawsuit states.
Given the ongoing uncertainty over Alaska’s political boundaries beyond this year, and the potential need for a new map for elections in 2014, Alaska Assistant Attorney General Margaret Paton-Walsh said the state decided to sue now, in part to avoid a repeat of what happened earlier this year — where a court had signed off on a plan but the Justice Department had not. Suing now also provides more time for the case to play out, so it wouldn’t have to be rushed.
The executive director of the Alaska Redistricting Board, Taylor Bickford, said the board “has made protecting the political voice of the Alaska Native community a top priority over the course of the redistricting process.” In a statement, he noted that the board isn’t a party to the lawsuit and hasn’t taken a position on the constitutionality of provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Comments (50)
Add commentI think it is outrageous that
I think it is outrageous that our state (Sean Parnell) has sued to block enforcement of provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act. The Federal review is to ensure the plans aren’t discriminatory and the review is warranted because our state has a history of discriminatory voting laws against our native people. I think with Sean Parnell as Alaska’s Governor we all know we need this review, especially considering a new map may be drawn for elections in 2014
I think there is an attempt to disenfranchise the Alaskan native voters.
Not an attempt but a done deal
Alaska already does not recognize the sovereign status of the Tribes, fought T&H tooth and nail over child support for Tribal children, exempts Alaska Native women from the Violence Against Women Act, does not protect subsistence users from contaminated food with a 6.5 gram per person/day fish consumption value, does not notify Tribes about development actions on their traditional land, discounts traditional knowledge as just stories, ignores the clan-based leadership system in favor of for-profit corporations and generally ignores Native issues except when needing votes.
All the more reason to vote
All the more reason to vote Parnell out in 2014
DOJ
The only reason that the DOJ is harassing Alaska is that they know that we mostly vote Republican and Obama does not stand a chance...if this was Illinois there wouldn't be a peep out of the Feds.
dennyh
So what is the BSC theory of why Alaska DoL harasses Natives?
All the GOP is concerned
All the GOP is concerned about is attacking women rights and voting rights in general but Pres Obama will win the elections.H e certainly does not need our state to win. The GOP is trying to restrict voting rights in districts that lean for the Dems across the country. The Repub. are trying once again to steal the election. If the Republicans do steal the election there well be hell in the US
@abnotey
Your Ritalin is wearing off. Nice rant, but completely silly and inanely stupid.
@akjim
Have you ever noticed when one lacks a coherent argument or any clarity of thought they resort to name calling?
@alaskaguy...
Usually the first thing they say is something like; All the trolls are out this morning......
Wouldn't you agree akjim?
@AH HA
are you referring to the gibberish abnotey was blattering? I see nothing wrong with calling out unfounded idiocy when it occurs -- keeps the thread on track.
All Alaska is saying is that the feds falling back on the Voting Rights Act is an over-reach of authority that gimps the state's sovereignty in non-federal issues.
I think they are more out to
I think they are more out to disinfranchise all voters, not discrimate against just natives...
@Grendel
Oh, I agree with you regarding abnotey and (his?) blathering.
What I was really trying to do was remind akjim that he was guilty of the same sort of behavior yesterday.
@Kpawsuh...
Very astute observation and I tend to agree,but, can you prove the theory?
Thats why I said "I think..."
Thats why I said "I think..." Just a hypothesis.
I defy any of the leftist
I defy any of the leftist fools on this site to provide even a single point of evidence that the GOP is attempting to disenfranchise legitimate voters. Just one will do. I realize this is a perennial favorite talking point, but like so much of what the left spouts year in and year out, it's nothing but a load of hogwash. Go ahead, lefty trolls, put up or shut up. Your talking points are getting stale.
Really, jim? Do you not
Really, jim? Do you not read/watch/listen to the news?
"“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” Turzai said at Saturday’s Republican State Committee meeting, according to PoliticsPA.com."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77811.html
I guess if you refuse to allow information into your head, it's easy to make claims without lying. And if you have no critical thinking skills whatsoever, it's easy to claim laws which make it harder for SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHICS THAT TEND TOWARDS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY to vote are not at all suspicious or unfair.
Wow, PP
After yesterday's fit against sources you're propping up a Politico piece? Really. Voter ID laws allow legitimate voters to vote. That doesn't disenfranchise voters, it protects the legitimate voting. Alaska has had ID laws for decades. Sorry, PP, that dog don't hunt. The inability to get an ID is a total fallacy, and frankly you seem smart enough to know that.
@akjim: it's a quote from a
@akjim: it's a quote from a Pennsylvania politician you can verify from anywhere, numb nuts. The issue with sources is not that a certain source makes a story false, but that it may be misrepresenting the data. Yesterday, you tried to pass off a political piece as science. This is not science, but a verbatim quote from a politician. Learn the difference or GTFO.
And yes, "that dog do hunt." Unless you really believe it's okay to disenfranchise thousands of voters to prevent a non-existent voter fraud problem (no voter fraud has EVER been documented in Pennslyvania, and cases nationwide only number in the dozens).
So let's make this simple:
1) There is no voter fraud problem, for a variety of reasons (least of which is that few people would commit a felony just to vote)
2) GOP lawmakers have introduced legislation in various states to combat voter fraud, which also has the effect of barring, disproportionately, democratic-voting demographics from the polls
3) Ergo, GOP politicians are either expanding government and wasting money because they are negligent and ignorant, or they are playing politics.
Gee, I wonder which one it could be?
Resorting to name calling
Resorting to name calling now, are we? What a pathetic little libby loser you are. Typical, though. You rant your little progressive rants across these blogs daily, yet cannot come up with anything more than the same ol' claptrap that liberals have been spouting for years. No doubt ACORN was nothing more than a self-help group to you. Maybe you're not that smart after all.
I stand corrected
I stand corrected. The last resort of those without at least two neurons to rub together to generate heat is to accuse the other of doing exactly what they have been doing all along.
@akjim: so I came up with a
@akjim: so I came up with a clear example of voter ID laws being used to further a certain party's political interests, as you asked for. Are you going to come up with a proper response or sit there and cry about how my coarse language hurt your fee-fees?
Admitting you were wrong would be a good first step.
Admitting that maybe, just maybe, you're kind of a dick for your constant "leftist this," and "ACORN that" claptrap would also be a good step.
And admitting that you're a hypocrite who can't take back-talk would be unprecedented.
Sorry PP, you're just not
Sorry PP, you're just not worth my time, and alaskaguy, it's surprising you can even figure out how to type complete sentences.
So to sum up: akjim asks to
So to sum up: akjim asks to be proven wrong, is proven wrong, and then runs away to protect his fragile ego. Guess he isn't used to "leftists" pushing back when he spouts BS.
I'll never understand what allows individuals to lie so blatantly without feeling shame.
For what it's worth, no
For what it's worth, no politician on the national level (except maybe Sarah Palin--a certified retard) gives a rip about how Alaska sways. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the GOP will carry Alaska in the presidential election, but I doubt if either the Obama camp or Mitt's bunch of mutts are paying much attention to us at all. Sorry if I peed on anybody's parade. Reality sucks!
According to
According to Webster:
disenfranchised - past participle, past tense of dis·en·fran·chise (Verb)
Verb:
1.Deprive (someone) of the right to vote.
2.Deprived of power; marginalized
One example of trying to disenfranchise us all on the local level is to have us vote on a project, like the bronze whale, and when we shoot it down, go ahead and do it anyway. National level, not give us a candidate worth voting for, have them make all manner of claims on the campaign trail, and then have them do exactly what the previous Pres did, and what the other party candidate said he would do. Party doesn't really matter any more. Both sides are crooked and going out of their way to line their own pockets while screwing us over.
Not the main definition of disenfranchised, but sure fits the secondary one. We can vote, but they pretty much ignore us, or view us as a funding source. No power and marginalized, unless you have lots of money to donate...
akjim - perhaps
with a little less vitriol.
There have been a number of instances of votor discrimination furthered by republicans this year.
Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio are all states where additional, often expensive or not easy to obtain documents are now being required in order to vote. Data clearly shows that the poor, minorities, and urban dwellers are more heavily impacted, and these are groups that tend to vote democrat.
In Ohio - the last attempt failed, perhaps because it was so clearly and overtly blatant - and advocated for longer and weekend voting hours in Republican leaning counties, and shorter, no-weekend voting hours in Democratic ones. You can't get much more obvious than that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html
PA - An 89 year old woman who's been voting since WWII won't be able to due to the new ID laws
http://www.philly.com/philly/video/149760045.html
TX - Ever tried to get to DMV in Dallas? If you were a person without a car, who worked 6 days a week and didn't get time off, it would be impossible to get to DMV and get a driver's license. If you had the $25.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/justice-dept-blocks-texas-photo-id-...
akjim - there are a number of stories from a number of different states about Republicans restricting voting rights over the last year. I believe the information I've seen puts instances of actual voter fraud at something like .2% - barely even registers. I'm not sure how anyone could draw a conclusion other than the Republicans are systematically trying to curtail the voting access for those who don't vote their way.
Personally, I'd be furious at ANY party pulling this kind of BS. We are supposed to live in a country where every person has a say, has the right to vote. It's one of our dearest principles. I find ANYONE curtailing that right, even for people whom they disagree vehmently with, to be utterly unAmerican. It's exactly like saying, 'I believe in the first amendment, and everyone has free speech, but if you want to say things I don't like, I'm going to make it so expensive and difficult for you that you really can't' - - - and really, isn't that in direct contradiction with our core beliefs?
J.E.
Where does a person go to be certified a retard? I would like to know so that I can alert them about you.
@fume - I believe I read once
@fume - I believe I read once that you were married. Wow, what a "lucky" woman to have someone like you...nuff said.
Don't mind p - it's just projection on his part. He's young and a total sheeple to the left. We're working on him!!
And anyone that uses Politico as a reliable news source should be discredited right from the beginning.
Like this - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/22/Politico-Caught-With-...
Or this -
"POLITICO reporter Joe Williams has been suspended pending review of recent controversial comments he made on television and Twitter, POLITICO editors informed staff late Thursday night.
On MSNBC today, Williams made a remark suggesting Mitt Romney was only comfortable around white people. The video was first flagged by conservative website Washington Free Beacon. Breitbart.com ran the video and also flagged a series of tweets Williams had written that made fun of the Republican candidate, particularly in regard to his wealth."
@PP Or akjim...
Now that you two are done having childish tantrums, can either of you square your previous statements with respect to Paragraph two of the article above? It appears that it is the position of both congress and the justice department that voters have indeed been disenfranchised at least in Alaska.
BTW: Preventing someone from voting is voter fraud just as much as casting an illegal vote is. PP, you still claim that this never happens?
The left is in a tizzy
The left is in a tizzy because their grand scheme (ala George Soros) was to win all the secretary of states' offices and ruin our elections once and for all. Well, that didn't go as planned and now there are many conservatives elected to those positions that are intent on cleaning up the voter registrations and elections.
Without cheating the progressives are up a creek.
How else could the poster child of corrupt elections - none other than Al Franken - have won?!
Slowly, but surely, the SOS offices are exposing the "inconsistencies" - like this -
"The Romney campaign today has requested an investigation into potential election fraud in Virginia, a Key battle-ground state.
The request was necessary because of the shenanigans of the DC-based Voter Participation Center (funded by the Tides Center, Van Jones' project) which has mailed voter-registration forms to deceased relatives, children, and even pets.
According to the Associated Press, the Voter Participation Center has touted the distribution of some five million registration forms in recent weeks, targeting Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as unmarried women, blacks, Latinos and young adults. The mailings appear official, arriving in privacy envelopes with the headline “VOTER REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED.” Some information is already completed on the voter registration papers, and recipients also get an envelope to send completed forms to local elections officials.
PJ Media has already followed up with a great investigative piece – the return address on the VPC’s forms, which are allegedly supposed to be Virginia State Board of Elections, actually sends the forms to a rogue address."
Read the rest here - http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2012/07/25/stealing-virginia-a...