SALEM, Ore. - The 2020 Democracy Scorecard from Common Cause is out - and Oregon's congressional delegation does very well, with one exception.

The nonpartisan watchdog group ranks lawmakers on their support for bills that would overhaul voting, ethics and campaign-finance rules and laws. The state's sole Republican congressman, Rep. Greg Walden - R-Hood River - scored just one out of 15.

Aaron Scherb, director of legislative affairs with Common Cause, said conservatives have turned away from bipartisan issues they used to support - from disclosure of campaign spending to strengthening the Voting Rights Act.

"The Republican Party has mostly done a 180 on those issues," said Scherb. "So, it's unfortunate that it's really only in Washington, D.C, where some of these issues to strengthen our democracy are seen as partisan."

The House of Representatives has passed 10 democracy reform bills in recent years, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused to bring them to a vote in that chamber.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley and Rep. Earl Blumenauer - D-Portland - and Rep. Peter DeFazio - D-Springfield - all got 100% on the Democracy Scorecard. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici - D-Beaverton - and Rep. Kurt Schrader - D-Canby - weren't far behind.

Scherb said the third annual ranking highlights for voters just where their elected representatives stand on the major issues of democracy reform.

"What are members of Congress doing to get big money out of politics," asked Scherb, "to help strengthen and protect the right to vote? How are they ending partisan gerrymandering? How are they creating more ethical and accountable government?"

Some of the proposals now in Congress are intended to override decisions handed down by the Supreme Court over the past decade.

HR 1 would supersede the Citizen's United decision from 2010, which said political donations are a form of free speech and opened up the floodgates for so-called "dark money" in American elections.

HR 4 would undo a 2013 high-court decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act, giving control back to states with a history of disenfranchising minority voters.



get more stories like this via email

States are required to conduct regular voter list maintenance to ensure the rolls are accurate. But a new Michigan State University study suggests the state's process may disproportionately target underrepresented and lower-income communities.

Purging voter rolls typically means removing inactive voters, or those who have died or relocated.

The MSU analysis of over 175,000 voters removed between 2014 and 2018 found higher purge rates in cities, and among Black voters and registered Democrats.

Assistant Professor in MSU's School of Criminal Justice Thomas Wojciechowski said during that time period, Michigan had a Republican majority in its Legislature.

"We found that having a greater proportion of Black residents in certain communities was associated with greater rates of over-purge," said Wojciechowski. "So, there was a statistical relationship right there that says, 'OK, there's a racial disparity in voter purging going on.'"

The researchers agree that the purging practice is necessary but could lend itself to voter disenfranchisement, especially among inactive voters.

The study was prompted by the group Michigan Faith in Action.

Areas included in the purge had a 17% Black population, average annual incomes of just under $50,000, and about half the population listed as Democrats.

Wojciechowski said despite accounting for legitimate reasons for higher purge rates in these areas, they still found racial disparities.

"We can't go in and actually impugn intent or anything," said Wojciechowski, "but certainly there is incentive to disproportionately marginalize the voting power of these communities."

Although the purge in question took place between 2014 and 2018, the team says its findings are still relevant.

Study coauthor, MSU Associate Professor of Public Health and Family Medicine Richard Sadler, said not many other states have analyzed voter purging in this way. He said he hopes that will change.

"To the extent we can get this data in other states, and other research teams can start replicating this," said Sadler, "we may be able to show the importance of voter registration and retention policies that keep people on rolls."

If you're planning to vote in person this election, Sadler said you can check your registration status online at the Michigan Voter Information Center - mvic.sos.state.mi.us - before showing up at the polls.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Voting-rights groups in New Hampshire have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state's new election law, which requires proof of citizenship for first-time voters.

It also does away with the affidavit system, which allows people without photo ID to sign a legal document swearing to their voter eligibility.

Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, says thousands of voters could be impacted.

"Voter fraud is vanishingly rare in New Hampshire, citizenship fraud even more so," said Klementowicz. "What is to be gained by just fencing all these people out of our elections?"

State Republicans claim the law is needed to not only prevent fraud, but boost public confidence in the election system.

Democrats say it creates needless barriers for people who can't access the required legal documents.

The law will take effect November 11 and will not impact the upcoming election on November 5.

Critics of the new law say changes to the state's voter challenge process also create opportunities for abuse.

Under current law, if a voter's eligibility is questioned at the polls, the election moderator on site can resolve the dispute - allowing that person to cast a ballot and sign an affidavit to attest to his or her identity.

Klementowicz said with affidavits now gone, challenged voters must head to court.

"There's a theoretical right of appeal to the Superior Court," said Klementowicz. "It costs over $200. They're not open as late as the polls are on Election Day. It can take hours if you're lucky."

Klementowicz called the law unconstitutional as well as one of the most restrictive in the country. A similar bill in Kansas requiring proof of citizenship to vote was struck down by a federal judge in 2018.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

With a month to go before the presidential election, voters in swing states such as Wisconsin are likely to hear more messaging about the outcome shaping the future of the nation's highest court.

In a recent Ipsos poll, four in five Americans said nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court will be an important factor when casting their ballot.

The court and its conservative majority have come under scrutiny over decisions regarding abortion protections and presidential immunity, as well as ethics issues.

Joe Hines - managing director of digital campaigns with the left-leaning advocacy group Stand Up America - said with four of the nine justices soon turning 70, another Trump presidency could push the court even further right.

"We are trying to make it clear to voters that when you're voting this year, you're not just voting for a president, you're not just voting for Congress," said Hines. "You're also voting for generations of decisions that will impact you, your family, your children, your grandchildren's fundamental rights."

As for public polling, a majority of Americans back the idea of Supreme Court term limits, but only a small percentage of Republican voters support expanding the court to 15 justices.

Most Democrats embrace that possible reform. Some GOP lawmakers have argued certain changes would be unconstitutional.

But advocates such as Hines contend there's a huge conflict of interest with the court right now.

"They'll continue to hear a lot of cases around voting rights - including, probably, cases around this very election, cases around the president's power," said Hines. "So, they'll be hearing a lot of cases that concern the people that are appointing them."

He noted that a handful of justices taking up these issues, especially matters directly involving former President Donald Trump, were appointed during Trump's term in office.

In the same Ipsos poll, more Americans said they think the court decides cases on the basis of political views than the law.