“I am proud to stand with voters, candidates, fair election advocates and Democrats across the country in applauding today’s decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the ban on soft money contributions to political parties. By reaffirming campaign finance limits on soft money contributions to political party committees, the Court has rightly maintained a key limitation on corporate influence over this country’s system of free and fair elections.

“It is not surprising, however, that the same Republican Party that has sought to protect Wall Street, BP and the health insurance industry over the wishes of hard-working Americans would wage a campaign to increase the voice and power of corporations – their biggest constituents – in our elections process. In response to their efforts, we must work to ensure that special interests do not overtake the voice of the American people. That is why the Democratic Party is strongly supporting the DISCLOSE Act which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week and includes provisions establishing tough new rules to limit corporate and special interest influence.

“Restrictions on corporate influence in our elections are an essential foundation of our democracy and limits on campaign spending are not only constitutional but necessary to keeping our elections fair and open. Today’s ruling is another step toward ensuring that the voices of individual voters and candidates will not be drowned-out by the power of special interests.”

The NVRA establishes procedures and safeguards for removing (or “purging”) voters from state registration lists to ensure that voters are not erroneously or unlawfully purged. Among these protections is the requirement that a state not purge a voter from the lists unless that voter fails to respond to a registration cancellation notice and does not vote in two consecutive federal general elections. Michigan violated these rules by removing voters if a registration card was returned as undeliverable – disenfranchising those “whose cards [were] returned…due to postal error, clerical error, inadvertent routing within a multi unit dwelling, and even simple misspelling or transposition of numbers in an address,” according to the ACLU and Advancement Project.

The groups also challenged the state’s purging of voters who applied for a driver’s license in another state. The Secretary of State removed from the rolls voters who had applied for an out-of-state driver’s license, although there are valid reasons why a voter might apply for another license and still maintain Michigan residency.

As the ACLU has noted:

“These populations tend to be more transient and to live in multi-family housing or in dormitory settings where mail can be unreliable and unpredictable. Students often have driver's licenses from different states than where their colleges are located.”

This settlement strongly signals that states’ voter purge procedures must conform to federal laws including the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act. Please join the Democratic National Committee in continuing to support these protections for voters and in advocating for the voting rights of all eligible persons.

On Sunday we commemorate the courage and sacrifice of 600 men and women who dared 45 years ago to take the first steps in a 54-mile march from Selma, Alabama, to the state capital, Montgomery, for the right to vote. That day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, would come to be known as "Bloody Sunday."

As these unarmed civil rights patriots attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, where fewer than one percent of eligible black voters were allowed to register, they were gassed and beaten with billy clubs by state and local police, some on horseback, ordered to break up the demonstration.

Captured by television cameras and broadcast nationwide, the suffering of these nonviolent activists, 50 of whom required hospitalization, awoke the nation's consciousness to the importance of voting rights and the entire civil rights movement.

Within 10 days, President Johnson would send a bill to Congress, the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, that would outlaw the discriminatory Jim Crow-era practices that had long worked to disenfranchise African-Americans and other minorities across the United States.

Brazile then goes on to detail some of the current fights in states across the country:

Last month, voting rights advocates filed suit against Virginia state election officials, following the advocates' investigation of rejected voter registration applications in 2008 from students at historically African-American Norfolk State University and the state officials' subsequent refusal to make certain voter registration records publicly available.

While Virginia was rejecting minority voter registrations in 2008, Colorado was purging voters from its registration rolls. Earlier this year, Colorado settled a lawsuit brought by Mi Familia Vota and other voting rights advocates. As a result of the Colorado suit, usage of lists of purged voters was stayed and the approximately 31,000 voters illegally removed from the registration lists were permitted to cast provisional ballots in the 2008 presidential election.

Forty-five years after Bloody Sunday, another march is under way, but it aims to turn back the clock on voting rights. Last month, the South Carolina state Senate passed legislation to require voters to show a photo ID before casting a ballot -- a measure that disproportionately excludes low-income, minority, elderly, and student voters, all of whom are less likely than majority voters to have ready access to a government-issued photo ID.

Brazile closes by highlighting several ways to improve our voting system, making sure every eligible voter has the right to have their vote counted:

We should start by modernizing the voter registration system by making it more automated and keeping eligible voters on the rolls permanently. We should take voting out of the artificial confines created by a limited and literal "Election Day" by providing for universal early voting.

To live up to our constitutional mandate to continue to form a more perfect union -- and to truly honor the brave men and women who marched and were beaten and bloodied, and especially those who were murdered defending their right to vote -- we have the duty to ensure that every eligible voter has an equal and meaningful opportunity to cast a ballot and have it counted.

Read the full op-ed on CNN.

The Democratic Party continues the fight for voting rights year-round. As we know too well, these struggles are not a thing of the past: Minority voters in particular still encounter obstacles at every step of the voting process, from registration to casting a ballot. Practices such as photo identification laws that respond to the made-up problem of voter fraud disproportionately exclude low-income and minority voters.

We are making definite progress -- but we won't stop working to promote a system of elections that is accessible, open, and fair in upcoming elections and beyond -- and ensure that every vote lawfully cast is counted.

You can read the statement from DNC Chairman Tim Kaine commemorating today's anniversary of Bloody Sunday below:

“This weekend marks the 45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, where some 600 civil rights marchers attempted to walk from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. They had only made it about six blocks, to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, when the marchers were met with tear gas and beaten by state and local officers with clubs. Horrific images from that day broadcast on television left an indelible mark on the American people. Later that year, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, putting an end to poll taxes, literacy tests, and other efforts to keep minorities from voting.

“We have certainly come a long way since Selma. Last year, more than four decades after Bloody Sunday, our first African American President, Barack Obama, was sworn into office. For many, his Presidency represents the achievement of Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream. But as we acknowledge how far we have come, we cannot allow ourselves to think our work is over to breaking down barriers for all Americans.

“Even today, decades after Jim Crow laws were struck down and four years after the Voting Rights Act was renewed, too many Americans still face discrimination at the polls and people are treated unfairly because of who they are or what they believe. That is why the President and the Democrats at all levels of government are committed to ensuring that every eligible American is able to cast a vote and have their vote counted. And it’s why the President and the Justice Department are making fighting discrimination a priority. President Obama’s signing of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is named in part for James Byrd, who was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck in Texas because of the color of his skin, was just one step in the right direction.

“But there is more work to do. As we remember the brave men and women who marched 45 years ago, let us renew our commitment to ensuring that all Americans – regardless of race, color and creed – are able to live free from fear or discrimination and able to achieve the American Dream.”

Last November the RNC went to court to challenge the decree, arguing that the party’s so-called “ballot security” programs are essential to preventing voter fraud. In rejecting these arguments, the court found that there is “no indication” that voter registration fraud threatens the integrity of elections, noting that the RNC was “unable to point to a single instance in which an individual actually voted using … a fictitious identity.”

Instead, the court called the RNC’s “ballot security” measures —including compiling lists to challenge minority voters at the polls— “politically-motivated” and found that they “result in the disenfranchisement of many individuals whose eligibility is not in question.”

In a joint statement released following the judge’s decision, DNC Chair Tim Kaine and Vice Chair Donna Brazile said:

“For years, Republicans have engaged in deplorable practices that intimidate voters and make it more difficult for them to cast their ballot. This is wrong, and it is illegal. As the court made clear, these types of actions stand in the way of Americans’ fundamental rights under the Constitution of the United States.

...These are not the ideals that our country was founded on, and they should not be tolerated. We applaud yesterday’s decision and recommit ourselves to fighting to ensure that the right to vote is fully protected.”

Click here to read Chairman Kaine and Vice Chair Brazile’s full statement.

Click here to read the judge’s full decision.

“Yesterday's ruling is a victory for all Americans who believe that every eligible citizen should have the right to vote and have their vote counted. It also represents a resounding repudiation of the Republican Party's trumped up claims of voter fraud. Our great nation was founded on the principles of equality and freedom, and our founders envisioned the right to vote as central to our ideals. Yet for years, Republicans have engaged in deplorable practices that intimidate voters and make it more difficult for them to cast their ballot.

“This is wrong, and it is illegal. As the court made clear, these types of actions stand in the way of Americans’ fundamental rights under the Constitution of the United States. Republicans would be better served trying to engage minority and under-represented voters rather than trying to intimidate them. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that these types of practices still occur, that Republicans have engaged in them in recent elections and that without a consent decree barring such actions Republicans will continue to have an incentive to engage in them. That Republicans, who attempted to use foreclosure lists in the 2008 election to deny people the right to vote in Michigan, even asked the court to nullify this decree, shows just how eager they are to continue engaging in practices to suppress the rightful votes of thousands of American citizens.

“These are not the ideals that our country was founded on, and they should not be tolerated. We applaud yesterday’s decision and recommit ourselves to fighting to ensure that the right to vote is fully protected. And we encourage Republicans to work with us to reform our electoral system to remove any impediments to voting and to ensure our voting rights laws are enforced consistent with the law.”

The law, co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), will make it easier for American military service members and citizens overseas to vote and make sure that their votes are counted. By some estimates as many as one in four ballots requested by voters overseas was not counted during the 2008 election. The law takes effect in 2010.

Specifically, the legislation will make voter registration applications, absentee ballot applications and blank ballots available electronically, require that ballots are sent to overseas voters no less than 45 days before Election Day, and eliminate the requirement that military and overseas ballots be notarized (in the states that still require it). It will also give more Americans the opportunity to use the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, which is currently available online and can serve as a “back-up” measure, if a local absentee ballot does not arrive in time.

The Pew Center on the States has a good write up on the issue. Read it here.

6/1/09 – Update – The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has rejected two Georgia election administration procedures enacted in 2007 with the purported purpose of verifying the identities and citizenship of voters. DOJ found that the state had failed to prove that the procedures would not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters. Georgia is one of nine states with a history of discrimination that are required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to submit all new voting procedures to DOJ or a federal court for “preclearance” prior to implementation. Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, a Republican, did not submit the two procedures for federal review until after a coalition of voting rights groups, representing a naturalized citizen in Georgia, filed suit.

The rejected procedures used state and federal databases to verify the identities and citizenship of voter registration applicants and, in some cases, to verify the citizenship of existing registered voters. One of the procedures flagged persons as non-citizens based upon conflicting records from the Georgia voter registration database and the state’s Department of Driver Services (DDS), and required these persons to submit additional proof of their citizenship before voting. Under the second procedure -- a “no match, no vote” program -- the Secretary of State’s office would reject the voter registrations of persons who provided personal information that did not match records from the Social Security Administration or DDS databases. The Help America Vote Act of 2002, which Congress enacted to improve election administration, does not require voters to supply proof of citizenship, and instances of non-citizens voting are rare to non-existent. When such an aberration has occurred, it typically resulted from a mistake or confusion about eligibility.

Secretary of State Handel had asserted that the procedures were necessary to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. But DOJ found that Georgia had incorrectly identified thousands of eligible voters as non-citizens and that those flagged for additional scrutiny were overwhelmingly African American, Latino, or Asian American. DOJ concluded that minority voters were improperly subjected to higher burdens on their right to register and vote, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Voting rights advocates are applauding DOJ’s continued affirmation of the Act and its rejection of Georgia’s discriminatory voter verification practices.

8/12/09 – Update – The State of Georgia is appealing the Department of Justice’s rejection of two Georgia voter verification procedures under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Secretary of State Karen Handel said in a statement that she does not “believe there is anything discriminatory in verifying voter information and citizenship.” The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of several voting rights groups that brought suit against Secretary Handel in October 2008, denounced the appeal, expressing its disappointment that she has sought to defend “a flawed, unreliable database system that creates barriers to voting.” DOJ has 60 days to respond to the appeal.

10/16/09 – Update – DOJ has again rejected the two Georgia election administration procedures enacted in 2007 purportedly to verify the identities and citizenship of voters. In a letter sent to Georgia Deputy Attorney General Dennis Dunn earlier this week, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez wrote that he remains “unable to conclude that the State of Georgia has carried its burden of showing that the original voter registration verification program has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.” Mr. Perez provided a list of additional information Georgia would need to provide for the Justice Department to consider the state’s changes to the system. Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel has said she will discuss the state’s options with state Attorney General Thurbert Baker and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue. Please join the Democratic National Committee in continuing to support the Voting Rights Act and advancing the voting rights of all eligible persons.

8/12/09 – Update – The State of Georgia is appealing the Department of Justice’s rejection of two Georgia voter verification procedures under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Secretary of State Karen Handel said in a statement that she does not “believe there is anything discriminatory in verifying voter information and citizenship.” The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of several voting rights groups that brought suit against Secretary Handel in October 2008, denounced the appeal, expressing its disappointment that she has sought to defend “a flawed, unreliable database system that creates barriers to voting.” DOJ has 60 days to respond to the appeal.

The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has rejected two Georgia election administration procedures enacted in 2007 purportedly to verify the identities and citizenship of voters. DOJ found that the state had failed to prove that the procedures would not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters. Georgia is one of nine states with a history of discrimination, which are required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to submit all new voting procedures to DOJ or a federal court for “preclearance” prior to implementation. Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, a Republican, did not submit the two procedures for federal review until after a coalition of voting rights groups, representing a naturalized citizen in Georgia, filed suit.

The rejected procedures used state and federal databases to verify the identities and citizenship of voter registration applicants and, in some cases, to verify the citizenship of existing registered voters. One of the procedures flagged persons as non-citizens based upon conflicting records from the Georgia voter registration database and the state’s Department of Driver Services (DDS), and required these persons to submit additional proof of their citizenship before voting. Under the second procedure -- a “no match, no vote” program -- the Secretary of State’s office would reject the voter registrations of persons who provided personal information that did not match records from the Social Security Administration or DDS databases. The Help America Vote Act of 2002, which Congress enacted to improve election administration, does not require voters to supply proof of citizenship, and instances of non-citizens voting are rare to non-existent. When such an aberration has occurred, it typically resulted from a mistake or confusion about eligibility.

Secretary of State Handel had asserted that the procedures were necessary to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. But DOJ found that Georgia had incorrectly identified thousands of eligible voters as non-citizens and that those flagged for additional scrutiny were overwhelmingly African-American, Latino, or Asian-American. DOJ concluded that minority voters were improperly subjected to higher burdens on their right to register and vote, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Voting rights advocates are applauding DOJ’s continued affirmation of the Act and its rejection of Georgia’s discriminatory voter verification practices.

6/1/09 – Update – The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has rejected two Georgia election administration procedures enacted in 2007 purportedly to verify the identities and citizenship of voters. DOJ found that the state had failed to prove that the procedures would not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters. Georgia is one of nine states with a history of discrimination, which are required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to submit all new voting procedures to DOJ or a federal court for “preclearance” prior to implementation. Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, a Republican, did not submit the two procedures for federal review until after a coalition of voting rights groups, representing a naturalized citizen in Georgia, filed suit.

The rejected procedures used state and federal databases to verify the identities and citizenship of voter registration applicants and, in some cases, to verify the citizenship of existing registered voters. One of the procedures flagged persons as non-citizens based upon conflicting records from the Georgia voter registration database and the state’s Department of Driver Services (DDS), and required these persons to submit additional proof of their citizenship before voting. Under the second procedure -- a “no match, no vote” program -- the Secretary of State’s office would reject the voter registrations of persons who provided personal information that did not match records from the Social Security Administration or DDS databases. The Help America Vote Act of 2002, which Congress enacted to improve election administration, does not require voters to supply proof of citizenship, and instances of non-citizens voting are rare to non-existent. When such an aberration has occurred, it typically resulted from a mistake or confusion about eligibility.

Secretary of State Handel had asserted that the procedures were necessary to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. But DOJ found that Georgia had incorrectly identified thousands of eligible voters as non-citizens and that those flagged for additional scrutiny were overwhelmingly African-American, Latino, or Asian-American. DOJ concluded that minority voters were improperly subjected to higher burdens on their right to register and vote, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Voting rights advocates are applauding DOJ’s continued affirmation of the Act and its rejection of Georgia’s discriminatory voter verification practices.

The Indiana legislature passed the voter ID law in 2005. Challenged in federal court in 2007, the law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2008. In its 6-to-3 ruling, the Court held that the state had a “valid interest” in improving election administration procedures and deterring fraud. Challenged again, this time in state court, the law was struck down by a unanimous three-judge panel of the court of appeals, which found that the law violates the Indiana constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

States are increasingly imposing restrictive laws as a prerequisite to voting. Although the majority of Americans have photo ID, these laws disproportionately exclude from voting many senior citizens, low-income voters, students, and people with disabilities who do not. Advocates of voter ID laws assert that they are necessary to combat in-person voter fraud, although there is no evidence that any such fraud is an actual problem. Please join the Democratic National Committee in continuing to support an open and accessible election process. We will continue to monitor developments in this case and others.

On September 14, Senator Schumer asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the proposed merger for possible anti-trust violations. The following day, Hart InterCivic Inc., a Texas-based voting-machine company, filed suit to try to stop the sale on anti-trust grounds. ES&S machines counted approximately 50% of all ballots cast in the last four major U.S. elections, and the merger would result in the company acquiring an approximately 70% share of the voting machine market.

Voting rights advocates also have expressed concern over the proposed sale, asserting that it threatens to undermine the reliability and integrity of elections. On September 28, Voter Action, an advocacy organization, filed a complaint with the Department of Justice, challenging the merger on anti-trust grounds and arguing that it has the “potential for disturbing U.S. election processes and results.” Senator Schumer said in today’s announcement that it is “in the public interest to maintain a range of choices in voting systems. If one company has a stranglehold over the market for voting machines, it runs the risk of jeopardizing the integrity of our elections.”

The Democratic National Committee supports a system of elections administration that is accessible, open, and fair. We will continue to monitor this issue, and others affecting the administration of elections.

Fannie Lou believed in democracy. When she first learned that Blacks could vote, she did not wait. She raised her hand to go down to Indianola, Mississippi to register to vote. Though her first attempts were unsuccessful, the experience moved Fannie Lou to act. Despite the loss of her job as a sharecropper, multiple beatings, and threats to her life, Hamer became involved in voter registration drives and helped form the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, which challenged the all-white Mississippi delegation to the Democratic National Convention. In 1964, Hamer took her case to the Convention. Speaking to the Credentials Committee, she famously challenged the Party to live up to its ideals, asking “Is this America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where we have to sleep with our telephones off the hooks because our lives be threatened daily, because we want to live as decent human beings, in America?” Hamer’s words and presence at the Convention led the DNC to change its rules in 1968 to require equal representation within state delegations to its national conventions.

Fannie Lou served as a Mississippi delegate to the Democratic National Convention, and continued to work to expand the rights of women and people of color until her death in 1977. She is buried in her hometown of Ruleville, Mississippi, where her tombstone, adopting her signature line, reads, “I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.”

The spirit that Fannie Lou ignited in our country decades ago continues to grow today. As millions of voters prepare to go to the polls in Virginia and New Jersey to cast their ballots, the Democratic National Committee stands strongly committed to meaningful and comprehensive election reform that will guarantee every eligible American - regardless of race, ethnicity, geography, disability, language, political party, gender, economic status or education - the constitutional right to equal participation in the political process.

Today, we remember a pioneer. A woman who dared to expand democracy for all people.

Read the DNC Resolution in Support of Accurate, Open and Transparent Elections in the United States of America.

A recent report by the ACLU found that Native American voters in South Dakota and elsewhere continue to face significant obstacles to voting, including electoral systems that dilute Native voting strength; burdensome voter ID requirements; lack of language assistance at the polls; and discriminatory voter registration procedures. In 2004, during the South Dakota primary, poll workers illegally turned away Native American voters who did not have the necessary identification, although voters could vote even without ID by signing an affidavit. And in 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that the city of Martin, South Dakota violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing districts that dilute the strength of the Native vote.

The problems facing Native American voters demonstrate that ongoing, strong enforcement of the Voting Rights Act is necessary to protect the voting rights of persons across the country. Please join the Democratic National Committee in continuing to support the Voting Rights Act, and a voting process that is open and accessible to all eligible voters.

The two-judge majority of the Court of Appeals rejected the arguments of the plaintiffs, finding that the “language, history, and context” of the Voting Rights Act make clear that Congress did not intend for Section 2 to prohibit states from passing laws that prohibit currently incarcerated felons from voting. The dissenting judge found that the plain meaning of Section 2 supported the plaintiffs’ challenge, and that the law had a “disproportionately adverse effect” on African-American and Latino prisoners, who are over-represented in the criminal justice system.

Felony disenfranchisement laws bar more than 5 million American citizens from voting, and nationwide, 13 percent of African American men, seven times the national average, are unable to vote because of the laws. The Democratic National Committee will continue to monitor developments in this case, and others involving the Voting Rights Act.