Skip to Main Content

State of Elections

A student-run blog from the Election Law Society

Weekly Wrap-Up

September 17, 2010

“Lisa M. Write In and Fill In” is the proposed slogan from supporters of Lisa Murkowski’s proposed write-in campaign.  Alaska elections director said that voters would only have to use Murkowski’s first name and last initial for it to count, but that they would also have to be sure to fill in the bubble next to her name.  The actual vote is the filled in bubble, not the written name.

Carl P. Paladino, a Republican candidate for governor in New York, sent out a typical negative mailing stating that “Something really stinks in Albany.” However, the ad is anything but typical as soon as a person opens the envelope and is greeted with the “unmistakable odor” of “rotting vegetables.” Read this article for more info.

If we can pay bills online, manage complex investments online, and even grocery shop online, why can’t we vote online? That is exactly what some Democrats in New Jersey are asking. They are pushing to create an online voting system for deployed men and women, making voting more accessible and giving it a “21st century makeover” according to one New Jersey lawmaker. The program would design a voting system that would both ensure ballot security and the privacy of the voter and would make absentee voting for military personnel easier. Active duty military personnel could vote in both the primaries and the general election without worrying about the hassle of getting an absentee ballot. The bill is currently in the New Jersey Assembly’s State Government Committee with no hearing date scheduled.

New York City’s primary election on Tuesday was plagued by problems with their new electronic voting machines.  Some scanners didn’t work, some procedures were confusing to poll workers, and the frustration led to shouting matches between poll workers and voters.  Mayor Bloomberg criticized the Board of Elections and said the problems were “royal screw-ups”.

San Francisco’s ranked-choice voting system is constitutional, according to a District Court judge. The judge ruled earlier this month that the ranked system, while exerting “some burden on voting rights“, serves some important government interests and should be allowed to continue. This system, which was enacted by a 2002 ballot measure to eliminate costly runoff elections, allows voters to rank their top three choices for city offices. When votes are counted, the candidate who got 50 percent of the first-choice votes is declared the winner. If no one has 50 percent, the candidate with the lowest percentage of first-choice votes is eliminated and their votes go to the candidate that was the second-choice on the voter’s ballot. This process continues until someone has won 50 percent of the vote. Opponents of the system argued unsuccessfully in court that it disenfranchised those whose three choices were eliminated before a final decision was made. This was viewed as test case for this type of system, as several other counties in California have adopted similar systems.

Do you think ACORN will steal the election to keep the Democrats in control of Congress? Despite the fact that ACORN disbanded in March 2010, 20% of those asked this question in a National Survey by Public Policy Polling said “yes,” with an additional 40% of people answering “I don’t know.” However, though 52% of Republicans believe that ACORN was responsible for Obama’s victory in 2008, only 23% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats believe ACORN will help democrats this fall. 40% of people say that they are not sure if ACORN will “help steal this election.” How many people just don’t know what ACORN is, and how many people actually believe ACORN is rising again?

UPDATE: A federal judge ruled that homeless people, drifters, and street performers recruited by a Republican candidate to run on the Green Party ticket in Arizona are allowed to stay on the ballot.  Steve May, who recruited the sham candidates on the streets of Tempe, has also dropped out of the race, citing the lack of “necessary personal alignment.”  His real reasons may have been criticism over his recruiting for the Green Party and a charge of driving under the influence.  Ironically, his name will remain on the ballot along with the names of the street performers and drifters.