Source: http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/state-legislatures-adjourning-voting-rights-still-center-stage?splash=
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:04:11+00:00

Document:
While fewer bills restricting access to the ballot box have passed this year, voting rights are still garnering significant public attention.
Voting rights advocates have been carefully watching state legislatures since 2010—when restrictive voting laws were widely introduced across the country. The 2015 legislative session has been interesting for both what has happened and what has not. At least 113 bills that would restrict access to registration and voting have been introduced or carried over in 33 states.1 Nearly half the bills are aimed at establishing voter ID requirements or tightening pre-existing ones, but only one has passed thus far.2 On the other hand, in the same period, at least 464 bills that would enhance access to voting were introduced or carried over in 48 states plus the District of Columbia.3 While fewer bills restricting access to the ballot box have passed this year than in prior legislative sessions, voting rights are, appropriately, still garnering significant public attention because of high-profile decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts.
Another major voting challenge is being litigated in North Carolina. In 2013 Gov. Pat McCrory signed a bill into law that enacted a strict photo identification requirement for 2016 and eliminated seven days of early voting, same-day voter registration, and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, along with other restrictive changes, for 2014.16 Opponents of the law sought a preliminary injunction before the 2014 election, and although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted a partial injunction, the Supreme Court stayed that order and the law was in full effect for the 2014 election.
All told, the cross-currents on voting rights are undergoing a seismic shift. It remains to be seen whether the state houses or the courthouses are going to be more significant, and what the final landscape will look like.
1. Voting Laws Roundup, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE (June 3, 2015), http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voting-laws-roundup-2015.
4. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 135 S. Ct. 2652 (2015).
5. U.S. CONST. art. I, §4, cl. 1 (emphasis added).
6. The initiative process, whereby citizens circulate petitions to place a matter on the ballot to be voted upon, is generally referred to as "direct democracy." See Initiative, Referendum and Recall, NAT'L CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initiative-referendum-and-recall-overview.aspx (last visited July 24, 2015).
7. See Adam Liptak, "Supreme Court Rebuffs Lawmakers Over Independent Redistricting Panel," N.Y. TIMES, June 30, 2015, at A13, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-upholds-creation-of-arizona-redistricting-commission.html; "Could the Supreme Court Make Dozens of State Election Laws Unconstitutional?" BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, https://www.brennancenter.org/supreme-court-could-make-dozens-election-laws-unconstitutional (last visited July 24, 2015).
8. Evenwel v. Perry, No. A-14-CV-335-LY-CH, 2014 WL 5780507 (W.D. Tex. 2014), cert. granted sub nom. Evenwel v. Abbott, 135 S. Ct. 2349 (2015).
9. Kansas and Hawaii do not use total population when drawing legislative districts; they each exclude non-resident military personnel and non-resident students. See KAN. CONST., art. X, §1; Kostick v. Nago, 960 F.Supp.2d 1074 (D. Haw. 2013) aff'd, 134 S. Ct. 1001 (2014).
10. See Zachary Roth, "SCOTUS to Hear Case That Could Set Black Latino Voting Power," MSNBC (May 27, 2015, 9:24 AM), http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-hear-case-could-set-back-latino-voting-power.
11. See Jerry H. Goldfeder and Myrna Pérez, "Voting Restrictions: From Statehouses to Courts," NYLJ (Oct. 24, 2014), available at http://www.stroock.com/siteFiles/Pub1552.pdf.
12. Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Comm'n, 722 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, No. 14-1164, 2015 WL 1307634 (U.S. 2015).
13. See Lyle Denniston, "Opinion Analysis: A Cure for Partisan Gerrymandering?" SCOTUSBLOG (June 29, 2015, 3:21 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-a-cure-for-partisan-gerrymandering/.
14. Veasey v. Perry, 71 F.Supp.3d 627 (S.D. Tex. 2014).
15. See Jerry H. Goldfeder and Myrna Pérez, "Proving Who You Are: The Legal Battle Over Voter ID Laws," 251 NYLJ (June 4, 2014), available at http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub1495.pdf.
16. H.B. 589, Gen. Assemb. (N.C. 2013).
17. H.B. 836, Gen. Assemb. (N.C. 2015).
18. Sharon McCloskey, Voting Rights Trial Opens on Monday, NC POLICY WATCH (July 9, 2015), http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2015/07/09/voting-rights-trial-opens-on-monday/.
19. See Kirk Johnson, "New Governor Seeks Public's Trust in Oregon," N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 19, 2015, at A12, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/us/kate-brown-replacing-john-kitzhaber-as-oregon-governor.html?_r=0.
20. H.B. 2177, 78th Legis. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2015).
21. Automatic Voter Registration, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE (July 6, 2015), https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/automatic-voter-registration.
22. A.B. 6610, Assemb., 2015-2016 Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2015).
23. See Anne Gearan and Niraj Chokshi, "Hillary Clinton Calls for Sweeping Expansion of Voter Access," WASH. POST (July 4, 2015), http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-calls-for-sweeping-expansion-of-voter-registration/2015/06/04/691f210c-0adb-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html.
24. Democracy Act, A.B. 4613, 216th Leg. (N.J. 2015).
25. See Clause Brodesser-Akner, "Christie Attacks N.J.'s 'Democracy Act' as DNC Attempt to Up Voter Fraud," NJ.COM (June 29, 2015, 4:47 AM), http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/christie_attacks_njs_democracy_act_as_dnc_attempt.html.
26. See Samantha Lachman, "Chris Christie Looks Likely to Veto New Jersey Voting Reforms," HUFFINGTON POST (July 9, 2015, 12:00 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/09/chris-christie-new-jersey_n_7761708.html.
Jerry H. Goldfeder is special counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, and teaches election law at Fordham Law School and University of Pennsylvania Law School.

References: v. 
 §4
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v.