[EL] could tougher voting laws squelch the youth vote

[Robbin Stewart]

Thanks John. 301 is interesting, in that it makes 26th Amendment violations
criminal. However, it is exclusive to the AG so it probably never gets
used. Waller County involved 14thg and 15th A claims, at least at the
consent decree stage.

“TITLE III—EIGHTEEN-YEAR-OLD VOTING AGE
“ENFORCEMENT OF TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT
“Sec. 301. (a) (1) The Attorney General is directed to institute, in the
name of the
United States, such actions against States or political subdivisions,
including actions for
injunctive relief, as he may determine to be necessary to implement the
twenty-six article
of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
“(2) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of
proceedings instituted under this title, which shall be heard and
determined by a court of
three judges in accordance with section 2284 of title 28 of the United
States Code, and
any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. It shall be the duty of the
judges designated to
hear the case to assign the case for hearing and determinations thereof,
and to cause the
case to be in every way expedited.
“(b) Whoever shall deny or attempt to deny any person of any right secured
by
the twenty-sixth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States shall be
fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:20 AM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:

> the first case I ever worked on (as a paralegal) was US v Waller County,
> TX (home fo Praire View A&M) under section 301 of the voting act, which
> authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the 26th amendment.   I believe
> that the statute requires a showing of intentional discrimination (biy not
> a textual prohibition), which certainly was present in Waller County - and
> returns from time to time
>
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Robbin Stewart <gtbear at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Have there ever been any cases on the 26th Amendment? (right of 18 year
>> olds to vote.)
>>
>> I can't think of any offhand. I'm wondering what the standard of review
>> would be. I'm thinking of situations where there's an argument some
>> procedure infringes on the voting rights of 18-21 year olds,  short of an
>> absolute ban. For example a rule that blocked college students from voting
>> from their dorm addresses might raise a claim (setting aside that this
>> issue can be addressed as a due process or equal protection claim.) Another
>> example might be in Indiana where those over 65 can vote absentee without
>> cause, but 18-21 year olds cannot (and thus are disparately impacted by
>> voter ID rules.)
>>
>> This is a hypothetical question; I don't know any 18-21 year old voters
>> in this position. Such a case might win a footnote in some future edition
>> of an election law casebook. I really have no idea how a court would
>> approach it; perhaps they would require overt intent to discriminate;
>> perhaps they would only address cases that specifically textually single
>> out the 18-21 group. I'm not sure the supreme court would find this
>> question certworthy. I invite speculation.
>>
>>>  “Could tougher voting laws squelch the youth vote?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=38079>
>>> Posted on August 4, 2012 10:57 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=38079>
>>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> AP<http://electionlawblog.org/Could%20tougher%20voting%20laws%20squelch%20the%20youth%20vote?%20%20Read%20more:%20http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Could-tougher-voting-laws-squelch-the-youth-vote-3762386.php#ixzz22bLGD7B9>:
>>> “Gone are the days when young voters weren’t taken seriously. In 2008, they
>>> helped propel Barack Obama<http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Barack+Obama%22>into the Oval
>>> Office<http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Oval+Office%22>,
>>> supporting him by a 2-1 margin. But that higher profile also has landed
>>> them in the middle of the debate over some state laws that regulate voter
>>> registration and how people identify themselves at the polls. Since the
>>> last election, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Wisconsin and Texas and other states
>>> have tried to limit or ban the use of student IDs as voter identification.
>>> In Florida, lawmakers tried to limit “third party” organizations, including
>>> student groups, from registering new voters.”
>>>
>>> More:
>>>
>>> The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with students on this issue and their
>>> ability to vote where they attend school, even when they’ve come from
>>> another state.
>>>
>>> “So students should be registering in the communities that they feel are
>>> home — whether that’s their parents’ home or their apartment or their dorm
>>> room,” says Lee Rowland, counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan
>>> Center for Justice, a nonpartisan legal think tank in New York. “It is a
>>> constitutional right to vote.”
>>>
>>> To help them understand that right, she says the Brennan Center created
>>> an online guide for students with pages that detail voting rules and
>>> requirements in each state — http://bit.ly/Pl1pbE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   “Survey cites difficulties getting Pa. voter ID”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=38076>
>>>  “The Essential Facts of Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Trial”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=38016>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120806/507ce028/attachment.html>