The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Oct. 3, 2024

Today’s Script

(Variations occur with audio due to editing for time. Today’s Links below the script)

You’re listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.

Our report on court challenges to undated or misdated mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania mentioned the “Materiality Provision” of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Just what is the Materiality Provision, and how can it help protect voters?

In question are ballot envelopes from otherwise eligible voters, received on time and correct except for a missing or incorrect date on the outer envelope.  Pennsylvania’s election law invalidates those ballots, and as many as 10,000 voters were affected in 2022.

The materiality provision, part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s Title 1, was designed to keep racist election officials from rejecting voter registrations for minor mistakes – used as a voter suppression tactic throughout the South.  For instance, White voters were given assistance and alerted to mistakes, while Black voters were disenfranchised for a simple spelling error.    

For years, federal courts found that Title 1 applies to the whole voting process, and ruled that missing dates, envelopes, and postmarks are “immaterial” to the validity of the ballot. Only recently have Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and other Conservative judges argued that it should apply ONLY to registration, and overturned such appeals.  

If a voter does everything else right, but makes a trivial mistake, shouldn’t we make every effort to honor the intent of the voter?  The ACLU’s high court appeal may answer that question.

We’ve linked more at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:

Congressional Research Service – The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Eleven Titles at a Glance
Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum – Helen L. Brewer – Title I of the Civil Rights Act in Contemporary Voting Rights
Litigation
Protect Democracy – The Constitutionality of the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Democracy Docket – Pennsylvania Orgs Ask SCOTUS To Decide if Rejecting Mail-in Ballots for Date Errors Violates Civil Rights Act
Campaign Legal Center – (2018) CLC Argument Used in Georgia Absentee Ballot Cases
Democracy Docket – This Civil Rights Provision Protects Your Vote from Simple Mistakes

Groups Taking Action:

ACLU, NAACP PA , League of Women Voters PA, Black Political Empowerment Project 

Check Your Voter Registration:

• U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your State
• USA Vote Foundation – Registration, Eligibility, State Election Office Links
• Vote.Gov – Register to Vote in Your State
• Vote.Org – Check Your Registration to Vote
  
  

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #VoterSuppression #CivilRightsAct #Pennsylvania #SCOTUS

The post What is the ‘Materiality Provision’ of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and How Can it Help Protect Voters? appeared first on American Democracy Minute.

Listen! https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/americandemocracyminute/episodes/2022-06-12T05_56_25-07_00

Today’s Links:
SCOTUS Decision:   https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a772_h3dj.pdf
Scotus Blog:  “Court allows Pennsylvania officials to count ballots that arrived in undated envelopes”
Election Law Blog:   “Breaking and Analysis: Supreme Court, with 3 Noted Dissents, Won’t Interfere with Pennsylvania Race Requiring Counting of Undated but Timely Mail-In Ballots; Justice Alito Suggests Expeditious Review Before Next Elections“

You’re listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.

We told you earlier this month about the undated ballot case in Pennsylvania, and that it COULD have national implications.  The U.S. Supreme Court has now lifted its temporary stay, but there are now more indications that the court may not be a friend to the American voter.

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that mail-in ballots, which were on time but undated for a county election in Pennsylvania should be counted, but the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued issued a temporary stay.  

SCOTUS Blog reports that June 9th, the Supreme Court rendered a decision, choosing to lift its stay and NOT to hear the case, clearing the way for the undated ballots to be counted.   

Justice Alito, who had issued the temporary stay also wrote a dissent representing himself, Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch.  Alito urged the court to take up the case and give a full decision by October in time for the 2022 general election.  They argued the lower court’s assertion that throwing out on-time ballots without a date could disenfranchise voters was flawed and not specific enough.  The dissenters also cited, among other criticisms, that filling out the ballot wrong didn’t have anything to do with the voter’s opportunity to vote, and therefore didn’t likely violate federal voting rights laws. 

For this election, it appeals that the undated ballots will count, not just in Pennsylvania, but around the country.   But it’s not likely the end of the issue.

Links to the decision and analysis are available at AmericanDemocracy Minute.org

Granny D said, “Democracy is not something we have, it’s something we DO.” 

For the American Democracy Minute, I’m Brian Beihl.

The post American Democracy Minute for June 13, 2022: SCOTUS Allows Undated Ballots, but Dissent Shows Some Justices Unfriendly to Voters appeared first on American Democracy Minute.