Exclusion by Confusion
October 29, 2024
By: Molly Sweigart
People with felony conviction histories can’t vote. Or, can they? Some states say “yes”, some say “no”, and others give more nuanced answers like “yes, if,” or “no, unless.” Inconsistency of state-level felony disenfranchisement policy does not present a prima facie Constitutional issue, and it is legal in many states to rescind the right to vote from individuals with a felony conviction. However, lack of consistency among felony disenfranchisement policies at the state level is not without harm. In Pennsylvania alone, thousands of eligible voters will be “denied” the right to vote in this upcoming election. How can voters with felony convictions be excluded from casting a vote in a state where they are not disenfranchised under state law? The answer is as simple as it is vexing: confusion.
Assault on Democracy: New York Seeks to Expand Protections for Election Workers and Polling Sites
October 29, 2024
By: Elizabeth Safaryn
In the wake of a highly contentious 2020 presidential election, the upcoming 2024 election continues to perpetuate skepticism among Americans regarding the integrity of our nation’s electoral process. One area that generates the most skepticism is the adequacy of the polls, more specifically, Americans’ declining confidence in the performance of poll workers and election officials. While election poll workers are temporarily recruited to perform tasks at polling sites before and on Election Day, election officials are elected and appointed professionals hired year-round to prepare for and conduct elections. Distinctions aside, these election workers are already anticipating targeted harassment and threats of political violence in the countdown to November 5th. While local election officials are investing in heightened security measures, such as panic buttons and bulletproof glass, the crucial question still remains: What measures are state legislatures taking to protect their public servants?
Idaho’s Efforts to Curtail the Youth Vote in the 2024 Election, Part I
October 29, 2024
By: Katherine von Schaumburg
The youth vote has become a central component of American politics in the last decade. Both the 2022 Midterm Election and the 2020 General Election saw a historic rise in the amount of young people (ages 18-29) voting. Recently, Idaho passed two laws, House Bill 124 and House Bill 340, which will have a direct impact on youth voter registration and participation. This blog post will be the first part in a two-part series: Part I examines the laws and the legal challenges to the laws and Part II will explore the actual impact of voter identification laws on youth voters, both in Idaho and across the country. (more…)
ME-02 v. NE-02: The Battle Between Maine and Nebraska Over the Allocation of Presidential Electors
October 25, 2024
By: John Thayer
Maine and Nebraska, with their respective four and five electoral college votes, are seldom thought of as particularly relevant to any presidential candidate’s path to victory. For a brief period, however, it appeared as though the results of the electoral college in 2024 could be determined by legislative developments in those states. That is, until September 23, when one Nebraska state senator seemingly put the notion to rest.
Nebraska and Maine are the only two states to not follow the “winner-take-all” system in the electoral college, whereby the winner of the statewide vote is awarded all of the state’s electoral votes. Instead, the two states follow the Congressional District Method, by which one electoral vote is awarded per congressional district won, with the remaining two electoral votes awarded to the statewide winner. Maine has adhered to this system since 1972, while Nebraska has followed it since 1996.
Has New Jersey Reached the End of the Line?
October 25, 2024
By: Owen Williams
When New Jersey voters flocked to the polls this past June, their ballots looked unlike anything voters in the state had seen for decades. The monumental shift, which upended New Jersey Democrats’ primary nominating process, resulted from a federal judge striking down the state’s controversial ‘county line’ balloting system for the June 2024 primary. Whereas traditional ‘block ballots’ are used in 49 states, for years New Jersey has been the sole exception, instead placing candidates on organized ‘lines’ that heavily favored party-backed candidates above political outsiders. Opponents of the practice have long argued that the county line system entrenched political power in the hands of New Jersey’s powerful county Democratic machines, which are controlled by party bosses who often have sole authority over ballot placement.
Activists and Legislators Renew Focus on Tennessee’s Strict Felony Voter Disenfranchisement Rule
October 24, 2024
By: Emma Skeen
Of the nearly 4.4 million Americans who are ineligible to vote because of a prior felony conviction, over 470,000 of them live in Tennessee. According to recent estimates, the state has one of the highest rates of felony voter disenfranchisement in the nation, with almost 10% of Tennesseans unable to vote because they have a prior conviction. The state’s voter eligibility policy has a disparate racial impact as well: it currently bars over 20% of black Tennesseans from voting.
Ranked Choice? The Colorado Legislature’s Last Choice
October 24, 2024
By: Dana Smith
On June 6th, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed Senate Bill 210 into effect. SB-210 is an election modifier bill, making technical changes to election procedures that are thought to be crucial by legislators before the 2024 election. These include decreasing the preregistration age from 16 to 15, requiring officials to update financial disclosures, protecting election clerks from election fraud theories, and other largely uncontested modifications. However, a last-minute amendment to SB-210 has sparked controversy and has the potential to silence voters’ voices in November.
Expanding Voter Eligibility in California
October 22, 2024
By: William & Mary Student Contributor
Recently, California has seen trends toward increasing voter participation at both the state and local levels.
The California legislature enacted Chapter 757 in 2016 following the decision in Scott et al. v. Bowen. This lawsuit arose after California’s Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, decided to deny voting to those who participated in community supervision programs under the 2011 Criminal Justice Realignment Act. Bowen’s decision thus limited California’s Constitutional restrictions on voting, which had already denied the right to vote to (1) those imprisoned, on parole, or convicted of a felony or (2) those adjudged mentally incompetent. In Bowen, the court reversed the Secretary’s decision and found that individuals under post-release community and mandatory supervision are eligible to vote. Furthermore, the court held that those serving a term in county jail are free to exercise their right to vote. Later, Resolution Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020 (ACA 6), was enacted to remove California’s Constitutional provision that disqualified voters if they were on parole for felonious convictions. (more…)
South Carolina Proposed Constitutional Amendment Seeks to Ban Non-Citizen Voting
October 18, 2024
By: Kristen Adolf
As we enter into a contentious election season, election law is on the forefront of much American political discourse and strife. Debates rage about who should vote, how they should vote, when they should vote, and where they should vote. In South Carolina, one of these questions will be left up to voters directly on the ballot this year.
In the November general election, South Carolina voters will find a proposed state constitutional amendment on their ballots relating to the first question asked in this article: who should enjoy the right to vote in South Carolina? The ballot question regarding the proposed amendment reads as follows:
Connecticut’s VRA: Filling in the Gaps Left by Shelby, and More
October 18, 2024
By: Brooks Alderman
In 1965, the United States Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA); this legislation contained many provisions designed to protect the right vote. One of the most important sections of the law was Section 5, which prohibited covered jurisdictions from changing their election laws without those changes first being “precleared” by the US Attorney General or the US District Court for the District of Columbia to ensure that the changes were not discriminatory. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down one of the key provisions of this law, Section 4(b), which outlined the criteria to determine which jurisdictions should be covered by Section 5; this ruling had the impact of rendering section 5 as ineffective. Following Shelby and the end of preclearance, many states have passed laws that can restrict voting access, such as strict voter ID laws, stringent absentee voting processes, and difficult voter registration requirements. However, other states have moved in the opposite direction.