Blog

Colorado has a sound election system, but we can improve our system substantially so it better serves voters' needs, takes advantage of our technology, and saves tax dollars.

House Bill 1303, the Colorado Voter Access & Modernized Elections Act, meets all of those goals.

If you're reading this, you likely voted by mail last November, and you're in good company: Seventy-two percent of Colorado voters joined you. Mail ballots are a convenient, secure and private way to cast a ballot that is increasingly popular among Colorado voters.

HB 1303 answers the demand of these voters while providing ample options for voters who prefer to vote in person. It eliminates the "inactive-failed-to-vote" status that created confusion for voters. It creates a graduated registration system that scales down the demand on the system as Election Day approaches.

Here’s how state Rep. David Craig (R-Big Bend) justifies the bill: “A county judge elected by ‘a small fraction of the state’ shouldn't be able to stop a law that affects the entire state.” What Craig failed to note is that these judges are not using city charters or county ordinances to make decisions – they’re applying the Wisconsin Constitution.

The real issue at hand is that conservatives are feeling the sting from progressives, who have relentlessly challenged extreme right-wing laws such as voter ID and the anti-union collective bargaining laws in 2011. Circuit courts have granted several injunctions that temporarily blocked portions of these laws until higher courts could determine their constitutionality.

The separation of powers is important to maintain a balance between the three branches of government. This is clearly a conservative power play to undermine the “check” created by the state constitution to help prevent such extreme laws from being enacted.

America Votes partner One Wisconsin Now released a statement saying, “Under [the GOP legislature’s] scheme, our justice system would be turned on its head to satisfy their seemingly insatiable quest for political power. While they flout the Constitution, people's rights would be denied."

Republicans in the state legislature are hoping to push this through quickly to limit the amount of opposition voiced against the measure. It is up to Wisconsin progressives to protect the state constitution by spreading the word of the conservatives’ power-grabbing ploy and stopping this bill from gaining any traction.

Why would the GOP want to reduce early voting and make it more difficult for voters to cast their ballots? It is true that voters from both parties take advantage of early voting, but progressives have used it more effectively and have seen a much higher turnout for early voting. Therefore, if there is less early voting, the state GOP is hoping there will be less progressives voting.

More than 50% of people that voted in North Carolina cast their ballots during the early voting period. U.S. Senator Kay Hagan has voiced her position on these proposals, saying, “We didn't see the long lines that took place in Florida because our legislature had the foresight to be sure we made it so voting was easy and people could do it. I think it's an issue of fairness. ... When you look at the popularity of early voting in North Carolina, it certainly made a difference in our state."

GOP advocates for these measures like to say that early voting has become costly for the state, and cutting it would save the state money. However, the head of the State Board of Elections said that shortening early voting periods will end up costing taxpayers more money because the state will have to add more polling places and buy more voting machines to handle the higher volume of people trying to vote on a fewer number of days. On top of this, electioneers would need more staff on hand to maintain order in the large crowds and count all of the extra ballots being cast on Election Day. Clearly, the GOP legislators have not thought this through thoroughly. 

Early voting is not only used by the majority of North Carolina voters, but it also is extremely popular and they want it left in place. A recent poll by PPP showed that 78% of North Carolina voters in the state support early voting and 53% of voters want to keep Sunday voting in place.

Working class people have full schedules, families and other commitments that make it difficult enough as it is to get to the polls. So again, why would the North Carolina GOP want to make it more difficult for voters to cast their ballots? Because they are the only ones who benefit when voter suppression laws are passed - that’s why.

Tides are changing in public opinion on marriage equality. We have gone from 2004, where then-President Bush and the GOP lobbied hard for a Federal Marriage Amendment, to today where marriage equality has the support of more than 50% of the U.S. population in survey after survey. We are certainly at a pivotal point in our history for LGBT equality.

But it is not SCOTUS’ job to rule based on public opinion -- they must decide the two cases before them on a constitutional basis. The first case before the court on Tuesday, March 26th, is centered on Prop 8 in California. This was a ballot initiative that passed with just over 50% of the vote that took away the right to marry for LGBT people living within the state. The case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, will decide to uphold or repeal the decision by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. In the Court’s opinion they wrote, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.” They cited the landmark SCOTUS case of Romer v. Evans writing that, “The Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort.”

Anti-gay marriage lawyers say that by striking down Prop 8, the Court ignored the democratic process and took away the voting voice from millions of California voters who voted in favor of the measure. What they fail to remember is that our Constitution specifically protects minorities from the majority: “majority rules/minority rights.” Progressives feel strongly that it is, in fact, unconstitutional for a majority vote to strip away rights from LGBT citizens that the state legislature had already granted. This clause was written into the Constitution to guarantee this protection and the U.S. Supreme Court should very easily be able to uphold the decision by the lower court in this case.

The main topic of the second case on Wednesday, March 27th, United States v. Windsor, is centered on DOMA. DOMA is a federal statute that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and allows states, business and organizations to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples that were married in states where it is legal. SCOTUS is widely expected to strike down DOMA because it so blatantly discriminates against a certain group of people and treats LGBT couples as lesser than their heterosexual counterparts. The Obama administration is already opting not to defend the statute as the President himself has deemed it to be unconstitutional.

Whatever way SCOTUS decides, there is no doubt that we are currently in the process of making history for LGBT equality. We have reached a point where marriage equality is now viewed as inevitable. People understand how these discriminatory practices are really affecting the lives of others and why they need to be eliminated. Let’s hope that SCOTUS decides to stand on the right side of history and do the right thing by ruling in favor of marriage equality for all.