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.
Potential Drawbacks of Georgia’s New Hand Tabulation Requirement
November 1, 2024
By: Hailey Arnett
Georgia has been a key battleground state for decades, and in 2020, the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden won the state’s electoral votes by a narrow margin of around 12,000 votes. When the margin between candidates was less than 0.5%, Georgia law permitted but did not require a recount. For the presidential race in Georgia, the margin between the candidates was only 0.2% before the post-election hand count. Therefore, Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Secretary of State, requested a hand count of Georgia ballots after the election, or a “risk limiting audit,” to ensure the accuracy of the electronic counting. After the post-election hand count, the Associated Press called Georgia for presidential candidate Joe Biden. For the first time in nearly thirty years, Georgia went blue for the presidential race.
Connecticut’s Campaign Financing Rules Clash with Free Speech Rights
November 1, 2024
By: Jayli Esber
Courts must ensure that campaign finance regulations, intended to promote democracy, do not inadvertently threaten the democratic cornerstone of free speech. In Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, decided May 20, 2024, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the state’s public financing program had upset this balance. The regulations for the program provide that all funds must “directly further” the recipient’s election campaign. The State Elections Enforcement Commission (“SEEC”), which oversees the program, issued an Advisory Opinion explaining that funds could not be used for communications that promote the defeat of or attack a candidate who is not a direct opponent of the recipient.