Results, Recanvass, Recount
November 21, 2012
As Kentucky basketball heats up its season against Maryland and Duke on the road, several campaigns are gearing up for recanvasses and possible recounts. The 7th Representative District race between Tim Kline and the incumbent, John Arnold, is separated by only 5 votes of the 15,775 cast. In the 3rd Senatorial District, the vote margin is 297 out of 36,617 cast for either Whitney Westerfield or Joey Pendleton, the incumbent. Ted Edmonds, the current representative, also ran a narrow race in the 91st Representative District against Gary Herald who leads him by only 134 votes of the 12,530 cast.
It is not clear whether any of the candidates will request a recount, such a decision usually occurs after the completion of a recanvass. At least two have filed for a recanvass, with Arnold’s race having the most potential for a recount. There are a number of avenues that can lead to a recount, in Kentucky. Either a candidate or an election official can trigger the recount process. Each of these paths have different requirements. The election-official initiated recount occurs if election officials report errors in administration to the county clerk. The clerk then must file a petition with the Circuit Court, within 15 days, requesting a recount. Election officials did not report any substantial election errors in any of the three races, making it unlikely the county clerk will file such a recount petition. (more…)
Hi, I’m IRV
November 14, 2012
The underlying assumption of elections is that they capture voters’ preferences. Voters go into a booth, push a button/punch a card/pop a chad and when they’re all counted up we know that the person who wins over 50% of the votes is the winner. It’s obvious, right?
Not necessarily. In 1992, Bill Clinton became President with 43 percent of the vote. In 1998, Jesse “The Body” Ventura became governor of Minnesota while winning about 37 percent of the vote. In 2010 (again in Minnesota) Mark Dayton became governor with 43.6 percent of the vote. The runner- up was behind by just .4 (point four) percentage points – 43.2 percent.
A plurality system is simple, but some argue it is fundamentally unfair to let a candidate win with a plurality, let alone a plurality that is far short of a bare majority. (more…)
Nebraska’s Need for Electoral Reform
November 14, 2012
by Jordan Evans
Since the 1992 Presidential election, Nebraska has used the Congressional District Method (CDM) to distribute its electoral votes. The 2012 Presidential election should be the last time it is used. While the CDM seems ideal for adhering to the “one person, one vote” standard articulated in Reynolds v. Sims, it actually does greater harm than good.
The CDM can be much different from the winner-take-all approach. It is different in that the candidate receiving the most votes statewide does not necessarily receive all of Nebraska’s electoral votes. Instead, a candidate receives the same number of electoral votes as congressional districts he wins. The statewide winner then receives two additional electoral votes, representing Nebraska’s two Senate seats. (more…)
The Battleground 2012: Can Colorado Keep a (Ballot) Secret? After Citizen Center v. Gessler, It’s Not Required To Do So
November 6, 2012
Barcodes are a ubiquitous feature of modern life. They appear on everything from retail products and advertisements to patient forms at the doctor’s office. But perhaps one place a person might not expect to find a barcode is on an election ballot—especially when that barcode can be used to link an individual ballot with the voter who cast it. The notion seems at odds with our venerated tradition of the “secret” ballot. Indeed, that is what the plaintiffs argued in Citizen Center v. Gessler, a recent case before the United States District Court in Colorado.
On February 13, Citizen Center, a nonpartisan group of Colorado voters, filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of election policies and procedures in six Colorado counties. Specifically, Citizen Center alleged that the defendant counties’ election ballots each contain a unique identifying mark that allows a voted ballot to be traced to its specific voter. Citizen Center further alleged that use of these ballots unconstitutionally infringes upon citizens’ fundamental right to vote, as well as their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (more…)
The Battleground 2012: Whose [Presidential Ballot] Line Is It Anyway?
November 6, 2012
The new national party Americans Elect was able to achieve ballot access in Oklahoma for the 2012 presidential election even though its bid to put a national third party presidential candidate on the ballot in all fifty states fizzled. Oklahoma has one of the strictest ballot access laws in the nation. Title 26 § 1-108 requires new parties seeking ballot access to submit petitions of registered voters equal to 5 percent of the total votes cast in the most recent general election. This creates a significant barrier for new parties wishing to stand for election in Oklahoma. In 2008 Oklahoma only had two choices, Democratic and Republican candidates. By having more choices voters are able to vote for candidates that best reflect their views.
This year the party Americans Elect was able to qualify in all states due in large part to well financed organization. The problem in Oklahoma, as in other states, is that Americans Elect failed to nominate a candidate for its hard-won slot as a third party on the ballot. As 2012 progressed and no candidate emerged, states began to wonder who would appear on the Americans Elect line on the ballot. (more…)
The Battleground 2012: Armed with More than a Vote: Guns in Polling Places in Virginia
November 6, 2012
Virginia is widely acknowledged as a state that strongly supports the rights of citizens to own and carry guns. A number of recent laws demonstrate this support by allowing Virginians to open-carry guns in most public places. These new laws are likely to lead to a greater number of people carrying guns openly in public. Now that Election Day is drawing near, the question naturally arises: should it be legal to open-carry at Virginia polling places on Election Day.
The issue of open-carry in polling places has come up a few times in recent elections in Virginia and elsewhere. One specific instance in Virginia occurred in 2011 when an election officer attempted to carry a handgun on his hip at the polling place. The chief officer at the polling station told the election officer that he could not remain at the polling place while he was wearing his handgun. The election office informed the chief officer that he was not violating any laws by having his gun at the polling station, but he was still not allowed to remain at the polling station with the handgun. According to the election officer, the chief officer was concerned about the handgun making people inside the polling station uncomfortable. (more…)
The Battleground 2012: The Public Financing of Judicial Candidates in North Carolina after Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett
November 6, 2012
by Justin Moore
In 2002, North Carolina passed the Judicial Campaign Reform Act (JCRA). A major part of this law created a system for the public financing of all statewide judicial races in North Carolina. The fund is paid for by a combination of state bar licensing fees and a voluntary income tax check off. By agreeing to very low “qualifying contribution limits” from donors (generally $500 per person and about $80,000 overall), statewide judicial candidates can qualify for public funds. If they raise around $40,000 from 350 or more North Carolina residents between the filing deadline and the primary election, they receive about $165,000 to $240,000 (depending on the office sought) in campaign funds from the state. If an opponent or opposition groups spends more than the amount given by the fund, candidates are entitled to receive rescue funds of up to double the amount they initially received. The availability of these “rescue funds” most notably played a pivotal role in assisting the current Chief Justice Sarah Parker win her 2006 re-election campaign against a challenger who did not take public financing. (more…)
The Battleground 2012: ID Required to Vote! No Scratch That, Not Until Next Year
November 5, 2012
by Jenna Poligo
On October 2, 2012 Judge Robert Simpson issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Pennsylvania’s photo identification requirement for the upcoming election. Judge Simpson, however, required the state to continue its 5 million dollar voter education program. In addition, the injunction does not bar the state from requiring poll workers to request identification prior to voters casting a vote. The injunction merely prohibits the state from preventing registered voters from voting if they fail to produce identification when asked on Election Day.
The continuation of the voter education program combined with the ability to ask voters to produce identification prior to voting runs the risk of creating serious confusion among voters. In addition, the continued message to voters that valid identification is necessary to vote may deter many would-be voters from participating in this election. (more…)
The Battleground 2012: A Conversation with Former Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner
November 5, 2012
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on October 8, 2012.
Jennifer Brunner was elected in 2006 and served a term as Ohio’s first female Secretary of State. During that time, she oversaw the contentious 2008 presidential election and implemented voting practices that allowed a record turnout of voters to cast their ballots. In 2010, she ran in the primary election for the United States Senate. She currently practices law in Columbus and is the author of a new book, “Cupcakes and Courage”. (more…)
The Battleground 2012: Who Gets to Vote When? Ohio Election Rules Have a Smaller Effect at the Local Level
November 5, 2012
In a swing state like Ohio, who gets to vote and when is critical. This is evidenced by the recent controversy in the state about early voting restrictions. The disagreement has two main issues – special accommodations for members of the military, and the elimination of early voting three days before Election Day. These two issues are connected, as members of the military and civilians overseas would technically have been allowed to vote during the three day period United States-based Ohioans would be barred from early voting.
Proponents of the early voting restrictions claim that they are necessary in order to provide election officials time to update voting records and prevent voter fraud. Opponents argue that they are arbitrary and disproportionately affect low-income and minority voters. This issue caught national media attention when the Obama and Romney campaigns took oppositional positions on the matter. An Ohio District Court judge found the restrictions a violation of the equal protection clause. Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine quickly announced his decision to appeal the matter to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the lower court. The Supreme Court declined to block early voting. This issue has ended for now, though others press on. (more…)