The California Assembly passed a major piece of voting rights legislation Thursday, bucking the trend of new voter suppression laws that have passed in other states like Texas and Florida.

AB 1436, which passed the Assembly by a 47-26 vote, would remove restrictions on when Californians could register to vote. If it becomes law, citizens would also be able to register at the polls on Election Day.

The AP has more:

Californians who forgot to register for next week’s election may have better luck next time if a bill passed by the Assembly becomes law. [...]

Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a Democrat from Los Angeles, said he wrote the bill to address the state’s chronically low voter participation rate.

Right now, Californians are only allowed to register up to 15 days before an election. Passing AB 1436 would change that and significantly boost voter turnout in the Golden State.

In the nine states (plus Washington DC) that currently allow Election Day registration, studies have shown the legislation boosted voter turnout by seven percentage points. Most states that have implemented Election Day registration are small or medium-sized; California could pave the way for large states to embrace this important step in voting rights.

AB 1436 will now advance to the Senate, where Democrats enjoy a 25-15 advantage.

A civil rights group sued California’s prison system yesterday, claiming its use of long-term solitary confinement for the high-security inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison should be considered torture and therefore violates the prisoners’ human rights.

Lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit demanding prison reforms on behalf of the more than 500 current inmates who have been held in Secure Housing Units in the maximum-security prison — which involves prolonged isolation in the 80-square-foot, windowless cells for all but 90 minutes a day — for between 10 and 28 years. Seventy-eight of those prisoners have been in solitary confinement at Pelican Bay State Prison for more than 20 years.

The lawsuit is in line with United Nations experts’ recommendations for a nation-wide ban on solitary confinement. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan E. Méndez, urged the U.S. to cease the practice except in very rare cases:

Segregation, isolation, separation, cellular, lockdown, Supermax, the hole, Secure Housing Unit… whatever the name, solitary confinement should be banned by States as a punishment or extortion technique. [...] Considering the severe mental pain or suffering solitary confinement may cause, it can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Human rights groups also maintain that ending solitary confinement is an integral step in putting a stop to torture and maintaining the basic moral standards of our nation. Human Rights Watch has documented the United States’ “inappropriate use” of solitary confinement and prolonged isolation for over a decade, and has frequently detailed its damaging psychological effects in U.S. prisons:

Isolation can be psychologically harmful to any prisoner, with the nature and severity of the impact depending on the individual, the duration, and particular conditions (e.g., access to natural light, books, or radio). Psychological effects can include anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis.

Pelican Bay’s prison has been a source of controversy in the state for some time. Last July, prisoners staged a three-week-long hunger strike to protest the conditions in the facility, helping to raise awareness across California about the negative effects of Secure Housing Units.

Immigration remains a divisive issue for Republicans, with a faction of the party backing anti-immigrant laws while others are more moderate. On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney tried to straddle the divide. He first promised to veto the DREAM Act to win over hard right primary voters, before saying in April that he would be OK with the legislation for people who serve in the military. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who endorsed Romney, has promised to introduce his own version of the DREAM Act by the end of the summer, but that puts him at odds with another Romney supporter, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who dismissed the bill as a gimmick.

Now, another Florida Republican has introduced another alternative to the DREAM Act in the House. Rep. David Rivera’s (R-FL) bill would offer undocumented immigrants the chance to receive conditional non-immigrant status. But under the Studying Towards Adjusted Residency Status — or STARS — Act, only undocumented immigrants who are 18 or younger and meet a laundry list of requirements would be eligible:

“The STARS Act would allow undocumented students who arrived here at a young age, graduated from high school and are accepted into a university, to apply for a five-year conditional non-immigrant status,” Rivera said in floor remarks.

According to an aide, Rivera has had discussions with Rubio over their proposals.

“Congressman Rivera has had discussion about the STARS Act with Sen. Rubio, but the congressman recognizes that the House and Senate each have their own legislative process,” the aide said. “The STARS Act is meant to start the conversation in the House of Representatives in the hopes of achieving some sort of immigration reform in the 112th Congress.”

If they graduate from a four year college during that first five-year period, they can then apply for another five years after graduating college. Then, during the second five-year period and after thousands of dollars in fees, they could apply for legal permanent residence. Once granted, it would be another five years before they could apply for citizenship.

In other words, Rivera has proposed a complicated process for a very limited portion of the undocumented population living in the U.S. right now — and one that many of his fellow Republicans likely will not take seriously. House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) has already said he would not hold a hearing on the DREAM Act in his committee, and Rivera said Smith has not said yes to his legislation.

Unlike Rubio, Rivera recognizes the importance of providing a clear path to permanent status and eventually citizenship. But if Rivera was serious about offering a path to citizenship for undocumented students, there’s already a plan for that — and it’s called the DREAM Act.

Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) denied that his effort to purge voters from the rolls disproportionately targets minorities who support Democratic candidates on Friday morning, even as independent investigations have confirmed that 58 percent “of those flagged as potential noncitizens are Hispanics.” “The Secretary of State’s office is doing the right thing,” Scott told the Miami Herald in defending his effort, before insisting that the administration is “absolutely not” targeting minorities.

Asked if he was planning to heed the Department of Justice’s request that the state abandon its voter-cleansing program, Scott said that the Secretary of State is still reviewing the matter.

“The Secretary of State’s office is going to review what the Department of Justice has said,” he said “And then we’re going to make a decision.”

In a letter released on Thursday, the federal government claimed that Scott’s purge violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act — which requires the state to seek federal approval of its campaign — and the National Voter Registration Act. That measure says that “a State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.” As a result, Florida should have finished the process by May 16.

But while Scott is still considering his options, a growing number of election officials have already rejected his error-ridden voter purge list. A ThinkProgress analysis of several county supervisors in Florida has also found that a large number of the voters on the list are indeed eligible voters, including at least two World War II veterans.

Tell Gov. Rick Scott to put a stop to Florida’s voter purge by adding your name here.

On Wednesday, Palm Beach County Elections Supervisor Susan Bucher (D) told ThinkProgress her office has rejected the error-ridden list of alleged non-citizen voters sent to county officials by Gov. Rick Scott’s (R-FL) administration. Now, as the Department of Justice has told Florida to stop its illegal purge, other county elections officials across Florida have confirmed their counties will not comply with the state’s effort:

– Sarasota County: Joyce Soltis, administrative assistant to Supervisor of Elections Kathy Dent (R) told ThinkProgress that the county received 14 names of from the state as sure-fire non-citizens. At least two to three of them have already proved their citizenship to the county and one was removed after indicating that he or she was not an eligible voter. Soltis said that while the remaining 10 or 11 voters have not responded, due to the significant inaccuracies on the list, the office has decided “we are not purging anyone” from that group.

– Volusia County: Supervisor of Elections Ann McFall (R) told ThinkProgress that that county received 15 names from the state. One was not even sent a letter, because the voter is currently serving in the military and another has already proven citizenship. But she said they have no plans to remove any of the remaining 13 voters unless her office receives clear proof. “To say the least, the list is very suspect,” she explained.

– Hillsborough County: The Tampa Tribune reported today that Supervisors or Elections Earl Lennard (R) has also decided not to remove any voters on the unreliable list from the rolls without first receiving corroborating evidence that the voters are not citizens.

– Pasco County: Supervisor of Elections Brian Corley (R) told the Tribune that the state had told supervisors that this purge list was “the low-hanging fruit” with “rock-solid data that they were not citizens.” He expressed frustration that the state has put them in a catch-22, complaining “If we truly comply and remove those that don’t respond, then folks say we’re suppressing voter rights. If we don’t, we have people saying we’re allowing non-citizens to vote.”

– Marin County: Because it has proven to be anything but “rock-solid” data, Supervisor of Elections Vicki Davis (R), president of the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections, told the Tribune that she believes “most of the counties” have decided not to purge any voters without other evidence.

Tell Gov. Rick Scott to put a stop to Florida’s voter purge by adding your name here.

Earlier this week, ThinkProgress reported the story of Bill Internicola, a 91-year-old, Brooklyn-born decorated World War II veteran who was targeted by Florida Governor Rick Scott’s voter purge.

As it turns out, this was not an isolated case.

The voter purge being aggressively pursued by Florida Governor Scott has snared another fully eligible World War II veteran in his 90s. From Tampa Bay Online:

In Tampa, University Village resident Archibald Bowyer, 91, a Navy corpsman in World War II, was tagged as a non-citizen. Bowyer said he has lived in the U.S. since age 2, has been a citizen since his father was naturalized a few years later, has lived in Tampa more than 30 years – and voted “every time there was a reason to.”…

He could have been knocked off voter rolls because he didn’t respond to a letter from Lennard’s office telling him he had 30 days to prove his citizenship.

He said he got the letter around the time his wife died.

“I had a lot to do, and I just glanced at it,” he said. “I didn’t send it back to them.”

The State of Florida does not seem overly concerned about Bill, Archibald or the hundreds of other citizens wrongly targeted by the voter purge. Florida Secretary of State spokesman Chris Cate said “a handful of people have been inconvienced.”

The Department of Justice is less sanguine. Last night, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division sent the state a letter indicating the purge was illegal and demanding it be put to a stop within one week. It is unclear if Florida will comply with the Department of Justice.

Tell Gov. Rick Scott to put a stop to Florida’s voter purge by adding your name here.

Our Guest Blogger is Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund

Last week, a number of Catholic-affiliated institutions brought 12 lawsuits around the country challenging the Obama regulation that guarantees birth control coverage in most health insurance plans.  This coordinated litigation follows a series of other cases that were filed earlier in the year by entities that similarly do not want to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees or university students.

By rushing into court, these organizations have completely ignored the fact that the Obama administration has already begun to promulgate a second regulation to accommodate religiously-affiliated institutions by allowing them to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to their employees or students.  Instead, insurers will provide that coverage directly and objecting institutions will not have to pay one red cent.  But even without that accommodation, careful analysis shows that the initial regulation is perfectly lawful.

All of these lawsuits claim that the regulation violates the plaintiffs’ religious liberty and hinge in particular on a federal statute known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  Because Supreme Court doctrine holds that the First Amendment of the Constitution is not violated by a neutral, generally applicable law like the birth control rule, the plaintiffs are relying heavily on RFRA’s stricter test, which states that any law that 1) “substantially burdens” a person’s exercise of religion can only be upheld if 2) it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and 3) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Putting aside for the moment whether these institutions even qualify as a “person” under RFRA, the plaintiffs in these cases should not be able to get past the first part of RFRA’s three-prong test.  Here are four reasons why requiring an employer or university to cover contraception does not burden conservative Catholics’ exercise of religion any more than they already are burdened:

1. Insurers pool premiums from multiple clients and do not differentiate among premium dollars when paying claims. Even if a religiously-affiliated institution has a plan that excludes contraception, it is highly likely that the premiums from that plan are nevertheless being used to pay contraception claims.  Under current industry practice, a large insurer like Blue Shield or Aetna collects premiums from multiple clients and then comingles the funds.  Thus if any of an insurer’s plans cover contraception, any of the premiums it collects could be used to pay a contraception claim, regardless of whether any particular plan excludes such coverage.
2. Health insurance is part of an employee’s compensation package. Even if an employer pays the full premium for its employees, that premium is a payment that is made on behalf of the employee to compensate her for her work.  Thus, it belongs to the employee, just as her salary does.  There should be no difference, at least on the question of what burdens religious practice, between paying an employee a salary that she then uses to purchase birth control herself and paying a premium for an employee’s insurance plan that she then uses for contraceptive services.
3. An objecting institution is unlikely to pay the entire insurance premium itself. Most employers pay only a portion of a health plan’s premium; the rest of the premium is borne by the employee.  And at most universities, students typically pay 100% of the premiums through their student fees.  Thus, to the extent premium money is allocated to cover the cost of contraception, it can be deemed to come from the employee’s or student’s share of the premium.
4. Most non-profit institutions receive government funding. The lawsuits argue that the government could have achieved its goal of providing women with access to contraception by setting up an entitlement program that provides family planning services, funded with taxpayer money, that all women could utilize.  However, religiously-affiliated hospitals receive government money in the form of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, religiously-affiliated universities receive tuition paid for by Pell Grants, and religiously-affiliated charities receive grants to provide services to the needy.  Nothing prevents these entities from setting aside some of this taxpayer money to pay the share of premiums estimated to account for the cost of contraceptive coverage.

No matter how you slice it, paying a premium for an insurance plan that happens to include a service to which one objects is simply too attenuated an act to violate free exercise. Paying an insurance premium is more closely analogous to paying a tax for something one finds morally objectionable, and it is well-established that no one gets to pick and choose which services their tax money will support based on their religious beliefs.

Nothing in the regulation requires someone to use birth control or purchase birth control directly, nor does the rule prevent anyone from preaching against birth control or trying to convince others not to use it.  Indeed nothing prevents an institution from issuing a disclaimer saying that it is covering birth control only because the law compels it, in order to ensure that compliance is not equated with acceptance.  But paying for birth control coverage is simply too ephemeral a transaction, especially in the above instances, to be seen as substantially burdening religion.