Redistricting Litigation: What Every Judge Should Know
July 23, 2010
The William and Mary Election Law Program and the National Center for State Courts, as part of their election law litigation educational series, have just posted three new videos discussing the finer points of redistricting litigation. If you are a judge, lawyer, or law student interested in election law, I strongly recommend you watch these videos.
The speakers in the videos are Jessica Amunson, J. Gerald Hebert, Trevor Potter, and John Hardin Young, who also spoke at the 2010 Election Law Symposium at William & Mary.
Weekly Wrap Up
June 6, 2010
– On June 8th, California voters will weigh in on two election reform measures, Propositions 14 and 15. Proposition 14 would create a single ballot for primary elections. The two candidates who received the most votes would face off in the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. Theoretically, this could result in a general election contest between two members of the same party. Prop 14 also allows candidates to choose to keep their party affiliation off the primary ballot.
Proposition 15, also known as the California Fair Elections Act, would repeal California’s ban on public funding for elections. Candidates for Secretary of State would be eligible to up to 1,000,000 dollars in public funding for primary elections, and 1,300,000 in public funding for the general election. Candidates who accepted the funds would be prohibited from raising or spending any money beyond what they receive from the public fund.
– On May 29th, Florida governor Charlie Crist signed a far-reaching elections bill. The bill will have a number of effects, including a requirement that any group engaging in political advertising disclose their source of funding. The bill will also make it easier for overseas and military voters to cast their ballots. Interestingly, HB 131 has been criticized by the ACLU for failing to provide adequate voting machines for disabled voters.
– The California State Senate has approved a bill to allow Election Day voter registration.
– In Ohio, a redistricting reform bill has stalled in the legislature.
Synergy and Citizens United
May 30, 2010
Before coming to law school, I worked as a fundraising and communications consultant for a number of House and Senate campaigns. Sometimes, being involved in one race would lend opportunities to help a client in another. For example, I would sometimes have clients in nearby districts who would do joint events, or who would each take a turn with a visiting speaker or leader during the same trip.
Most common, however, would be when one prominent figure (usually a sitting Congressman or popular party leader) would agree to write a fundraising email or letter for one client, and I would convince that figure to allow me to send a second letter on behalf of another client while we were at it. My clients were often unaware that I was performing this service, but it’s actually quite common: the world of DC fundraisers is surprisingly incestuous, with fundraisers each attending events hosted by their colleagues and regular donors. Think about it: if a campaign fundraising consultant doesn’t regularly attend events at the home of a prominent donor, what are the odds of developing a close relationship with that donor and getting her to host an event for your clients down the line? It’s also about networking: at some point, each of us found that we had to turn down a prospective client (for whatever reason–everything from ideological disagreement to prior commitments in the race), so we’d pass their information to a colleague and hope for reciprocity down the line. It’s just good business. (more…)
Weekly Wrap Up
May 20, 2010
Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in state election law.
– Soon, even a candidate’s tweets will be governed by a legion of rules and regulations. The Maryland Board of Elections is attempting to devise rules for the use of social media by candidates.
– The Tennessee Senate has passed a bill that would require potential voters to show proof of citizenship before registering. The state Attorney General believes that the law could potentially violate the federal Motor Voter Act.
– Congressman Michael Capuano has written an editorial for the Boston Herald about Citizens United and the proposed Shareholder Protection Act. For more about shareholder protection and Citizens United, see this post by William and Mary law professor William Van Alstyne.
– The recent British election and the swift transfer of power from Gordon Brown to David Cameron has some wondering how the U.S. could reduce the time between elections and inaugurations. See this article from Slate for a proposal for how such a reduction could be accomplished without a constitutional amendment.
– Pedro A. Cortés, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of the Commonwealth and the top election official in that state, has resigned. Cortés will be pursuing opportunities in the private sector, as vice president of a voting technology company.
Weekly Wrap Up
May 7, 2010
Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in state election law.
– Another week, another challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County in Alabama is seeking an injunction against Attorney General Holder to prevent him from enforcing Section 5 of the VRA. Section 5 requires that certain states and municipalities “preclear” changes to their voting laws with the Attorney General. Last week, Merced County in California initiated a similar challenge to the Act.
– In Kansas, voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to protect the voting rights of the mentally ill. Currently, the state constitution allows legislators to deny voting rights to the mentally ill, though the legislature has not attempted to pass any laws limiting those rights. This amendment would eliminate the possibility of such restrictions entirely. The proposed amendment will appear on the ballot next statewide election, on November 2nd.
– Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post has written this editorial linking Arizona’s “Clean Election” reforms with that state’s new controversial immigration law.
– In New York, Assemblyman Michael Gianaris has introduced a bill that would create a non-partisan redistricting commission in that state.
Weekly Wrap Up
April 30, 2010
Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in election law
– On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Doe v. Reed. The plaintiffs argue that Washington’s Public Records Act, which makes the names of signatories to ballot initiatives a matter of public record, should be declared unconstitutional . Members of a group called “Protect Marriage Washington”, who submitted petitions for a referendum to repeal Washington’s domestic partnership laws, have asked for an injunction against the publication of their names. The signatories fear harassment from gay marriage proponents should their names be published, as required under the Public Records Act. Here’s a transcript of the oral arguments.
– The Supreme Court of New Jersey has agreed to hear a case involving an attempt by a Tea Party organization to recall Senator Robert Menendez. The New Jersey constitution allows Senators to be recalled, but the U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue. The appeals court previously ruled in favor of the Tea Party and allowed their recall efforts to continue.
– Merced County in California is seeking to remove itself from the restrictions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires that certain states and municipalities “preclear” changes to their voting laws with the Attorney General. Only four counties in California are subject to the additional restrictions imposed by Section 5.
– Here’s a very odd story out of Orange County California. According to a local newspaper, dozens of voters were allegedly tricked into registering as Republicans. Members of the Republican Party supposedly tricked passersby into thinking they were signing petitions for liberal causes, like legalizing marijuana, when they were actually signing voter registration forms that identified them as Republicans. The California Republican Party offers an $8 dollar bounty for every new Republican registration, which apparently inspired this latest attempt to trick voters into registering as Republicans.
Gone Fishin’
April 26, 2010
State of Elections is officially going on semi-hiatus for the summer.
We’ll continue to post Weekly Wrap Ups, and if we receive any particularly timely articles, we’ll post those as well. The Weekly Wrap Ups and any other new articles will appear directly below this post.
Our full time, thrice weekly posting schedule will resume late August, at the beginning of William and Mary’s fall semester. The Election Law Society has big plans for next year, so make sure to check in with us in August for new interviews, articles, and all the latest news in election law.
Weekly Wrap Up
April 23, 2010
Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in election law.
– Check out our CU + and the States page to track the latest state responses to the Citizens United ruling. The page is constantly updated and contains over 50 links discussing the impact of Citizens United at the state level.
-The Rose Institute released this state by state guide to redistricting in America.
– Georgia’s photo identification requirement for voting has survived another legal challenge.
– Florida will begin providing bilingual ballots in 2012.
– An Idaho judge has ruled that Idaho’s election laws are unconstitutional and biased against independent candidates. An independent presidential candidate requires 6,500 signatures to get on the ballot in Arizona, but nonresidents are forbidden from circulating petitions in Idaho. These two laws combined to make it particularly difficult for an independent to get on the ballot in Idaho.
Solving the Epidemic of Disappearing Poll Workers – Part 2: A Poll Worker Draft?
April 21, 2010
As discussed last week, the graying of America is seen most potently behind the polls. The decreasing numbers of poll workers across the nation has been threatening the centerpiece of our democracy. The first article focused on how young people can and should fill that void. This week, we take a look into a less conventional method of filling the need: Making poll working mandatory.
Currently, there are only two counties in the entire country that uses a drafting system for poll workers. Nebraska law allows for a draft and both Douglas and Sarpy County have taken part. At least one other state has considered the idea of a poll worker draft. In 2007, Ohio’s Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, announced the idea, but was eventually met with considerable criticism from the legislature. The word “draft” itself has a grim, scary, and negative connection in our country. However, there are many positives that could come from instituting a poll-worker draft in a jurisdiction in need. Lets call it election duty (like jury duty) to make it more palatable.
HOW COULD A DRAFT HELP?
The problem of long hours at the polls plagues every jurisdiction. It is a little discussed fact that anyone who offers to become a poll worker must work from about an hour before the poll opens to after the poll closes in the evening. Not many people would sign up for these long hours, even when payment is offered (which often comes out to very near minimum wage). However, a election duty system would help not only to alleviate the general need, but with a high participation rate, everyone who participates would have an easier job. In one district where it might take four people 14 hours of work each, 8 citizens could be pulled to work 7 hours and even get regular breaks. From another perspective, this would also make election duty less demanding. A less daunting task for those who choose to participate would help the image of election duty. (more…)
Citizens United and the Culture of Corporate Deference
April 19, 2010
Editor’s note: This article was originally posted as a comment made in response to Neal Rechtman’s “Citizens United Against the Supreme Court”
One of the subtle harms of Citizens United is the propensity it creates to doubt that we’re receiving honest services from government officials. To give a recent example, last week the President reversed course on offshore drilling, announcing a very wide-reaching oil drilling expansion off the Atlantic, Gulf, and northern Pacific coasts. Now, it is entirely possible and quite likely that he’s reversed like this because of legislative or practical concerns, or maybe he’s become convinced that the process is better served by an early concession of this point, or maybe he has actually changed his mind on the merits of the policy. Or perhaps he’s anticipating the usual summertime gas price spike and is hoping to blunt the criticisms that are sure to come by taking a prophylactic step that conservatives have loudly touted as a way to lower prices.
But perhaps the reason is that we have an election in November that’s expected to cost around $3.7 billion, and that figure is less than 1/5th of Exxon-Mobils net annual profit in their WORST year of the last 7. If the oil industry wanted to heavily invest in this cycle, they have more than enough money to go beyond simple advertising–they could fund parallel field campaigns, massive ad buys in every media, billboards around the country, and make every long-shot pro-drilling candidate into a bona-fide contender. (more…)