ACLU of Iowa Statement on Decision Regarding Iowa's New Citizen Voter Challenge
Statement from Rita Bettis Austen, ACLU of Iowa Legal Director:
"We are obviously disappointed with the which we still fear threatens to disenfranchise eligible voters simply because they are people who became citizens in the past several years. Even the Secretary agrees that the vast majority of voters on his list are United States citizens.
"That said, we are glad that our litigation has produced some positive developments. In particular, we are glad that our clients—the brave individuals who are standing up to this unlawful challenge of their right to vote—will be able to cast regular ballots. We are also glad that the court forced Secretary Pate to ‘back away’ from his position in the directive and no longer require that everyone on the list be forced to vote provisionally only. Now, county auditors ‘may exercise their own independent judgment based on information available to the official' to permit a voter on the list to cast a regular ballot. And, anyone who is challenged who can prove they are a citizen with documentation will be able to vote a regular ballot.
"Meanwhile, we encourage every citizen—and especially our new fellow citizens — to go vote in this week’s presidential election. Voting is your right. If you need more information, contact your local county auditor or check out our Iowa Know Your Voting Rights information at . If you experience problems at the polls, the ACLU would like to hear from you at legal.program@aclu-ia.org."
Statement from Joe Enriquez Henry, state political director of the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa:
“We don’t want new U.S. citizens to be intimated. Our message is: Make sure your vote counts on Election Day this Tuesday, November 5. For now, be prepared to show your papers documenting your citizenship, whether that is a US passport or certificate of naturalization from USCIS. But rest assured, we will continue the fight to support your right as a U.S. citizen to be treated equally on Election Day. Although we are disheartened by the judge’s decision to not grant an injunction, we are thankful for the lawsuit, which put pressure on Secretary Pate to acknowledge the right of naturalized citizens to vote in this election.”
Voting Rights
Selcuk v. Pate
Voting Rights
Selcuk v. Pate
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.”