NVRA v. W.V. SB 622
November 18, 2024
By: Andrew Flaxman
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (commonly referred to as the NVRA or “motor voter) set forth regulations on voter registration concerning elections for federal office. NVRA Section 8 contains requirements concerning the administration of voter registration and procedures to maintain accurate and current voter lists. Part of this includes protections to voters against arbitrary removal from voter rolls and a requirement of notice in advance to allow voters to confirm their voter registration. Specifically, in section (b), in 52 USC § 2050, states that a voter cannot be removed from the voter list if they aren’t given notice and have not voted in two consecutive federal elections. Section (b)(2) also prevents voters from being removed from the registry for lack of voting, also known as the failure-to-vote clause.
Proving Candidate Eligibility in Illinois: A New Intent Requirement?
November 18, 2024
By: Matthias Connelly
Note: This post is the part 2 to a previous post by the same author linked here: Chaos or Federalism: Section 3 Enforcement in Illinois
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson did not settle all state-wide litigation relating to Section 3 challenges against former President Trump’s eligibility for the presidency. The court’s ruling that only Congress is empowered to enforce the 14th Amendment’s ban against insurrectionists from holding federal office foreclosed ballot challenges in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois. But thanks to an unprecedented interpretation of Illinois law made in the course of that state’s proceedings, important questions bearing on future candidate eligibility requirements are still unanswered.
Voter ID Conflict in Huntington Beach: Measure A vs. California’s SB 1174 and the Future of Local Elections
November 15, 2024
By: Erika Froehler
In California, voters are required to have a valid driver’s license or identification to register to vote, but they are allowed to vote without having to provide such identification. This is permissible under California’s Election Code § 2196 passed in 2023, and allows the use of a voter’s signature to provide identification. However, this statute failed to clarify if local counties were allowed to pass stricter requirements regarding photo identification requirements. Due to this vagueness, Huntington Beach proposed Measure A in March of 2024. Measure A, passed by the Huntington Beach City Council in a 4-3 vote and will be put into effect in 2026, requires voters to provide photo identification to vote in city-wide elections.
Coalition Files Federal Lawsuit to Challenge New Hampshire’s HB 1569
November 15, 2024
By: Eli Avila
On September 30, 2024, the ACLU of New Hampshire, American Civil Liberties Union, and Ropes & Gray LLP filed a federal lawsuit challenging New Hampshire’s HB 1569. The plaintiffs represented are the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation, and five current and future voters. New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed HB 1569 into law on September 12, 2024. For many, the bill’s passage comes as a surprise since Governor Sununu said months earlier that he was “not looking into making significant changes in voting laws.” The bill will take effect on November 11, 2024, after the election on November 5, 2024.
A State of Uncertainty: How Delaware courts grapple with pro-voter statute challenges over time
November 14, 2024
By: Marley Fishburn
On June 28th, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a Superior Court decision to uphold both early voting and permanent absentee voting for some residents, a huge win for expanding voting rights. This is a drastic change from the court’s previous jurisprudence that struck down same-day registration and mail-in ballot statutes in 2022.
Wisconsin Judge Dismisses Challenge to the Accuracy of State’s Voter Roll
November 14, 2024
By: Freddy Parola
A lawsuit filed by three voters in Wisconsin Circuit Court seeking to remove nearly 150,000 people from voter rolls in the state less than two months before Election Day has been dismissed by Judge Timothy Witkowiak. The lawsuit was filed on September 30 and dismissed on October 28. In Eucke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, three Milwaukee residents (Dennis Eucke, Justin Gavery, and Joe Nolan) alleged that a significant number of voter registrations were outdated because voters had permanently moved away from Wisconsin. They claimed the state has had years to correct the issue but have nonetheless failed to maintain the State’s voter roll properly. The plaintiff argued that leaving the voter roll as is would increase the risk of casting illegal votes by individuals whose voter registration is not adequately up to date. (more…)
Michigan Republican Party v. Benson
November 14, 2024
By: William & Mary Student Contributor
On October 8th, 2024, the Michigan Republican Party filed a lawsuit challenging guidance issued in compliance with MCL 168.759(3) by the Michigan Secretary of state. This guidance extends the right to vote in Michigan’s elections to US citizens living abroad who have never resided in Michigan but have “a parent, legal guardian, or spouse” who have.
The Bridgeport Ballot-Stuffing Controversy Reaches the Connecticut Supreme Court
November 14, 2024
By: Jayli Esber
The Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision regarding a ballot-stuffing controversy comes at a crucial time in the context of American elections. But the decision—a dismissal for lack of standing—might be an unsatisfying resolution to an inflammatory matter.
Ranked-Confusion: A Fitting System for Undecided Voters in San Francisco’s Mayoral Election
November 14, 2024
By: Caroline Olsen
The City of San Francisco has used ranked choice voting (RCV) for its local elections since 2004. RCV allows voters to rank candidates by preference, effectively eliminating the need for subsequent runoff elections—and San Francisco was the first major city to try it.
Pop-Up Polling Locations: Voter Enfranchisement or Partisan Tactic?
November 13, 2024
By: Katy Bortz
Young people in America historically vote at lower rates than other age groups. While there are several possible explanations for this low turnout, one of the most notable is the added challenge of moving away from home to attend college outside of the county in which young people first registered to vote. Several organizations are trying to combat this low turnout by advocating for changes like additional polling locations actually located on college campuses around the country.
In Minnesota, a new state law took effect on June 1, 2023 that authorizes the creation of temporary polling locations. The law amends Minnesota Statute Section 203B.081 to allow the county auditor or municipal clerk to create additional polling locations that do not necessarily have to operate on the same days and hours as the existing statutorily required early voting locations. Thus, these temporary voting centers have been nicknamed “pop-up” voting locations. The law specifies that these temporary locations must be decided upon at least 47 days prior to election day.
This change in Minnesota has attracted national attention for the resulting “pop-up” early voting location at the University of Minnesota. The campus polling center was utilized not only by students, but also local community members to cast their ballots early for the 2024 general election.
Additionally, the Minnesota legislature has debated other measures to encourage young voter turnout prior to the upcoming election. In February, Minnesota State Representative Kristi Pursell introduced House File 3447 that would add an additional provision to Minnesota Statute Section 203B.081 that gives postsecondary institutions and their student governments the ability to actively request a temporary polling location on their campus. If requested at least 53 days prior to the election, the county auditor or municipal clerk would be required to provide that requested pop-up voting location. This proposed language that the polling location must be provided if requested is similar to the portion of the already enacted legislation that relates to polling locations on Tribal reservations. Section 203B.081, as amended, requires that the county must provide a temporary polling location on Tribal lands if requested by “a federally recognized Indian Tribe with a reservation in the county.”
On the floor of the Minnesota House of Representatives, HF 3447 received criticism. One area of concern was its limited applicability only to schools that have student body populations of over 1,500. Republican Pam Altendorf criticized the bill for this exact reason, expressing concern that “smaller schools might tend to lean more conservative,” and they would be left out of getting temporary polling locations. Additionally, she stated that the bill seems to be “picking and choosing who we are driving to the polls to vote.” HF 3447 was not enacted in the 2023-2024 Minnesota legislative session.
As the Minnesota law currently reads, the decision about when and where to provide these “pop-up” early voting locations is left to county auditors and municipal clerks. The statute itself is unclear as to how exactly those officers are supposed to decide where and when to open these temporary locations, but they are required to notify the Secretary of State of their ultimate decision.