Early Voting in Ohio: Voters Take it Easy as the System Tries to Adjust
October 27, 2010
Ohio law has allowed early voting since 2005, but the 2010 election will be only the second time that the full slate of statewide offices will be up for election the ballot. Though the political parties, county election boards and yes, even the Tea Party, are now operating with the new system in mind, one question remains: is it all worth it?
Currently the Ohio voting period stretches for 35 days. Voters may vote early for any reason either in person at their county board of elections office or by mail until November 1. Additionally, the law has created the controversial so-called “golden week“, where citizens may register and cast absentee ballots at their board of elections on the same day. In 2009, the early voting law actually resulted in Barak Obama winning the state even though more votes were cast for John McCain on November 4, 2008, “Election Day”. However, it seems that, rather than dramatically increasing voter turnout, early voting is simply forcing a shift in old campaign strategies, due to timing issues, and making voting more convenient for those who otherwise would have voted anyway. (more…)
You Know What Election Day Needs? More Stickers!
October 25, 2010
Can you spell Nakamura? San Diego School Board trustee Katherine Nakamura, who is attempting a write-in reelection bid, thinks it’s a doozy, and wants her voters to be able to use stickers with her name pre-printed on them. Unfortunately for her, she lost in the primary election, and San Diego city rules say that write-in campaigns are not permitted. Nakamura has brought her case before the California Superior Court, requesting that she be permitted to stage a write-in campaign and that voters be permitted to place stickers with her name on them on the ballot, rather than actually writing in her name. The court has yet to decide whether any write-in votes will count, but it gave Nakamura the green light to seek the 200 signatures required to qualify as a write-in candidate. The court did decide, though, that Nakamura can distribute stickers, and that voters can bring the stickers to the polling places, but that they may not paste them on the ballot. Indeed, California law prohibits the use of stickers to express votes for write-in candidates. Does this law make sense? Is it constitutional? This post seeks to analyze the arguments for and against such a law.
In 1926, the California Supreme Court decided that the placement of a sticker on a ballot is not “writing,” and as such is not a permissible way to vote for a write-in candidate. In support of its position, the court explained the repercussions of allowing the use of stickers, quoting the Illinois Supreme Court: “[I]f [stickers] may be resorted to by one candidate, they may be by all, and the official ballot might become but little more than a convenient card upon which to paste private tickets printed and circulated in secret. The use of such tickets would revive the evils sought to be guarded against by ballot law.” (more…)
Weekly Wrap Up
October 22, 2010
A 1996 Federal Appeals Court decision is forcing DC TV stations to air “anti-abortion porn.” Missy Smith is a candidate for the DC congressional seat, though many people claim that she is simply an “anti-abortion extremist, who has found a cheap way to get some truly disgusting images onto daytime and primetime TV.” The 1996 federal appeals court decision prevents any censorship of election ads. Prior to this case, FCC Chairman Mark Fowler advised that “The no censorship prohibition in Section 315 was intended to override the statutory prohibition against the broadcast of obscene or indecent materials that is etched in Section 1464 of the Criminal Code” (cited in Gillett Communications v. Becker, 1992). Since the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down the FCC’s “decency” regulations, freeing the airwaves for uncensored material, so it’s unlikely that Becker will be overturned soon. In the meantime, the video has been removed from YouTube because it violates its policy on “shocking and disgusting content.”
The National Organization of Marriage (NOM), a group opposing gay marriage, is trying to fund an ad in support of Carl Paladino in NY while skirting the election law requiring them to reveal their donors. Accordingly, they have asked a federal judge to declare NY Election Law §14-100.1 unconstitutional, alleging that it chills their freedom of speech. NOM would fall under the reporting requirement because they have the goal of “seeing the success of defeat of…political principle[s].” (more…)
Corruption? In MY Elections? Its More Likely Than you Think.
October 20, 2010
Money and politics have been intertwined since the beginning of government. Today is no different. While bribery laws have been around in the United States since the founding, an increasing amount of states have enacted specific laws related to bribery in politics in an effort to address pay to play operations. Pay to play is the term used to describe a situation where money, typically in the form of political donations, is exchanged for specific political favors, often in the form of a regulation carve out or an award of a government contract. In an effort to curb political favoritism, states have regulated, or completely prohibited, political donations from lobbyists and government contractors. New Mexico is no exception. The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a bill that significantly impacts who can donate to political candidates and political parties. The bill did not make it through in the Senate, but supporters are hopeful it will pass in the next legislative session.
The text of NM House Bill 118 widely prohibits lobbyists and government contractors from donating to a political candidate or any political committee. It also prohibits “seekers of targeted subsidies” from political donations. This is defined as “a person, including a business entity or nonprofit organization, that will directly benefit financially from a targeted subsidy.” A “targeted subsidy” is further described as “a financial benefit, including a tax exemption, credit or reduction in taxes, that is conferred by proposed legislation or the enactment of law on an entity that is: (1) named in the legislation or law as its beneficiary; or (2) described in the legislation or law in a particularized manner that is the functional equivalent of naming the entity as its beneficiary.” (more…)
Could Citizens United be a Paper Tiger?
October 18, 2010
Is it possible that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was all bark, no bite? It may be too early to tell, but at least in the race for Virginia’s 2nd congressional district, the ruling has yet to make a discernible impact.
Citizens United, handed down last January, invalidated portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which regulated so-called “electioneering” communications on First Amendment grounds. The reaction to the court’s decision was swift and sharply divided. The Wall Street Journal celebrated the ruling as a victory for free speech, writing, “[i]n a season of marauding government, the Constitution rides to the rescue one more time.” The conservative Cato Institute lauded the ruling, opining that it was a recognition of the principle that “equalizing speech is never a government interest.” On the other end of the spectrum, the New York Times openly lamented the decision, saying it marked a return to “the robber baron era of the 19th century.” People for the American Way went so far as to call for a constitutional amendment overturning the decision. (more…)
Weekly Wrap-Up
October 15, 2010
Did Michelle Obama violate Illinois state election law? After Michelle Obama turned in her early voting ballot yesterday, she stopped outside the voting booth to take pictures with people in the area, including an electrician, Dennis Campbell. According to Campbell and a reporter who was nearby, Michelle stated that it was very important that he vote “to help keep her husband’s agenda going.” Illinois state law (Sec. 17-29 (a)) states that “No judge of election, pollwatcher, or other person shall, at any primary or election, do any electioneering or soliciting of votes or engage in any political discussion within any polling place, within 100 feet of any polling place.” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to the accusation by stating that “I don’t think it would be much to imagine, the First Lady might support her husband’s agenda.”
Charges were filed against a Maryland man, Jerry Mathis, for distributing an official-looking sample ballot that turned out to be fake. The false ballots alarmed several candidates when they saw that the wrong matchups were checked. Under Maryland law, Mr. Mathis could be facing a maximum of one year in jail and a $25,000 fine. (more…)
Getting Carded: The Debate over Voter ID Law in Oklahoma
October 13, 2010
On November 2, Oklahoma voters will confront a long list of state referendum items on which they may vote “yes” or “no.” Second on the list—tucked between per-student educational spending and revised term limits—is State Question 746, which proposes to amend the state’s voter identification requirements. Supporters tout the measure as a necessary and low-maintenance way to keep state elections honest. After all, we require a photo ID for any number of mundane daily transactions, like writing a check or boarding an airplane. However, a small but impassioned group of opponents argues that while seemingly harmless, in reality the voter ID requirement is the partisan enactment of a runaway legislature, and it threatens the most basic of Oklahomans’ constitutional protections.
If Oklahomans vote “yes” on State Question 746, then effective on July 1, 2011, every person appearing to vote in Oklahoma must first present (1) a state, tribal, or federal government-issued photo ID or (2) a voter identification card issued by the County Election Board. All government-issued photo IDs must have expiration dates, and must not be expired on the date of the election, except for some identity cards issued to people over 65. These requirements would apply to all in-person voting, including in-person absentee voting. (more…)
Weekly Wrap Up
October 8, 2010
Due to a loophole in Florida election law, a violation can go without any punishment. On September 30, a Florida District Court of Appeals ruled that because the statute allowed candidates to opt for an administrative hearing regarding their violations but didn’t give those courts the power to levy sanctions, candidates could violate election law and not be penalized. This was caused by a “glitch” in the legislation and was not intentional. Florida Election Commission Chairman says that it won’t affect the cases for this year’s elections because the legislature will have an opportunity to fix it before they’re heard.
According to the 9th Circuit, Washington doesn’t discriminate against minorities in prison. The Court ruled on October 7 that the Washington felon disenfranchisement law, which prohibits incarcerated felons from voting, does not constitute discrimination despite disproportionately affecting minorities. In January, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit held 2-1 that incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote. Sitting en banc to reconsider the decision, the Court unanimously upheld the law. The Court ruled that the felons must show “intentional discrimination” on the part of the state and not merely that the law does discriminate, something the prisoners failed to do in this case. (more…)
Rahm’s Residency: Not a Problem?
October 4, 2010
According to several news articles, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is moving back to Chicago to run for mayor. Several news organizations and election lawyers question whether he qualifies as a resident of Chicago. Rahm Emanuel is registered to vote in Chicago where his car is registered but leased his house to another family. To run for mayor in Chicago, you must maintain a city residence for one year.
It is striking how similar the facts surrounding Rahm Emanuel’s residency in Chicago are to the seminal, Virginia case on voter residency: Sachs v Horan. Daniel Sachs was registered to vote and owned a home in Fairfax County. Sachs had a minimum, one year employment contract outside of Fairfax so he rented a house in Washington County and leased his house in Fairfax to another person. All the while, Sachs paid property taxes to, registered his vehicle in, and had a driver’s license from Fairfax County. He was seeking employment closer to home and hoped to return to his house in Fairfax. In reviewing his residency for voter registration, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that Sachs did not “live in that locality with the intent to remain there for an unlimited time” nor did he have the requisite “place of abode” to establish residency for voter registration.
Weekly Wrap-Up
October 1, 2010
Virginia governor Robert McDonnell is outpacing his Democratic predecessors in restoring voting rights to felons. McDonnell, known as a law-and-order attorney general, has approved 780 of 889 applications — approximately 88 percent of applications — since taking office in January. His predecessors, Democrats Timothy Kaine and Mark Warner, restored the rights of 4,402 and 3,486 felons, respectively. McDonnell revamped the process for restoring voting rights to felons, reducing the wait time for nonviolent felons to two years, allowing applicants to submit documents online, and self-imposing a deadline of 60 days after the application is complete to make a decision. Even as this process continues, however, 300,000 people in Virginia remain disenfranchised.
Rahm Emanuel may be out of a job. The same day that the White House announced he was leaving his post as Chief of Staff to run for mayor of Chicago, attorney Burt Odelson pointed out a 1871 law requiring candidates to live in their jurisdiction for the year before the election. Since Emanuel leased out his house in Chicago while he was working in DC, this may block him from running for Mayor.
(more…)