Double Dipping? Kentucky Redistricting Plan Creates Dual District Voting
October 29, 2012
Every two years voters from around Kentucky flock to their precincts to select their member for the United States House of Representatives. As a result of months of candidates’ television and print ads, most voters know the number of their district. However, this year on November 6th when Kentuckians from Bath, Fleming, Harrison, Nicholas, Robertson, and Scott counties open their ballots they will find candidate choices in two different congressional districts. Their ballots will look similar to this one, in that it will list a special election for the 4th Congressional District and a general election for the 6th Congressional District. Such an election peculiarity is not a print mistake by the State Board of Elections. Rather, the cause of this dual district voting is both Kentucky’s new redistricting plan and Representative Geoff Davis’s resignation from Congress. (more…)
Emergency Managers: An unconstitutional power grab or necessary evil?
October 29, 2012
by Lauren Fibel
When a city or school district is unable to pay their bills, and a state’s credit rating is in jeopardy as a result, what options do states have? On November 6th, Michigan voters will decide the fate of Public Act 4, which Governor Rick Snyder signed into law in March of 2011. Public Act 4 allows the state government to appoint emergency managers for those cities or school districts who are in danger of defaulting on their obligations. Controversially, these emergency managers can act in place of the elected government officials and are allowed to act in what they determine is the best manner for the city. Emergency managers are allowed to renegotiate or terminate the school district’s or city’s contracts, sell city or school district property, acquire debt to be paid back by tax payers and even determine what services and expenditures the city will continue to provide. Currently, more than three cities and two school districts in Michigan are governed by emergency managers, yet some citizens feel that this type of appointment is an unconstitutional power grab. (more…)
Voting at Gunpoint: Should Colorado Allow Firearms at Polling Places?
October 28, 2012
In July 2011, the Indiana state legislature passed a law that allows citizens to openly carry firearms at all polling places except for schools and courthouses. This law has been praised as a protective measure of a citizen’s right to bear arms and exercise self-defense. For many states, this kind of law would present enough difficult policy questions all on its own, but it raises
particularly charged issues for Colorado, a state that has found itself a consistent subject of both the election and gun debates.
Two of the most deadly, high-profile shootings in U.S. history have occurred in Colorado–the Columbine and Aurora shootings, the most recent of which occurred this past summer–and have sparked renewed gun control debates. Even more recently, Colorado’s active Secretary of State, Scott Gessler, was involved in a controversial “voter purge” when his office “sent letters to nearly 4,000 people questioning their citizenship as part of a plan to have them voluntarily withdraw or confirm their eligibility to vote” (Huffington Post). Colorado democrats claimed that Secretary Gessler attempted to intimidate or disenfranchise voters, thousands of whom proved to be state citizens. With recent events concerning both gun control and voter intimidation, should Colorado adopt an Indiana-like law and guarantee citizens the right to openly carry firearms at polling places across the state, overriding any local laws that prohibit the practice? (more…)
Sticker Candidates in a Technological Age: The Case of Massachusetts
October 28, 2012
Robert Fennel has been the State Representative in the 10th Essex District in Massachusetts for the past 18 years. In September, he won the primary handily, receiving nearly 90% of the vote. While this scenario is not unique among incumbents across the nation, what makes the story of the 10th Essex County race interesting is that sticker candidate Gardy Jean-Francois earned the other 10% of the votes via write-in. (more…)
MD Court: Dream Act Referendum Appropriate, Not Appropriation
October 26, 2012
by Anna Killius
In the 97 years since Maryland amended its constitution to allow for referendums, citizens have successfully put legislation to a popular vote only 13 times. Often, petitions failed to collect the necessary number of validated signatures, but the modern use of online petitions has facilitated the collection of signatures, accounting for up to 40% of those validated by the state Board of Elections. Consequently, Maryland citizens will soon have the opportunity to vote on three referendums, an unprecedented number, targeted at defeating the expansion of in-state tuition coverage, gay marriage equality, and a congressional redistricting plan. Proponents of the challenged measures have turned to the courts in an effort to prevent the referendums from reaching the November ballot. (more…)
East Coast Money, West Coast Elections
October 26, 2012
by Andrew Rauch
Oregon’s state motto is “She flies with her own wings.” For Democratic Attorney General Candidate Ellen Rosenblum, this motto should read “She flies with her own wings and local money.” Rosenblum’s campaign had a distinctly local flavor to it. She went to school at the University of Oregon, practiced law in Eugene, and she most recently served on the Oregon Court of Appeals. Highlighting these local ties, Rosenblum was able to paint herself as the Oregon candidate. This left her opponent, Dwight Holton, who worked at the United States Attorney’s office in Oregon, to fill the role of the outsider. (more…)
New Yorkers For Mitt: Who Cares? The Winner-Take-All Electoral College and the Disenfranchisement of New York Republicans
October 24, 2012
The lawn in front of 155 Brandon Terrace in Albany, New York is adorned with campaign signs reading “Romney: Believe in America” and “Romney & Ryan: America’s Comeback Team.” These signs are clearly indicative of the fact that Romney supporters reside within this household. Indeed, Mr. & Mrs. Brian Dougherty, who live in this home, will undoubtedly vote for Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan on November 6. But will their votes matter? Given that the winner-take-all Electoral College system still plays the dominant role in selecting the President of the United States, the answer is a resounding no.
The Electoral College is the body which elects the President of the United States. The college is made up of 538 electors. In order to be elected president, a candidate needs to win a majority of these electors, which is 270. A portion of these electors is allocated to every state in the union. The number of electors given to a state depends on the number of Representatives and Senators that particular state has in the federal Congress. The state of New York currently has 29 electors. In every state except Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the popular vote in a particular state gains all of that state’s electoral votes. This means that whichever candidate wins the popular vote in New York on November 6 will take all 29 of the state’s electoral votes.
Since 1988, the popular vote in New York has favored the Democratic candidate. The election results from 2008 illustrate how Democratic presidential candidates have been able to win the total popular vote in New York. The counties in New York that vote for Democratic presidential candidates have extremely large populations. In addition, the number of votes separating Democratic candidates and Republican candidates in these counties is substantial. For example, in 2008, 318,920 registered voters in Suffolk County cast their ballots for Senator Barack Obama, while 289,236 people voted for Senator John McCain. Not only did Senator Obama gain a large number of votes, but the margin of victory for Obama in this county was 29,684 votes. Likewise, in Brooklyn County, 545,785 voters cast their ballots for Obama, while only 139,594 people voted for McCain. This was a margin of victory for Obama of 406,191 votes. In contrast, the counties won by Republican candidate John McCain were more sparsely populated, and the number of votes separating the two candidates in these counties was not very large. For example, in Hamilton County, Senator McCain won the popular vote with 1,903 votes. However, 1,060 people voted for Senator Obama, meaning that McCain’s margin of victory in this county was only 843 votes.
Indeed, with heavily populated counties in the New York City metropolitan area voting overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates, it has simply not been possible in recent years for Republican presidential candidates to close the gap in the statewide popular vote tally. The same patterns were present in the 2004 presidential election. In 2004, 283,994 citizens voted for Senator John Kerry in Bronx County, while only 56,701 people cast their ballots for President George W. Bush. This was a margin of victory of 227,293 votes for Kerry. Likewise, in New York County, the margin of victory for Senator Kerry was 419,360 votes. President Bush won the popular vote in smaller, more rural New York counties. For example, President Bush won Allegany County with 12,310 votes. Senator Kerry only received 6,566 votes. However, the smaller number of total votes in these rural counties, combined with the fact that fewer votes separated the two candidates in these counties, meant that President Bush was unable to catch up to Senator Kerry in the statewide popular vote. Therefore, all of New York State’s electoral votes were awarded to Senator Kerry.
This reality continues to leave many New York Republicans frustrated, as their vote cannot in any way prevent the entire sum of New York State’s electoral votes from going to the Democratic candidate. As Kathleen Melinda Moses wrote in the Watertown Daily Times, a publication that serves Jefferson, St. Lawrence, and Lewis Counties, “residents of Northern New York are never considered by the candidates, because all of New York state’s electoral votes are guaranteed to go to President Obama…our votes for president in essence do not matter.” This demoralization was also noted during an email interview with a conservative business leader at CMA Consulting Services in Albany County. This business woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, expressed her anguish by stating that it has become increasingly frustrating to be “registered as a conservative in a staunchly liberal state…The feeling that your vote counts, given the nature of the Electoral College’s ‘winner takes all method,’ is a distant memory…It leaves one only to vote out of moral obligation…not because you feel your vote has contributed to the election of your chosen candidate.” A member of the Republican Party working in the Saratoga County Board of Elections, who also wishes to remain anonymous, brought out an additional problem during a telephone interview. When asked whether Republican voters in New York feel disenfranchised by the electoral process, the Board of Elections member noted that most “average Joe” Republican voters simply “do not understand the process.” Consequently, these voters do not even realize that their voices are not making the slightest difference in the presidential election. These voters are operating under a false assumption that their vote is making a difference, and this is a travesty considering the immense feeling of satisfaction most people feel after casting their ballot for Commander in Chief.
When asked whether the Electoral College system disenfranchises Republican voters in New York State, the election official from Saratoga County stated, “yes, (the electoral college) is a problem (because) it does not represent the diversity of the state.” Given that presidential candidates are always speaking about the importance of going to the polls on Election Day, shouldn’t we strive for a system where everyone who casts a ballot actually does have the opportunity to affect the election? Isn’t it time to start caring about New Yorkers for Mitt?
Free Speech: Wyoming organization attacks vague FEC regulations
October 16, 2012
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and is a hallmark of the United States Constitution. It is one Americans deeply revere and protect, attacking those attempting to abridge this right. The Federal Election Commission has been aggressively defending its regulations and case-by-case analysis determination of which groups must register as Political Action Committees (PACs). In a recent case, Free Speech v. Federal Election Committee, decided on October 3, 2012, Federal District Court of Wyoming Judge Scott Skavdahl upheld the Federal Election Committee’s regulations concerning disclosure and registration as a Political Action Committee (PAC). In denying the Wyoming-based organization, Free Speech, a preliminary injunction to continue running their advertisements, Judge Skavdahl upholds precedent regarding the validity of the Commission’s regulations, finding the definition of 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b) is not overly vague or uncertain. (more…)
Redefining unconstitutional: Varnum justices continue to be targets in Iowa
October 16, 2012
What do you do when you don’t like the ruling of the Supreme Court? In Iowa the answer is easy: get a new Supreme Court. Iowa’s system of judge retention elections makes it unique. Judges are appointed by a council, and at the end of an eight year term the public votes on whether a justice should be retained or let go. Until recently, judges didn’t have to campaign hard for retention; in fact, from 1962 to 2010 every justice was retained. There are no challengers in these judicial elections, the public simply votes for or against retention. In 2010 the system was shaken when three justices, including Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, were voted out of office. (more…)
Caught with Your Hand in the Cookie Jar? Better Not Bail Yourself Out with Campaign Funds
October 15, 2012
When you write a check to support a candidate’s political campaign, you have a general expectation as to how the money will be spent. You anticipate the candidate using an election account to buy signs, make commercials, hire staffers, and even buy tickets to fundraisers or pick up coffee and donuts for volunteers. When you donate to a candidate you have faith in, one you want to see in an elected position, the odds are that one thing you do not expect, or want, your money to be spent on is a criminal lawyer. However, this use of campaign funds has been considered in New Jersey of late, as more than one New Jersey elected official has faced indictment and found himself scrambling to rally the funds necessary to mount a legal defense. (more…)