By Roger Leaks, Jr., Former South Carolina State Elections Commissioner
As a former South Carolina State Election Commissioner, I hope that the U.S. District Court will see the new South Carolina voter ID law for what it is and block its implementation. The state鈥檚 new law is nothing but a devious and unnecessary obstruction that was crafted and designed to disenfranchise over 200,000 South Carolinians.
During my years as a board member on the South Carolina State Election Commission, it was our goal to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to cast his or her vote in a voter friendly atmosphere. We worked to insure that all voters feel confident that their votes are counted in a timely, proper fashion.
We made sure that every voter could cast his or her ballot without duress, intimidation, or interference.
We encouraged and worked hard to increase voter turn-out. We implemented curbside voting, we publicized early voting and we introduced a statewide electronic voting system.
And, most importantly, we implemented and maintained the integrity of our elections by carefully checking whether each voter鈥檚 name was included on the current voter registration list and that each voter possessed and presented a current, properly signed, voter registration card or a valid South Carolina driver鈥檚 license. The process worked like a charm and I saw increasing levels of citizens鈥� enthusiasm and participation in our state.
Our current election process is not broken. It is working well.
Some say that a new voter ID law is necessary to prevent voter identification fraud. Well, I can attest that, after sitting on many Voter Appeal Boards, I have never encountered a single case of voter ID fraud, real or imaginary.
Moreover, the history we have worked so hard and so successfully to overcome is one of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement 鈥� not fraud.
The law is discriminatory and unnecessarily restrictive because it will impede the free flowing election process for over 200,000 South Carolinians, mostly African-Americans, and it conflicts with the intent and language of the federal Voting Rights Act. Implementation of the new voter ID law will cause irreparable harm and chaos to the voting process in South Carolina.
Learn more about voter suppression: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 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 老澳门开奖结果 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鈥檚 protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 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鈥檚 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
老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona v. Richer老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot 鈥渃ure鈥� 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. 鈥� 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, 老澳门开奖结果, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York 老澳门开奖结果, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: 鈥淭he 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. 鈥淭he 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. 鈥淭o put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination 鈥� and in doing so protects New Yorkers鈥� most fundamental right. 鈥淣ew York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.鈥�