Before voters get a say in this year’s presidential race, lawyers and judges are having theirs.
A series of court battles in several states may determine, during the next several weeks, issues that include how people cast their votes, when polling locations will be open and what ballots will look like. Many cases have a partisan bent, with rulings potentially tipping the scales slightly in favor of Democrats or Republicans.
The legal fights have entered an urgent phase, two months before the Nov. 6 election and just a few weeks before military and overseas absentee ballots must go out.
Pennsylvania lawyers recently filed briefs arguing whether an appeal on the state’s strict voter ID law should be held in September or October. Opponents won a mid-September court date, which is late even by their standards.
“This is by no means impossible, but certainly the closer you get a decision to Election Day, the harder it is to make changes,” said Vic Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.
Wisconsin’s attorney general is making a late push in the courts to reinstate voter ID requirements.
Republicans say they have pursued voter ID laws to prevent fraud. Democrats call it a political ploy to suppress voters who may not have the proper identification, particularly among groups that typically vote Democratic.
Along with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, there are unresolved cases in Florida, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada. Those are among the most competitive states, and any factor could tip the balance.
â€¢ Florida and Ohio are locked in litigation tied to changes in early voting rules. Republicans in Florida approved a law last year that reduced the number of early voting days to eight from as many as 14. Advocates are challenging that, and a panel of three federal judges recently determined that the changes could hurt participation by black people, who lean heavily toward the Democrats.
Ohio officials have struggled for months over early voting rules. The Obama campaign sued over a law that prevented most people from using early voting on the weekend and Monday before Election Day; a federal judge agreed Friday to restore those voting days. The state’s attorney general is working on an appeal.
â€¢ Florida and Iowa are dealing with suits related to efforts by election administrators to purge voting rolls of ineligible people. The U.S. Department of Justice is continuing to pursue a suit challenging Florida’s purge, which previously included a list that contained more than 500 people who were citizens. A Hispanic civic organization also sued, alleging that the purge is an attempt to remove legitimate minority voters from the rolls.
Civil rights activists in Iowa are seeking to block the Republican secretary of state from using emergency rules to try to purge voting lists of noncitizens. The groups contend that Secretary of State Matt Schultz was abusing his power in a bid to disenfranchise Latinos. Schultz says the effort is necessary to help maintain fair elections.
â€¢ Nevada is dealing with a unique case over the state’s decades-old voting option of “none of the above.” The state attorney general is appealing a federal court’s decision that the ballot option is unconstitutional. The Republican National Committee financed the suit out of fears votes for “none” could influence the outcome, with conventional thinking that people who might cast a ballot for “none” are anti-incumbent voters who might be more likely to support Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
Nevada officials filed an emergency motion in that case Thursday, noting that the state must finalize ballots for overseas and military voters by this Friday.
â€¢ In Michigan, the Legislature passed a bill that would require voters to declare their U.S. citizenship in writing before being allowed to vote. It was later vetoed by Gov. Rick Snyder. But the question remained on ballot applications across the state for the primary in August, and some voters weren’t allowed to vote when they refused to answer the question.
The lengthy legal docket continues a trend seen since the disputed 2000 election in Florida. Between that election and the 2010 vote, the amount of election law litigation has more than doubled, according to Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine.
Hasen said there’s no sign of it abating.
“The picture is one of continued foment, agitation and litigation,” he said.
The legal battles before Election Day may be just a first round. Thousands of lawyers and activists are preparing to help deal with issues for the campaigns that may arise Nov. 6, and they are poised to handle longer disputes if a crucial state turns out to be nearly tied, as Florida was in 2000.