Non-Citizens United: Free Speech, Political Contributions, and Lawful Permanent Residents in Ohio
May 3, 2026
The Statute
Federal law prohibits certain foreign entities from making political contributions to candidate campaigns. 52 U.S.C. 30121(b)(2). States often seek to expand this federal prohibition, adding prohibitions on political contributions to issue advocacy groups or ballot measure campaigns. However, many of these state-level foreign influence bans use slightly different statutory language than the federal ban—occasionally causing problems for noncitizen residents who wish to make their voice heard.
In 2023, Ohio passed a foreign influence ban, which was largely similar to the federal law, but included lawful permanent residents (LPRs, also known as green card holders) in the list of entities prohibited from making political contributions. Compare Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3517.121(A)(2)(a) with 52 U.S.C. 30121(b)(2). This ban on political participation by LPRs directly prohibits their exercise of free speech rights. (more…)
State laws Regulating Election-Related Deep Fakes: Kohls v. Ellison
May 1, 2026
By: William & Mary Law Student Contributor
Across the country, concern about the malicious use of deep fake imagery has grown significantly in the last year. Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence have made deep fake images nearly indistinguishable from real images. Not only are deep fake images and videos now nearly identical to authentic images and videos, but deep fakes are now easy and inexpensive to create. (more…)
The Rise and Fall of the Party Line
April 30, 2026
In March 2025, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law A5116/S4142, codified at N.J. Rev. Stat. § 19:23-23.2 (Murphy quietly signs primary ballot design bill, New Jersey Globe (link)), a redesign of the state’s primary ballots removing the “party line.” Governor Murphy signs bill revamping design of primary ballots, NJ Monitor (link). The party line, which had allowed local party leaders to place endorsed candidates in a prominent position on the ballot, enabled local political parties to put their thumbs on the scales for decades. New Jersey’s ballot design that gave party bosses big influence is officially dead, Politico (link). But by the time of this 2025 law, the long-controversial practice peculiar to New Jersey was on life support. The 2024 case Kim v. Hanlon explains how the party line fell out of favor. Kim v. Hanlon (3d Cir. 2024) (link). (more…)
Rethinking Vote Dilution Remedies: Ranked Choice Voting in Newburgh
April 15, 2026
On its face, the Town of Newburgh’s decision to adopt ranked choice voting (RCV) sounds like a technical tweak to ballot design. In reality, it marks a moment in which the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) begins reshaping how local governments structure elections. (more…)
The SAVE America Act’s Impact on Rural Voters in Arizona
March 17, 2026
By: Christopher Tillotson and Prof. Kalyn Rossiter (William and Mary Data Science)
The SAVE America Act (S.1383) would require people to present proof of citizenship in person in order to register to vote in a Federal election. The consequences of the changes from this potential Act are far-reaching, but this piece focuses on potential hardship imposed by requiring proof of citizenship in person. Although the Act applies to all places where people register to vote. This is especially impactful for those that vote by mail, register online, or live in a rural area as the result of the requirement that people register in person. Residents in large counties can be multiple hours away from local election offices, for example. This becomes difficult for people who are not able or for whom it is inconvenient to drive such a distance or take public transportation. (more…)
April 2 ELS Symposium: Lines of Power: The Case For and Against Mid-Decade Redistricting, 3:30-5:30, Rm. 119
March 16, 2026
Please join the William & Mary Election Law Society for its symposium, “Lines of Power: The Case For and Against Mid-Decade Redistricting,” examining the legal and political battles over redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections. The 3:30 panel will explore national re-redistricting efforts, the legal challenges brought against these plans, and potential off-ramps to restore decennial districting norms. The panel features speakers from Campaign Legal Center, Baker Hostetler, the University of Kentucky Law School, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. At 4:30, Brian Cannon and Delegate Marcus Simon will debate Virginia’s proposed redistricting ballot referendum, moderated by Dwayne Yancey of Cardinal News. (more…)
New online tool to assist judges and the public with navigating state election laws
November 17, 2025
Election statutes, regulations and advisory opinions are now available in one place using the Election Law Navigator, a free, comprehensive online tool.
Released by the Election Law Program (ELP), a joint project of William & Mary Law School and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), the tool is designed to help judges, lawyers, members of the media, elections officials and the public efficiently navigate complex state election statutes.
“The Election Law Navigator is the culmination of years of work to provide courts with a trusted, neutral tool for the fair and efficient resolution of election disputes,” said A. Benjamin Spencer, Dean and Trustee Professor of William & Mary Law School. “In a rapidly changing legal landscape, this platform serves as a toolkit for judges to resolve disputes and strengthen public confidence in our electoral process.”
While the Navigator was developed as a nonpartisan resource for judges, this extensive, one-of-a-kind database is a valuable tool for anyone interested in election laws with more than 30,000 statutes, regulations, advisory opinions, and related material from all 50 states.
Powered by a human-checked AI model, the Navigator organizes legal documents by topic and features a custom election-focused search tool; state-to-state comparison capability; and 100+ election-specific topic tags for quick access to relevant content.
“NCSC is committed to providing resources and tools that drive innovation and progress in courts,” said NCSC President Elizabeth Clement. “The Election Law Navigator is a perfect example of how new technologies can be used to further support the judiciary in resolving disputes fairly and efficiently and upholding the rule of law.” The Navigator is now available at www.electionlawnavigator.org. To learn more about the tool, watch our brief YouTube video or register online to attend a live demo and Q&A session on Tuesday, Dec. 2, at 2 p.m. ET.
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.