Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has helped to launch NoVoterLeftBehind.net, a project of Democrats for America's Future (DAF). The site is designed to monitor voter registration and to monitor the voting process during the November 2008 election. The goal is to bring attention to any irregularities that occur and to urge "every Democratic candidate to pledge not to concede a single race until every last vote is counted."

"This is about more -- far more -- than who wins the next election, as important as that is. If we can't guarantee the citizens of a democracy that their votes will be counted, every other liberty we hold dear is at risk," said Kennedy in a letter he sent to Democrats across the county.

In the Press Release, Barbara Roberts, former Oregon Governor and Secretary of State, said "from the voter registration process to Election Day challenges and beyond -- DAF will fight every last fight to the very end, insisting that every American is guaranteed a democracy's most sacred right: their vote."

The National Action Network, along with the National Urban League, the Southern Christian Leadership Council and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), will lead a voter protection and voter registration initiative in seven states leading up to the November general election.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, President of the National Action Network, announced the "Not this Time" initiative yesterday at a Denver restaurant. The initiative is entitled "Not this Time" because its purpose is to prevent the voting mishaps that occurred during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

According to the Associated Press, Sharpton said that "the civil rights organization National Action Network and others will begin in Florida, then travel to six other states to register voters and make sure people who think they're registered actually are." The six other states that the organizations will travel to are Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Alabama.

"We're going to send people into key states in mid-September to go into churches and community centers and have people give us their names to check their registration so that we don't wait until Election Day and find out they're not registered," Sharpton said.

The Center for Civic Policy, a 501(c)(3) organization in New Mexico, distributed a series of mailers regarding the voting records of some members of the state legislature months before the June 3 primary. After losing the primary election, three lawmakers have sued Aug. 1, asserting that the group committed fraud in the financing of campaigns against them, alleging that the group's efforts crossed the line into political activity. They also want the group to register as a political action committee to fully disclose its funders. Meanwhile, New Mexico Attorney General Gary King asserted that the activities crossed the line into campaigning and requested the Secretary of State require them to register as a political committee.

"There's an old saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its probably a duck," say AG King. "And I think we know a duck when we see one."

And reportedly, the Secretary of State now agrees.

The executive director of the Center for Civic Policy Eli Il Yong Lee, stated; "Any effort to restrict this legal activity would muzzle New Mexico nonprofits from doing the very important job of keeping public officials accountable."

The Voter Rights Protection Project, which was recently launched by the Campaign Legal Center, provides legal documents to help protect the right to vote. According to the Campaign Legal Center, the Project provides "generic drafts of potential court filings to individuals, organizations, and political parties who must resort to the courts to protect the fundamental rights of citizens to vote." The templates are publicly available, and information about the Project has been sent to the leaders of both major political parties, as well as to the campaigns of the presumptive presidential nominees for both major political parties.

The template will enable individuals, advocacy groups, political parties, and candidates to seek legal recourse for any problems that occur either prior to or during the election.

"When things go wrong on Election Day, as they sometimes do, citizens deserve legal recourse to ensure their voting rights are protected and their votes are counted," said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director and Director of Litigation for the Campaign Legal Center.

Interested parties can access the templates on the Campaign Legal Center's website in September. They can also send them via email upon request.

A federal appeals court issued a decision in Preminger v. Peake upholding the Veterans Administration (VA) policy that bans voter registration drives in its facilities. The court decided that the rule does not violate the First Amendment.

Four years ago Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee tried to conduct voter registration at a VA facility and was stopped due to a rule that prohibits partisan political activity at VA hospital. The committee sued in 2004 charging that the policy violated the First Amendment.

The appeals court agreed that voter registration drives could compromise a facilities' ability to provide health care services to veterans. The court decision stated that "allowing one political party access to the Menlo Park campus would invite requests from other political parties to do the same and that supervising numerous voter registration campaigns would be difficult and time-consuming, diverting resources vital to the residents' treatment."

Meanwhile in Connecticut, according to the New Haven Register "Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal declared a victory for democracy when Roger Johnson, administrator for the two federal veterans' medical centers in Connecticut, agreed to allow Byziewicz to conduct a voter education session and registration inside the West Haven facility Thursday. Johnson, however, said Bysiewicz only would be allowed to register in-patients at the hospital and the handful of veterans who live there."

The New York Times features an op-ed written by Bysiewicz in which she bluntly states that because of the VA's policy, "too many of our most patriotic American citizens — our injured and ill military veterans — may not be able to vote this November."

The department offers two reasons to justify its decision. First, it claims that voter registration drives are disruptive to the care of its patients. This is nonsense. Veterans can fill out a voter registration card in about 90 seconds. Second, the department claims that its employees cannot help patients register to vote because the Hatch Act forbids federal workers from engaging in partisan political activities. But this interpretation of the Hatch Act is erroneous. Registering people to vote is not partisan activity."

"The federal government should be doing everything it can to support our nation's veterans who have served us so courageously. There can be no justification for any barrier that impedes the ability of veterans to participate in democracy's most fundamental act, the vote."

For more information, see this latest Watcher article, Voter Registration Barriers Challenged in New Mexico, at Veterans Affairs.

Grassroots activists are urging ex-offenders with felony convictions to vote. A detailed article highlighting the activists' efforts appeared in today's Washington Post. The Post article focuses mainly on efforts to urge ex-offenders in Florida to vote. Ex-offenders in Florida with felony convictions are now eligible to vote thanks to a law passed in 2006, which allows non-violent ex-offenders with felony convictions to vote if they have completed probation, paid restitution, and do not have any charges pending.

It appears, however, that many ex-offenders are not aware of the law. Reggie Mitchell, the former Florida Legal Director of People for the American Way, has been a leader in the effort to make eligible ex-offenders aware that they can vote and urge them to do so.

The Washington Post reports that "[s]ince the law was changed, the ACLU and People for the American Way have been reaching out to ex-offenders through Web sites that help people figure out whether the state [of Florida] has acted on their cases. Mitchell oversaw the project that helped build the foundation's Restore My Vote site (http://www.restoremyvote.org) ."

Similar efforts have occurred around the country. Every state except for Vermont and Maine limit the voting rights for individuals convicted of a felony. Kentucky and Virginia deny the right to vote to all individuals convicted of a felony. The laws of the other states vary and fall between the two extremes.

On April 28, 2008, the Brennan Center, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters (LWV) of Florida, the AFL-CIO of Florida, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 79, challenging a revised Florida voter registration law that imposes excessive fines on voter registration groups and risks preventing eligible Florida citizens from registering and voting in the 2008 elections. The law does not have any exceptions for innocent mistakes or potential state misconduct.

The law creates a punishing and complicated tiered regime of deadlines and fines: $50 fines for each form turned in more than 10 days after collection; $250 for each form turned in past a registration deadline; and $500 for each lost form. The fines apply to each and every form that is lost or late. The fines are $250, $500 and $1000, respectively, for any group or individual found to have done any of the above willfully. Plaintiffs argue that even with reduced—but significant—fines, the law is so vague that its cumulative effect could be just as risky to non-profit voter registration groups largely operated by volunteers as the earlier version of the law.

The LWV sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Secretary of State from enforcing the law. They argue that the law continues to be too vague and does not provide sufficient information of its enforcement. "Amended Law has impermissibly 'chilled' their First Amendment rights and will negatively affect general voter registration and, in particular, will affect those who rely on Plaintiffs to participate in the political process most harshly, such as disabled persons and members of low-income communities." Their request for a preliminary injunction was denied on Aug. 6.

The court argues that the revised version of the law should ease the parties' complaints. According to the court, the changes made to the law "substantially reduce the alleged burdens imposed on Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights." The court further argues that the law is in the best interest of the state; "ensuring voters are properly and timely registered, Florida's interests in protecting its voters are equally impaired by unintentional or negligent mishandling of registration applications."

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church v. Unswort, a challenge to Montana's election campaign reporting laws. The Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church held an event in May 2004, and during which the Rev. B.G. Stumberg urged parishioners to sign petitions at the church in support of a constitutional ban on gay marriages. Advocates filed a complaint arguing that the church inappropriately held an event to support a political cause subject to the state's political contribution reporting requirements. The Montana Commissioner of Political Practices had previously ruled that the church should have reported its activities to get voters to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Reportedly; "Lawyers for the church filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing the parishioners' rights to free speech and religious expression under the First and Fourteenth amendments were being trampled by the 'vague' and 'ambiguous' election laws."