On August 3, Fairvote Blog published this review of Theresa Amato’s book, “Grand Illusion: the Myth of Voter Choice in a 2-Party Tyranny.”
6
On August 3, Fairvote Blog published this review of Theresa Amato’s book, “Grand Illusion: the Myth of Voter Choice in a 2-Party Tyranny.”
Free & Equal holds a press conference in Chicago on Monday, August 3, at 1 p.m, to ask Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to veto HB 723. The event is at 407 S. Dearborn Street, suite 1170.
HB 723 restricts the ability of qualified parties to nominate someone by party meeting, after the primary is over. Illinois typically has one-candidate elections in November for half the state legislative seats, and HB 723 will make this lack of choice even worse. The bill does not eliminate the ability of ballot-qualified parties to nominate someone after the primary, but imposes petitions on such nominees.
Illinois Governors have the ability to use an “amendatory veto” as well as to simply veto or sign a bill. See this Chicago Tribune article of August 2, which explains that Governor Quinn is being pressured to rewrite another election law bill, one concerning campaign contribution limits. The Governor must act on HB 723 no later than August 26.
Free & Equal holds a press conference in Chicago on Monday, August 3, at 1 p.m, to ask Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to veto HB 723. The event is at 407 S. Dearborn Street, suite 1170.
HB 723 restricts the ability of qualified parties to nominate someone by party meeting, after the primary is over. Illinois typically has one-candidate elections in November for half the state legislative seats, and HB 723 will make this lack of choice even worse. The bill does not eliminate the ability of ballot-qualified parties to nominate someone after the primary, but imposes petitions on such nominees.
Illinois Governors have the ability to use an “amendatory veto” as well as to simply veto or sign a bill. See this Chicago Tribune article of August 2, which explains that Governor Quinn is being pressured to rewrite another election law bill, one concerning campaign contribution limits. The Governor must act on HB 723 no later than August 26.
On July 31, the First Circuit ruled 2-1 that nothing in the federal Voting Rights Act prevents Massachusetts from ending the ability of felons to vote absentee while in prison. Massachusetts had made that change in 2000. The case is Simmons v Galvin, 08-1569.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act says “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State…in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right…to vote on account of race or color.”
Plaintiffs wanted to present evidence that Massachusetts’ felon disenfranchisement law has a disproportionally adverse effect on African-Americans and Hispanic Americans, who are overrepresented in the incarcerated felon population. The two-judge majority, composed of Judges Sandra Lynch and Michael Boudin, determined that Congress never expected that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could be used for that purpose. The dissenting judge, Juan Torruella, said that Section 2’s language is clear and unambiguous, and therefore speculations about what Congress intended are irrelevant. He also would have held that the 2000 law change is an Ex Post Facto punishment, as applied to felons who had committed their crimes before the year 2000. The majority rejected the Ex Post Facto argument by concluding that felon disenfranchisement is not punishment. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news. Here is a link to the decision. The majority opinion is 46 pages and the dissent is 58 pages.