State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Tag: voting technology

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

Who Would Dare Hack Delaware?

By Dorronda Bordley

As the investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 Presidential election continues, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finally announced which states experienced hacking attempts within the last year. Among those targeted was Delaware. With only three Electoral College votes and a consistent Democratic voting record in the last seven presidential elections, it is bizarre to see Delaware in the company of swing states like Wisconsin, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. However, unlike Virginia, which is updating its voting system to ensure election security, Delaware is updating its voting system for a very different reason: efficiency. Continue reading

Symposium Report: Voting tech from the front lines

by Andrew McCoy, Special Contributor

On February 21 the William and Mary Election Law Society held its annual Symposium with a focus on election day delays.  During the symposium three panel discussions were held, and I had the pleasure of being present in the Voting Technology panel.  This discussion was facilitated by Paul Herrnson and included three William and Mary Law students, two Virginia Registrars: Kirk Showalter and Greg R, and a Member of an Electoral Board: Al Ablowich.  We were meant to look at voting technology problems, their impact on voting day delays, and potential solutions.

We were unable to note any specific solutions, partially because we could not pinpoint the impact of technological problems.  Mr. Riddlemoser stated that there were no technology related delays in his county, and Ms. Showalter noted that, absent voter or poll worker errors, there was only one technology problem in her county and the resulting delay cleared by mid-morning.  Mr. Ablowich did note some technology problems on election day, but these were related to the age of the machines and human error.  Based on this panel discussion it appears that reports of delays caused by voting machine failures may have mis-identified other issues with technology failures. Continue reading

© 2018 State of Elections

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑