Alabama Senate Minority Leaders Vote on a Measure Discriminating Between Payed Assistance and Non-Paying Assistance in Absentee Voting
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama lawmakers on Tuesday gave final approval to a bill that would outlaw paid assistance with absentee ballot applications and another that would restrict diversity, equity and inclusion programs at universities and state agencies.
Republicans had named the bills as priorities for the legislative session. In votes split along party lines, the Senate agreed to changes made by the House. The two bills now go to Gov. Kay Ivey for her signature.
The absentee voting bill would make it a misdemeanor to distribute a pre-filled absentee ballot application to a voter or return another voter’s completed application. It would become a felony to give, or receive, a payment or gift “for distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining, or delivering a voter’s absentee ballot application.”
The Republicans want to combat voter fraud withballot harvesting, a term that means collection of multiple absentee ballots. Democrats argued that there is no proof that ballot harvesting exists and called it an attempt to suppress voting by absentee ballot.
“Any person can still get anyone’s help with applications, but no part of that application can be pre-filled. The bill was introduced by Republican Sen. Garlan Gudger. When people say, “I want you to vote this way,’ there’s a lot of pressure.” You can’t do that. You have to have something blank.
“It’s just another voter suppression. It’s just a means of suppressing certain people from having the ability and right to access to the free flowing of the vote,” Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton said.
Alabama legislation aims to criminalize the acts of good Samaritans, whether they are from neighbors, church members, nursing home staffers or prison Chaplains, said a statement from the Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund.
An Anti-Deficiency Injunction Measure and its Implications for the First Amendment and Civil Liberties in Alabama and the U.S.
Since 2023, 80 anti-DEI bills have been introduced in 28 states and Congress, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. Measures have been signed into law in eight states.
Black Democrats said that Republicans were trying to guard against programs that deepen divisions and that the effort was to roll back affirmative action programs that welcome and encourage diversity.
The bill would also attempt to ban people from using restrooms based on their sex at school.
The legislation says colleges and universities “shall ensure that every multiple occupancy restroom be designated for use by individuals based” on the sex that a person was assigned at birth. It is unclear how the requirement would be enforced.
The House and Senate gave final approval to the measure one day after all of them signed the bill. It will take effect on Oct. 1. College students who oppose the bill have organized protests against it, including a large rally at the State House earlier this month, member station WBHM reports.
Proponents of such bills say they are driven by politics rather than educational desire, and that attempts to ban DEI are more likely to undermine the protections of free speech.
The legislation does not specifically mention the troubling record of Alabama and the U.S. on race, such as the dehumanizing enslavement of Black people and longstanding attempts to disenfranchise Black voters. The way schools teach about those topics has been a point of political debate over the last few years.
The bill is against the idea that any individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, regardless of the way they think.
The legislation states that people in one demographic group are responsible for actions committed by other members of that group.
The longest section of the bill is devoted to laying out its limits, and some of the language seems geared toward trying to prevent it from being overturned.
This is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Clearly vague. He said it was clear that the law was unconstitutional. “We’re putting a prior restraint on my thoughts of speech,” he added, calling out what he said was a First Amendment violation.
Subsection 98(1) of the C.C.V.A.E.R.L. (1984) 213 (References on High Schools and Universities)
In other subsections, the bill gives some leeway to colleges needing to fulfill accreditation standards or requirements, both in their subject matter and in the collection of demographic information.