The Voting Law Changes in 2012 report from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law summarizes how restrictive the new state voting laws have become for citizens. This report identifies four major areas where 25 laws and two executive actions were passed since 2011 in 19 states that represents:1) Identification laws including photo-ID and voter ID laws; 2) Proof of citizenship laws; 3) Reduction of early and absentee days available for voting; and 4) Making it harder to restore voting rights.  Legal challenges to these new restrictive voting laws have been noted in preceding Legal News on Free Legal Aid such as Florida Votes in Style, Voting Rights vs. Voter Identification and Alabama Fighting the Voting Rights Act.  From The New York Times’ article (9/10/2012) entitled Legal fights for ballots could be crucial in presidential election it cited that in the last two weeks there have been dozens of decisions in federal and state courts on early voting, provisional ballots, and voter identification especially in this year’s designated battleground states. “In any of these states there is the potential for disaster. You have close elections and the real possibility that people will say their votes were not counted when they should have been. That’s the nightmare scenario for the day after the election,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. For example, in a last-minute legal decision from the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (9/8/2012) gave Texas a reversal of a stay for an August order banning enforcement of several provisions of the 2011 law regulating third-party voter registration activities. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Voter Identification Requirements section, it summarizes all of the voting laws in effect today into two categories: “Strict vs. Non-Strict: In the "strict" states, a voter cannot cast a valid ballot without first presenting ID. Voters who are unable to show ID at the polls are given a provisional ballot. Those provisional ballots are kept separate from the regular ballots. If the voter returns to election officials within a short period of time after the election (generally a few days) and presents acceptable ID, the provisional ballot is counted. If the voter does not come back to show ID, that provisional ballot is never counted. Photo vs. Non-Photo: Seventeen states require that the ID presented at the polls must show a photo of the voter. Some of these are "strict" voter ID laws, in that voters who fail to show photo ID are given a provisional ballot and must eventually show photo ID in order to get that provisional ballot counted. Others are "non-strict," and voters without ID have other options for casting a regular ballot. They may be permitted to sign an affidavit of identity, or poll workers may be able to vouch for them if they know them personally. In these "non-strict" states, voters who fail to bring ID on Election Day aren't required to return to election officials and show ID in order to have their ballot counted. In the other 16 voter ID states, there is a wide array of IDs that are acceptable for voting purposes, some of which do not include a photo of the voter. Again, some of these states are "strict" in the sense that a voter who fails to bring ID on Election Day will be required to vote a provisional ballot, and that provisional ballot will be counted only if the voter returns to election officials within a few days to show acceptable ID.” In addition, the NCSL’s interactive map and explanatory tables illustrates states laws in effect and where recent legislative activities have occurred leading up to this election year.                                                                                    Bullies at the Ballot Box: Protecting the Freedom to Vote Against Wrongful Challenges and Intimidation (September 2012), a joint study by DEMOS and Common Cause, studied the voting rights and the challenges facing voters. Ten states (Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia) have recent state laws that either protects voters’ rights, while other laws still need improvements, and some laws that remain unsatisfactory. This study found five out of the ten states’ laws using voter lists created by unreliable practices that are unsatisfactory in Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia. As for procedural changes on Election Day, Florida and Pennsylvania have unsatisfactory protections to ensure a voter’s eligibility. And, as for protecting voters from intimidation, both outside and inside the polls, Pennsylvania and Texas have laws that jeopardize this issue of voting rights. "If the vote in Florida is anywhere near as close as it was in 2000, then I think that the gates may be open to a flood of litigation," said Bob Graham, a former senator and governor of Florida.                                                                                                                                    Susanne L Woodford, Freelance Writer