Last day to register in AZ focuses on voters with disabilities / Public News Service

Today is the last day to register online in Arizona to vote next month.

And that means voting rights advocates in the battleground state are busy making sure everyone is ready to make their voice heard, including people with disabilities.

Special events will be held throughout Arizona to educate Arizona voters with disabilities about useful information and tools leading up to Election Day.

But Renaldo Fowler, senior disability rights attorney in Arizona, said although elections occur every few years, it is important to prioritize what he calls “full access to the electoral process.”

“What we want to do is help change the culture from the very top, the election administrators,” Fowler said, “all the way down to people with disabilities, all the way down to family members who have high expectations for their loved ones to vote. “

To change that culture, Fowler said his law firm focuses on promoting five different areas – including voter registration, voter participation, voter education, working with election officials and voting rights.

In May, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that people under guardianship should not automatically lose their right to vote – which Fowler said benefits people with disabilities.

Fowler said that before Election Day, it is critical for people to know their voting rights and request accommodations early.

He said Arizona’s 15 counties each offer different types of assistance and machines to help voters with disabilities.

But Fowler maintained that the biggest threat to all voters this year is misinformation and disinformation.

“Many voters with disabilities use social media,” Fowler said, “and so we want them to know how to spot it and what to do if they think it’s misinformation – and we always tell them, that they should contact trusted election officials.”

Fowler added that his organization will operate a hotline on Election Day and take calls from anyone who may have an accessibility issue at the ballot box.

It can be reached at 602-274-6287 from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m

This reporting was supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Get more stories like this by email

States are required to regularly maintain voter rolls to ensure the lists are accurate. But a new study from Michigan State University suggests the state’s process may disproportionately target underrepresented and lower-income communities.

Purging voter rolls typically means removing inactive or deceased or moved voters.

The MSU analysis of over 175,000 voters purged between 2014 and 2018 found higher purge rates in cities and among Black voters and registered Democrats.

Thomas Wojciechowski, an assistant professor at MSU’s School of Criminal Justice, said Michigan had a Republican majority in its legislature during that time.

“We found that a larger proportion of Black residents in certain communities is associated with higher rates of excessive cleanup,” Wojciechowski said. “So there was a statistical relationship right there that says, ‘Okay, there’s a racial disparity in voter purge that’s going on.'”

Researchers agree that the purge practice is necessary but could lead to disenfranchisement of voters, particularly among inactive voters.

The study was initiated by the group Michigan Faith in Action.

In the areas affected by the purge, 17% of the population was black, the average annual income was just under $50,000, and about half of the population was Democratic.

Wojciechowski said while they cited legitimate reasons for higher cleanup rates in these areas, they still found racial disparities.

“We can’t directly question the intent or anything,” Wojciechowski said, “but there is certainly an incentive to disproportionately marginalize the voting power of these communities.”

Although the purge in question took place between 2014 and 2018, the team says the results are still relevant.

Study co-author Richard Sadler, an associate professor of public health and family medicine at MSU, said not many other states have analyzed voter purging in this way. He said he hopes that will change.

“To the extent that we can get this data in other states and other research teams can begin to reproduce this,” Sadler said, “we may be able to show the importance of voter registration and retention policies that keep voters on the rolls.” hold.”

If you plan to vote in person this election, Sadler said you can check your registration status online at the Michigan Voter Information Center (mvic.sos.state.mi.us) before going to the polls.

This reporting was supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Get more stories like this by email

Voting rights groups in New Hampshire have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s new voting law that requires proof of citizenship for first-time voters.

It will also eliminate the affidavit system, which allows people without photo ID to sign a legal document confirming their eligibility to vote.

Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, says thousands of voters could be affected.

“Voter fraud is vanishingly rare in New Hampshire, citizenship fraud even more so,” Klementowicz said. “What’s the point if we just keep all these people out of our elections?”

Republicans in the state say the law is necessary not only to prevent fraud but also to increase public confidence in the election system.

Democrats say this creates unnecessary barriers for people who don’t have access to necessary legal documents.

The law goes into effect on November 11th and has no impact on the upcoming election on November 5th.

Critics of the new law say changes to the state’s election process also create opportunities for abuse.

Under current law, if a voter’s eligibility to vote in the election is in question, the local election official may resolve the dispute by allowing that person to cast a ballot and sign an affidavit confirming his or her identity.

Klementowicz said that since the affidavits are no longer available, the rejected voters will have to go to court.

“There is theoretically the right to appeal to the Supreme Court,” Klementowicz said. “It costs over $200. They are not open as long as polling stations on Election Day. If you’re lucky, it could take hours.”

Klementowicz called the law unconstitutional and one of the most restrictive in the country. A similar bill in Kansas requiring proof of citizenship to vote was struck down by a federal judge in 2018.

This reporting was supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Get more stories like this by email

With a month to go before the presidential election, voters in swing states like Wisconsin are likely to hear more news about the outcome that will determine the future of the nation’s highest court.

In a recent Ipsos poll, four in five Americans said U.S. Supreme Court nominations will be an important factor in voting.

The court and its conservative majority have come under scrutiny over decisions on abortion protections and presidential immunity, as well as ethical questions.

Joe Hines – managing director of digital campaigns at the left-leaning advocacy group Stand Up America – said that with four of the nine justices soon turning 70, another Trump presidency could push the court even further to the right.

“We’re trying to make it clear to voters that when you vote this year, you’re not just voting for a president, you’re not just voting for Congress,” Hines said. “You are also voting for generations of decisions that will impact you, your family, your children and the fundamental rights of your grandchildren.”

In public polling, a majority of Americans support the idea of ​​term limits on the Supreme Court, but only a small percentage of Republican voters support expanding the court to 15 justices.

Most Democrats welcome this possible reform. Some Republican lawmakers have argued that certain changes would be unconstitutional.

But advocates like Hines claim there is currently a major conflict of interest with the court.

“You will continue to hear a lot of cases around voting rights — probably cases around this election, cases around presidential power,” Hines said. “So they’re going to hear a lot of cases that affect the people they appoint.”

He noted that a handful of justices were appointed during Trump’s time in office to hear these issues, particularly matters directly affecting former President Donald Trump.

In the same Ipsos poll, more Americans said they believe the court decides cases based on political views rather than the law.

Get more stories like this by email