Recent State Election Law Challenges: In Brief (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (17 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Nov. 2, 2016 |
| Report Number |
R44675 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
During the final months and weeks leading up to the November 8, 2016, presidential election,
courts across the country have ruled in numerous challenges to state election laws. For example,
there have been recent court rulings affecting the laws regulating early voting, voter photo
identification (ID) requirements, registration procedures, straight-party voting, and voter rolls.
Accordingly, many such laws have been recently invalidated, enjoined, or altered. Others
continue to be subject to litigation.
Recent rulings in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas are illustrative examples. In
Michigan, a court preliminarily enjoined a 2016 law that ended the ability of voters to vote for a
political party’s entire slate of candidates with a single notation—straight-party voting—
concluding that it was likely that the challengers would succeed on the merits of their claims
under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. In North Carolina, a court invalidated several recent changes to that
state’s election laws, including a voter photo ID law, holding that the laws were enacted with a
racially discriminatory intent in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and Section 2 of the VRA. In Ohio, a court held that a law setting forth the process
for removing the names of inactive voters from the voter rolls violates the National Voter
Registration Act, and in another case, upheld a law that eliminated a period of early voting and
same-day registration, known as “Golden Week,” against a challenge under the Fourteenth
Amendment Equal Protection Clause and Section 2 of the VRA. Finally, in contrast to the North
Carolina ruling, a court declined to invalidate a Texas voter photo ID law, but required it to be
administered on November 8, 2016, with modifications, holding that the law has a discriminatory
effect on minority voting rights in violation of Section 2 of the VRA.
These decisions are notable because of their impact on state election laws shortly before a
presidential election and, in some cases, because they invalidated laws that were recently enacted.
Furthermore, the rulings in North Carolina and Texas have drawn attention because the
challenged state laws were held, in part, to violate Section 2 of the VRA, which in the past has
generally been applied in the context of challenges to redistricting maps. Accordingly, the case
law in this area is just beginning to develop. Likewise, questions of whether specific voter photo
ID laws comply with the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the VRA continue
to be answered. Although the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an Indiana voter
photo ID law in 2008 against a facial challenge, some courts have found other state laws
distinguishable or have evaluated such laws under Section 2 of the VRA. It is possible that the
Supreme Court may ultimately decide to revisit this issue.
