State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Tag: Voter Fraud (page 1 of 4)

Ohio’s Voting Reform and New Election Law Proposals

By: Jayde Morgan

Following an overwhelming Republican victory as a result of the 2020 presidential and state-wide elections, the Republicans in Ohio began to look closely at the election laws within the state. In August 2021, the Ohio House of Representatives proposed House Bill 387. The bill was introduced by House Republican Representative Bill Dean in response to allegations of voting fraud in the 2020 election. More recently, on September 16, 2021, the bill was referred to the Government Oversight Committee as a part of the process to eventually get the bill passed. If the bill is passed, it would drastically change several aspects of the election process.

Continue reading

A Proposed South Carolina Bill to Continue COVID-19 Expansion of Voting Accessibility

By: Anna Miller

In February 2021, the South Carolina House of Representatives began to consider several fundamental changes to the voting process through the general reform bill, H. 3822. As the temporary measures adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have expired, representatives have debated extending and even expanding these measures. Reform proponents argued in support of increasing accessibility to absentee voting, including eliminating the requirement that the absentee voter sign their ballot in the presence of a witness, and then get that witness to also sign the ballot. This bill seeks to codify that change and to further increase ease of access to absentee voting. For example, absentee voters would no longer be required to provide a reason for casting their ballot from outside the state- the bill would completely repeal Section 7-15-320 of the 1976 Code, which provided a list of approved reasons for casting an absentee ballot.

Continue reading

If You’re Gonna Vote in Texas (You Gotta Have a Legally-Qualifying Building?)

It starts with tents in Houston and turns into a legal melee with forty-eight interested parties in federal court. The November 2020 elections were particularly newsworthy, featuring a contentious presidential race happening many months into an ongoing pandemic. So how do tents and Black’s Law Dictionary come into it?

Harris County, whose county seat is Houston, Texas, responded to public concerns about voting during COVID by expanding “curbside voting” during early voting with drive-through, multi-car tents (as seen here). Curbside voting has long been allowed through Texas Election Code Chapter 64 (Voting Procedures), § 64.009 – Voter Unable to Enter Polling Place. Inability was broadly defined in the Code as “physically unable to enter the polling place without personal assistance or likelihood of injuring the voter’s health,” the latter provision utilized to justify the drive-through voting. However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released guidance pushing back on this, stating “[f]ear of COVID-19 does not render a voter physically unable to cast a ballot inside a polling place without assistance,” while still recognizing election officials should not question a voter’s qualifications for being “physically unable” to enter the building.

Continue reading

California Voters: Don’t Ignore that Address Confirmation Card

By Josh Turiel

If you received an address confirmation notice from your local elections official, you may want to pay attention. In early 2019, California reached a settlement with the conservative group, Judicial Watch, concluding a lawsuit that accused the state of failing to fulfill its responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The Act requires that states make a reasonable effort to remove inactive voters – those who have moved out of the jurisdiction or passed away – from voter registration lists. Judicial Watch targeted Los Angeles County because they determined its registration rate was 112% of the voting age population – the result of an absence of reasonable effort to clean its voter rolls.

Continue reading

Opinion: North Carolina Voter Suppression, the Trump Campaign and the North Carolina Republican Party

By Maxwell Weiss

We are two weeks away from a presidential election with once-in-a-century, massive turnout, and the North Carolina Republican Party is continuing their decades-long effort to suppress votes. In past years, the GOP has used voter ID laws, racial gerrymandering, and in 2018, the first recorded instance of a federal election being called off over voter fraud in United States history. This year, the GOP weaponizes strict absentee voting laws as they try to suppress enough votes for President Trump to win the state.

President Trump himself is attempting to sow discord, specifically suggesting that North Carolina voters try to vote twice to “test” the system. In a September campaign rally, the President told voters to send in an absentee ballot and then go to the polls and vote again on election day. This is part of a larger pattern for Trump, who routinely spreads false information about widespread fraud despite clear evidence that there is absolutely no basis for conspiracy theories that absentee voting leads to election fraud.

Continue reading

New Jersey is Ready to Vote by Mail, But the Trump Campaign is Trying to Stop Them

By: Brianna Mashel

On August 14th, 2020, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed an executive order mandating all approximately 6.3 million registered voters to automatically receive mail-in ballots. After he announced the order, the governor exclaimed, “Everybody gets a ballot!”

Four days after the executive order was signed, however, the Trump campaign, national GOP Committee, and state GOP Committee launched a suit accusing Governor Murphy of usurping the state legislature’s authority to regulate elections and creating “a recipe for disaster” with respect to invalid voting. Almost a month later, on September 16th, Governor Murphy and his administration found themselves in a New Jersey Federal Court arguing against a preliminary injunction that would block this proposed expansion of mail-in voting.

Continue reading

Voter Fraud Allegations Do Not Deter Supporters from Re-electing Bridgeport Mayor

By: Kaila DeSaix

On November 5, 2019, Incumbent Mayor of Bridgeport, CT, Joe Ganim, officially won four more years, marking his seventh term in office. Ganim’s re-election campaign has been a controversial one. His rival in the Democratic primary election, Marilyn Moore, accused Ganim of winning the Democratic primary through absentee voter fraud. Ganim is not unfamiliar with accusations of political fraud and corruption. Ganim has been a controversial political figure since his seven-year stint in federal prison following his fifth term as Bridgeport mayor. Following his release from prison, his message of redemption and second chances won him an unlikely sixth term as mayor in 2015. Despite his successful comeback, some Democrats remain suspicious of his political dealings, as evidenced by his highly contested primary election win in September. This year’s election continued to be controversial up through the day before the general election when a decision was made by the Connecticut Supreme Court to proceed with the general election despite a voter fraud lawsuit still being on appeal against Ganim.

Continue reading

Use-it-or-lose-it Voting Rights: A Closer Look at Oklahoma’s Voter List Maintenance

By: Sarah Marshment

In Oklahoma, April 15 doesn’t just mean that it’s time to turn your taxes in: at least, not on odd years like 2019. In the spring of every odd year, Oklahoma does voter list maintenance. This last April, state election officials in Oklahoma removed 88,276 registered voters from the voting rolls. Although this purging is required by law, state election officials offer up an additional justification – voter fraud.

State Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax stated that “[m]aintaining clean and updated voter rolls . . . . protects our democracy by making it far more difficult for someone to use outdated voter lists to attempt to commit fraud or disrupt our elections.” Given the rising levels of concern about the security of our elections, this is a powerful rationale to invoke. However, Mr. Ziriax himself also states that “voter fraud is exceptionally rare in Oklahoma and is not a major issue here.” Mr. Ziriax explains that “this is not a new process, it is not partisan, and no Oklahoma voter is ever removed simply for failing to vote.”

Continue reading

Virginia Midterms are Over, but Legal Case on Forged Signatures in 2nd Congressional District Continues On

By: Chelsea West

Elaine Luria, a Democrat, has defeated Republican Congressman Scott W. Taylor in Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District. Luria captured 51.1 percent of the vote, followed by Taylor with 48.9 percent. Taylor has represented the district in the House since 2017.

Despite the race being over, a legal case against Taylor’s campaign looms large. A public news station in Norfolk, Va. first reported in August 2018 that Taylor’s campaign was engaging in the underhanded practice of helping a rival qualify for the ballot to split potential opposition votes. According to documents filed with the FEC and the Virginia Department of Elections, workers on Taylor’s campaign collected hundreds of signatures to put an independent candidate in Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District election.

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

Older posts

© 2021 State of Elections

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑