ACE

Author: Bridget Boal

  • Pros and Cons of New Hampshire’s SB 418: How the New Voter ID Law Affects First-Time Voters

    Pros and Cons of New Hampshire’s SB 418: How the New Voter ID Law Affects First-Time Voters

    What is SB 418? 

    On June 16, 2022, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed a new piece of voting legislation: Senate Bill 418. Before SB 418, first-time voters who could not provide documents proving their identity at a polling place could still cast a ballot by signing a Qualified Voter Affidavit under oath. SB 418 eliminated the Qualified Voter Affidavit, requiring first-time voters to fill out a provisional ballot if they are unable to submit proof of identity. Under SB 418, a voter’s provisional ballot will only be counted if they submit proper identification documents to the Secretary of State within seven days of the election date. If the required documents are not submitted on time or do not correctly verify the voter’s identity, the provisional ballot is not counted. 

    Arguments in favor of SB 418 

    Proponents of SB 418 argue that the bill marked a necessary step towards election integrity. They say the prior system invoked a degree of trust in the individuals who signed the Qualified Voter Affidavit and argue that SB 418 eliminates the potential for false testimonies of identity or residency. Supporters cite several instances of election fraud in New Hampshire since 2016 as the basis for their support of the bill. A spokesman for the state Attorney General emphasized that New Hampshire elections are sometimes determined by a small number of votes, so any instance of fraud can be detrimental to the validity of elections. 

    Supporters also argue that SB 418 strengthens collective trust in elections. They claim that the bill implements a system that is already widely supported, seeing as one poll predicts that 79% of Americans support photo ID requirements to vote. Additionally, given that several other states have already implemented similar strict voter ID policies, supporters claim that SB 418 is not a departure from popular norms across the country.

    Arguments against SB 418 

    Critics of SB 418 contend that the bill places an unnecessary burden on voters who may not have the financial means or accessibility to provide documentation of their identity. They highlight that obtaining an ID involves costs associated with document copies, postage, and having a permanent address. Thus, opponents argue that SB 418 suppresses voting access for individuals who may not have access to photo identification, such as the homeless or new citizens of the state. Further, opponents assert that New Hampshire had not experienced sufficient voter fraud to merit a change in voting laws.

    Critics also contend that SB 418 risks violating voter privacy. Under SB 418, provisional ballots must be verified by election officials once the voter has submitted the correct documents. Opponents argue that giving government officials access to an individual’s voting preferences is an unconstitutional violation of the right to privacy. Additionally, opponents argue that SB 418’s procedure for ineligible provisional ballots risks divulging private information to the general public. Under SB 418, once a ballot is determined to be ineligible due to failed identity confirmation, the ballot is then released as public knowledge. Critics of the bill warn that this violates the right to a secret ballot, pointing to a few cases where voters’ publicly released ballots could easily be traced back to them. 

    ConclusionWhile SB 418 is still in effect, it has been met with several legal challenges. Two previous lawsuits by voter advocacy groups that were dismissed on procedural grounds are now being appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Moreover, in April, a judge denied the state’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought forward by the Democratic National Committee. These cases represent the core topics surrounding SB 418, including election security, voter privacy, and equal voting access. Despite the legal challenges against SB 418, efforts to regulate elections continue to emerge in New Hampshire; the legislature has proposed a new bill requiring proof of citizenship prior to voting.

  • Pros and Cons of Florida’s SB 7066 

    Pros and Cons of Florida’s SB 7066 

    What is SB 7066?

    On June 28, 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066 into law. Previously, convicted felons in Florida could only regain voting rights through a special appeal to the state’s clemency board. In 2018, Amendment 4 was passed, granting voting rights to most convicted felons, excluding those convicted of violent felonies like murder or sexual assault. SB 7066 was then enacted to clarify the terms of Amendment 4.

    SB 7066 requires convicted felons to pay all legal and logistical fees, known as Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs), accumulated during trials or prison time before they can vote. While Amendment 4 allowed over 1.4 million non-violent felons the right to vote in Florida, SB 7066 mandates that all terms of their sentencing, including LFOs, must be completed before they can register to vote.

    Arguments in favor of SB 7066 

    Proponents argue that SB 7066 is necessary to clarify the language of Amendment 4. Amendment 4 stated that individuals could vote after completing their imprisonment, probation, or parole. However, critics claimed that the amendment lacked clear language for restoring felon voting rights broadly, leading to unfair and inconsistent enforcement. Without SB 7066, each Florida county might interpret the amendment differently, causing statewide inconsistency.

    Proponents of SB 7066 argue that the bill supports the principle that voting rights can be restricted for ex-felons who have broken the law. In the United States, a person’s right to vote can be legally revoked if they commit a crime, just as other freedoms can be restricted when they are jailed. Supporters believe that voting is a privilege and can be rightfully denied to those who have shown disregard for the law.

    Arguments against SB 7066

    Critics of SB 7066 highlight the confusion caused by its implementation. There is currently no uniform system to inform ex-felons if they have met all voting requirements. Consequently, ex-felons who attempt to vote but are ineligible under Amendment 4 or SB 7066 risk arrest, as state law makes it illegal to vote if one is not eligible. Critics cite the arrest of 20 individuals ineligible due to violent felony convictions as evidence of the bill’s ambiguity. Additionally, the uncertainty may discourage individuals from voting if they are unsure about their eligibility.

    Critics argue that SB 7066 discriminates against individuals and restricts hundreds of thousands of voters. Since the bill requires the payment of all LFOs, many see this as a form of voter discrimination akin to a poll tax. They point out that SB 7066 effectively undoes Amendment 4, as only an estimated 360,000 of the 1.4 million restored voters are eligible due to unpaid LFOs. Additionally, critics contend that the bill disproportionately impacts Black people and people of color, who are convicted of felonies at higher rates than white individuals and tend to have lower incomes.

    Constitutional Controversy over SB 7066 

    Following the passage of SB 7066, the bill faced court challenges on claims of unconstitutionality. Florida lawyers and voting rights groups filed lawsuits to block or eliminate SB 7066, arguing that requiring convicted felons to pay off their LFOs to vote violated their constitutional right to expression and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which abolished poll taxes. In the case of Jones v. DeSantis, Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that it was constitutional to require payment of LFOs if the felons had the financial capacity to pay but that ex-felons who were “genuinely unable” to pay could not be denied the right to vote. However, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Judge Hinkle’s decision, ruling that there was no constitutional violation. As a result, SB 7066 remains part of Florida law.

    Conclusion

    Since the passage of Florida’s SB 7066, there has been controversy surrounding whether or not such a piece of legislation proves to be a positive or negative contribution to their democratic processes. On one hand, proponents argue that the bill clarifies the vague language of Amendment 4 while enforcing that felons must take responsibility for their actions before regaining their rights. On the opposing side, critics assert that SB 7066 creates mass confusion in determining voter eligibility and discriminates against individuals while significantly limiting the number of eligible voters.

  • Bridget Boal

    Bridget Boal

    Bridget is a third-year undergraduate originally from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania attending Emory University. As a double major in Psychology and Philosophy, Politics, and Law (PPL), she plans to bridge her interests in mental health rehabilitation and the power of policy with a future career in the legal field. Following graduation, Bridget plans to attend law school with a concentration in criminal defense or civil rights and immigration. She is devoted to utilizing policy and legislation that will bring about positive change to vulnerable groups affected by mental illness and poverty. Further, she is invested in disseminating information regarding electoral processes and relevant policy in the United States to assist younger voter audiences in using their voice and their vote. Outside of her studies, Bridget participates in a number of mental health advocacy groups on campus and currently acts as vice president of Emory’s NEDA Campus Warriors Club. She also acts as a Residential Advisor and a tutor at Dekalb County’s juvenile development center. In her free time, Bridget loves reading works from philosophers like Angela Davis and hiking or spending time outdoors. 

    LinkedIn