Weekly Wrap Up
February 26, 2010
Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in election law.
– The Hawaiian Office of Elections has set May 22nd as their target date for a special election to replace Congressman Neil Abercrombie. Due to that state’s budget troubles, the election will be held entirely by mail. For an overview of Hawaii’s recent election problems, go here.
– Senators Chris Dodd and Tom Udall have proposed a constitutional amendment to overrule the Citizens United decision. The amendment would allow the federal and state governments to place limits on the amount of contributions that can be made to a candidate and on the amount of expenditures that can be made by a candidate.
– A Georgia program for verifying voters’ citizenship has ruffled some feathers over at the Department of Justice. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the DOJ has the right to stop any state election administration laws from taking effect. The DOJ has objected to the Georgian program, as it claims the state has not demonstrated that the program does not have a discriminatory purpose.
– The ALCU has appealed a federal court ruling that upheld Montana’s ballot access laws. Independent candidates seeking to run for statewide office in Montana must meet some of the stringent requirements in the country, including an early filing deadline and steep filing fees.
Interview with Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie
February 24, 2010
 |
| Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie |
Mark Ritchie, the 21st Minnesota Secretary of State, oversaw the state-wide recount of the 2008 U.S. Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. After the official canvass of votes following the 2008 election, the margin separating the top two candidates was less than .5% of votes cast, triggering a mandatory recount. Ritchie, as chair of the State Canvassing Board, oversaw the recount. The widely publicized recount took 47 days. Under Minnesota law, the candidate losing a recount has a right to judicial review. Norm Coleman did request a judicial review, a process that took an additional six months.
State of Elections co-editor Laura Deneke recently spoke with Sec. Ritchie regarding the state’s electoral process. (more…)
The Legislature Strikes Back: Citizen Initiatives in Washington State
February 22, 2010
 |
| Initiative proponent/Dark Lord of the Sith Tim Eyman appears in front of the Washington Secretary of State’s Office |
This past January, for the second time in two years, a bill has been filed with the Washington State legislature to amend the State Constitution, removing the provisions allowing for citizen initiatives and referendums. If passed by the state legislature, the measure would be sent to the voters for their approval at the next general election. Citizen initiatives are the process by which citizens and nongovernmental organizations can directly propose legislation. If the proposed legislature receives a certain number of signatures (a number equal to 8% of the voters in the previous gubernatorial election), the proposal is then voted on by the people of the state, completely bypassing the legislature. Referenda require fewer signatures, but the proposed legislation must still be voted on by the legislature.
The bill, proposed by state Senator Ken Jacobsen, would remove the entirety of Article II, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution, as well as other sections that acknowledge the initiative and referendum process. The initiative process is constantly being challenged by lawmakers, and this bill is just the latest debate in a long battle in a number of states, mostly in the West, where the use of initiatives is common. Proponents of citizen initiatives argue that they are vitally important to ensuring the people have a say in their own government, while opponents argue that they interfere with the functioning of the legislature and government.
The initiative process has often been seen as the purest form of direct democracy, giving the most voice to individual citizens. Tim Eyman, intuitive guru and anti-tax crusader, had harsh words for Jacobsen and his initiative, as well the sponsors of other bills that would regulate the signature-gathering and initiative-filing process. Eyman calls the bill a “legislative jihad”, and claims that Ken Jacobson “is the most honest elected official on this issue. He’s openly pushing to take our rights away from us. The sponsors of the other anti-initiative bills…hide their opposition and seek to impose unneeded, costly requirements on citizens so as to effectively repeal the initiative process with a stealth “regulate to death” strategy.” (more…)
Weekly Wrap Up
February 19, 2010
Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in election law.
– The Alabama House is considering a bill that would require voters to present a photo ID before voting.
– According to a Washington Post – ABC poll, 80% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United. 65% say they strongly oppose the ruling.
– Project Vote and Advancement Project, two voter protection organizations, have filed a lawsuit against Virginia election officials for failing to provide access to rejected voter registration applications. The organizations heard reports about unusually large numbers of rejected voter registration applications from Norfolk State University, a historically black college, and asked to review those applications to determine if qualified voters were being unlawfully rejected. A Virginia law prohibits the disclosure of those records, and so the state refused to disclose the registration applications. Project Vote and the Advancement Project believe that the Virginia law is a violation of the National Voter Registration Act.
– Hans A. von Spakovsky has posted an editorial discussing the recent redistricting lawsuit in Texas. For a brief summary of the lawsuit, see our previous Weekly Wrap Up.
Election Law Society Symposium!
February 17, 2010
Every year, the William & Mary Election Law Society holds a Symposium to discuss a pressing election law issue. This year is no different. The Election Law Society is proud to announce its fourth annual Election Law Symposium, “Back to the Drawing Board: The 2010 Census and the Politics of Redistricting.” Here’s the official blurb:
Speakers at previous Election Law Symposiums have included Robert Bauer, President Obama’s personal attorney, longtime chief election lawyer for the Democratic Party, and current White House Counsel; Benjamin Ginsberg, previously chief counsel for the Bush-Cheney Presidential Campaigns and current partner at Patton Boggs LLP; Michael Toner, former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission and current head of the Election Law and Government Ethics Practice at Bryan Cave LLP, and numerous other distinguished speakers.
If you’re interested in coming or have questions you’d like asked to the panelists, please email us for more information at editor@stateofelections.com
https://stateofelecdev.wpengine.com/2010/02/17/election-law-society-symposium/
Redistricting Reform Part 4
February 15, 2010
Let’s make some sausage, the first half
When we last saw our intrepid hero…. He was explaining why redistricting by partisan actors is a bad thing. It’s been about a month, so it may be worthwhile to go back and read the last few in the series.
 |
| The magic answer to redistricting |
So you’ve decided you’re going to change the world and fix redistricting. Great! Now let’s talk about how. How, you ask? Yeah, how. It’s not like you’ve got the magic answer to the problem. Unless you’re smarter than, well, everyone, you have to make a lot of difficult decisions when you’re trying to reform an integral (constitutional!) part of the government.
This piece will outline the first half of decisions you have to make along the way as you develop a reform proposal. This may not be entirely applicable to every place in the country, but it’s what we went through in Virginia. (more…)
Weekly Wrap Up
February 12, 2010
Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in state election law.
– The Kentucky House has voted overwhelmingly to pass a proposed constitutional amendment that would restore felon voting rights in that state. Currently, the governor must approve the restoration of voting rights, but the proposal would automatically restore voting privileges upon the completion of their sentence.
– In Texas, a lawsuit has been filed over the creation of new city council districts. The new districts were created without distinguishing between voting citizens and non-citizens, so according to the plaintiffs, there are wide disparities in the number of voting age citizens from district to district. They claim the new districts, due to this disparity, are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause
– The Hawaiian legislature has struck down two bills that would have significantly changed how elections are conducted in that state. Hawaiian elections are overseen by an appointed chief elections officer and the office of elections, but given the recent problems in that state, the legislature is looking for new ways to handle elections. The bills would have put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to create a new office of Secretary of State to oversee elections.
– The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that state election codes do not automatically pre-empt local laws. The controversy began when voters in Florida’s Sarasota County approved a proposal that banned touch screen voting machines. The state government banned touch screen machines some time later, but the state questioned the constitutionality of the Sarasota County proposal, claiming that state election codes trumped local legislation. The Court rejected this argument, and upheld the right of local officials to take steps to ensure the accuracy of elections.
– Adam Fogel at Fairvote has written this article about the growing controversy over universal voter registration.
Citizens United and the States
February 10, 2010
Last Updated: May 21, 2010 (new links for NY, CO)
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
General Links
Judicial Election Links
OVERVIEW OF IMPACT OF CITIZENS UNITED ON THE STATES:
State of Elections tracks new, important, and interesting topics in the world of state election law. We focus on voting at the local level, as determined by state and local level election laws and practices. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC has obvious implications at the federal level, but it also has dramatic impact on the states. Many state laws already in place will soon be challenged by lawsuits or altered by the legislatures. At the time of the ruling, 24 states have bans or restrictions on corporate campaign expenditures, most of which have major positions up for election this fall. Each will certainly be seeing some action, either by challenge or repeal, prior to November. Regarding this decision, two main areas of concern are its effect on state corporate disclosure laws and state judicial elections.
Disclosure
While Congress certainly will make plans to outline the level of transparency designed for federal elections, many of those 24 states affected will, if they have not already, enact or alter legislation requiring a certain level disclosure for state and other local elections. These new laws may take many forms including perhaps specifications on when and how to make the contribution disclosures public. State legislatures also have the ability to alter corporate governance rules within the State and may require entities to acquire shareholder permission before engaging in political contribution activity. Other disclosure regulations may aim at creating a mechanism for ensuring that corporations are not working in tandem with the candidates. Essentially, states have some control over the effectiveness of the CU decision by controlling laws involving corporate entities. State legislatures will move quickly to secure proper regulation is in place before this fall’s elections.
Judicial Elections
Not to be lost in this decision is the effect that it will have on Judiciaries across the states. While some states had already allowed it, now corporations nationwide are permitted to spend unlimited amounts of money advocating judicial elections and retention elections. Recently, the policy of electing judges has taken the spotlight Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. and leads some to question what sort of impact CU will have. Some believe elected judges will simply have to keep close watch over themselves and which cases they must recuse due to impartiality. Others believe CU will have an accelerating effect on the merit-selection movement by bringing to public attention the effect of campaign contributions on elected judges (perhaps leading to their abolition, or for more states to enact legislation for publicly-funded elections.) Still others believe this decision will have little or no measurable impact on elections.
Below are some links to reports and articles on the decision’s effect on states broadly and individually. We welcome contributions here at State of Elections. If you come across any useful articles or information regarding the Citizens United decision and how it affects your state we will gladly include it in our discussion.
BY STATE:
AK – Alaska Senate passe campaign finance bill which would require notice of who or what is funding political ads in television or newspaper. “Keep in mind that this bill…changes only these new communications brought by corporations and unions,” said Sen. Hollis French.
http://www.adn.com/2010/04/01/1208444/senate-passes-campaign-finance.html
April 1, 2010
AK – Alaska Attorney General Dan Sullivan released an opinion on 2/19 regarding CU’s impact on AK declaring the state’s corporate spending prohibition laws unconstitutional, but may still not donate directly to candidates. It is also clear that they cannot spend anonymously, but unclear where the line is drawn. The state democrats in the legislature are moving forward with legislation which would require the top 5 contributors to an advertisement as well as filing a complete report with the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
http://www.adn.com/2010/02/22/1152069/campaign-finance-bill-tailored.html
February 22, 2010
AK – Suggestions by John Havelock on making corporations ‘more democratic’ and speaks of some necessary and likely reforms such as disclosure commitments to shareholders as well as transparency with the people.
http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/havelock/story/1137288.html
February 12, 2010
AK – With less than 70 days left in the session, the AK State legislature is scrambling to get a bill through before they adjourn. State Senate Judiciary Committee has asked legislative lawyers to draft a bill requiring disclosures, disclaimers and reporting by corporations and labor unions as a first step.
http://www.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/1135449.html
February 12, 2010
AK – Legislative Panel to Discuss CU. Alaska has laws for disclosure for non-profits and individuals but had a ban on corporate spending of this type before CU. The panel will make it a priority to determine what sort of limitations, if any, are possible, before the election this fall.
February 3, 2010
AZ – Disclosure bill was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 1st. This requires corporations and labor unions to file campaign finance reports with SOS office within one day of spending $5000 on statewide race, $2500 on legislative race, and $1000 in county or local race. Also, all campaign ads must ‘state clearly’ who paid for them. Interesting to note the bill passed unanimously in both the House and Senate.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/04/01/brewer-signs-campaign-finance-law/
April 1, 2010
AZ – Commentary by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett on the need for enacting legislation to require disclosure. Senate Bill 1444 and House Bill 2788 will bring AZ into compliance with CU while specifically requiring:
-Corporations, unions or LLCs to file reports within 24 hours of making campaign expenditure over certain amounts ($5k for statewide, $2.5k forlegislative, or $1k for local)
-Additional reports to be filed for each subsequent expense beyond those amounts
All will be reported to a web-based system to provide voters with nearly real time. The legislation has bipartisan support.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/151770
March 12, 2010
AZ – Focusing on Arizona’s law development, this article outlines some different methods state legislatures have attempted to comply with CU. Arizona intends to enact new legislation for disclosure and reporting that go beyond current requirements for independent committees (which is described in the article as the ‘middle of the road’ approach.) Thanks to electionlawblog.org for the link.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/03/05/states-rush-to-catch-up-with-campaign-finance-ruling/
March 5, 2010
AZ – Arizona Secretary of State, Ken Bennett, backs overhaul of informed electorate in light of CU. Two bills have cleared committees and are awaiting debate on each chamber’s floors. The article ends on a thought provoking quote by AZ House Rep. Bill Konopnicki, “I’m concerned that we don’t have the time to fully vet these components.”
http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/02/25/bennett-backs-campaign-reporting-requirements-stiff-
February 25, 2010
CA – LA Times and LA Weekly differ on how they believe this will impact Los Angeles, perhaps affecting developers and billboards. It will be easier for corporations to donate than in years past where they first had to form a PAC or contribute to an advocacy group.
http://laist.com/2010/02/18/how_will_the_supreme_courts_decisio.php
February 18, 2010
CA – Details about CU impact, while briefly looking into California’s history of limitless corporate spending over the last decade.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/01/22/2480902/high-court-lifts-limits-on-corporate.html
January 22, 2010
CO – A new bill was introduced which would require any corporate entity to register an independent committee if donating $1,000 or more. Also included is a illustrative fact sheet which serves as somewhat of a guide to the background behind the bill proposal.
April 26, 2010
CO – A bill will be introduced this year into the state legislature which would attempt to limit the impact of CU by adding disclosure requirements. CO Republicans are still thinking about suing the state to overturn parts of the state’s current campaign-finance law.
http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2010/03/24/Campaignfinance_ruling_gets_response/
March 24, 2010
CO – Governor Bill Ritter, has been granted his request of review current campaign finance laws. Lawmakers and other interested parties brief’s on the constitutional determination of their laws are due March 5th.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/22542389/detail.html
February 12, 2010
CO – Legislature to ask Supreme Court for Clarification on how CU Affects State laws.
February 3, 2010
CO – GOP initiates lawsuit in response to CU. A 2002, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure that banned direct corporate or union expenditures in state race is sought to be overturned. Candidates believe this will affect the campaigns this fall.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14243394
January 22, 2010
CT – Act proposed “To provide that independent expenditures made by an entity are properly disclosed and ensure that such expenditures are properly attributed to the entity making the expenditure.”
March 12, 2010
CT – Memo for State General Assembly summarizing Citizens United and its impact on CT:
-Two statutes that prohibit corporations and unions from contributing, also noting that there are no disclosure or attribution requirements, which the state is likely to adjust after removal
-Also discusses public financing and has created a compelling state interest in becoming more active in matching grants and enabling candidate participation.
Also included is a table of state responses which is current as of publication.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0124.htm
March 2, 2010
HI – Hawaii state leaders can do a few things in reaction to CU:
-Limit and disclose corporate political spending
-Uphold our “pay to play” reform laws
-Ensure (timely) campaign reporting for special elections
-Disclose lobbyists’ campaign donations
http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20100223_Choose_democracy_over_dollars.html
February 23, 2010
IA – Iowa Governor Chet Culver signed into law today the finance provisions outlined below, which aims to regulate the consequences of the Supreme Court decision in order to ensure proper disclosure of campaign spending.
http://www.governor.iowa.gov/index.php/press_releases/single/469/
April 8, 2010
IA – The Senate passed a bill 49-1 to require corporations and unions to publicly disclose when they spend more than $750 on independent campaigns. Any commercials would also have to identify the company or union who paid for the ad. This is an edited down version of the originally proposed bill which had included a shareholder approval requirement and the ability for shareholders to withhold their own funds from the donation.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100302/NEWS09/3020376/1001/
March 2, 2010
IA – The Iowa legislature is moving to pass Senate Study Bill 3210. Some highlighted provisions:
-Requiring disclaimers on advertisements paid for by corporations.
-Requiring board, CEO or stockholder approval before a corporation can use funds for independent expenditures.
-Prohibiting foreign-controlled companies from playing any role in Iowa elections.
http://www.senate.iowa.gov/democrats/legislature-moves-to-protect-iowa-elections
February 11, 2010
KS – While no law in Kansas has been directly affected by the CU decision, it appears an indirect effect has been to encourage some change. A new bill, which is being stalled at the moment, would change a requirement in companies who donate more than $150 to a campaign. The bill would change the confusing requirement of listing the industry that the donating corporation is in to listing the actual name of the corporation.
http://cjonline.com/news/legislature/2010-03-15/campaign_finance_bill_likely_stalled
March 15, 2010
MD – Article discusses generally about the options of states and specifically about a MD ‘package of bills to limit the worst aspects of the decision’ which propose to:
-Require a majority shareholder or union member vote to approve specific expenditure
-Banning “pay to play” which would prevent state funded organizations from campaign expenditures
-Compelling public disclosure of all political disbursements by corporations and unions
This article includes more quotes than a similar one listed below.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031203149.html
March 13, 2010
MD – Testimony of Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, before the Judicial Proceedings Committee, Maryland Senate. Section II deals with specific effects of Maryland as to corporate spending, pay to play laws, and the role of the Maryland voter. Torres-Spelliscy outlines the measures she believes need be taken in Maryland to, “Reclaim a Voter-Based Democracy.”
February 25, 2010
MD – Supporters in MD have already begun a movement for public financing for elections with a bill. The bill would create a voluntary public financing system in MD General Assembly campaigns. Similar legislation has previously passed the house but failed in the senate. Supporters hope the high court’s decision will spur the change.
http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=240353&format=html
February 23, 2010
MD – Democratic senators and delegates outline a set of bills to restrict corporate spending in state elections. Those mentioned in article:
-Requiring corporate executives to get two-thirds approval of shareholders for a political expenditure.
-Prohibiting businesses with state contracts worth more than $5,000 from engaging in such efforts.
-Mandating disclosures of corporate expenditures to the state Board of Elections.
January 29, 2010
MA – Statement from Office of Campaign and Political Finance interpreting the decision noting most importantly that direct contributions are still prohibited
http://www.ocpf.net/legaldoc/citizensunitedstatement.pdf
January 2010
MI – GavelGrap reports a watchdog group, Michigan Campaign Finance Network, is urging the SoS to help enact rigorous financial disclosure rules following CU. $45 million in television campaign advertisements have gone unreported since 2000, including almost a third of that being independent expenditures on state Supreme Court races. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce has also asked the SoS for a declaratory ruling on how CU affects MI state law.
http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=9031
March 17, 2010
MI – Department of State response to CU. A corporation, union or domestic dependent sovereign must register a political committee under the MCFA after spending $500.00 or more in independent expenditures in support of or opposition to state or local candidates in a calendar year.
http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1633_8723_15274-230880–,00.html
January 2010
MN – The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board this week voted unanimously to ask staff to draft a memorandum on CU. Gary Goldsmith, Campaign Finance Board Executive Director believes their current statute will still apply in some way, “We’re just trying to figure out how to make it apply.”
http://politicsinminnesota.com/blog/2010/04/campaign-finance-board-weighs-post-citizens-united-rules/
April 7, 2010
MN – Minnesota’s first test? Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is filing suit to challenge state law that limits their spending in light of CU.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/84660767.html
Copy of the complaint:
http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/twincities/pdf/Chamber%20campaign%20spending%20suit.pdf
February 16, 2010
MN – Current MN restrictions on corporate express advocacy and formation of PACS are now unconstitutional. David Schultz reccomends three options:
(1) Take the current state disclosure laws and make them applicable to corporations.
(2) Increased disclosure, perhaps mandate that any corporate expenditure must be disclosed at the time it is made.
(3) Increased disclosure requirements for any corporate PACs (to watch for foreign involvement, or require shareholder approval, etc.)
http://www.minnpost.com/community_voices/2010/01/26/15279
January 26, 2010
MO – Missouri lifted limits on campaign contributions in 2008. New changes to MO campaign finance law are being proposed along with new ethics legislation this session, but it is unlikely to pass with the current similar makeup of represenatives which lifted the limits just two years ago.
http://www.mpnblog.com/2010/02/super-majority-of-americans-oppose.html
February 21, 2010
MT – A lawsuit has been filed in Helena in order to attempt to overturn the state’s current ban on corporate spending in elections. The law currently reads, a “corporation may not make a contribution on an expenditure with a candidate.” The owner of the corporation challenging, Champion Painting, has said he wishes to exercise first amendment rights against rising taxation and regulation.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_4ca5b7b2-2b15-11df-8778-001cc4c03286.html
March 9, 2010
MT – Montana has individual limitations on spending already in place, but enacting similar legislation to corporations is now likely unconstitutional. Difficulties are cited with new inability to regulate spending based on the identity of the speaker. Low budget elections in states like Montana may see the biggest impact. The average state senator in Montana’s 2008 election won by spending only $17,000.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=461354
February 18, 2010
MT – Statement by Attorney General Steve Bullock with a brilliant overview of Montana’s history with corporate spending on elections and looking forward to future legislation in the state.
http://doj.mt.gov/news/releases2010/20100202testimony.pdf
February 2, 2010
MT – Montana’s 1912 voter-passed ban on corporate donations is up for challenge. Removing the ban means that currently there are no limits on corporations spending.
http://www.missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_38bedc7e-0919-11df-baa6-001cc4c03286.html
January 24, 2010
Back to top
NH– Bill in NH was passed from the House now on to the Senate in New Hampshire which would update their ban on corporate spending by requiring any independent expenditure over $500 to be reported by noon the first business day after spent. Also, businesses and labor unions are required to display a statement of disclosure in at least 12% of the vertical screen throughout the ad with an audio announcement.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1367.html
March 11, 2010
NJ – Bipartisan commission led by Senator Bill Baroni (R – Mercer, Middlesex) to review NJ’s campaign finance laws, ” to ensure that we do everything we can.”
http://vip.politickernj.com/bschnure/36302/baroni-calls-bi-partisan-commission-campaign-finance-laws
January 21, 2010
NY – An overview article which discusses the CU decision, New York’s current state of law with independent expenditures, and some possible measures for the future in discussion.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/Governing/20100517/17/3269
May 2010
NY – NY Lesiglature proposed a bill with specific disclosure requirements for corporate shareholders:
-Majority approval for yearly spending
-Annual report to each shareholder and SoS with specific donations
-Provide a business rationale for each donation
Penalties for not abiding are not specified, but would be left up to the SoS. It is still uncertain whether it would apply to unions, but the bill does apply to not-for-profit corporations. It may be up to the unions to declare themselves that classification
http://www.timesunion.com/ASPStories/Story.asp?StoryID=921791&LinkFrom=RSS
April 15, 2010
NY – New York State Assembly introduced a bill which would require corporate contributions for independent expenditures to have shareholder approval. Although New York has no direct laws affected by CU, this appears to be an indirect result of the ruling.
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=%0D%0A&bn=a9948%09%09&Summary=Y&Actions=Y
February 17, 2010
NC– State legislature has been bouncing around the idea of publicly financed elections for the State’s largest cities. The CU decision is cited as the primary motivation. It is too early to tell at this point whether the Senate will address the pending bill in the short summer session.
March 27, 2010
NC– Gary Bartlett, executive director of the State Board of Elections, said the ruling is likely to result in even more out-of-state money being spent to influence local races. Some think the ruling could result in greater transparency about precisely who is behind a television attack ad, or influence citizens to favor public financing.
January 21, 2010
OH – Ohio will have to modify currrent ban on campaign contributions. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner believes a direct impact will be more political TV advertising.
January 22, 2010
OK – In a quick fix, Oklahoma State Senate voted 24-21 to alter the definitions in campaign finance to essentially delete the prohobition of corporate expenditures.
http://www.oksenate.gov/legislation/votes/02066.pdf
March 11, 2010
PA – Pennsylvannia will review it’s statute to determine if the CU “directly controls” it. Reaction comments from both PA US Senators Arlen Specter and Bob Casey as well as some reactions of PA watchdog groups are included.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10022/1030197-84.stm
January 22, 2010
SD – Secretary of State Chris Nelson is preparing legislation to conform with the CU ruling. The deadline for state government agencies to introduce new legislation has passed, so Nelson is likely to ask that a minor bill on campaign laws be amended to include the new provisions.
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_2ffac8e6-09d2-11df-a7a9-001cc4c03286.html
January 25, 2010
TN – A debate over definitions of ‘foreign corporations’ and how they may be able to spend in the state took a grip on a question not yet often asked; Can a corporation that is based in another state independently spend money in a different states election? The new bill, proposed by House Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner, would disallow “foreign corporations” from putting money into TN politics and defines foreign as anyone who would not be able to vote for the candidate. While this was an interesting debate, it caused much confusion and was ultimately abandoned for a number of reasons, including potential unconstitutionality.
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/2010/03/corporate-donations-bill-trans.html
March 8, 2010
TN – A call for legalizing direct corporate campaign contribution. Good quotes from Ron Ramsey, candidate for state senator, about how he cannot control the messages corporations can now advertise in his support (as long as it isn’t direct).
http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2010/02/ramsey_calls_for_legalizing_co.php
February 2, 2010
TN – A bill has been proposed in the house which would revise current TN ban on corporate spending to only ban the spending by corporations that “do not have the authority to transact business within the state.” Thanks to Tennessean.com
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=HB3182&ga=106
A co-sponsor of the legislation, Representative Kent Coleman , is quoted below:
http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2010/lawmakers-want-corporations-to-disclose-campaign-contributions/
January 29, 2010
TX – Texas has historic moment as it witnesses it’s first ad for a candidate placed by a corporation .
http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/mar/22/corporate-politics/
Also, Huffington:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/campaign-ads-supreme-cour_n_510273.html
March 22, 2010
TX – David Schenck in a Guest Column for The Texas Tribune asks an interesting question: Will CU help to aid the end of judicial elections in Texas and nationwide?
http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/02/guest-column-end-judicial-elections/
Feb 2, 2010
UT– Utah is examining its campaign contributions as ‘free speech.’ Perhaps they were encouraged by either the public’s reaction to it or the decision of Citizens United itself.
March 1, 2010
VT – The house judiciary committee voted 10-0 to reccomend passage of large bill which included an alteration of campaign finance law. Under the bill would be a reporting requirement of any spending over $500 on an election message within 30 days of an election. There still remains a possibility that this will be rewritten.
March 14, 2010
VT – State of Elections interview with former state senator and representative Matt Dunne about how Citizens United will affect VT. The Entergy-owned Vemont Yankee nuclear plant that has recently been found to be leaking tritium is likely to be a major player in the gubernatorial race this fall in light of the high courts decision. Dunne is running to be the democratic candidate in the election.
March 3, 2010
VT – Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Sears is pushing (as co-sponsor) for a new campaign finance bill to be passed and go into effect in the 2010 election in response to CU. Governor Jim Douglas is supportive of some ideas, but does not believe the bill should apply to this year’s campaign as he does not wish to “change rules in an election season.”
http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87290/
February 24, 2010
VT – Citizens United decision may undermine case of Vermont Right to Life’s ability to advertise politically without reporting who is funding them.
http://www.7dvt.com/2010u-s-supreme-court-ruling-may-protect-vermonts-campaign-disclosure-laws
February 10, 2010
WV – Brennan Center reports on the passing of HR 4647 which will improve disclosure and disclaimer rules regarding corporate spending on independent expenditures over $1,000. Anyone who provides over $250 for that will also be disclosed. The filings will be posted online. Also is an improved “stand by your ad” disclaimer provision requiring clear identification of the persons responsible for it within the ad itself.
March 19, 2010
WV – The House of Delegates passed two measures this week regarding disclosure of those donating to campaigns, including an attempt require corporations to disclose its donations to its shareholders. While two similar bills have already been defeated, this bill still faces a tough challenge with claims of “loopholes” and “vaugeness.” But the House democrats are hopeful that at least the bill to trigger disclosure reporting and transparency. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jeff Kessler asks, “Are we going to start seeing the Chik-fil-a West Virginia Secretary of State Bowl, or the Gatorade Gubernatorial Election?”
http://sundaygazettemail.com/ap/ApTopStories/201003020633
March 2, 2010
WY – HB68 will update Wyomings current ban on corporations from contributingg any promotion of election of any candidate to conform with CU. The new law will effectively read that it does not limit corporations “from exercising its first amendment rights to make independent expenditures for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.” However, the bill failed to acquire the necessary 2/3rds vote required during a budget session. A reintroduction attempt is likely.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2010/Introduced/HB0068.pdf
February 10, 2010
WI – The WI Senate passed a bill which would require notice to be filed with election officials that they obtained approval from shareholder majority. The vote would have to be retaken every two years. Interestingly, they also voted against an amendment which would apply the same standard to unions (a republican amendment 18-15 against).
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/90790429.html
April 13, 2010
WI – An opinion article written by Wisconsin’s lieutenant governor, Barbara Lawton, describes a way to ‘blunt’ the Supreme Court’s decision in CU: Public financing for elections. She says the bills are written and waiting for their sponsors to move forward with it. While it would not directly address the issue of independent expenditures, it would level the playing field without specifically adding limits to traditional campaign donations, which she believes is being treated with increased skepticism.
http://www.tomahjournal.com/articles/2010/03/01/opinion/02lawtoncolumn.txt
March 1, 2010
WI – Opinion article from Andrea Kaminski on how CU might affect judicial elections in the state
http://www.wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl=article.mdl&article=25984
February 2, 2010
WI – Wisconsin, with a wide open race for governor this fall, stands to feel heavy impact from CU. Most likely in the form of 30-60 second negative and/or demoralizing TV ads.
http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=184135
February 2, 2010
WI – VIDEO: Campaign 2010 panel that featured attorney Mike Wittenwyler, Jay Heck of Common Cause of Wisconsin, UW-Madison Associate Professor Howard Schweber, and Jonathan Becker, a division administrator for Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board, which enforces campaign finance laws, debate what the CU ruling means for Wisconsin
http://www.wiseye.org/wisEye_programming/campaign10/ARCHIVES-CPN10_GOV.html#3102
January 28, 2010
WY – HB68 will update Wyomings current ban on corporations from contributing any promotion of election of any candidate to conform with CU. The new law will effectively read that it does not limit corporations “from exercising its first amendment rights to make independent expenditures for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.” However, the bill failed to acquire the necessary 2/3rds vote required during a budget session. A reintroduction attempt is likely.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2010/Introduced/HB0068.pdf
February 10, 2010
Over 30 Organizations have signed a letter asking Congress to consider a Shareholder Protection Act in light of CU. Some requested provisions include requiring shareholder approval over certain dollar amounts and requiring institutional investors to inform all persons in their investment funds of their voting history on corporate political expenditures.
Thanks to electionlawblog and Rick Hasen for the link.
http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/16ddacd5ba4800e76d50e94bd23eb60f/congress8a_shareholder_press_release-2.pdf
April 8, 2010
National Center for State Lesiglatures has a comprehensive list of legislation currently being acted on in each state in response to CU (an excellent page). Also lists current bans on corporation and union spending by state.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=19607
March 15, 2010
States are scrambling to put together legislation in response to citizens united. At least 8 states are pushing for increased disclosure, and a few others are pushing for shareholder approval requirements. Jeff Patch, spokesman for Center for Competitive Politics says, “If the legislature does not give them a clear picture, it could result in a free-for-all.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iCCgkFP10amGr6lqqCkx_DegG8bQD9ED8MU80
March 12, 2010
USA Today provides an overview of the wide variety of changes that states are making to conform with CU. Some states are taking an extremely proactive approach with measures like shareholder approval while others may only be seeking to repeal their current bans.
February 25, 2010
VIDEO – National Institute on Money in Politics breaks CU down audio-visually with a ‘get to know the basics’ approach. This short video gives a quick overview of how the states in general were affected by citizens united.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBTLabuisFg&feature=youtube_gdata
February 25, 2010
PBS’s Bill Moyer’s list of Affected State Laws
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/statelaws.html
February 5, 2010
Congress may test allowing states to limit out-of-state corporate spending
February 4, 2010
CU may also have dramatic effect on state ‘Pay-to-Play’ Laws
http://lobbying.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/impact-of-citizens-united-on-s.php
January 25, 2010
NYT Article on Effect on 24 States with Contrary Laws
January 23, 2010
National Institute on Money In State Politics Report
January 22, 2010
National Journal: nder the Influence’s Eliza Newlin Carney has a response for those who argue the 26 States that already had bans on corporate spending limits. A good summarization of the recent history of influencing events on how people view judicial elections.
http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/04/judicial-elections-draw-big-mo.php
April 12, 2010
New Republic article by Adam Skaggs from the Brennan Center zeroing in on some specific state judicial races that are sure to be impacted by CU (IL, WA) while generally projecting how it is likely to impact judicial elections. He advocates for public financing in states with judicial elections.
http://www.tnr.com/print/article/politics/judging-dollars
April 3, 2010
USA Today article disects the Brennan Center’s study on money in judicial elections and reflects on a few select states working on new legislation, partly to limit the possible impact of state bans on corporate spending being lifted from CU.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-03-30-judges_N.htm
March 31, 2010
Sherrilyn Ifill comments about the impact of CU on judicial elections in states. The article begins with a historical backdrop to the elections and goes on to mention potential issues that are raised including increased loss of public confidence, Ifill argues, which might be solved by public financing. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog.org for the link.
March 17, 2010
A new study according to the Justice at Stake and Brennan Center reveals money raised in judicial elections has more than doubled since the 1990s. Justice Ginsburg has spoken out against judicial elections as an extreme concern in the American court system. Even without the measurable impact of CU on indirect spending, it is clear judicial elections are changing.
March 17, 2010
More quotes from former SCOTUS Justice O’Connor while sitting on panel called by Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler. Voters have twice shot down similar legislation. The article references both CU and Massey Coal cases in showing possible support this year could lend itself to reform.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/legislature/bal-md.judges04mar04,0,7551927.story
March 4, 2010
Focused on MI, the article, titled Exploring Options for an Independent Judiciary, cites different methods of reforming judicial elections. Seth Anderson, executive director of the American Judicature Society believes, “we will see more nasty campaigns than ever before” because of CU.
http://www.legalnews.com/macomb/1000213/
March 2, 2010
Justice for Sale (VIDEO), PBS’s Bill Moyer’s program on the issue of judicial elections with specific remarks to CU’s impact. Moyer remarks, “There’s now a crooked sign hanging on every courthouse in America reading ‘Justice for Sale.’”
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02192010/profile2.html
February 19, 2010
CU to Impact Impartiality of Courts?
http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=7669
February 4, 2010
Reformers Hope CU Kills Judicial Elections
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1202439680529
February 1, 2010
O’Connor Addresses ‘Problem’ of CU Ruling
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/oconnor-citizens-united-ruling-problem/story?id=9668044
January 26, 2010
Links compiled and maintained by Alex Grout, a student at William & Mary School of Law
Permalink: https://stateofelecdev.wpengine.com/2010/02/10/citizens-united-and-the-states/
The Bizarre History of Election Law: The Camden Election Riots of 1870
February 8, 2010
Election law has certainly earned its eccentric reputation. From zombie voters to hanging chads, the strange history of modern election law has become ingrained in the public consciousness. But, as odd as the last decade has been, the previous centuries of election law have been even more bizarre. So, in this series of articles, State of Elections will take a closer look at some of the stranger moments in election law.
In the previous “bizarre history” article, we discussed the various (and often hilarious) irregularities of Siskiyou County’s school superintendent election. Today, we are going to take a more solemn look at one of the strangest and most brutal attempts to disenfranchise black voters in American history.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, Camden County New Jersey was a hotbed of racial strife. The black population of the county grew dramatically, as former slaves left their plantations and moved up North. As the black population 
grew, so did the anger of certain elements within the white community. This tension between the whites and blacks in Camden County came to a head during the 1870 Congressional election. For many of the newly freed slaves, it would be their first time voting. In Centreville, a small town in Camden County, whites feared that this sudden influx of freed slaves would have an irrevocable impact on local politics. So, they formed a mob and marched down to the polls to stop blacks from voting, anyway they could. (more…)
Weekly Wrap Up
February 5, 2010
Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in state election law.
– New Orleans has experienced a record number of early voters for its municipal election. About 16,600 ballots have been cast already, compared to 12,850 early votes in the 2008 presidential election. Experts speculate that the rise in early voting is because the election is scheduled for this Saturday, just one day before the Saints play in the Superbowl.
– A measure that would allow overseas voters to send their ballots by email has passed the Washington House, and is headed to that state’s Senate.
– A judge in New Jersey has ordered a panel of experts to evaluate the security of New Jersey’s 11,000 voting machines. Some have criticized the ruling for not requiring that the machines be retrofitted to produce a paper trail.
– A corporation has announced its candidacy for Congress! Murray Hill Inc. plans on filing to run in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District. Feeling liberated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, the corporation has decided to take the logical next step in their struggle for equal rights. According to Murray Hill “It’s our democracy. We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”
– The California governor’s race has taken a bizarre turn. Steve Poizner, a Republican candidate, has accused his rival Republican Meg Whitman of trying to bully him out of the race. Poizner claims that an e-mail sent to him from Whitman’s office violates four federal and state election laws. A copy of Poizner’s complaint, including a copy of the email, can be found here.