Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Alabama photo ID requirement for voters upheld by federal appeals court

Photo ID sign and "I Voted" stickers
cmannphoto/Getty Images

Alabama's strict photo identification law is not racially discriminatory and can remain in force, a divided federal appeals court has ruled.

The decision is the latest courthouse development in a state with one of the highest volumes of voting rights disputes. The pace has accelerated because of the view that already restrictive election rules will amplify voter suppression during the coronavirus pandemic — concern that just this week prompted the Republican elections chief to allow anyone to vote by mail this fall.

The case, decided 2-1 on Tuesday by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, predates the arrival of Covid-19 but nonetheless reflects the currently familiar narrative: Civil rights groups challenge a law on the grounds it violates the electorate's political rights under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, and the state defends the statute as necessary to prevent election fraud.


For the past six years, voting in Alabama has required showing a government-issued photo identification at the polls. Republicans pushed that law through the Legislature soon after taking over the levers of power in Montgomery in 2011, but it did not go into effect until the Voting Rights Act's sway over the state was ended by the Supreme Court.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The NAACP, Greater Birmingham Ministries and minority voters then sued, arguing that lawmakers knew when the law was written that Black and Latino voters disproportionately lack a photo ID.

"No reasonable fact finder could find that Alabama's voter ID law is unconstitutionally discriminatory" based on the evidence, the appeals court majority concluded in upholding a lower court's dismissal of the case.

In dissent, Judge Darrin Gayles noted Alabama's "deep and troubled history of racial discrimination" and voter suppression — while the record of in-person voting fraud in the state has been "virtually non-existent."

The majority opinion, by Judge Elizabeth Branch, said the state has done plenty to make identification cards available to voters, including setting up mobile offices in cities and rural areas. Although noting the state government's history of racist behavior, she said, "it cannot be that Alabama's history bans its legislature from ever enacting otherwise constitutional laws about voting."

Read More

From Alaska to NYC: Levers for Expanding Democracy

From Alaska to NYC: Levers for Expanding Democracy

Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5 from Rob Richie and Eveline Dowling.

In keeping with The Fulcrum’s mission to share ideas that help to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, we are publishing The Expand Democracy 5 weekly update each Friday.

Keep ReadingShow less
View over Harvard Yard of Harvard University.

View over Harvard Yard of Harvard University.

Getty Images, SBWorldphotography

Why Harvard’s Fight Is Everyone’s

The great American historian, Richard Hofstadter, author of the prophetic, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” (1964) wrote, “A university's essential character is that of being a center of free inquiry and criticism—a thing not to be sacrificed for anything else." Unfortunately, up until now, no great university has heeded these words when it came to challenging the Trump administration’s war on higher education and other key social institutions.

Harvard is finally standing its ground. As Trump escalates his campaign against higher education, President Alan Garber’s rejection of the White House’s outrageous demands is both overdue and essential. His defiance could mark the beginning of broader resistance to an agenda determined to reshape—or dismantle—America’s leading universities. This bold move could inspire other institutions to defend their autonomy and uphold the principles of academic freedom. But one question remains: why didn’t Columbia, or powerful institutions like the Paul Weiss law firm, take a similar stand?

Keep ReadingShow less