Want to Be a Senator, but Hate Those Pesky Elections? Just Become a ‘Temporary’ Appointee
November 2, 2010
The legal controversy over the appointment of a replacement to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama is likely drawing to a close. In the process of resolving the controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court also clarified their interpretation of a key portion of the Seventeenth Amendment regarding vacancies in Senate seats. This topic has been relevant lately, particularly following the 2008 election cycle. When Senator Obama was elected President, his incoming administration including numerous sitting Senators including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and, of course, himself. Despite its seemingly straight-forward language, the Seventeenth Amendment required a certain amount of parsing to ensure these senatorial appointments would fulfill its procedural requirements.
The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, in addition to providing for the direct election of senators, altered the procedure for filling vacancies in that office. The amendment provides that, in the event of a vacancy, the governor must issue a “writ of election” to hold an election for a permanent replacement to fill the seat. The state legislature may empower the governor to make a temporary appointment, but the appointee may only serve until the special election is held to fill the vacancy. A date for a special election must be set by the governor, but the amendment does not specify when exactly it must be held. (more…)
William & Mary VOTEline
November 1, 2010
Students at William & Mary Law School are set to run the W&M VOTEline, a voter assistance hotline aimed at responding to difficulties local citizens face at the polls. This non-partisan voter assistance hotline will be operated by student members of the school’s Election Law Society (ELS) and other volunteers.
“Voting is an important civic duty,” Election Law Society President Ashleigh Casey ’12 said. “We want to ensure that all voters – young and old – who are properly registered to vote can do so. We will be manning the VOTEline phones on Election Day, Tuesday November 2nd, to answer any questions that might arise as voters arrive at a polling place to cast their vote.”
VOTEline is a response to outcries from William & Mary students who faced confusion at local election booths in the past. The Election Law Society has operated VOTEline since November of 2007. Any citizen who wants to vote in the local election may call the hotline at (757) 221-2890 from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. to seek information regarding their rights at the polls.
“I encourage William & Mary students and members of the Williamsburg community at large to call the VOTEline with any questions or concerns they may have at the polls on Election Day,” Casey said.
Students are also advised to bring a government issued form of identification to the polls on Election Day. Valid forms of identification include a voter identification card, a valid driver’s license, and a W&M ID card for certain voters.
For more information about VOTEline, call or e-mail Brian Rothenberg ’13, at (757) 209-1001 / brian.rothenberg@gmail.com.
Image is Everything: Is Disclosure an Effective Check on Corporate Political Donations?
November 1, 2010
In his January State of the Union address President Obama warned that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United would result in American elections being “bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse foreign entities.” 
President Obama wasn’t alone in his disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision. The Pew Center reports that a large majority—65%—of Americans also disapprove of the decision. However, the gubernatorial race in Minnesota is demonstrating that corporate donations are not completely unchecked. In fact, the biggest factor limiting a corporation’s exercise of this First Amendment right may be the First Amendment itself.
Minnesota’s upcoming gubernatorial election has become the focus of corporation’s contributions to political organizations because of a Minnesota law requiring organizations to publicly disclose contributions over $100. The law does not set any limitation on the amount of a donation, but if it is more than $100, the public and the press are going to know about it. According to two Minnesota political organizations, the disclosure requirements are unconstitutional. (more…)
Weekly Wrap Up
October 29, 2010
Is World Wrestling Entertainment political advertising? According to election officials in Connecticut, it is. They have told poll workers that they can ask voters wearing WWE gear to cover it up, fearing that it could be construed as political advertising for Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon, who is also the former CEO of WWE. Officials said that McMahon is so closely associated with WWE that the gear could easily be considered a violation of rule banning political campaigning within 75 feet of a polling station. McMahon’s husband, Vince McMahon, said that this was a violation of WWE fans’ First Amendment rights and would deny them their right to vote. Connecticut Republicans are also up in arms, with the State Party Chairman calling the action “voter intimidation.” This is not unprecedented, however; a similar rule was in place in California, forbidding voters from wearing “Terminator” gear when Arnold Schwarzenegger was on the ballot.
The 9th Circuit struck down part of Arizona’s voter registration laws on October 27, holding that the provisions of the law requiring proof of citizenship conflicted with the federal law. The federal law only requires that applicants “attest their citizenship under penalty of perjury”, while the 2004 voter-approved initiative in Arizona required applicants to register to vote to show proof of citizenship by providing one of the documents on the approved list. The citizenship requirement was “an additional state hurdle” to registration, something the federal law was trying to prevent. The 9th Circuit appeals panel–which included retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor–did not, however, overturn the requirement that voters show identification at the polls in order to vote. (more…)
An Amendment for One Man? Connecticut Amends the Citizens’ Election Program
October 29, 2010
Once again the citizens of the Constitution State are questioning the actions of their politicians. The bi-partisan ‘Clean Elections’ Act has been amended on party lines and sparked serious debate. With the upcoming Gubernatorial Election, both parties have much at stake, and immediate changes were necessary in light of the 2nd Circuit’s ruling that a part of the act was unconstitutional. But with the way these changes were adopted, the citizens of Connecticut are wondering if these adaptations are really just making their ‘Clean Elections’ Act dirty.
The original Citizens Election Program (“CEP”) was established under the ‘Clean Election’ Act’s passing in 2005 during a time of political turmoil in Connecticut. Governor John Rowland’s 2004 resignation amid controversy regarding inappropriate interactions with state contractors helped to contribute to the bill’s support. Its passage established public financing for all statewide races, banned contributions from contractors and lobbyists, and was widely considered to be a model system for publicly funded elections. Currently, Connecticut is also operating a pilot program for public financing of municipal elections, which is the first of its kind among the states. The CEP has been widely supported from both sides of the aisle in Connecticut and beyond. (more…)
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…)