Wisconsin: One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol
January 27, 2016
By: Lisa Zhang
One Wisconsin institute, Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, and six Wisconsin residents filed a complaint against a series of provisions that Wisconsin has made since 2011 to its voting and election laws.
Interestingly, Wisconsin’s election laws just withstood a challenge that had lasted for four years. On March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari of Frank v. Walker. In Frank, plaintiffs challenged 2011 Wisconsin Act 23, which specifies limited acceptable forms of photo IDs, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the district court found it in violation of both the 14th Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The 7th Circuit reversed the judgement on the ground that Wisconsin’s Voter ID law does not differ in ways that matter under the analysis in Crawford v. Marion.
Dark Money Influences Wyoming Politics
January 27, 2016
By: Gordon Dobbs
In response to concerns around the country, the Wyoming U.S. Attorney appointed an attorney to monitor complaints of election fraud and voter intimidation on Election Day. This move in Wyoming was largely seen as a precautionary measure. Despite the fact that the state does not require proof of citizenship and allows same-day registration, Wyoming has not endured allegations of election rigging. But as the Republican Secretary of State assured the public that the election would not be rigged in any way, Wyoming dealt with a more substantial concern: the influx of anonymous, out of state money.
Underlying Partisan Bickering in Harris: The Role of the Independent Commission in Arizona’s Current Redistricting Battle
January 25, 2016
By: Will Cooke
Several legislative districts in Arizona are potentially in flux as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Rooted in the ongoing debate about the permissible degree of population deviation in state districts, the plaintiffs in the case focus their argument on the strong correlation between political ideology and the population of a district. As the graph below demonstrates, eleven of the thirteen Democrat-leaning legislative districts in the state contain total populations below the “ideal district size” (or the size of a district if drawn with perfect uniformity of population).
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 993 F. Supp. 2d, 1094 (D. Ariz. 2014)
William & Mary Alum, Washington Post Article
January 24, 2016
Check out this opinion post by William C. Smith Jr., “The meaning of the vote to an ex-prisoner“.
Native-Hawaiian Self Determination Election Survives Equal Protection Challenge
January 22, 2016
By: Mollie Topic
In October 2015, a U.S. district judge sitting in Honolulu denied a motion for preliminary injunction to halt an election that is open only to Native Hawaiians. The litigation in Akina v. Hawaii arises out of the Nai Aupuni election, an election process that is ultimately designed to help Native Hawaiians achieve self-determination.
Ranked Choice Voting in Maine
January 20, 2016
By: Emily Wagman
On October 19, 2015, the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting delivered 70,000 signatures to Maine’s Secretary of State. While the signatures still must be verified, it is likely that the proposal will make it onto the 2016 ballot. Ranked choice voting is also referred to as instant runoff voting, which allows voters to rank their candidates in order of preference. If a voter’s first choice does not win, the voter’s vote moves to his/her second choice candidate. The Committee for Ranked Choice Voting has support from all sides of the political spectrum. Voters in Maine are especially concerned with the idea of majority rule since the current Governor, Paul LePage, won his first term with only 38% of the vote, which is not exactly a ringing majority endorsement. Moreover, voters are also concerned with the issue of spoiler candidates. The most recent gubernatorial election saw a three-way race between LePage (R), Mike Michaud (D), and Eliot Cutler (I). The results of that election show that Cutler was a spoiler candidate – LePage received 48.2% of the vote, Michaud received 43.4% of the vote, and Cutler received 8.4% of the vote. Had the votes Cutler received gone to Michaud, LePage would have been unseated.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
January 15, 2016
Check out this University of Pennsylvania Law Review article:
With Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 132 S. Ct. 2334 (2014), the Supreme Court set the stage for litigation challenging state statutes that punish false statements in political campaigns. In its decision, the Court did not decide the merits of whether a state statute (Ohio’s, in Susan B. Anthony List) was unconstitutional. Instead, the Court adjudicated solely the preliminary issue of justiciability: whether standing and ripeness doctrines should prevent courts from adjudicating a political organization’s preenforcement challenge to Ohio’s statute. In the end, the Court’s unanimous opinion held that standing and ripeness considerations would not stand in the way of such preenforcement challenges. The decision paves the way for a wave of legal challenges—challenges that, in light of the Court’s recent decision in United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012), may spell the end for state statutes banning false statements in political campaigns.
Alaskan Mayor In Trouble
January 13, 2016
By: Eduardo Lopez
The issue of campaign contribution reform has always been a major topic in American politics, but especially in recent years, with the United States Supreme Court striking down limitations on federal campaign donations. Although the Supreme Court of the United States has made a final decision with regard to federal campaign donation limitations, states still possess the power to implement limitations on contributions on the state level.
Deciphering Felony Disenfranchisement in Post-Realignment California
January 11, 2016
In August of 2015, California restored the voting rights to approximately 60,000 former felony offenders who had been improperly disenfranchised as a result of a glitch in the political process. In the whirlwind of California’s recent prison reform acts, these citizens had been inappropriately classified as ineligible to vote in violation of California’s Constitution and election laws. Although the case had already been decided in the voters’ favor by a trial court, it was not until California’s current Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, decided this summer to drop the appeal that these former felony offenders could feel safe registering to vote. But how did such a large number of potential voters end improperly disenfranchised in the first place?
Winter Break Hiatus
December 18, 2015
We will be taking a brief hiatus until January 11th. Have a happy and lovely holiday season!