Changes in Voting Laws Could Lead to Confusion at the Polls

Three years after Republican-led states began enacting tough new voter ID laws, a spate of court rulings this summer rejected or toned down many of them, leading voting-rights advocates to declare the legal tide has turned in their favor.

To Ari Berman, an expert on the issue, it's more of a wash.

While the courts have sided with him and other voting-rights proponents against the laws, Berman says, a patchwork of court rulings, along with inconsistent information about the sorts of identification required to vote and states slow to enact court-mandated changes will likely dampen turnout among young, elderly and minority voters in the upcoming presidential election.

That lack of clarity, he adds, likely will result in thousands of voters in key battleground states either staying home, getting turned away by misinformed poll workers or "fall through the cracks" of voting rolls -- enough to swing an election that analysts say will probably come down to the wire.

"In my view, this confusion is part of the suppression effort," says Berman, author of "Give Us The Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America." One element of suppression, he says, "is just preventing people from voting; the other thing is the fear that you'll be prevented from voting, and not showing up. I think both are occurring here."

In late July, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit -- considered one of the most conservative appellate benches in the nation -- ruled 9-6 that Texas' narrow, highly restrictive law requiring certain forms of identification to vote unfairly harms black and Latino voters, and was intended to be discriminatory. Weeks later, the Fourth Circuit appellate followed suit, finding that North Carolina's new voting law, arguably the largest voting-rights rollback in decades, also was enacted to suppress the minority vote.

Then, a Seventh Circuit panel granted a lower court in Wisconsin permission to ease Wisconsin's strict voter identification law, and the trial court issued an order saying that people who didn't have one of the few types of ID that would allow them to vote could fill out an affidavit of identity. And a federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Ohio ruled that the Buckeye State's cutbacks on early voting were unconstitutional because they increased the difficulty for African Americans and others to vote.

"There was a flurry of court decisions that are going to make it easy for people to participate in a number of states," says Myrna Perez, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the New York University-affiliated Brennan Center for Justice. "We're definitely in a better position than we were a month ago."

Nevertheless, she says, "I don't want to give the impression that I'm happy," says Perez, who was involved in the litigation to overturn Texas' voter ID requirements. "The battle has not been won. We still remain vigilant and we have a lot of fighting to do."

Overall this year, states are passing fewer voting restrictions. But still, the Brennan Center says on its website: "In 2016, 17 states will have restrictive voting laws in effect for the first time in a presidential election. Restrictions in most of these 17 were passed before this year."

The most common restrictions are bills requiring voters to show identification, "but this may be due to states already having restrictive voting laws in place," the web site states.

In Texas, for example, Perez said she had to return to court several times because state officials were dragging their feet over court-ordered changes to voter education pamphlets describing how the laws has changed.

"The way Texas was trying to educate voters and others about the settlement agreement and about the interim remedy that was in place differed from what was agreed to and accepted by the court," says Perez. "In other places, we've seen grudging and [unfair and unreasonable] compliance" with mandated changes.

That includes South Carolina, where authorities listed acceptable alternative forms of identification on informational posters -- following the court's instruction -- but did it with much smaller lettering than the type used to declare that identification was necessary, Perez says.

"It's not a good way to educate voters to the state of the law," she says. "But I think that's to be expected, given the posture we're in."

While Berman agrees things are improving, he noted that restricting access to the ballot box doesn't begin or end with ID laws. He pointed to Virginia, where the state legislature overturned Gov. Terry McAuliffe's attempt to restore voting rights to convicted felons, and Ohio, where the back-and-forth legal battle over early voting on top of the fight over ID laws likely has sown confusion over who can vote and when. Then there's Wisconsin, where restrictive laws were eased but not completely eliminated.

"People are confused," Berman says. "They're confused about what documents they should be using. Not all people are election junkies."

Adding to the confusion: Early voting, by mail or in person will begin in several states next month.

"Election Day is not Nov. 6," says Berman, noting that independent nonprofit voter education groups are attempting to pick up the slack for stubborn state and local officials, but their reach is limited. "This is taking on an increased sense of urgency. Lots of people have [voting registration] deadlines that are closing."

"It is going to be very difficult to ensure that no voter is confused" about where to cast a ballot, says Perez. "A lot of people are working the best they can" to leave no voter behind, but it's a tough job to do on short notice.

There are reasons for optimism: the Brennan Center says as of January this year a total of 422 bills to enhance voting access "were introduced or carried over in 41 state [legislatures] plus the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, at least 77 bills to restrict access to registration and voting have been introduced or carried over from the prior session in 28 states."

But voting restrictions won't go down without a fight.

"Some politicians made the choice to try and silence a sizeable portion of their population, and there's going to be efforts to try and drag on that fight in as many ways as is feasible," Perez says "These battles are important to be won, and these battles are making a difference."

Ultimately, "it's not over, but we're winning," Perez points out. "It's a grudging, contested, hard fight but we're winning