State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Tag: Absentee ballots

2018 Elections: Controversy in Ohio

By: Emma McCarthy

For voters in the state of Ohio, the 2018 Election held in the balance the future of the state’s governance. With major state offices including the Governorship, Secretary of State, and Attorney General all up for grabs, every vote mattered as the next four years of state governance in Ohio was in question. That’s one of the reasons why, on November 6th, the Campaign Legal Center, MacArthur Justice Center, and think tank Demos filed an emergency lawsuit and temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asking the court to require state officials to inform individuals currently jailed about their right to case an absentee ballot. In Ohio, absentee ballot requests were due November 2nd, leaving any individual jailed after that time without ability to exercise their right to vote. Therefore, the suit was filed to in order to compel the state to deliver ballots to those individuals jailed, giving them the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.

Continue reading

The White Rabbit of Pennsylvania: Absentee Ballots [Are] Late For a Very Important Date

By Allie Amado

So you want to use an absentee ballot in a Pennsylvania election? Here are a few tips to make it worth your trouble:

  1. Mail your absentee ballot request at least one week before the election. But I suggest much earlier.
  2. Once you receive your ballot, take care to mark it according to the instructions.
  3. Place your ballot in the mail as soon as possible.
  4. Cross your fingers and hope your ballot reached the county election office before 5 p.m. on the Friday before the election.

Continue reading

Electoral Corruption: When to Set Aside the Results of an Election?

By: Carrie Mattingly

How much evidence of corruption should a court require before setting aside the results of an election? Most would say that any corruption is too much. But in a recent case, Kentucky’s highest court balanced the threat of corruption against the threat of destabilizing election results, concluding that there simply was not enough evidence of corruption to justify vacating the office pending another election.

Continue reading

© 2019 State of Elections

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑