Ethics Tightened on D.C. Government
May 22, 2013
by Andy McCoy, Contributor
Voters in Washington, DC recently enacted three charter amendments relating to ethics. Amendment V, which passed with 85% support, would allow the DC Council to expel a member by a 5/6 vote if the Council could demonstrate a gross failure to meet the highest standards of conduct. Amendments VI and VII, which both passed with over 75% support, would disqualify felons from holding a Council seat or the Mayor’s office. Amendments VI and VII are both limited in scope as they only disqualify individuals that were convicted of a felony while holding the office. This would have the effect of immediately expelling a Mayor or Council member upon conviction for any felony and also barring the individual from holding that particular office again. Interestingly a Council member convicted while serving on the Council would not be disqualified from serving as Mayor and vice versa. These Amendments would also fail to bar candidates who resigned before conviction from holding the same office again in the future. (more…)
Nebraskan Improprieties: They’re Only Illegal If the Legislature Says So
May 16, 2013
Public corruption is something all Americans abhor, even the appearance of it. That is especially true when it comes to our elections, the fundamental building blocks of the democratic process. But acts of corruption are only illegal to the extent that the law says so. One cannot commit an illegal act where the law does not prohibit such conduct. Christopher Geary, a one-time hopeful for the Nebraska Legislature, is living proof of this principle.
Nebraska’s 7th Legislative District encompasses parts of downtown Omaha and neighboring Douglas County. During the 2012 election cycle, District 7’s residing incumbent was Jeremy Nordquist. Christopher Geary challenged Nordquist in the officially non-partisan primary and funded his campaign with mostly personal expenditures. Geary ultimately lost by a significant margin. Instead of immediately removing his name from the general election ballot, however, Geary decided to attempt a recovery of his personal funds spent on the campaign. He did so with the following email to Nordquist: (more…)
The NVRA’s Privacy Problem
May 6, 2013
by Scott Van Der Hyde, Contributor
A recent 4th Circuit opinion has highlighted a possible conflict that exists between the National Voter Registration Acts (NVRA) transparency provisions and concerns over voter privacy. In Project Vote v. Young, the 4th Circuit attempted to resolve a conflict between the NVRA’s requirement that states make available for public review records pertaining to the implementation of voter registration programs and activities, and a Virginia law that prohibits disclosing many voter registration records. The court ultimately resolved this issue in favor of the NVRA’s disclosure requirement. While resolving the issue in this particular case, the court’s decision has the potential to raise new issues in terms of what must be disclosed and gives rise to a number of privacy concerns. (more…)
The Plight of Third-Party Organizations attempting to Register Voters in Florida
April 23, 2013
by Aaron Carter, Associate Editor
Alberto, Ernesto, Florence and Valerie are all names of Atlantic Ocean hurricanes that have taken shape in 2012. As of now they are 4 of the 21 hurricanes we have seen this season. Hurricane season in Florida ranges from bad to worse depending on the storm systems that are cooked up in any given year. Still, a hurricane or any other type of force majeure will not exonerate a third party organization for not turning in voter registration forms within the 48-hour window provided under Fla. Stat. § 97.0575 and implementing rule 1S 2.042. HB1355, which passed in 2011 and amended the statute states, “[T]he fines provided in this subsection shall be reduced by three-fourths in cases in which the third party voter registration organization’s failure to deliver the voter registration application within the required timeframe is based upon force majeure or impossibility of performance.” Third-party organizations have been in a battle over various changes in election law the past two years. The regulations of third-party organizations registering voters in Florida have been adjudicated in court, but its effects may last until Election Day with significant consequences for a pivotal election. (more…)
Be careful what you wish for: MD’s centralized voter registration too efficient?
April 16, 2013
by Anna Killius, Contributor
So much can go wrong before a voter ever reaches the voting booth. Voters encounter registration requirements, polling place assignments and identification law confusion. On Election Day, long lines and chilly temperatures can test the fortitude of even the most dedicated citizens. But imagine waiting for hours and dutifully handing over your driver’s license and voter registration card, only to be told that you are missing from the poll books. According to the Maryland State Board of Elections, you no longer live at your address, and your precinct has been changed. This is precisely what Christopher Lochner faced when he arrived at the Hereford polling station on November 6th, and he may not have been alone. With Maryland’s centralized voter registration system, it is now easier for voters to inadvertently signal a change of address, potentially leaving displaced and disgruntled voters to cast provisional ballots.
Centralized, computerized systems are a relatively recent addition to the election process, but, for Maryland, the idea is nothing new. After the 1994 gubernatorial election was decided by less than 6,000 votes, Governor Glendening created a 13-member task force to investigate and suggest reforms for the Maryland election system. Among those suggestions was a centralized state registration roll to replace those individually maintained by the counties. Budget constraints prevented Maryland from acting on this ambitious plan until Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. (more…)
All Bark, No Bite: How California’s Top-Two Primary System Reinforces the Status Quo
April 8, 2013
During the November 6 general election, the state of California saw the effects of one fascinating component of its electoral system: its top-two open primary.
Over two years ago, California voters proposed and passed Proposition 14, a ballot initiative that drastically reformed the state’s primary system. Prior to Prop 14, California conducted closed primary elections, which meant a voter could only vote for candidates in his own political party. The candidate with the most votes from each “qualified” political party—the Democratic Party, Republican Party, American Independent Party, Americans Elect Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Peace & Freedom Party—advanced to the general election where he would face the candidates who advanced from the other parties. In a sense, the old system guaranteed that a third party or independent candidate could secure a spot on the November general election ballot. (more…)
Put the Sewing Kit Away: Puerto Rican Statehood Desired, But Not Likely
April 4, 2013
by David Noll, Associate Editor
The people of Puerto Rico have, for the first time ever, voted in favor of statehood in the United States. While all 50 states have citizen petitions to secede from the Union, Puerto Rico has chosen to enter our Union. Puerto Ricans voted against statehood twice in the Clinton administration, a time when a booming U.S. economy would have made statehood very beneficial. The vote for statehood now, in a weak U.S. economy, signals two big changes in Puerto Rico and the U.S.
The general expectation would be that Puerto Rico would want to keep its commonwealth status in weak economic times. In strong economic times Puerto Rico benefits from massive U.S. tourism and the easier it is for people to travel there, the better for tourism. In an economic slowdown, the lower tax rate that can be sustained in a protectorate (especially for the gambling industry) is more important to keep vacations to Puerto Rico cheap. But this would suggest Puerto Ricans should have voted against statehood in the November elections. (more…)
Equal Protection Challenge to Virginia’s Felony Disenfranchisement Provision Survives Summary Judgment
March 25, 2013
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Friday granted the State’s summary judgment motion on substantive and procedural due process challenges to Virginia’s voter reinstatement process for convicted felons, as well as an Eight Amendment challenge to the disenfranchisement of felons as cruel and unusual punishment. The court did, however, deny summary judgment on El-Amin’s Equal Protection challenge of lifetime felon disenfranchisement in Virginia.
Plaintiff Sa’ad El-Amin argues that Virginia’s felony disenfranchisement laws were enacted to discriminate against black citizens. Thus, despite the facially neutral language of Art. II, § 1 of the Virginia Constitution, El-Amin contends that the alleged discriminatory intent makes Virginia voter qualifications constitutionally deficient under the 14th Amendment.
The court’s opinion notes that previous challenges to felony disenfranchisement have not fared well in court; however, none of those cases entailed an inquiry into the specific historical events El-Amin argues support a discriminatory intent behind the laws. According to the court, while felony disenfranchisement is not constitutionally prohibited in the abstract, there is Supreme Court precedent for striking down specific States’ felony disenfranchisement provisions based upon discriminatory motivation for their adoption. El-Amin will have to prove that racial animus tainted the passage of felon disenfranchisement in Virginia—an uphill battle given that the laws were originally put on the books when only white men could vote in Virginia (i.e., could not have been targeted at denying blacks the vote). Still, Virginia’s troubled history of racial discrimination makes its felon disenfranchisement law—one of the most extreme in this country—a bitter legacy.
Two William & Mary Law students, Kate Ward ’13 and Elderidge Nichols ’13 wrote an amicus brief in the case.
Symposium Report: Conclusions of the “Party Planning” work group with Sec. Scott Gessler and Fairfax County Registrar Cameron Quinn
March 19, 2013
by Emily Lippolis, Special Contributor
The biggest problem facing Virginia registrars is a lack of resources. They are understaffed, overworked, and last-minute legislative acts (like mandating ballots in Spanish) mean that they are often burdened with unforeseen changes right before Election Day. Poll workers are well-trained but most experience their first real day of work on Election Day. There is usually not enough money to create data for election statistics at individual precincts. Furthermore, each precinct is different and has their own set of needs.
All of this led our working group on Election Day “party planning” to conclude that what registrars need most are business management-like resources, and not broad solutions to haphazardly apply to every precinct. Most large businesses track their resources so that they can determine how different processes and investments lead to different outcomes. Many large companies, like Walt Disney World and UPS, have already done the research necessary to mitigate many of the issues that create delays at the polls. Some states have already solved the problems facing other states, and just need a medium to communicate their solutions with the rest of the country. If election officials had the same resources used by big businesses to create maximum efficiency and customer satisfaction, then elections would run a lot more smoothly in Virginia. (more…)
Symposium Report: Scholars, Officials, and Students Discuss Election Flexibility as a Solution to 2013 Election Delays
March 18, 2013
by Shanna Reulbach, Special Contributor
The William & Mary Election Law Society hosted a symposium searching for solutions to the delays that occurred on Election Day 2012—those that President Obama directed national attention to during his acceptance speech that night. The symposium began with small-group sessions that brought scholars, elections officials, and students together to discuss the issues. I was part of the group focusing on election flexibility options, and had the honor of talking with Dr. John Fortier of the Bipartisan Policy Center and two outstanding Virginia general registrars, Barbra Gunter and Donna Patterson.
The group focused first on two of the “hottest” ideas for voter flexibility: early voting and absentee voting. Currently, Virginia offers mail-in absentee ballots to voters who are able to select one of a number of excuses for not being present in their precinct on Election Day. Virginia’s system of in-person absentee voting, which other states may call early voting, also requires an excuse. Ms. Gunter and Ms. Patterson related that Virginia voters passing through their offices express support of having more options for early voting through either method. The registrars agreed that more options for early voting would reduce delays on Election Day because people would likely take advantage of those options, meaning less people coming to the polls on that Tuesday in November. (more…)