News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
DenisTangneyJr/Getty Images

A pair of New Hampshire laws are being contested in separate court cases over claims they suppress people's ability to vote.

Would-be N.H. primary voters argue laws are stacked against them

Less than 10 weeks from the opening Democratic presidential primary, would-be voters in New Hampshire are fighting two separate battles in federal court alleging their franchise is being suppressed by new state laws.

This week, a lawsuit brought by the state Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters went to trial. The groups allege that a 2017 law creates an unconstitutional burden on people who want to register less than a month before an election.

Last week, a federal judge declined to stop — at least in time for the Feb. 11 primary — a law requiring college students and others to establish full-fledged residency in order to register.

Both the two-tier system with added paperwork for late-in-the-campaign registrations and the added residency requirements for voters were created when the Legislature was in Republican hands. The GOP lawmakers acted after President Trump alleged without evidence that there had been widespread voter fraud in the state, which Hillary Clinton carried by less than 3,000 votes in 2016.

The Democrats now control both chambers in Concord and have signaled plans to try to reverse both laws next year, although GOP Gov. Chris Sununu would be expected to veto such bills.

At the opening of this week's trial on Tuesday, both sides agreed that fraud cases are rare in the state. But the plaintiffs maintained the new documentation requirements were both confusing and intimidating, while the state's lawyers described the changes as having increased trust in the election system by ensuring people are registered in the place they live on Election Day.

Under the law, if someone registers within 30 days of an election or at a polling place on Election Day but does not have proper identification, they may sign an affidavit promising to quickly mail or hand deliver the papers to the town clerk. Failure to follow through results in the voter's name being purged from the rolls.

The other lawsuit has already gone to trial. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued on behalf of two Dartmouth College students, who say their ability to vote in the primary is being unconstitutionally stifled by what amounts to a poll tax. Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have taken up their complaint while campaigning in the state.

The new law at issue ended New Hampshire's distinction as the only state that didn't require proof of residency to vote. Now, out-of-state college students who want to vote in New Hampshire must have a state driver's license and register their cars in the state — similar to requirements in several other states.

District Judge Joseph LaPlante ruled the plaintiffs had not yet proved their claims. But he said he might reverse his order after hearing more arguments on several questions of law.

Attorney Henry Klementowicz of the ACLU said the group would continue to fight the case. "Every eligible voter has the right to vote without confusion, without fear, and without the thought that maybe it would be easier if they vote at all," he said. "Despite evidence that college students, young people, town clerks, and political campaigns are confused about what this law means, the court did not eliminate this confusion."

We’re all about the issues that have broken American democracy — and efforts to make governments work again for you, your family and your friends.
Washington Bureau/Getty Images

The House on Friday passed legislation to restore a provision of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. The bill would require advance approval of voting changes in states with a history of discrimination. Here President Lyndon Johnson shares one of the pens he used to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Passage of historic voting rights law takes a partisan turn

In a partisan vote on an issue that once was bipartisan, House Democrats pushed through legislation Friday that would restore a key portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Advancement Act passed the House 228-187, with all Democrats voting for the bill and all but one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voting against it.

The bill faces virtually no chance of being considered in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Keep reading... Show less
Big Picture

TV stations fight FCC over political ad disclosure

Broadcasters are pushing back against the Federal Communications Commission after the agency made clear it wants broader public disclosure regarding TV political ads.

With the 2020 election less than a year away and political TV ads running more frequently, the FCC issued a lengthy order to clear up any ambiguities licensees of TV stations had regarding their responsibility to record information about ad content and sponsorship. In response, a dozen broadcasting stations sent a petition to the agency, asking it to consider a more narrow interpretation of the law.

This dispute over disclosure rules for TV ads comes at a time when digital ads are subject to little regulation. Efforts to apply the same rules for TV, radio and print advertising across the internet have been stymied by Congress's partisanship and the Federal Election Commission being effectively out of commission.

Keep reading... Show less
News. Community. Debate. Levers for better democracy.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.

1952 Eisenhower Answers America

On TV, political ads are regulated – but online, anything goes

Lightman is a professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University.

With the 2020 election less than a year away, Facebook is under fire from presidential candidates, lawmakers, civil rights groups and even its own employees to provide more transparency on political ads and potentially stop running them altogether.

Meanwhile, Twitter has announced that it will not allow any political ads on its platform.

Modern-day online ads use sophisticated tools to promote political agendas with a high degree of specificity.

I have closely studied how information propagates through social channels and its impact on political messaging and advertising.

Looking back at the history of mass media and political ads in the national narrative, I think it's important to focus on how TV advertising, which is monitored by the Federal Communications Commission, differs fundamentally with the world of social media.

Keep reading... Show less
© Issue One. All rights reserved.