Voter Privacy and the Know Campaign
January 13, 2010
I get tons of political mail. Most of it I don’t read – after all, it contains little useful information. But if someone mailed me this, it would surely catch my eye:
“Below is a partial list of your recent voting history — public information obtained from the Virginia State Board of Elections…We have sent you this information as a public service because we believe that democracy only works when you vote.”
What if this mailing also contained information about my neighbor’s voting history in order for me to encourage/shame him into voting in the upcoming election?
This is exactly what the Know Campaign in Virginia sought to do this election cycle before legal action stopped them in their tracks. To read more about that, check out the Washington Post’s story here. The Know Campaign’s press release that started all of the excitement is here. (more…)
Ye Olde Election Law: The Bizarre History of Election Law
January 11, 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.
One such moment happened in California’s Siskiyou County. In 1895, Clarence Smith was elected school superintendent of that county by a single vote. His opponent, George Tebbe, contested the result. When the ballots were recounted, the court found three additional votes for Tebbe, and declared Tebbe the new winner by two votes. However, until the ballots could be counted in open court, they had been stored under the desk in the county clerk’s office. This sounds all well and good, except that Tebbe was deputy clerk at that office, and worked in the same room where the ballots were stored. Imagine Tebbe, sitting just a few short feet from the ballots, the ballots that would decide his political future. Even if there was no actual vote tampering, surely even the appearance of impropriety would warrant a stern rebuke from the court. Of course, no such rebuke was forthcoming. Instead, the court praised the “prudence of the clerk and the fair dealing of all concerned”, and required that Smith prove that ballot tampering took place before taking any action.
Weekly Wrap Up
January 8, 2010
Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in state election law.
– Winter break at William and Mary is over, and State of Elections is excited to return to a full time posting schedule. New articles will be posted every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, beginning on January 11th.
– Senator Chris Dodd has announced he will not seek reelection in 2010. During his time in the Senate, Dodd proposed some sweeping changes to voter registration laws. Take a look at S. 17, Dodd’s proposed “Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2005”. If it had been passed, S. 17 would have required states to allow voters to register on election day, and also would have enabled voters to register electronically via the Internet.
– The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the disenfranchisement of felons violates the federal Voting Rights Act. According to the court, the criminal justice system is so “infected” with racism that limiting the right of felons to vote is contrary to the Act’s prohibition against the denial of voting rights on account of race. The court’s opinion can be read in full here.
– The Rhode Island Senate and House has enacted legislation allowing 16 and 17 year olds to “pre-register” to vote. Those that pre-register will be automatically added to the voter rolls will they turn 18. The bill had been previously vetoed by Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri, but the veto was overridden by the legislature. For more information on pre-registration, see FairVote.org’s fact sheet.
Weekly Wrap Up
December 30, 2009
Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in state election law.
– The U.S. Census bureau has released its population estimates, and if their estimates are correct, 8 states stand to gain Congressional seats in 2010, and 10 states will lose seats.
– An editorial in the St. Petersburg Times accuses Florida’s “No Match, No Vote” law of disenfranchising thousands of minority voters during the 2008 presidential election. The law denies voter registration to any applicant whose name on the registration form does not match the Social Security or Florida driver’s license databases.
– The Supreme Court has held its last session of 2009, and still has not released its decision in Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court was expected to overrule existing precedents that allowed the government to limit the amount corporations could spend on campaigns. However, the long delay has fueled speculation that the Court’s decision may not be as clear cut as expected. For a review of the issues involved in Citizen United, see this transcript of oral arguments and this analysis of the possible implications of the case.
Weekly Wrap Up
December 18, 2009
Every Friday, State of Elections brings you the latest news in state election law.
– The recount in Virginia’s 21st district is over, and Ron Villanueva has been declared the winner by only 16 votes.
– Wisconsin held a voter education summit on Tuesday. Topics discussed include felon voting rights, photo id requirements at the polls, and Wisconsin’s same day registration law.
– Also in Wisconsin, two convicted felons are facing felony election fraud charges for voting in the November 2008 election. If convicted, they could be given up to three years and six months in prison.
– California is also debating the merits of a photo id requirement. State Senator George Runner has proposed an initiative that would require voters to show a driver’s license or other government issued ID before being given a ballot. The initiative has already come under fire from some Latino organizations, who fear the initiative could be used to discriminate against minority voters.
Op Ed: Take Jim Crow Out of the Virginia Constitution: Restore Voting Rights for All
December 16, 2009
After the 15th Amendment was passed, giving blacks the constitutional right to vote, Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws, designed to keep blacks from actually voting. These laws included disingenuous literacy tests and poll taxes, which served as illegal but thankfully temporary impediments for black voters. One of the few ways that states found they could legally keep at least some blacks from voting, however, was to enact felon disenfranchisement laws. These laws say that after a felon has served his time in prison, he still cannot vote. Although African-Americans represent only about 12.5% of America’s population, they make up about 48.5% of its prison population. So, felon disenfranchisement laws, which are at best arguably constitutional, have proved an effective method of suppressing the black vote.
Virginia is one of only two states in the U.S. that permanently bars ex-felons from voting, even after they have paid their debt to society (the other is Kentucky). In Virginia alone, there are more than 377,000 disenfranchised felons. Of these, more than 208,000 are African-American.This is an abomination. Virginia’s laws must be changed. (more…)
Weekly Wrap Up
December 11, 2009
Every Friday, State of Elections brings you the latest news in state election law.
– Two citizen initiatives in Florida, designed to limit gerrymandering, have faced opposition from the Florida legislature. Opponents of the initiatives claim that they reduce election opportunities for minorities.
– In Illinois, a lawsuit has been filed over an Illinois law that requires the county to use vote-counting machines that make an audible beep if a voter attempts to cast a vote that is blank for some offices.
– The Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Utah’s Democracy has issued a new report recommending “automatic and portable” voter registration in that state.
– Enjoyed last week’s post on felon disenfranchisement? Want to know some of the historical roots and reasoning behind the policy? Then check out Professor Pippa Holloway’s article “‘A Chicken-Stealer Shall Lose His Vote’ – Disfranchisement for Larceny in the South, 1874-1890”
Redistricting Reform Part 3
December 9, 2009
When the inmates control the asylum
So what happens when we allow partisan redistricting? The short answer is “bad things.” Here’s the longer answer:
[Warning: This post is rife with sarcasm. Most of the time, no offense is meant… most of the time.]
Here’s our scenario – your state legislature has gerrymandered the heck out of your home district. So you, a decently moderate Republican are stuck in a district of lots of Democrats… Say, 65% or so of your neighbors vote for Democrats. Republican performance in your precinct is high, the area of Republicans in your town has been broken up between three different districts, ensuring that any republican votes are effectively diluted. Your Republican friend across the street? He’s in a different district. Your conservative father in law down on Main street? He’s in yet another district. And to top it off, your state legislator, who used to live down the street, has been redistricted right out of his own district! In fact, there are so many Democrats who have been put into this district of yours that there’s almost no reason a republican should run – he’ll lose and lose badly, often even if the Democrat isn’t the greatest candidate.
So what happens in this situation? Well, first thing first, Democrats win. Second, Republicans lose. And third, the primary election becomes more important than the general election. In the situation where the opposition party has no chance of winning the general election, and one party will always win the General Election, the real competition comes in the primary election, when the parties choose their nominees. Imagine, for a moment, that America was a 70-30 Democratic country. What would be a more important election? The General or the Democratic primary? Yeah, it’s an easy answer.
Weekly Wrap Up
December 4, 2009
Every Friday, State of Elections brings you the latest news in state election law.
– Events in Virginia’s 21st district are moving quickly, and Virginia Beach Circuit Court Judge Fredrick Lowe has scheduled a recount for the 14th of December.
-Hawaii’s chief election officer, Kevin Cronin, has resigned abruptly, shortly after proposing a plan that would close 40% of that state’s polling places. The plan, Cronin says, is a necessary evil after budget cuts have severely hampered the state’s ability to fund its elections.
– A New Jersey judge has extended restrictions on GOP “ballot security” programs.
– A pro “instant runoff” group in Minnesota has been fined for violating that state’s election laws, as they falsely claimed that Barack Obama, John McCain, and others endorsed a Minnesota ballot measure to institute runoff voting in that state. Instant runoff voting is a form of voting in which voters rank the candidates by preference. Obama and McCain are active supporters of instant runoff voting, but they have not actively endorsed the Minnesota ballot measure, as was claimed in some of the group’s literature.*
Permalink: https://stateofelecdev.wpengine.com/2009/12/03/weekly-wrap-up-2/
*Editor’s note: This posting originally implied that Obama and McCain do not support instant runoff voting, when in fact they do. Stateofelections.com regrets the error.
Discriminatory Disenfranchisement in Virginia
December 4, 2009
Of Felons and Taints
Almost all states place some restriction on the rights of felons to vote. Three states–Kentucky, Florida, and Virginia–maintain a system of permanent disenfranchisement for convicted felons. There’s a long 
historical tradition of voting restrictions against felons, dating to well before the Constitution was ratified. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment explicitly acknowledges the practice of criminal disenfranchisement (and, to a degree, endorses it by not penalizing states during Congressional reapportionment for denying the franchise to those guilty of “participation in rebellion, or other crime”).
Given this long usage and constitutional recognition, lawyers often find it hard to challenge disenfranchisement laws as violating voters’ rights. Yet as we all know, not every law that appears neutral is constitutional. Literacy tests and poll taxes are both facially neutral, but both have long been recognized as acting to deprive non-white voters of their fundamental rights.
Still, challenges to disenfranchisement regimes are rarely successful. For example, a 2005 challenge to Florida’s law, was decimated by the 11th Circuit sitting en banc in the case of Johnson v. Bush (405 F.3d 1214). There, the court heard an appeal to a summary judgment against a group of felons seeking the restoration of their rights. The plaintiffs argued that Florida had re-authorized its felon disenfranchisement law in 1868 for the purpose of discriminating against black voters, and as such the law should be held invalid as intentionally discriminatory.