Federal Court Blocks South Carolina Witness Requirement That Would Put Voters at Risk During COVID-19 Pandemic聽
COLUMBIA, S.C. 鈥� A federal court today blocked a South Carolina requirement that forced people who vote absentee to obtain a witness signature. The ruling, which applies to the June primary, makes it safer for South Carolinians to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina, and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund successfully challenged the requirement, which if allowed to stay in effect could have disenfranchised tens of thousands of eligible voters who could not risk contact with other individuals to vote in person or obtain a witness signature on their absentee ballot.
The following reactions are from:
Adriel Cepeda Derieux, a staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Voting Rights Project: 鈥淭he court recognized the gravity of forcing voters to needlessly risk their health to obtain a witness signature. This ruling means voters in South Carolina can safely cast a ballot in the June primary elections in this time of COVID-19. It is a huge victory.鈥�
Susan Dunn, legal director of the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina: 鈥淭his ruling is a critical victory for our democracy and all voters in South Carolina. The elimination of the witness requirement protects not only those who are most vulnerable to the pandemic, it also ensures that no one will have to risk exposure to COVID-19 in order to exercise their fundamental right to vote in the primary elections.鈥�
Deuel Ross, senior counsel at LDF: 鈥淭oday's decision represents an enormous victory for our clients and all South Carolinians. The temporary suspension of the witness signature requirement for absentee ballots removes a needless barrier that required people to violate social distancing protocols to vote. Now, everyone can vote in the June elections without the fear of endangering their health. This win is especially important for black voters, who are more likely to be infected by COVID-19 and more likely to die from it than other South Carolinians. The court鈥檚 decision protects the safety and well-being of those voters who are most at risk from COVID-19.鈥�
The lawsuit, Thomas v. Andino, was filed in U.S. District Court in Columbia, S.C.
Ruling: /legal-document/order-south-carolina-pi-granted
Statement: /press-releases/federal-court-blocks-south-carolina-witness-requirement-put-voters-risk-during-covid
Voting Rights
Thomas v. Andino
Voting Rights
Thomas v. Andino
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 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 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�