Get to the polls early…well, not that early
February 8, 2012
Changes to Georgia’s voting laws cut length of advance voting period
This past summer the Georgia state legislature passed H.B. 92, effectively shortening the length of time Georgia voters can cast early ballots from 45 days to 21 days. The law also requires polls be open at least one Saturday prior to the general or primary election where a federal office is up for grabs. However, if no federal offices are included in the election, localities are not required to maintain Saturday voting hours. Passage of this new bill raises the unique question of whether a reduction in this voting period will amount to a significant burden for Georgians attempting to exercise their franchise before election day?
The law is one of many similar bills across the country, potentially signaling a significant push back in the recent growth of advance voting and no-fault absentee voting. Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia have all passed laws reducing early voting period. Further, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, and North Carolina all recently considered similar legislation. These legislative changes have garnered the attention of the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-partisan public policy and legal think tank at the New York University School of Law, ultimately raising concerns that such enactments may serve as a step backwards for election administration. Conversely, many state legislatures proffered economic hardship and potential savings as the rationale and necessity for such laws. (more…)
A redistricting light through the (pine) trees
February 6, 2012
As the weather cooled and the leaves started to color in Maine last fall, the state legislature was heating up in debate over the Republican and Democratic proposals to redraw the Pine Tree State’s district lines.
Democrats and Republicans worked hard in the summer and fall of 2011 to resolve different redistricting plans for the state of Maine.
The redistricting battle between Republicans and Democrats was likely the result of close congressional races in 2010, when both districts fell to Democrats. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), who beat Republican challenger Dean Scontras by a 57-43 margin, holds Maine’s 1st district, and Representative Michael Michaud won by a 55-45 margin to take Maine’s 2nd district. In 2011, when Democrats and Republicans both proposed redistricting maps, the two plans showed significant differences. The Democratic plan presented little change to the existing map, while the Republican plan proposed shifting approximately 360,000 Mainers—one quarter of the state’s voters—between the two districts. The Republican plan also relocated Pingree’s hometown of North Haven into the middle of the 2nd district. (more…)
News Brief: Texas Supreme Court rejects redistricting maps
February 3, 2012
The Supreme Court has rejected redistricting maps drawn by a Texas federal court. The judicially-created maps were created as a response to the Texas legislature’s failure to comply with Section 5 of the Voting rights Act. However, the Supreme Court decision throws the future of the redistricting map into question as the 2012 elections approach. According to reporting by the New York Times, the new map may not differ significantly from the one created by the Texas court, one which some say favors representation of Hispanic communities and the Democrats. The initial map proposed by the state legislature favored Republicans, but was never submitted to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance.
There may not be enough time before the election to prepare the maps appropriately. The Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott hopes to have interim maps in place by the end of January so that the state’s primary can take place on April 3rd. Abbott moved the federal court conference on the issue to January 27, ahead of schedule. The date of the primary has already been moved back from March 6th to the current April date, though it is not clear whether the state will be able to hold the election by April either. (more…)
Terminating “gerrymander” ghouls with transparency: Massachusetts’ 2012 redistricting approach
February 2, 2012
Generally known as the birthplace of the term “gerrymandering,” Massachusetts is certainly no stranger to accusations of unequal divisions of the state’s electoral power. From Governor Elbridge Gerry’s 1812 attempts to weaken the Federalist Party to House Speaker Tom Finneran’s 2001 alleged legislative efforts to diminish minority vote strength, historical reasons abound as to why vigilant Bay State minority citizens would be extremely wary of the state’s upcoming Congressional redistricting. In order to quell these inevitable fears of vote dilution and limit “beast sightings” (see right) in the 2012 election cycle, however, Massachusetts lawmakers have armed themselves with an invisible weapon – transparency.
Although its population grew a modest 3.1 percent from 2001 to 2010, Massachusetts still lost one of its ten congressional districts once the U.S. Census Bureau finalized its statistics last December. As a result, Massachusetts voters in 2012 will elect the fewest number of their representatives to the U.S. Congress (nine) since the late eighteenth century. However, before a single representative from Massachusetts even enters the 113th Congress, the state’s Legislative Redistricting Committee must create new congressional district lines that adhere to legal doctrinal principles and (hopefully) community desires. (more…)
Privately funded incumbent beats out nine publicly-funded opponents in San Francisco mayoral race
January 31, 2012
Over the last fifteen years, a growing movement in the US has called for the diminution of corporate and special interest money in elections by providing public funds for campaigns. In that time, sixteen states and a number of municipalities have enacted various schemes that provide public financing for candidates for public office, usually with requirements that the candidates abide by spending caps and raise a certain amount of money on their own through small donations.
This past election tested San Francisco’s version of public finance in its mayoral election. The City by the Bay provides $50,000 to any mayoral candidate who can raise at least $25,000 from donations of $100 or less. After that, donations to the candidate are matched at a rate of 4:1, decreasing to 1:1 by the time that candidate reaches the $1,375,000 spending cap imposed on those candidates receiving public financing. In a single election, a candidate may receive as much as $850,000 from the city, unless, as in this election a privately financed campaign exceeds the cap. Thereafter, the cap rises in $100,000 increments as privately financed campaigns continue to spend.
In this election, however, a publicly financed campaign did not take the prize. Interim Mayor Ed Lee won the election on November 8 after funding his campaign through private contributions. Ultimately a total of $2.6 million was spent in support of Lee’s campaign, including nearly one million dollars spent by independent groups. This amount, however, is dwarfed by recent campaigns in San Francisco where, for example, in the 2003 election, former Mayor Gavin Newsom spent $5.1 million. (more…)
Rejection of West Virginia congressional map creates more questions than answers
January 30, 2012
by Chris Lewis
On Jan. 4, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia rejected the state’s new congressional map, the second state to have its map thrown out by the courts this redistricting cycle (Texas’ map was rejected in November). The 2-1 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District declared the maps unconstitutional due to population variance between the districts, a violation of the “one man, one vote” principle that has been in effect since the 1960’s. While it is commendable that the judges had this tenet in mind when crafting its decision, they deserve scrutiny for a result that will likely have little real impact outside of headaches for state officials and confusion for voters.
Unlike its counterpart in the Lone Star State, West Virginia’s map was passed without much acrimony, overwhelmingly approved by votes of 27-4 in the State Senate and 90-5 in the House of Delegates. Though Democrats control both houses, just three Republicans voted against the new map, a stark contrast to other states that have seen redistricting turn into bitter partisan battles. The legislature made just one change, shifting Mason County from the 2nd District (represented by Republican Shelley Moore Capito) to the 3rd District (represented by Democrat Nick Rahall). The change represented about a one percent change in party affiliation in both districts. (more…)
NRS 304
January 27, 2012
A way to quickly replace Congressmen in the event of a terrorist attack or give Democrats a Nevada Republican stronghold?
by Kaitan Gupta
In the world of battleground elections, Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District never received much attention nor should it have. Since its creation after the 1980 census, it has always been represented by a Republican. 1992 was the only time the Republican candidate did not receive more than 50% of the vote and yet that year Republican Congressman Vucanovich still won the election by more than 12,000 votes/4 points. The Democrats thought they were closing the gap in the District in 2008 when Senator McCain only won the District by 88 votes, but popular Congressman Dean Heller proved too popular in this conservative District where he widened his “narrow” 12,575 vote/5 point win in 2006 to a 44,000 vote/10 point win in 2008 and a 82,000/30 point win in 2010. But Democrats attempt at winning this District (which in the past was seen as futile) would get new life thanks to a Republican’s sex scandal, the Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, and a Navy war hero.
In May 2011, Senator John Ensign announced his resignation due to an ethics investigation surrounding his extramarital affair with the wife of one of his aids. Governor Sandoval promptly appointed Dean Heller to fill the rest of Senator Ensign’s term and ordered a special election to be held on September 13, 2011 to elect a new representative for Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District. But it was Secretary of State Ross Miller’s announcement of how this special election would be run that gave Democrats a chance of winning this Republican stronghold. One week prior to Governor Sandoval’s announcement, Secretary Miller issued his interpretation of NRS 304.200, the law governing special elections. He announced that major party candidates could self-nominate and place themselves on the ballot as a major political party candidate whether or not the major political party approved. Secretary Miller based this interpretation on NRS 304’s language that “no primary election may be held.” This meant the election would be a free for all and more than 30 candidates were expected to be on the ballot. Democrats expected many Republicans would file as compared to only a few Democrats making it much easier to elect a Democrat. (more…)
A State Divided
January 25, 2012
Virginia’s split precinct problem
by Brooks Braun
The 2012 election will soon be upon Virginia. If past elections and the current political climate are reliable guides, the level of participation will once again place enormous pressure on the election administrative apparatus. Will Virginia be prepared? One ominous reason to be skeptical is the recent explosion of split precincts following from the2011 redistricting process.
Split precincts are a normal outcome of every redistricting process. The precinct itself is usually the smallest unit of administration in an election district. However, when the General Assembly draws new district lines that do not follow old precinct lines, a split precinct is created. In such a precinct, voters don’t all vote for the same offices. For example, some voters in the precinct might vote for a representative to fill state senate seat A, while other voters, in the same precinct, vote for a representative to fill state senate seat B. Precincts can also be split more than once (once by a concessional district line and once more by a state senate line, for instance). It’s like having multiple precincts in one. (more…)
Dodging Disclosure
January 23, 2012
How the fight over Minnesota campaign finance disclosure requirements may shape the fate of the state’s marriage amendment
The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board’s October clarification of Minnesota campaign finance laws may have quite an impact on a hot topic at issue in the 2012 election.
In 2012, Minnesota voters will be asked to approve an amendment to the Minnesota constitution that declares marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman. The Minnesota House and Senate passed a bill in May 2011 proposing the amendment. Governor Dayton issued a symbolic veto of the bill on May 25, 2011, but as constitutional amendment legislation cannot be vetoed, it will be up to the voters to determine the amendment’s fate. (more…)
Voters? We don’t need no stinkin’ voters
January 19, 2012
Why recent changes to Texas election laws may unintentionally undermine voter turnout
The Texas Secretary of State is fighting to uphold Texas’s new voter photo identification law against federal scrutiny. The press has reported extensively on the battle brewing between the states and the United States Department of Justice over the impact that voter ID laws will have on voter turnout. Many groups believe that voter ID laws—which require persons to show photo ID before casting their votes—unfairly target minority voters, making it more difficult for them to participate in the democratic process. While the photo ID requirement is the most widely reported change to the Texas election process, it is not the only new roadblock likely to affect voter turnout in the Lone Star State’s upcoming elections.
New Burdens for Voluntary Deputy Voter Registrars
Earlier this year, the Texas legislature bolstered the requirements for persons wishing to serve as deputy voter registrars by passing House Bill 2194 and House Bill 1570.
In Texas, the voter registrar in each county may appoint one or more deputy registrars. Deputy registrars are volunteers who assist in the registration of voters. They distribute applications, help people fill out applications, and generally promote voter registration. (more…)