State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Author: Election Law Society (page 1 of 67)

Native Alaskan Voter Language Assistance Implementation

By: Jakob Stalnaker

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act requires certain covered jurisdictions to provide language assistance and bilingual election materials to language minority groups. The determinations are made every five years by the Census Bureau. The criteria for coverage include if either (1) more than five percent of voting age population or (2) 10,000 of the voting age citizens are members of a single-language minority group and do not “speak or adequately understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process.” There is an additional provision, covering jurisdictions with more than five percent of American Indian or Alaska Native population residing within an American Indian Area, meeting the same criteria if those citizens do not “speak or understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process” and the rate of individuals in that population who have not completed the fifth grade is higher than the national rate.

Continue reading

Special Election Battle in Wisconsin

By: Richard J. Batzler

As pundits assess the political climate in the lead up to the 2018 midterm elections, special elections provide key insights into electoral trends. Earlier this year, Wisconsin was the site of two State Senate races that buoyed the hopes of those working toward a “blue wave.” But one of these elections almost never took place, as all three branches of state government clashed over whether the Governor had to call special elections in the first place.

Continue reading

Summer Hiatus

Hello election law community! We have been on summer break and are now returning. Starting today we will be regularly posting on Mondays and Wednesdays during the academic year (other than holiday breaks). Thank you for following State of Elections, and please continue to comment and share!

Mo’ Money, Less Democracy: Washington D.C.’s Quest for Fair Elections

By: Evan Tucker

“[T]he notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was clear when queried about Citizens United: large spending in elections by a few eviscerates the essence of democracy. Government in America is “by the People, for the People;” it is not “by the few, for the few.” At the seat of the United States government, District Councilmember David Grosso introduced the “Fair Elections Act of 2017.” Councilmember Grosso aims to “reform campaign financing and to provide for publicly funded political campaigns.” Campaign donations are necessary in electoral politics, for modern-day campaigns are incredibly expensive. For Grosso, though, democracy should not be sold to the highest bidder; that is to say, the largest donor having their preferred candidate elected and in turn having that candidate only responsive to the donor. By introducing his bill, he seeks to establish a balance by “establishing a robust public financing program.”

Continue reading

Are Absentee Ballots as Helpful to Voters as They Appear to Be?

By: Alyssa Kaiser

My experience in voting with an absentee ballot in New Jersey in the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections, as well as the 2017 gubernatorial election, alerted my attention to flaws in the system. As an active voter, these experiences have left me to wonder if absentee voting is worth it. I am thankful that my home state of New Jersey has an absentee ballot system that allows me to vote as a New Jerseyite even though I go to school in Virginia. Although New Jersey’s absentee ballot rules are arguably less stringent than other states, I learned the hard way that absentee voting can be difficult.

Continue reading

Are Rhode Island’s Mail-In Ballots a “Gigantic, Illegal Loophole?”

By: Eric Lynch

Ken Block, a two-time former gubernatorial candidate, made headlines in early October 2017 over a provocative tweet regarding voter identification (“voter-ID”) and mail-in ballots. Mr. Block claimed that mail-in ballots violated Rhode Island’s voter-ID law and are effectively a “gigantic, illegal loophole” to performing widespread voter fraud. Block implored the Rhode Island legislature to attend to this matter immediately. In response, Mr. Stephen Erickson, a Rhode Island State Board of Elections member, considered such a measure as “another effort to limit people’s ability to vote.” Mr. Erickson asserted that the Board “regularly rejects mail[-in] ballots where there is a substantial difference between the two signatures or if the witnesses does not provide enough information so that they can be identified and questioned.”

Continue reading

Maine Supreme Court Declares Ranked Choice Voting Unconstitutional

By: Charles Truxillo

On May 23, 2017, the Maine Supreme Court unanimously identified portions of the State’s initiative to implement ranked choice voting (Question 5 of the 2016 initiative ballot) as conflicting with the State’s Constitution. Although the opinion offers no binding precedent as of yet, the state legislature swiftly moved to implement potential solutions to the impending constitutional concern. After following a party-line vote on October 23, 2017, the legislature’s responding bill ordered the repeal of Question 5 if the Constitution fails to be properly amended by December of 2021.

Continue reading

Alaska Superior Court Allows the State Democratic Party to Let Independent Candidates Run in Party Primaries

By: Grace Greenberg-Spindler

Creating coalitions between independents and major political parties widens the opportunity for independents to participate in the political process. In Alaska an independent candidate must submit a filing notification and collect petition signatures, the number of which varies by level of office. Additionally, independent candidates are blocked from accessing the tools of state-recognized parties such as the Alaska Democratic Party (“ADR”) and the Alaska Republican Party. Rule AS 15.25.030(a)(16) requires “primary election candidates to be registered members of the party in whose primary they run.”

Continue reading

The Fate of North Carolina Senate Bill 68: Still Uncertain and Still Causing Issues for Local Counties

By: Hannah Littlefield

As discussed in Part I of this two-part blog series, Senate Bill 68 (“SB 68”) is one of the more interesting election issues emerging from North Carolina. SB 68 merged the North Carolina Board of Elections and the State Ethics Commission, forming the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement. The boards merged in June 2017; however, Governor Roy Cooper has yet to appoint members to the new board.

Continue reading

West Virginia Campaign Finance Pilot Program

By: Jordan Smith

This blog is no stranger to the judicial election structure in the State of West Virginia.  In 2015, one of our posts discussed West Virginia’s transition from partisan to nonpartisan judicial election.  Today, this blog returns to the West Virginia judiciary to discuss the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Public Campaign Financing Pilot Program (“Pilot Program”).

Continue reading

Older posts

© 2018 State of Elections

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑