PropertyValue
?:author
?:datePublished
  • 2016-02-23 (xsd:date)
?:headline
  • Obama Administration Fighting to Allow Non-Citizens to Vote? (en)
?:inLanguage
?:itemReviewed
?:mentions
?:reviewBody
  • On 22 February 2016, the above-quoted text (and embedded video) began to get passed around on social media. The initial portion was transcribed and published by the Lou Dobbs Facebook page. Dobbs continued, concluding: Dobbs didn't reference any specific election rule fight in the clip, and the information above (including the subsequent commentary) made up all of the detail provided by the clip. Sifting through Dobbs' claim without specifics was difficult, but the comments in the clip matched up with a 22 February 2016 National Review item: National Review linked to a statement issued by the League of Women Voters announcing a lawsuit against the Election Assistance Commission, on the grounds that EAC executive director Brian Newby acted illegally in approving requests from three states (Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas) to require documentary proof of citizenship in order to vote: According to the complaint, the issue wasn't just the modification of the law but that Newby acted unilaterally, which goes against longstanding Commission policy. In the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs alleged Newby's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act ('APA') in at least five respects: The suit listed five reasons the plaintiffs believed Newby did not have the authority to unilaterally grant such requests: The complaint went on to cite a 2015 Tenth Circuit Court ruling that documentary proof of citizenship requirements were inconsistent with the purposes of the [National Voting Rights Act], stating the EAC’s prior Executive Director rejected [states' requests] in 2014, based on existing EAC policy: According to the documents, the timing of the unilateral action was potentially suppressive to voters in the 2016 primary and general elections, and that existing laws already prevented non-citizens from registering to vote in either cycle under penalty of perjury (in a larger argument that such protections were unnecessary under standing law): The complaint said that the actions taken would prevent citizens otherwise legally entitled to vote from registering: Attorney General Loretta Lynch's name appeared on page 215 of the suit, on an included summons. Lynch did not appear to be a plaintiff in that document: Politico reported that the DOJ backed the issuance of a court injunction blocking a federal official's decision to approve new voter registration forms that allow three states to insist that voters provide copies of documents proving their U.S. citizenship: In a 22 January 2016 court document supplied by Politico, two Department of Justice attorneys held that the Court should grant plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, on the ground that the January 29, 2016 decisions did not determine that the approved information was 'necessary' to determine state eligibility requirements or articulate reasons pursuant to that statutory criterion: So while Dobbs was correct in stating that the LWV, NAACP, and other parties filed a suit and request for injunctive relief, the clip also led a large number of readers and viewers to believe that the plaintiffs sought to allow non-citizens to vote in elections. That was misleading, as the suit alleged that the requirement for documentary proof in an election year posed an undue burden on citizens registering to vote. Under the NVRA of 1993, all individuals registering to vote must swear under penalty of perjury that they are United States citizens. The plaintiffs sought not to overturn or weaken that law, but to challenge new requirements for citizens to provide documentation of citizenship in order to vote. While listed plaintiffs included the LWV and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, neither the Obama administration nor the Justice Department were named as parties to the suit. Named defendants were Newby and the EAC. Finally, the DOJ backed the plaintiff's request for an injunction (denied on 23 February 2016, pending a 9 March 2016 hearing), but was not directly a party named in the suit. (en)
?:reviewRating
rdf:type
?:url