New York Governor Signs Bill Allowing New York Licensed Attorneys to Serve as Poll Watchers Anywhere in the State
November 6, 2024
By: Eli Avila
Last month, on the anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Governor Kathy Hochul signed S.6130A/A.530A to strengthen voting protections across the state. (more…)
North Carolina Voting in the Aftermath of Hurricane Helene: The Impact of Natural Disasters on Election Administration
November 5, 2024
By: Sarah Catherine Woodruff
The impact of Hurricane Helene is still being felt in North Carolina, with the historic storm leaving almost 100 dead and approximately $53.6 billion in damages across the state. The damages are concentrated in the state’s western region, where Helene destroyed property, damaged roads, caused significant and lasting disruption to essential utility services, and left dozens of polling places unusable. The inability to use these locations, the displacement of many citizens, and the difficulty of mobilizing people amid the demolished areas raise the question of what actions North Carolina can take to help mitigate the storm’s impact on voters and their ability to cast their ballots.
Oregon’s Measure 117
November 5, 2024
By: Gavin Horoszewski
On November 5, 2024—Election Day—Oregonians will be voting on Measure 117, which, if passed, will permit voters to rank candidates in statewide and federal elections—both general and primary—on or after January 1, 2028. Those state and federal offices will include the President and Vice President of the United States, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, the Governor of Oregon, and the Secretary of State of Oregon, among others. Presently, like most states, the State of Oregon uses a plurality voting system, in which each voter casts their ballot for a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins (a majority is not necessary for victory). A similar ranked-choice voting (RCV) system has already been adopted in Oregon’s Benton County, Multnomah County, and the city of Portland.
1,900 South Carolina Teenagers Deemed Ineligible to Vote in November Election Due to DMV Computer Glitch
November 5, 2024
By: Kristen Adolf
As the November presidential election approached, so did the resulting tsunami of election-based litigation. In South Carolina, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint in one such case on October 22nd – a mere two weeks from Election Day. The case, American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina Foundation v. State Election Commission, brought a serious concern before the South Carolina Courts: 1,900 South Carolina teenagers had been improperly obstructed from registering to vote due to a computer glitch within the South Carolina DMV system.
The case arose under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), perhaps better known as the Motor Voter Act. Under the NVRA, states are required to offer an opportunity for citizens to register to vote at state motor vehicle agencies, commonly on driver’s license applications.
Texas Election Code: Your Vote Matters– And So Does Your Outfit!
November 5, 2024
By: Angelica Radomski
While an individual’s right to choose to wear any clothing they wish is generally protected by the First Amendment, some states, including Texas, have adopted laws restricting a voter’s ability to wear political clothing or accessories at polling places.
When the United States Supreme Court struck down a Minnesota statute that restricted “political” apparel at polling places as unconstitutional, it seemed reasonable to think that states with similar laws would revise or repeal them to align with the Court’s ruling. Yet, in 2021, when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had the chance to overturn a similar law in Texas, the court chose to uphold its constitutionality instead.
Preemptive Electoral Challenges in Waynesboro, Virginia: A Clear Illustration of Widespread Administrative Tension
November 5, 2024
By: Sophie Tully
Election certification litigation is rampant in Virginia just days before many voters go to the polls on Election Day.
Waynesboro election board members Curtis Lilly and Scott Mares filed a lawsuit in Waynesboro Circuit Court on October 4th claiming they would refuse to certify the November election without hand-counted ballots due to concerns with voting machines. Voters responded with their own lawsuit on October 22nd against those election officials for their pledge not to verify the election.
Maine Ballot Initiative Aims to Tee Up a Supreme Court Ruling on Super PACs
November 5, 2024
By: John Thayer
When Maine voters go to the polls on Tuesday, November 5, they will get to vote on a ballot initiative that poses a straightforward question: “Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?” Maine Question 1, the Limit Contributions to Super PACs Initiative, has received bipartisan support. According to a recent poll from Pan Atlantic Research, 69% of respondents said they intend to vote “yes” on the initiative (limiting PAC contributions), with 15% of respondents saying they intend to vote “no” and 16% indicating they were undecided. Maine’s federal congressional delegation (consisting of Democrats Chellie Pingree from the 1st District and Jared Golden from the 2nd District) support the initiative, as do state legislators on both sides of the aisle.
Iowa Supreme Court Sends a Strong Message of Strict Compliance with Election Laws in Recent Ballot Access Decision
November 4, 2024
By: William & Mary Law Student Contributor
The Iowa Supreme Court has completed its expedited review of a district court ruling upholding the State Objection Panel’s decision to remove three Libertarian candidates for the US House of Representatives from the 2024 general election ballot. This decision comes in just before the Wednesday, September 11 11:59 p.m. deadline for finalizing the names on the general election ballot. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision by the Panel to remove their names from the general election ballot due to a failure to comply with statutory nomination requirements. The candidates did not dispute that their nomination process did not comply with Iowa Code §43.94, but they did raise several alternative grounds that the Panel erred in striking their name from the November ballots. The Supreme Court discussed these grounds and took the opportunity to deliver a strong message of strict compliance with election laws.
Chaos or Federalism: Section 3 Enforcement in Illinois
November 4, 2024
By: Matthias Connelly
Before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, commentators worried about the political implications of deciding whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualified former President Trump from holding office for his having engaged in insurrection within the Section’s meaning. After oral argument, it was apparent where the Justices had coalesced in their decision-making: what sort of electoral chaos would different disqualification decisions by different states relating to different candidates produce?
Equal Protection Will Not Give U.S. Territories A Vote in Federal Elections
November 4, 2024
By: Adam Russell
On August 30, 2024, the Ninth Circuit invalidated a group of territorial residents’ equal protection claims in Borja v. Nago. The court’s decision was partially based on the fact that former residents of a state who move to U.S. Territories are not a suspect class, and are therefore subject to rational basis review. However, the court did not exclude the possibility that residents born in U.S. Territories could be a part of a suspect class protected by a higher level of judicial scrutiny. In fact, it even acknowledged that these residents might meet the definition of a suspect class. The majority wrote, “many residents of U.S. Territories ‘have endured a long history of discrimination’ on account of their place of birth, race, or ethnicity.” In 1973 the Supreme Court, by comparison, defined a suspect class as a group “saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.” This begs the question: can the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution give certain Territorial resident’s the vote? Honestly, probably not.