I voted but it didn’t count–How Florida mail-in ballot problems could disenfranchise thousand of voters
November 27, 2020
By: Sayo Aweomoni
With the prevalence of COVID–19, it is no doubt that the 2020 presidential election will look very different from any other election America has ever had. As more citizens become concerned for their health and safety, states are set to experience an unprecedented number of voters casting mail in ballots during the upcoming presidential election, but as more people vote by mail, there is a risk of having a large number of ballots go uncounted. These concerns are exacerbated in swing states like Florida, where there is a long history of high rejection rates for mail in ballots.
According to election law experts, people voting for the first time by mail are more likely to make mistakes that could lead to their votes being rejected. As the amount of people choosing to vote by mail increases this year, two provisions in particular – the 7 p.m. election night deadline and a signature-match requirement – could lead to disenfranchisements of thousands of Floridians, more specifically black and Hispanic citizens, if the state refuses to make efforts to accommodate for the current health crisis. During the primaries alone, an estimated 18,000 mail in ballots were rejected in Florida for missing the deadlines or for errors including a mismatch with the signature on file. Despite the pandemic, which left many people scared to go out to public gatherings, polling places without poll workers and several other difficulties, the state still refused to relax these requirements. In a battleground state like Florida, where outcomes could be determined by only a few votes, consequences like this could make a huge difference in determining who emerges as the victor. In the primaries, experts also found that minority voters were more likely to vote by mail for the first time this year and they were twice as likely to have their votes rejected in comparison to white voters. The same outcome is also expected for the general election.
In an effort to ensure that the pandemic does not disenfranchise minority citizens, civil rights organizations in Florida filed a suit against Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis and Secretary of State Laurel M. Lee, demanding accommodations to the state’s election procedure in response to the pandemic. Some of the proposed remedies in the updated complaint include extending the deadline to return a vote-by-mail ballot, expanding the use of drop boxes for vote-by-mail ballots, extending the time period to cure issues with vote-by-mail ballots, and expanding the days, hours, and locations for early voting in each county. The settlement reached in that case will ultimately “increase access to voter registration, require the state to inform citizens of their options in casting a vote-by-mail ballot, encourage Supervisors of Elections (SOEs) to use funding options to provide prepaid postage for mail-in ballots, and require the Secretary of State to develop and execute a public relations campaign to inform voters of their options in casting a ballot, especially among communities of color, college-aged voters and seniors.”
Although some progress was made with this settlement, Florida still has a long way to go in protecting the votes of thousands of Floridians for this upcoming general election. A further suggestion to protect this franchise for Floridian voters is to expand the window of receipt for mail in ballots by enacting a grace period to receive and count mail in votes, as this would go a long way in protecting tens of thousands of votes.
To reduce the number of mail-in ballots that could potentially be rejected, everyone has to play their part. Although some Florida voters may be lax about their responsibility to sign their ballots and mail in out in time, the government is ultimately responsible for protecting the integrity of the election, and they possess the power to make accommodations and create reasonable flexibility to promote a free and fair election.
Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts’ Rulings on South Carolina’s Absentee Ballot Witness Requirement
November 25, 2020
On October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court stayed the South Carolina Federal District Court’s September 18, 2020 order enjoining the South Carolina State Election Commission (“SCEC”) from enforcing the state’s witness requirement for absentee ballots. The witness requirement refers to South Carolina law that requires another person to witness an absentee voter’s signature on the absentee ballot envelope for the November 2020 general election. The law requires the witness to sign the absentee ballot envelop and provides that noncompliant absentee ballots “may not be counted.” However, the Supreme Court’s order granted a narrow exception for ballots if they were cast before the Court issued this stay and were “received within two days” of the order.
It would have been helpful if the Court’s majority had explained the rationale behind its order, given that it overturned both the district court and the Fourth Circuit, which had refused to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction when it considered the matter en banc. The only rationale in the Court’s opinion was provided by Justice Kavanaugh, who concurred with the majority based on “two alternative and independent reasons.” However, as shown below, Kavanaugh’s reasons alone do not seem to provide adequate justification for issuing the stay.
The Drop Box Dilemma Part II
November 23, 2020
By Nicholas Matuszewski
On October 8, U.S District Judge Aaron Polster overruled the one drop box per county limit imposed by Frank LaRose, Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State.
Judge Polster focused his ruling on the fact that 15% of Cincinnati and Cleveland’s population would have to travel over 90 minutes to vote. Of those 15%, most are poor minorities; many of whom may not even have the means to travel that far and would potentially be forced to utilize crowded public transportation and risk endangering their health during the pandemic.
Who’s Afraid of the MVA? Frivolous Lawsuits and Election Law
November 23, 2020
By: Zee Huff
How much do you know about election administration? A layperson could be forgiven for having more personal problems to concern themselves with. There are only so many free hours in the day for the average American worker and, in an ideal world, election administration could be left to election administrators. It’s their job.
However, there are times when citizens must get their hands dirty, either because the state is unable to, or more frequently, unwilling to protect their rights as voters. The classic examples? Voter suppression, racial gerrymandering, intimidation at the polls—efforts to make it harder for certain citizens to exercise their right to vote. Our country has a long and difficult history with ensuring the right to vote for all citizens. So, why would any citizen want to object to efforts to make it easierto cast a vote?
Ballot Collection Limitation Law Struck Down by Montana Courts
November 20, 2020
By Cody McCracken
As occurs every few years, this past November millions of people cast their votes for a wide range of offices. However, a major difference this year was that many of these voters cast their ballots in a way they may have never done so before—by mail. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has forced nearly all states to expand their absentee voting and early voting procedures. Yet, even before COVID, voters in Montana routinely voted well before election day.
While not a fully mail-in voting state, such as Washington and Oregon, Montana has robust mail and early voting accommodations that a majority of voters take advantage of. In Montana’s 2018 general election, 73 percent of the votes cast were by absentee ballot sent in before election day.
Small Problem, Big Fight: Saving the Unsinged Ballot in Arizona
November 20, 2020
By: Megan Kelly
What happens when the state receives an unsigned mail-in ballot? This is the question that new and contentious litigation in the District Court of Arizona is seeking to answer. Last week, a district judge held that unsigned ballots in Arizona were to be afforded the same five-day curing period that other unidentifiable ballots—from mismatched signatures or lack of voter ID—are given.
We may ask how frequently people are really mailing in unsigned ballots. In 2018, Arizona rejected about 3,000 unsigned ballots. This number is small, but in an increasingly competitive purple state, a small number of votes can make the difference.
Despite a bumpy start and handwringing in court, Georgia had a relatively smooth Election Day “
November 20, 2020
By: Alex Lipow
When in-person early voting for the 2020 General Election in Georgia began, technological and logistical issues—coupled with unprecedented voter enthusiasm—created excessively long lines for voters to cast ballots. Across the Atlanta metropolitan area, many voters had to stand in line for five hours to vote. A disproportionate number of unreasonably long voting lines occurred in minority communities. This episode was only the latest example of long voting lines plaguing Georgia’s electoral system and some feared it portended poorly for a smooth Election Day.
Virginia Cuts the Cable, Gets Same Day Voter Registration
November 20, 2020
By: Allen Coon
It was an early Tuesday morn when the Commonwealth awoke to an October surprise all of its own: on October 12th, the last day for eligible Virginians to register to vote in the November 3rd General Election, a Chesterfield County utilities crew accidentally severed a cable providing online connectivity for multiple Commonwealth agencies—including the Virginia Department of Elections. Prospective voters who had hoped to register or update their registration online were denied the option, with no alternative but to register in-person by 5:00 p.m.
In October 2016, when a similar technological malfunction prevented applicants from registering online, such a glitch may have posed a burden for citizens with limited or no transportation access or employment flexibility. Now, during a global pandemic, the unavailability of online registration also required all in-person applicants—and specifically elderly, poor, disabled, and minority Virginians (all vulnerable populations)—to unnecessarily risk exposure to COVID-19.
Dead on Arrival: Oklahoma’s State Question 804
November 20, 2020
By: Parker Klingenberg
The Oklahoman citizen group People Not Politicians, backed by the Women Voters of Oklahoma, led the charge earlier this year to get State Question 804, also known as the Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative, on the ballot for Oklahomans voting on November 3, 2020. State Question 804 would have laid out a new framework for drawing both state and federal district lines, complying with both federal law and numerous other criteria. These lines would be drawn not by the state legislature like in the past, however, but would be drawn by a newly created Independent Redistricting Commission consisting of three members of the majority party, three members of the minority parties, and three non-party affiliated members. State Question 804 will not be on the ballot, however. The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked it based on the grounds that the “gist,” or the summary that would appear to citizens during the process of gathering the required signatures to get on the ballot, was not “sufficiently informative to reveal its design and purpose.” Specifically, the gist failed to properly inform citizens that the ballot initiative was designed to stop partisan gerrymandering, and how the proposed committee would do so. While Oklahomans were not able to decide in November whether they want to vote for or against this proposal, it still raises interesting issues about Oklahoma’s future.
How Much is on the Chopping Block? – Arizona Sends a VRA Section 2 Case to the Supreme Court
November 18, 2020
By: Megan Kelly
What do ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct votes have in common? Arizona is sending cases about both to the Supreme Court next term. In early October, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on two cases about voting regulations in Arizona. The first is Arizona’s law banning ballot harvesting. The law bans third parties from turning in voter ballots, except in the case of family, members of the household, or caregivers. The second is Arizona’s law requiring that ballots cast at the wrong precinct not be counted.