EDITOR'S NOTE: Nancy Abudu, senior staff counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union's southern regional office in Atlanta, visited Charleston Wednesday to speak with Charleston School of Law students about voting rights. She spoke with reporter Robert Behre about her work.
P&C: Tell me about what it is that you do.
Abudu: 'I would say 95 percent of my work is in voting rights, and it runs the gamut. ... Obviously, we do a lot when it comes to voter suppression, which includes five priority areas: photo ID, proof of citizenship, restrictions we see when it comes to registration ... early voting as well as absentee voting and the restrictions we see when it comes to criminal convictions. We also do a lot with student voting.'
P&C: What is your biggest concern or the ACLU's biggest concern regarding voter suppression?
Abudu: 'I think where we've seen the biggest moment really has been in photo ID. Georgia and Indiana led the way (passing laws requiring voters to have photo IDs).'
P&C: Is the ACLU planning to file suit against South Carolina's new photo ID law?
Abudu: 'I think we're not there yet because it's going through the Department of Justice process, and South Carolina has to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It really depends on the Department of Justice.'
P&C: How does South Carolina's photo ID law compare to those in other states.
Abudu: 'South Carolina does not allow student ID to serve as a photo ID. We would consider that to be pretty restrictive.'
P&C: It seems like you're playing a lot of defense.
Abudu: 'Right now, it is a defensive mode. We've been supporting a federal bill called the Democracy Restoration Act that would allow people who have completed their prison terms to vote. There are things we're doing that are proactive, but the reality is we're on the defense right now.'
P&C: What about the challenge as far as pressing for voting rights in court?
Abudu: 'These cases have been very difficult. The Supreme Court decision in Crawford (v. Marion County Election Board in 2008), saying that these laws by states are constitutional and the only kinds of cases within the suppression context that we're even going to entertain are as applied. You have to show thousands — this is my word, ‘thousands,' the court didn't give us any guidance — but I think the courts are looking for a huge number of people who are affected and it's difficult to gather a lot of that data.'
