During a September 8, 2008 meeting with the ACLU and other civil rights groups, Attorney General Michael Mukasey called the "smooth" running of this election the Department of Justice's highest priority. Despite the ACLU's repeated requests for DOJ to take action to protect voters and stop suppressive tactics, so far, DOJ is not living up to its commitment.
For example, right now, two weeks before the election, the government is engaging in a highly-publicized attempt to raise the "specter of voter fraud" against groups who have been working hard to register poor and minority voters. Unfortunately, DOJ is doing little, if anything, to help the thousands, maybe millions of eligible voters who may turn up on Election Day, just to be sent home. DOJ should be addressing true threats to the election this year, such as voter suppression schemes, unlawful purging, and racially motivated voter intimidation.
Election officials should concentrate their limited resources on expanding access to the ballot box and protecting voters. Mickey Mouse is not coming to an election booth near you. However, when eligible voters do show up, only to find they have been improperly purged from the rolls, we will wonder why DOJ did not enforce the laws that could have prevented it.
Even in this short time before the election, there are several things DOJ could do to protect voters:
1. It is critical that DOJ respond to racially discriminatory voter suppression tactics, such as voter caging and deceptive practices, widely reported over the past several elections. The press should be used to help voters. DOJ should issue a national press statement in advance of the upcoming election affirming DOJ's intention to investigate and enforce the federal civil rights statutes that prohibit minority voter schemes.
2. DOJ must respond to recent threats to challenge the registration of any voter whose address appears on a list of foreclosed homes. DOJ's issuing a statement specifically identifying that foreclosure lists are an unacceptable basis for purging or challenging voter registration would be an important step towards clarifying the misinformation currently facing voters.
3. In communications with the Secretaries of State, DOJ should include reference to the National Voter Registration Act's (NVRA) requirements for the timely processing of voter registrations. This election season, citizens have registered to vote in extremely high numbers. Minority and young voters have demonstrated an enthusiasm to participate in what will prove to be one of the most historic elections in recent memory. Facing what could be an unprecedented administrative challenge for some jurisdictions and armed with the knowledge of problems from earlier elections, DOJ must be vigilant in ensuring that those jurisdictions are in compliance with the law and provide oversight to ensure that applications are being properly and timely processed.
4. DOJ must quickly investigate recent allegations concerning eleventh hour efforts to remove voters from the registration rolls in several states including Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina. It appears that these efforts may violate provisions of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the NVRA. DOJ should intervene if the states are breaking the law by conducting last-minute purges of the voter rolls.
5. DOJ and the FBI should not engage in partisan fraud prosecutions in the few weeks left before the upcoming election because of the chilling effect that such actions may have on voter participation. Instead, DOJ should shift limited resources to preventing improper or illegal voter suppression activities that will have the effect of disenfranchising large numbers of people.
The election is less than three weeks away and it is crucial that DOJ act immediately to protect voters from discriminatory interference in their right to participate in November.
Time is running out to make this a smooth and fair election.
For more information about voting rights, visit the following links:
> ACLU Letter to Congress Regarding Joint House Judiciary and House Administrative Committees Hearing
> Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Letter to Congress
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”