Trash or Treasure?: Concerns With SB1008’s Protection of Democracy in Virginia and How They Were Addressed
November 22, 2013
by Student Contributor
They say one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. In this case, it’s another man’s voter registration form. A month before the presidential election of 2012, a store owner saw a man throw a trash bag into the store’s recycling bin. Upon investigating, the store owner discovered that the man had thrown away several completed voter registration forms. The man was a contractor with the Republican Party helping to register voters in Virginia. The contractor was charged with thirteen counts of destruction of voter registration applications, disclosure of voter registration information, and obstruction of justice.
An Extended Vacation for Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law
November 20, 2013
by Joshua Bohn, Contributor
On August 16, 2013, Pennsylvania Judge Bernard McGinley issued a preliminary injunction to block Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law from affecting Pennsylvania elections in November. This preliminary injunction was the result of a lawsuit, Applewhite v. Commonwealth. Though the trial concluded on July 31, 2013, the judge is still deliberating on whether a permanent injunction is appropriate. However, the preliminary injunction made it clear that Pennsylvania voters will not be required to show poll workers photo identification in order to vote in the 2013 November general election. The injunction also restricted the voter ID law’s “soft rollout” features. These features would have required poll workers to inform voters that they would need photo ID to vote in the next election. The judge’s recent preliminary injunction does away with this requirement. Poll workers may still ask to see photo ID, but the voters still do not have to produce it in order to vote. (more…)
Slating In Judicial Elections: Fair or Foul? Case To Proceed In Federal Court
November 18, 2013
by Henry Alderfer, Contributor
Marion County. It is the hometown of the Indianapolis Colts, the author of this post, and a recent voter ID suit brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. Last fall, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Common Cause brought a suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging the way Marion Superior Court judges are elected is unconstitutional. (more…)
Kentucky Felon Voting And The Fate Of HCS HB 70
November 13, 2013
by Richard Spoor, Contributor
The restoration of felon voting rights has slowly come to the Blue Grass state. Section 145 of the Kentucky Constitution excludes those who have been convicted of a felony, bribery in an election, or treason from voting. Felons, regardless of the variety of crime committed, are prevented from voting for life and the only way they can reestablish their voting rights is by applying to the governor. Kentucky’s felons are “socially dead” having basic rights permanently withheld, most notably the right to vote. However, there is a movement in Kentucky to change these somewhat draconian laws. Bills amending the constitution’s section 145, while unsuccessful to date, have been introduced and have gained popularity. Additionally, popular politicians have thrown their weight behind the movement. It is entirely conceivable, if not probable, that Section 145 will be amended in the near future. (more…)
Modern Obstacles to Voting: Oregon’s Failed Attempt at Automatic Voter Registration
November 11, 2013
by Megan Thomas, Contributor
As much as we focus on getting out the vote for each election, the first step in voting usually takes place long before election day. Throughout the United States, citizens must register before they are allowed to vote. Though some states allow same-day registration, most states require that voters register in advance of an election. Advance registration makes voting a multi-step process and is widely considered to be a barrier to voter access. (more…)
Language of Voting
November 6, 2013
by Adam Barger, Contributor
Proper oversight of voting policy and procedure is being questioned in Alaska’s elections due to the lack of language assistance for Yup’ik speakers. The federal lawsuit, Toyukuk v. Treadwell, filed by the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), claims that Alaskan officials have violated the Voting Rights Act, as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments, by failing to provide appropriate language assistance to native Yup’ik speakers. The suit claims this lack of assistance has prevented them from fully participating in the election process and suppressed voter turnout. According to a case update on the NARF website, Natalie Landreth, Senior Staff Attorney with NARF, “Without complete, accurate, and uniform translations, the right to register and to vote is rendered meaningless to many Native voters.”
38,000 Voters Removed from Virginia’s Voter Rolls
November 4, 2013
By Sarah Wiley, Editor
On Friday October 18, a federal district judge in Virginia’s northern district rejected the Democratic Party’s request for an injunction blocking the removal of 38,000 voters from the Virginia voter rolls. Democrats contended that the lists used to remove voters are inaccurate. (more…)
Tennessee Takes a Third Option
November 1, 2013
by Christopher L. Rollins, Contributor
In the face of the recent government shutdown, neither of the established major political parties is maintaining a positive image with the average voter. Fortunately for some dissatisfied Tennessee voters, minority parties have slowly increased ballot access over the last few years. (more…)
Could Open Primaries Close the Door on Graham in 2014?
October 30, 2013
by Meredith Weinberg, Contributor
A recent case out of South Carolina is drawing attention to the potential impact of open primaries on election results. South Carolina law does not require voters to formally register with a particular political party in order to cast a vote in a primary. A system in which voters can select the primary they wish to vote in regardless of party affiliation is called an open primary system. Open primary systems sometimes draw criticism because they can allow voters to engage in so-called crossover voting. Crossover voting occurs when members of one political party deliberately vote for a candidate they perceive to be weaker in an opposing party’s primary in order to give their candidate an advantage. It is important to note that voters in an open primary system do have to select only one primary in which to vote, so crossover voting naturally removes a voter’s opportunity to cast a ballot for the actual candidate of her choice in her own party’s primary. Exit polls provide evidence that voters have crossed party lines during primaries in South Carolina. For example, despite South Carolina’s traditionally conservative electorate, nearly 30% of the voters in the Republican presidential primary in 2012 were either Democrats or Independents. Further, nearly a quarter of the independents chose Ron Paul as their candidate of choice, rather than the eventual winner in the primary, Newt Gingrich. (more…)
In Utah, Organization Makes Voting a Primary Concern
October 28, 2013
by James Devereaux, Contributor
In a state that is largely dominated by a single party, with a majority of the state voting in the Republican column, primary elections carry more significance than the general elections. With only one of the four congressional districts being held by a Democrat, Jim Matheson, and the two U.S. Senate seats belonging to the Republicans there is little variation in the political makeup of the congressional seats. Only the seat held by the Democrat was close enough for the general election to matter. (more…)