Jan

27

NV (special elections): NRS 304

January 27, 2012 |  Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment

A way to quickly replace Congressmen in the event of a terrorist attack or give Democrats a Nevada Republican stronghold?

by Kaitan Gupta

In the world of battleground elections, Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District never received much attention nor should it have.  Since its creation after the 1980 census, it has always been represented by a Republican.  1992 was the only time the Republican candidate did not receive more than 50% of the vote and yet that year Republican Congressman Vucanovich still won the election by more than 12,000 votes/4 points.  The Democrats thought they were closing the gap in the District in 2008 when Senator McCain only won the District by 88 votes, but popular Congressman Dean Heller proved too popular in this conservative District where he widened his “narrow” 12,575 vote/5 point win in 2006 to a 44,000 vote/10 point win in 2008 and a 82,000/30 point win in 2010.  But Democrats attempt at winning this District (which in the past was seen as futile) would get new life thanks to a Republican’s sex scandal, the Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, and a Navy war hero.

In May 2011, Senator John Ensign announced his resignation due to an ethics investigation surrounding his extramarital affair with the wife of one of his aids.  Governor Sandoval promptly appointed Dean Heller to fill the rest of Senator Ensign’s term and ordered a special election to be held on September 13, 2011 to elect a new representative for Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District.  But it was Secretary of State Ross Miller’s announcement of how this special election would be run that gave Democrats a chance of winning this Republican stronghold.  One week prior to Governor Sandoval’s announcement, Secretary Miller issued his interpretation of NRS 304.200, the law governing special elections.  He announced that major party candidates could self-nominate and place themselves on the ballot as a major political party candidate whether or not the major political party approved.  Secretary Miller based this interpretation on NRS 304’s language that “no primary election may be held.”   This meant the election would be a free for all and more than 30 candidates were expected to be on the ballot.  Democrats expected many Republicans would file as compared to only a few Democrats making it much easier to elect a Democrat. Read more

Jan

25

VA (split precincts): A State Divided

January 25, 2012 |  Tagged , , | Leave a Comment

Virginia’s split precinct problem

by Brooks Braun

The 2012 election will soon be upon Virginia. If past elections and the current political climate are reliable guides, the level of participation will once again place enormous pressure on the election administrative apparatus. Will Virginia be prepared? One ominous reason to be skeptical is the recent explosion of split precincts following from the2011 redistricting process.

Split precincts are a normal outcome of every redistricting process. The precinct itself is usually the smallest unit of administration in an election district. However, when the General Assembly draws new district lines that do not follow old precinct lines, a split precinct is created.  In such a precinct, voters don’t all vote for the same offices. For example, some voters in the precinct might vote for a representative to fill state senate seat A, while other voters, in the same precinct, vote for a representative to fill state senate seat B. Precincts can also be split more than once (once by a concessional district line and once more by a state senate line, for instance). It’s like having multiple precincts in one. Read more

Jan

23

MN (campaign finance): Dodging Disclosure

January 23, 2012 |  Tagged , , , | Leave a Comment

How the fight over Minnesota campaign finance disclosure requirements may shape the fate of the state’s marriage amendment 

by Stephanie Bitto

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board’s October clarification of Minnesota campaign finance laws may have quite an impact on a hot topic at issue in the 2012 election.

In 2012, Minnesota voters will be asked to approve an amendment to the Minnesota constitution that declares marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman. The Minnesota House and Senate passed a bill in May 2011 proposing the amendment. Governor Dayton issued a symbolic veto of the bill on May 25, 2011, but as constitutional amendment legislation cannot be vetoed, it will be up to the voters to determine the amendment’s fate. Read more

Jan

19

TX (voter identification): Voters? We don’t need no stinkin’ voters

January 19, 2012 |  Tagged , | 1 Comment

Why recent changes to Texas election laws may unintentionally undermine voter turnout

by Daniel Carrico

The Texas Secretary of State is fighting to uphold Texas’s new voter photo identification law against federal scrutiny. The press has reported extensively on the battle brewing between the states and the United States Department of Justice over the impact that voter ID laws will have on voter turnout. Many groups believe that voter ID laws—which require persons to show photo ID before casting their votes—unfairly target minority voters, making it more difficult for them to participate in the democratic process. While the photo ID requirement is the most widely reported change to the Texas election process, it is not the only new roadblock likely to affect voter turnout in the Lone Star State’s upcoming elections.

New Burdens for Voluntary Deputy Voter Registrars

Earlier this year, the Texas legislature bolstered the requirements for persons wishing to serve as deputy voter registrars by passing House Bill 2194 and House Bill 1570.

In Texas, the voter registrar in each county may appoint one or more deputy registrars. Deputy registrars are volunteers who assist in the registration of voters. They distribute applications, help people fill out applications, and generally promote voter registration. Read more

Jan

18

DE (redistricting): A community of interest speaks

January 18, 2012 |  Tagged , , | Leave a Comment

by Colleen Nichols

Sussex County, Delaware may have just passed its redistricting plan, but not all members of the Sussex County community were pleased with the proposed districts.  On October 25, 2011, Jo Klinge, member of the League of Women Voters of Sussex County Redistricting Committee and editor of the LWVSC Voter newsletter, testified at the Sussex County Council hearing that the League still had very strong concerns with Sussex County’s proposed redistricting plan. She agreed to speak with me about these concerns.

The League of Women Voters of Sussex County Officers: Left to right: Valerie Driscoll, Cathy Ward, Sheila Zanine, Anne Riley, Jo Klinge (Missing: Esther Shelton) (from http://www.sussexlwv.org/about.html)

Q.  What community of interest does the League of Women Voters of Sussex County represent?

A.  The League does not represent a community of interest as we define the term. Many of our members live in the Cape Region, but we were not speaking for that community.

Q.  What are the goals of the League’s community of interest? Read more

Jan

16

MT (Citizens United): Montana rebels against Citizens United

January 16, 2012 |  Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

by Patrick Genova

It may be surprising that the biggest blow to corporations in 2011 didn’t come from Wall Street protestors. Late last month Montana’s Supreme Court took a swing at corporate spending in elections holding, in spite of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, that a 100-year-old law banning corporate spending was valid. In doing so, the court held that the lower court’s reading of Citizens United was erroneous. The Court in Citizens United said, “Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction ‘furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.’”

So what exactly should be considered a “compelling interest” for bans on political spending? The Supreme Court of Montana answers bluntly that they have met the standard of review set out in Citizens United. In assessing Chief Justice McGrath explains Montana’s long standing fight against corporate spending. Read more

Jan

12

All States (election jobs): Five Questions for political law attorney Chris DeLacy

January 12, 2012 |  Tagged , | 2 Comments

By Kevin Elliker

Chris DeLacy is a partner at Holland & Knight in Washington, DC, where he leads their Political Law Group and also serves as general counsel to the Holland & Knight Committee for Effective Government PAC. A graduate of William & Mary Law School, Mr. DeLacy has served as counsel and legal advisor to Senator John Warner, the Technology Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, and the Virginia General Assembly. As a political law attorney he advises clients on a number of political compliance issues, including campaign finance, Congressional gifts and travel, and lobbying. In November 2011 he visited William & Mary Law School, where he spoke to the W&M Election Law Society regarding his experience and expertise in political and election law.

When you spoke at the W&M Election Law Society’s luncheon event I was struck by the variety of issues you spoke of that related to the election law field. Could you discuss the array of cases that you see through your work that stem from your expertise in election and campaign finance law?

A political law practice touches on a wide-variety of legal issues including campaign finance, government ethics, lobbying compliance, pay-to-play, white collar, non-profit, and tax. It also involves a fair amount of non-legal advice related to politics and plain old common sense. I have handled cases that involve the Federal Election Commission, the Senate Ethics Committee, the Office of Congressional Ethics, Inspector General Investigations, Department of Justice investigations, the Maryland Board of Ethics, and the Texas Board of Ethics. However, the vast majority of my work involves advice related to political law compliance, which is intended to prevent issues from ever progressing to the investigation or enforcement stage. Read more

Jan

11

IN (vote centers): Vote Centers are Here to Stay in Indiana

January 11, 2012 |  Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

by Shanna Reulbach

Indiana is one of several states pioneering vote centers, which are consolidated polling places open to any eligible voter in a locality. Vote centers came into existence in 2003, when Larimer County, Colorado first pioneered the configuration. Today, nine states have laws permitting vote centers, but Indiana was the first to use them on a large scale.

In 2006, the Indiana Secretary of State began a pilot program, allowing counties to test vote centers to determine if they would be an effective means of election day administration. Three counties, Cass, Tippecanoe, and Wayne, participated in the program from 2007 to 2010, and their reports prompted the state legislature to pass a bill during its 2011 session to enable all counties to adopt the vote center model as their permanent method for voting. Read more

Jan

9

ND (migrant voting): North Dakota’s new voters.

January 9, 2012 |  Tagged , , | 1 Comment

by Thomas Joraanstad

In these difficult economic times, unemployment in the United States continues to hover around 9%. There is one place that has seemingly avoided the recession completely. In fact, this state is booming with jobs. The state is North Dakota. With new technology being developed in the oil and gas industry, oil reserves in the Bakken Formation once too difficult or expensive to tap are now being drilled at a furious rate. The unemployment rate in North Dakota is now around 3.5% as the state tries to keep pace with growth. Although North Dakota’s population grew only a modest 4.7% from 2000-2010 (compared with a nationwide average of 9.7%), the oil boom is a recent phenomenon, and the true population effects are still unknown.  In Williston, North Dakota, a town at the heart of the oil boom, the population grew 17.6% (to 14,716) during the same time period. Since the census, the population of Williston is now estimated to be around 20,000, a 60% increase since 2000. This population growth could have a major impact in the upcoming election in 2012.

With longtime incumbent Kent Conrad (D) set to retire, the seat will be open for the first time since 1987. When Conrad announced his retirement in January, most political commentators viewed this as a likely win for the Republicans. Although North Dakota has had at least one Democratic senator in office since 1982, North Dakotans are generally conservative, do not support President Obama (his approval rating is in the 30’s), and lean Republican. However, the influx of new citizens has given the Democrats hope in the upcoming elections. Read more

Dec

30

RI (photo ID): Politics and Pictures: Rhode Island and its new voter ID law

December 30, 2011 |  Tagged , , | 2 Comments

In elections past, Rhode Island has not required photo identification for a ballot to be counted. However, with the passage of a new law the state has at least superficially joined the ranks of states which have approved legislation that will hamper the voting rights of its most vulnerable citizens. Yet the truth may not be so simple. Rhode Island’s law is less restrictive and more benign than legislation passed by other states which may explain the unique politics behind the passage of RI’s new photo identification bill.

The law will be implemented in two stages. “The first stage will require non-photo ID beginning Jan. 1, 2012. The second stage will require photo ID beginning Jan. 1, 2014.”

For the upcoming 2012 election, voters are able to vote by establishing their identity through possession of forms of ID that do not have their photo, “including without limitation”: a birth certificate, social security card, or government-issued medical card. The language “without limitation” can reasonably be construed as meaning that “any current photo identification that includes the name and photograph of the voter will be accepted.” Read more