Supporting organizations Whose Mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society. The john d. And catherine t. Macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. More information at macfound. Org. Park foundation, dedicated to heightening Public Awareness of critical issues. The kohlberg foundation. Barbara g. Fleischman. And by our sole corporate sponsor, mutual of america, designing customized individual and Group Retirement products. Thats why were your retirement company. Welcome. Its unbelievable, and frankly outrageous, that in the last four years, close to half the states in this country have passed laws making it harder for people to vote. But its true. And whereas once upon a time, in the south of my youth, it was democrats who used the poll tax, literacy tests and outright intimidation to keep black people from voting, today its the republicans working the levers of suppression, as if something in their dna demands it. Listen to one of the Founding Fathers of the conservative movement, paul weyrich, back in 1980. I dont want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down. So, the right has become relentless in trying every trick to keep certain people from voting. And conservative control of the Supreme Court gives them a leg up. Last years decision, Shelby County versus holder, revoked an essential provision of the 1965 Voting Rights act. And that has only upped the ante, encouraging many state republican legislators to impose restrictive voter i. D. Laws, as well as gerrymander congressional districts and limit registration and voting hours. The rights rationale is that people are manipulating the system to cheat and throw elections. But rarely can they offer any proof of anyone, anywhere, trying illegally to cast a ballot. So whats going on . A question for my guests. Sherrilyn ifill is president of the naacp Legal Defense and educational fund. Shes a noted civil rights litigator, whose work has included landmark Voting Rights cases. She is the author of on the Courthouse Lawn confronting the legacy of lynching in the 21st century. Ari berman is a contributing writer at the nation magazine and, during the 2012 elections, the First National reporter to cover Voter Suppression issues. He is currently writing a book titled give us the ballot the modern struggle for Voting Rights in america, to be published be out next summer. Welcome to you both. Thank you, bill. Thank you. So just a couple of weeks before the midterm elections, how do we know if these Voter Suppression efforts are working . Well, what we do know in texas where we just litigated a major case involving voter i. D. We know that more than 600,000 registered voters will not be able to vote in this novembers election because they lack the photo i. D. Required by the new texas law. And because the Supreme Court has said that the election can proceed, even though a federal court has found that that photo i. D. Law discriminates against black and latino voters. Yes, the judge in texas ruled that it was unconstitutional. And yet last saturday the Supreme Court said, let the election go forward. What was their rationale . I think the rationale, the most charitable rationale we can give to the Supreme Courts decision is that its consistent with other decisions theyve made in which, essentially, their view is if its very close to the election and certainly this was close to the election early voting started this week. That they shouldnt disturb the status quo, that you dont change the processes of election so close to an actual election, and and whats your objection to that . We have a federal judge who found that this photo i. D. Law was created to intentionally discriminate against black and latino voters, in violation of the United States constitution. And it seems to me this puts that case in an entirely different category to allow that election law to go forward and to allow the disfranchisement of more than half a million voters based on a law that a federal judge has found intentionally discriminates to me really challenges at the core our democracy. Run down, if you can, some of the states where Voter Suppression is happening as we speak. After that Shelby County decision, North Carolina passed the most sweeping set of voting restrictions since the passage of the Voting Rights act in 1965. Key parts of that law are now in effect. Cutting early voting by a week, eliminating same day registration during the early voting period, preventing outofprecinct ballots from being counted, eliminating Public Financing of judicial elections down we go. Thats now in effect. Thats a crucial swing state where democrat kay hagan is running against republican thom tillis. That race alone could control the senate. We have kansas, another state where theres a very contested senate race where theyre adopted a new proof of citizenship requirement for Voter Registration. You have to now show your birth certificate to register to vote. 15,000 Voter Registrations are currently on hold as a result of that decision. You look at georgia, another state where theres a highly contested senate race. 85,000 new voters have been registered by a group called the new georgia project. Theyve subsequently been subpoenaed by the republican secretary of state there for alleged Voter Registration fraud even though theres been almost no cases. Now we have 50,000 new Voter Registration applicants that are on hold in georgia, people who might not be able to register, might not be able to vote in that state. So those are just three crucial swing states in which there are new voting restrictions on the books. Why are you both convinced that these efforts are malevolent . The other side claims that theyre necessary to prevent voter fraud, to make sure that the person whos voting is actually the person who should be voting. Well, weve been hearing about this for some years. Remember, bill, prior to 2006, no state required a photo i. D. To vote. You and i voted, im sure, for many years, for many decades. We arrived at the polls. We had our Voter Registration card which does not have a photo on it, and we voted. And this was fine until suddenly we had this issue of voter fraud being raised. And although the issue of voter fraud has been raised, its never been proven. In texas, where we litigated this case, where the state of texas was all in to defend their photo i. D. Law, they were only able to identify two instances of in person voter fraud since 2002. If you look at all of the data thats been collected and analyzed by the best political scientists and social scientists, there is no evidence of statistically significant voter fraud. So youve created a system that disenfranchises millions of voters to try and solve a problem that you cant prove exists. Theres been one billion votes cast since 2000 and only 31 cases of voter impersonation. So that just shows you that its not a problem. Why do we suddenly start hearing about this after the 2000 election . What happened in 2008 . The election of barack obama. And what we saw is this coalition of the ascendant that came out for the president the what . Coalition of the ascendant is emerging demographics . What they called it. Yes, young people, blacks, hispanics, asians, women. Thats the future of the country. Not just the future of the electorate but the future of the country demographically. Is racism behind this . Well, i can only tell you what the judge in texas said. What she said is that the voter i. D. Law in texas intentionally discriminates against africanamerican and hispanic voters. Its not my opinion. Thats what was found by a Federal District judge. I think youre absolutely right about the 2008 election of president obama and this kind of ascendant electorate. But when people first began really talking about voter fraud in the 2006 2007 period, what were they talking about . Who were these people who were showing up allegedly to vote when they couldnt vote . Remember it was happening in the context of what was a very ugly conversation about immigration. The idea and this is where again i have to return to the issue of race and ethnicity the idea of who was engaging in this voter fraud was very much happening in the context of a conversation we were having in this country about undocumented individuals, about immigration, about our border, about border security. The idea was that there were latinos who were showing up, hispanic people showing up from mexico and other countries, who couldnt vote who were now voting. So once again the engine that was driving the voter fraud conversation really had at its root this issue of race and ethnicity. This is the first election since the Supreme Courts decision last year throwing out the provision of the 1965 Voting Rights act which required states with the worst discriminatory practices to approve their voting changes with the federal government. To what extent is all of this the result of that decision . Can i just say very quickly, texas once again, we litigated this case before the shelby decision. We challenged it under section 5 of the Voting Rights act. And we won. A federal court found that in fact it violated section 5 of the Voting Rights act. Then we get the shelby decision, in which the Supreme Court essentially hollows out section 5 of the Voting Rights act. And texas, within two hours of that decision, actually the attorney general, tweeted his intention to reimpose the voter i. D. Law that we had successfully struck down under section 5. And thats precisely what he did. And so whats just happened is weve just relitigated the same case that we had won before, this time under section 2 of the Voting Rights act. And we prevailed. Texas would not have been able to use this voter i. D. Law in this election had the Supreme Court not decided what it decided in the shelby case. And so onethird of the states that were previously covered by section 5 have passed or implemented new voting restrictions since that decision. And so were seeing right now the greatest restriction of Voting Rights since the end of reconstruction, where states feel like they can now get away with this. And theyve been waging really a twopronged war. One is to pass these new voting restrictions in the states that weve been talking about. The second is to then challenge the constitutionality of key provisions of the Voting Rights act to make it harder to block these changes. And i think, again, coming back to North Carolina is a really good example of the shelby decision. The North Carolina house passed a 14page vote i. D. Bill in april of 2013. It was a relatively strict voter i. D. Bill, but it wasnt the strictest in the country. Then a month after the Shelby County decision, that 14page bill becomes a 57page bill that essentially either repeals or curtails every voting reform in North Carolina that made it easier for people to vote. So then that voter i. D. Law becomes much, much stricter, as strict as texas. Theyre cutting early voting. Theyre eliminating same day registration. Theyre doing all these things. And they did it, as they said, because they no longer had to deal with the quoteunquote headache of having to approve their voting changes with the federal government. So texas and North Carolina are really case studies of whats happens in this postshelby era. Talk about early voting. Whats the argument against it . Well, i think theres two arguments against it. One argument that has been made is that its too expensive to allow early voting, that you cant have extended hours because that means that Election Administrators have to be open longer. The problem with that argument is that when you have fewer days, you have to open more offices, you have more voter confusion and it ends up being more expensive to run an election and far more problems. The second argument against it, i think, is more of a philosophical argument, which is that you shouldnt make it too easy for people to vote. Weve heard, for example, republican legislators in states like georgia basically say, i want a more informed electorate, that early voting makes it too easy for people to vote. And therefore youre getting an uneducated electorate. This is the same kind of arguments that were made in texas about the poll tax. Literacy about the literacy test, exactly. And now were seeing them in the context of things like early voting and voter i. D. Im sure both of you know that there are people who say that people like you are patronizing African Americans, poor folks, as victims again because youre trying to make it easy for them to vote. Well, i mean, if you look at photo i. D. For a second because i think people, bill, sometimes dont understand what we mean when we talk about voter i. D. People say, well, you know, whats wrong with having an i. D. . Theres nothing wrong with having an i. D. If you look at texas, i mean, you talk about an informed electorate, here is a state in which their photo i. D. Law, the strictest in the country, will not allow my clients who are students at a Texas University to use their university i. D. To vote, which they were able to use in 2012 and before that. They can no longer use that to vote. Now, if you have a concealed gun carry permit, you can use that to vote. How do they explain that . Well, different states have different requirements, right. So in some states, in indiana for example, if you vote absentee, you dont have to show a photo id. Then wisconsin said, well, if you vote absentee, you have to show that photo i. D. The first time you ask for the absentee ballot. Places like wisconsin said, you can use your tribal i. D. If youre a member of a native american tribe. Texas, you cant use your tribal i. D. You can use your veterans i. D. Indiana, you can use your veterans i. D. So you have a hodgepodge happening in various states. But what you see the trend is, that its getting increasingly, increasingly restrictive. The forms of photo i. D. That are required are increasingly restrictive. And what we showed in this texas case is that there are many people who cannot afford to get the photo i. D. Because youve got to first get the birth certificate, which may cost you between 20 and 42. Youve got to go to the agency, which means youve got to take off work to get that birth certificate. Youve got to go to the Motor Vehicle bureau to get the photo i. D. , and youve got to pay for it. And that actually means you have to take another day off of work. So you essentially left it to the devices of individuals, working people, working poor people who cant take days off work, who dont have the underlying documents to jump through this regulatory Obstacle Course in order to exercise what is their right as a citizen. Does it make sense to you that the right as a citizen depends upon state legislatures as opposed to the constitution and the federal government . Well, i dont know if i would describe it that way, i guess because im not willing to let state legislatures off the hook in this sense. Why is it that we should accept that a state legislature would have as a motivation or have an interest in restricting its own citizens from participating in the political process . Now im not talking about political parties. Im talking about those who take an oath of office to uphold the constitution and to protect those individuals who they represent. They should not be let off the hook, whether it is the National Government or the State Government. Obviously our history is replete with examples of the State Government restricting the ability of minorities to participate in the political process. And thats whats so interesting is this happened for so many years that Voting Rights were restricted. It was finally in 1965 that the congress and the president , prodded over and over and over by a very determined Civil Rights Movement said, this isnt going to happen anymore. We cant be a democracy where half the country doesnt vote, where 7 of African Americans are registered in mississippi. That cant be what we are. And we made a commitment. Both parties made a commitment. The congress made a commitment. The courts made a commitment to uphold this Voting Rights act. This law has been scrutinized more than any other law on the books. Its been reauthorized four times by the congress. Its been challenged multiple times in the courts and upheld. And