Be Thankful: Money Is Not Everything In Politics

Thanksgiving is approaching and here in Washington everyone is still having a hard time understanding what happened this past election cycle.  Despite a seemingly terrible climate for Democrats and the money disparity against them, Democrats managed to beat expectations across the board.  Although there are numerous political implications for the recent Democratic success, I think an overlooked and far more important legal implication can be made from the 2012 election: that the citizen, despite the amount of money and advertising in an election, can be relied on to cast an intelligent ballot by cutting through the advertising noise in an election.   Reformers opposed to the Citizens United decision argued that corporate spending would blind voters, confuse them, and ultimately would guarantee that corporate interests would run government because of the large amounts of money corporations could put into elections.   This year we can at least be thankful that despite all the money spent on campaigns, voters were able to cut through the noise generated by massive amounts of money in the 2012 election cycle. 

Corporations, through Super PACs and other tax protected entities spent a large amount of money in this election.  OpenSecrets.org has a very detailed explanation of the amount of outside money[1] each side spent in this election cycle.[2]   The top five entities that spent money in this election cycle were American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS, Restore Our Future, Priorities USA Action, Americans for Prosperity, and the US Chamber of Commerce.   Of these five, Priorities USA action was the only entity connected to liberal spending.   Looking at the spending of these top five groups the four conservative groups spent just under half a billion dollars with most of that money going towards independent expenditures for a conservative candidate or against a liberal candidate.   The liberal backed Priorities USA Action spent a paltry 77 million dollars in comparison.  Just in terms of the largest five outside spenders, conservative groups spent 6.25 times more money on elections than liberal organizations.[3] 

The money in this election cycle can be further broken down by looking at the spending disparity in competitive races.  Outside spending for the presidential race resulted in 670 million dollars being spent.   Of that 670 million, only 188 million went towards either helping President Barack Obama by supporting him (33 million) or attacking Governor Romney (155 million).  The rest of the 482 million went towards attacking the president (370 million) or bolstering the governor (98 million).  Despite this amount of outside money, President Obama was re-elected with roughly 51% of the vote and with 332 Electoral College votes compared to Governor Romney’s 48% of the popular vote and 206 Electoral College votes.

For the Senate Races the following outside spending information is available:

Race	Total	Total Democratic Spending per race	Total  Republican spending per Race
Virginia Senate	$45,650,100	$14,823,839	$30,826,261
Wisconsin Senate	$38,603,100	$17,475,823	$18,366,769
Ohio Senate	$36,848,886	$10,736,119	$25,894,000
Indiana Senate	$27,097,583	$9,969,877	$14,856,706
Nevada Senate	$25,509,388	$11,490,044	$13,911,128
Florida Senate	$24,899,671	$3,005,133	$21,893,469
Montana Senate	$21,071,425	$11,378,133	$9,392,337
Missouri Senate	$11,234,346	$7,413,969	$3,818,491
Nebraska Senate	$10,147,804	$4,231,004	$4,066,363
Massachusetts Senate	$7,155,420	$4,094,455	$3,060,965

 

In the senate races democratic candidates were generally outspent by outside money.  In Virginia Governor Kaine was outspent 2:1, in Ohio Senator Brown was outspent 2.5:1, in Indiana Joe Donnelly was outspent by 1.5:1 and in Florida Senator Nelson was outspent 7:1.  In these elections the democratic candidate won despite the spending advantages from outside conservative spenders.  

Those in favor of campaign finance reform have to now explain how having Super PAC spending, corporate influence, and large infusions of cash in elections have hurt America’s electoral process when, contradictorily, Americans were able to cut through the corporation backed advertisements that blanketed every media market in seemingly every important electoral college state, and senate race.  If the reformers’ theory about elections were correct then the results of the 2012 election should have been remarkably different for both the presidential and the senate races.  This justification is not needed only as a matter of policy, but as a matter of law for the Citizens United decision and future Supreme Court rulings on the matter. 

The conservative wing of the Supreme Court has through various cases explained that campaign finance restrictions on contributions and independent expenditures seem useless because our democracy favors more not less speech, because speakers should be able to speak freely regardless of wealth, and because voters should be trusted to be able to see through campaign advertising and still make an intelligent decision on the ballot.   This analysis formed the backbone of the Citizens United decision and explained why the Supreme Court overturned McConnell v. FEC and Austin v. Texas Chamber of Commerce.  This election cycle seems to support the conservative wing’s underlying theory supporting Citizens United.   

 If reformers want to get the Citizens United decision overturned, they will first have to contend with evidence from the 2012 election cycle that money did not play as pivotal a factor in the electoral process.   As a legal matter it is hard to explain the harms of allowing corporate entities to use vast aggregations of wealth when, in 2012, those aggregations of wealth did little to convince voters to vote for conservatives.   It is also hard to argue that corporate interests will allow corporations to buy elections when those corporations resoundingly lost in their efforts to take more seats from Democrats in the House of Representatives and flip control of the Senate and the Whitehouse into Republican hands.  It may be that reformers like Justice Stevens were proven incorrect in that no entity was able to drown out opposing speech by using large amounts of money on media buying, and voters were not blinded by an onslaught of advertising sufficient to deny the ability to hear both sides of the debate.    At either rate, the most important lesson to be gleaned from the 2012 election is that we can be thankful that money is not the most important factor in determining the outcome of an election.

---

[1] Outside money means money spent from entities that are not legally tied to a candidate for elective office such as a Super PAC or a 501(c)(4). 

[2] http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php.  I am using all of Open Secrets numbers to aid in my analysis.

[3] Note that the money from these five groups could be spent on candidates for the presidential race, the senate, or the house of representative. 

Lobbying and Super PACs

This was an inevitable development in campaign finance law; lobbyists are now being tied to Super PACs as explained in this Politico article.[1] It is only natural for lobbyists to try and use every bit of influence that they can muster to advance the causes of their organizations.   Many in the public perceive lobbying as the rough equivalent of influence buying, i.e., lobbyists promise money to congressional members and in exchange those members vote favorably on the lobbyist's cause.   This conception is generally incorrect.  Quid pro quo deals of the kind just mentioned are expressly against the law.   Additionally, the amount of money any one person can give is limited to the indexed campaign finance caps as set by the United States Code and enforced by the Federal Election Commission.  Lobbying in and of itself is a protected right by the Constitution in the First Amendment under the right to petition the government. [2]

More troubling is the notion that lobbyists are attempting to use Super PACs as an implicit threat against the members in Congress.   It is obvious that Super PACs have played a fundamental role in this year’s elections.   Super PACs have spent inordinate amounts of money without having to worry about the same disclosure restrictions or the same funding restrictions because of their independent nature.  Numerous Super PACs have had significant influence in both the primary and the ongoing general elections this year.   Ousted member Silvestre Reyes lost his seat in the last weeks of his primary campaign when the Campaign for Primary Accountability poured over $360,000 of advertising into the race. [3]  With the large amounts of money that Super PACs can utilize against a candidate, it stands to reason that members would be hesitant to deny an audience with a lobbyist who is tied to a Super PAC.    As Super PACs come into their maturity in this and future cycles, it will be interesting to see how these new finance creatures change the landscape of other related activities on Capitol Hill.

---

[1] I am trying to post more often on this blog rather than putting out long and detailed articles roughly once a month.   This is the first of what I hope becomes at least a weekly update to my blog. 

[2] Granted, when a lobbyist gives to a member the lobbyist generally has access to many more individuals who can also donate maximal amounts of money to a candidate.   For example, Congressman Bilbray has received over $17,000 from one company, but further investigation reveals that the company's lobbyists, and many of its employees have all contributed within the allowable limits.

[3] The Campaign for Primary Accountability, a Super PAC, has promised to spend its money against vulnerable incumbents to make the primary process more competitive.  

The Political Implications of Voter ID Laws

It is clear that voter ID has become an extremely contentious political issue this cycle.  Numerous republican controlled state legislatures, such as Texas, South Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania have enacted voter ID laws which, to varying degrees, make it difficult for minority and urban voters to vote.   Traditionally these groups of voters overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.    To ignore the clear political implications of voter ID laws would be folly considering the number of people who will decide this election.  Democrats have argued that voter ID laws may affect millions of voters come November 6, while Republicans argue that voting, like so many other franchises, must require various forms of identification to prevent fraud.  This post will sift through the political ramifications of the Voter ID debate in order to provide a better context as to the stakes come this November’s election. 

There are roughly four kinds of voter ID laws according to the National Conference of State Legislatures[1]:

Strict Photo ID laws: These laws require a voter to proffer a valid photo ID prior to casting a traditional ballot.  If the voter does not have the required photo ID then the voter must cast a provisional ballot that may or may not get counted for numerous non topical reasons.[2]  South Carolina, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are the swing states with these kinds of restrictions.

Strict Non-Photo ID:  In these states failure to provide the proper kind of ID will result in the voter having to cast a provisional ballot.  The distinction between this and the prior category is that the ID does not necessarily have to have a photo of the voter on the ID.   Virginia and Ohio have these kinds of Voter ID laws.

Photo-ID:  These states have laws that require a voter to have a photo-ID but gives the voter alternative methods to cast a regular ballot should the voter fail to bring the proper ID.  For example, in Idaho, failure to bring the proper photo-ID should result in a pollster asking the voter if they want to fill out an affidavit swearing to the proper identity of the voter, allowing the voter to cast a regular ballot without leaving the polling location.   Florida and Michigan have laws like this.

Non-Strict Non-Photo ID:  These laws are the most relaxed voter ID laws in terms of proving a resident’s vote eligibility.  These states do not require photo identification to prove a voter’s eligibility and they also provide alternative methods for voters to cast a regular ballot should the voter fail to bring proper ID.[3]  

Numerous studies argue that potentially millions will be affected by strict photo ID laws and strict non-photo ID laws.  The Brennan Center for Justice, which normally publishes policy papers on voting rights, argues that more than half a million otherwise eligible voters will not be able to access an ID issuing office due to lack of transportation.[4]  The Brennan Center went on to argue that more than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from a valid ID-issuing office that is open throughout the week.   These numbers from the Brennan Center paint a grim picture showing that millions of Americans could be inconvenienced by new voter ID laws. 

Although the Brennan Center and similar studies suggest that maximally millions of voters can be inconvenienced by the bevy of new voter ID laws, most likely the numbers overstate the claim.   For example, a study of the 2004 election from the Election Assistance Commission found that a small number of people were actually affected by voter ID laws.[5]    People inside states with strict photo ID laws were 2.9% less likely to vote with a stronger effect on those who were less educated.[6]   Considering these numbers the likely number of people who will be affected by the new laws is likely to be small.

Even though the number of people affected by the new voter ID laws will be small, that is not to say that the impact is not significant.   In many of the battle ground states this cycle, elections are likely to be won or lost by very narrow margins.  For this assessment I relied on Nate Silver’s excellent coverage and polling aggregation over at Five Thirty Eight, now run by the New York Times.  His state by state breakdowns for battleground states makes it clear that the projected vote share in all of the battle ground states is around 1%-3%.  Florida is currently projected at .9% vote share difference, Ohio 3.2%, Virginia 2.2%, and Wisconsin just recently breaking 5%.   Of course these numbers have large margins of error and we are still approximately 7 weeks from the election, and these numbers can change.  However those slim margins of discrepancy between President Obama and Governor Romney represent only thousands of votes that will make-up the difference between winning those states electoral votes. 

To put a finer point on it, assuming the projected vote share can be mapped onto the 2008 election cycle’s turnout numbers, those vote shares represent the following number of voters that a candidate could win by in the selected battleground states:  Florida 76,083 voters, Ohio 184,748 voters, Virginia 82,567 voters, and Wisconsin 149,854 voters.  It is clear, if the voter turnout is similar to 2008, that the number of voters that will make up the difference in these battleground states is projected to be razor thin.   Thus, even if voter ID laws only affect a very small minority of people, those effects can wreak havoc in battle ground states where thousands of voters are likely to be the margin of victory for either party’s presidential candidate. 

Given the stakes of the 2012 election and the likelihood that many battleground states are going to be won by thin margins, any efforts to tamp down voter turnout for one party will likely have huge consequences on November 6.  Republican legislatures know how likely the margin of victory will be in their states, and their voter ID laws are one very useful tool to drive down democratic voter turnout.   In elections where only thousands of voters make up the margin of victory, any effort that stops one political party’s voters from voting can have dramatic effects on the overall outcome of an election.  It should be clear, at this point, that the voter ID laws, even with a likely small effect on voters, can have a serious impact on the presidential campaign this year. 

---

[1] Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

[2] See generally Provisional Voting: Fail-Safe Voting or Trapdoor to Disenfranchisement, Sept. 2008.  Available at: http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/1f0cae01ce9968e434_ebm6b67ix.pdf

[3] Some states have voter id laws that do not fit into these categories such as California.  There a voter has to positively state that they are an eligible voter and the voter is allowed to cast a vote, so long as properly registered, on the presumption that the voter is telling the truth.  See Cal. Elec. Code § 2000 (2012); Cal. Elec. Code §§ 14240-253 (2012). 

[4] Gaskins and Iyer; The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification, The Brennan Center for Justice, July 29, 2012.  Available at: http://brennan.3cdn.net/f5f28dd844a143d303_i36m6lyhy.pdf

[5] Shelley de Alth, ID at the Polls: Assessing the Impact of Recent State Voter ID Laws on Voter Turnout 3 Harvard Law & Policy Review 185, 193 (2009).  Available at: http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf

[6] Timothy Vercellotti & David Andersen, Protecting the Franchise, or Restricting It? The Effects of Voter Identification Requirements on Turnout (Aug. 2006) available at: http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/research/documents/VoterID_Turnout.pdf  

Voter ID Laws: A Legal Primer

Voter ID laws are becoming more and more a part of the national election conversation, particularly as it relates to several key states for this election cycle.  Both sides of the political spectrum are aflutter with arguments about the virtues, or lack thereof, of having tighter voter identification standards.   To some, ID laws are equivalent to an unconstitutional poll tax designed to dissuade or remove voters from the franchise based on nothing more than economy.   Others argue that there is evidence of voter fraud, and that one person casting an illegal ballot is too high a price to not implement voter ID laws.   Additionally, the same side argues that in a world where so many functions require an ID it is no barrier to require ID for a process as important as voting.  My position on this argument, and a slightly smaller subset of arguments about in-person voter fraud, is here for those who are interested.  However, I want to get more into the legal thicket and in particular explain how this legal fight, right or wrong, also translates into real political consequences for this year’s election.  This post deals with the law, the next post deals with the political conversation about voter ID issues.

It is important to understand the legal framework of the argument for the rest of the political issue to be properly understood.   There are numerous background principles at play in the voter ID context that helps explain the fight over ID laws.  Although the right to vote is not specifically enshrined in the Constitution, voting is considered a fundamental right in this country because it is preservative of all the other rights held dear to our society.  Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554-55 (1964).  The Constitution protects the voting franchise in terms of proscribing states and the federal government from denying citizens the right to vote.   U.S. Const. Amends. XIV, XV, XIV, XXIII, XIV.  

This view was not always held by the Supreme Court.  In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the right to vote was considered not protected under the Constitution.   In Minor, a suffragette in Missouri attempted to register to vote.  When she was denied she sued under the Fourteenth Amendment by arguing that citizenship in the United States implies the right to vote.  The Missouri Supreme Court ruled against Minor and in favor of the election registrar who denied Minor’s registration.   The Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to vote is not an inherent part of citizenship.  Although there were several other arguments made, Minor’s primary arguments were that equal protection and the Fourteenth Amendment demanded that women be allowed to vote just like men, she was a citizen, and voting was a privilege and immunity protected under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court thoroughly disagreed with Minor’s argument.  The Supreme Court argued, through a detailed analysis of the Constitution, that if each citizen had the right to vote, that the Constitution would not have given the right by implication.  Instead, the founders would have affirmatively protected the right.  As a matter of original understanding, the Court went on to note that the thirteen original colonies did not allow all citizens to vote, and that this did not offend the founding fathers, therefore it cannot be considered repugnant to the Constitution.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court thoroughly denied that the right to vote existed through the Constitution.

The Supreme Court significantly reversed this rule in a series of decisions in the 60’s under Chief Justice Earl Warren.[1]   In Harper v. Va. State Board of Elections, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that a state poll tax was an attempt to restrict voting based on the affluence of the voter.  During Harper’s time, the federal government was already prevented from enacting poll taxes as a result of the Twenty Fourth Amendment, enacted in 1964.  The question in Harper was whether state governments could make their own poll taxes.    See generally Harper v. Va. St. Bd. Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).  Virginia’s Constitution directed an annual poll tax that could not exceed $1.50 on every resident who was 21 years of age.  Id. at n.1.  Virginia’s argument was simple; the state requires fees for licenses for numerous activities such as driving and operating a business.  Virginia’s logical progression was that fees were applicable to the voting franchise. 

The Supreme Court flatly rejected Virginia’s logic.  Unlike a reading or writing assessment to voting, the court found that the ability to pay a tax had no relationship on the ability to vote.[2]   Foremost, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does not abide discrimination based on wealth, property, or race when it comes to voting.  Further, the Supreme Court rejected interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment from a position of original understanding and instead recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment is pliable with the era in which the Amendment is being interpreted.  So what may have been acceptable under the Fourteenth Amendment in the past, need not shackle the interpretation of Fourteenth Amendment in modern times.  Although the Supreme Court noted that valid restrictions based on voter qualifications are permissible, wealth is unquestionably not related to voter qualification. 

For our times, the Supreme Court squarely addressed the voter ID issue in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008).   In Crawford, Indiana enacted a Voter ID requirement as a way of rooting out potential fraud at polling locations.  The ID law required proper ID to vote.[3]  Surveying the prior law before ruling, Justice Stevens argued that strict scrutiny was applied in cases of voter restrictions that had nothing to do with legitimate voter qualifications.  Thus the Harper framework was that rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious and unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment if the restriction is unrelated to voter qualifications.  Stevens noted that evenhanded restrictions based on vote integrity and the electoral process are not invidious and were therefore not offensive to the Constitution.   In order to discern which restrictions are and are not legitimate by balancing the interests of the right to vote against the justification for the voter restriction.  Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992).[4] The following state interests were identified by the Court: 1) Election Modernization, 2) Voter Fraud, and 3) Voter Confidence.

Passing over vote modernization, voter fraud and voter confidence are of primary importance to the legal arguments for the 2012 election.   Voter fraud is a clear state interest and the Indiana law would prevent in person voter fraud.  Justice Stevens argued that voter fraud cannot be gainsaid as a state interest.  In order to safeguard the vote, Justice Stevens noted that people are less likely to vote if they feel that the vote is rigged, which harms our democracy, therefore this interest was clearly important.  In balancing these interests against the burdens, the Court held that the burdens were slight arguing that: provisional balloting remedied the problems with incorrect assessments by an electoral judge, free and readily available IDs also mitigating the burden placed on voters, and finally that the effects of the voter law were not sufficiently established to rule that the burden was so heavy so as to outweigh the state interests.  In sum, voter ID laws are acceptable if they are neutral and do not further overburden voters in light of sufficient state interests, such as fraud prevention, to justify enacting the legislation.[5] 

So the current rubric for determining whether the voter ID laws violate the Constitution is based on a balancing of interests between the state’s burdens on a voter, and the voter’s right to vote.  Although this is the constitutional issue, it is important to distinguish between a constitutional challenge to voter ID laws and a statutory challenge to voter ID laws.   Some states are subject to Section 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act.  These states are those that have a history of denying minorities the right to vote, and therefore, any change in voting systems requires preclearance by three judges or the Department of Justice before the law becomes effective.   Additionally, Section 2 of the VRA flatly bans voter discrimination.  These two statutory provisions provide voters different avenues to attack a voter ID law.  

Section 5 preclearance requires that any change in voting practice, qualification, or requirements for voting must first be cleared with the Department of Justice of three judges from the District of Columbia’s Federal District Court.   Currently Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia require preclearance en masse, with an exception for Georgia in Sandy Springs, and some counties in Virginia.  In these states, a voter ID law must be cleared to discern if a state has an intent to discriminate against minorities.   The changes to voter laws in these states do not become effective until cleared by the DoJ and judges in D.C.  To date, Virginia’s voter ID law has passed preclearance.[6]  Texas and South Carolina’s voter ID laws have not been pre-cleared and therefore are being challenged in court.[7] 

Section 2 of the VRA has been used to stop any kind of voter discrimination against minorities, however, this section of the VRA has not been sufficiently explored by the courts.   Section 2 has historically applied to voter dilution efforts by majority groups to limit the effect of discrete minority populations.  Thornburg v. Gingles.[8]  The Supreme Court has looked at section 2 in similar circumstances in Bartlett v. Stickland in 2009, however there have not been challenges that go beyond challenges of minority voter dilution.  However, it is not readily clear that Section 2 only applies to voter dilution.   Section 2(a) clearly applies to any qualification or prerequisite that, in application, results in denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the US based on race, color, or member of a minority group.  Section 2(b) states that a violation of section 2(a) can be established by showing that the processes leading to nomination or election of an official are not equally open to participation do a degree that minorities, people of color, or a specific race, are unable to participate to the same degree as others.[9]  Applied to voter ID laws one could make the argument that the laws are designed to prevent minority groups from voting equally and fully with majority groups in their districts.   There is little case law for such a proposition but the language of the statute seems like it could apply in a voter ID context. 

There it is; the legal framework for voter ID restrictions in America.  Considering the balancing test established in Burdick and further used in Crawford, it is clear that legal challenges to voter ID laws have a heavy legal burden to overcome due to the state’s clear interests in routing out fraud in elections.  In the next post I will talk how the political conversation has meshed with the legal framework.  The next post will be less focused on the law and heavily focused on recent political developments, and why voter ID laws are integral to the 2012 election.

---

[1] It is important to note that in some prior cases the Supreme Court had considered the role of voting in our society prior to the 60s.  Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) (stating that the voting franchise is a fundamental political right because it is preservative of all rights).

[2] Reading and writing assessments, although not unconstitutional are banned by the Voting Rights Act.

[3] If someone was indigent or had a religious objection that person could go to the circuit court clerk in 10 days and sign an affidavit.  A voter who had ID but could not furnish it at the polling location could fill out a provisional ballot that would be counted if the voter brought the photo ID to the county clerk’s office.  The law also allowed free photo IDs to any qualified voter who could prove residence.

[4] In Burdick the Supreme Court upheld a Hawaii electoral process that did not allow individuals to cast a write-in ballot for a candidate.  The Court ruled that although this would deny many voters from casting a ballot for their preferred candidate, there were sufficient methods for candidates to access the ballot therefore there was little burden to voters.   The justification by the state was to keep the ballot clean and to prevent unrestrained factionalism.  Even though this interest was not great, it was sufficient to overcome the slight burden placed on voters in the case.   I’ll further note, I am not sure this balancing test was proper.  It is a reasonable interpretation of Harper to assume that all restrictions on the right to vote were subject to strict scrutiny, which automatically assumes a law is unconstitutional forcing the state to provide exceedingly compelling interests that are narrowly tailored to the interests specifically detailed by the state; such circumstances frequently results in the Court casting aside the law.  Scrutiny that is anything other than strict frequently allows the Court some leeway in determining if the interests posited by the state are acceptable, intermediate scrutiny, and in many circumstances allows the Court to provide its own legitimate reasons for a law’s existence, rational basis scrutiny.  Burdick is a remarkable move from such a strict standard by replacing it with a sliding scale that weighs competing interests against one another. 

[5] It should be noted that the Court rejected the clear politics behind the Indiana voter ID law as a reason to reject the voter ID law.  Overstepping the political problem Justice Stevens argued, “if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.”

[6] It is important to note that Virginia’s voter ID law is very lax, allowing non-photo ID, voter registration cards, and many kinds of voter ID to qualify to vote.

[7] Several very important actors are involved in suits attempting to strike down the VRA; namely, Hans von Spakovsky a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.   He will be covered extensively in the next blog post because he frequently insists that in person voter fraud is rampant. 

[8] Voter dilution in this case would be apportioning minority populations into separate voting districts in a way that renders the minority voters unable to meaningfully cast a ballot.  For example, if there is a largely Hispanic neighborhood that is large enough to be its own voting district, it would be a violation of Section 2 to divvy up the Hispanic voters into multiple districts so that the majority population consistently won over the Hispanic neighborhood. 

[9] There is no intent requirement to violate Section 2 of the VRA.