Archives for November 2011

OH (voter id): Interview with former Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner

Election Law Society · November 16, 2011 ·

One spokesman for the Ohio Republican Party characterized House Bill 194 as being about fairness between rural and suburban counties rather than being about Republicans and Democrats. Do you think this characterization is accurate?

House Bill 194 covers much more than a simple distinction between rural and suburban counties. The aspects of the bill going to voters for referendum have much more to do with curtailing access to voting and making it harder for votes to be counted. The bill as it was originally written by a bipartisan team during my administration in the last legislative session had many provisions that were much more favorable to improving voting, but many of these provisions are no longer in the bill.

If voters choose to repeal House Bill 194 in the November 2012 election, do you foresee legislators trying to pass a similar bill at another time? [Read more…] about OH (voter id): Interview with former Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner

AZ (preclearance): Arizona challenges the Voting Rights Act; why not just bailout?

Election Law Society · November 14, 2011 ·

by Kevin Elliker

On August 25, 2011, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne filed suit on behalf of the state of Arizona against the Department of Justice alleging the unconstitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. Horne specifically challenged the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the act. Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to defend the Voting Rights Act, declaring that it plays “a vital role” in ensuring fairness for American democracy.

A brief primer on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act:

In 1965, Congress passed the VRA in order to better enforce the 15th Amendment. Jurisdictions with histories of pronounced racial discrimination in voting practices were singled out by Section 5 and required to receive preclearance from the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the District Court of the District of Columbia for any changes to their voting laws. The 1965 iteration of the preclearance formula forced mostly southern states into this category, but also specific jurisdictions within Arizona. In 1970, Arizona was once more included as partially covered by preclearance requirements. It was not until 1975, when the formula for preclearance was changed to include states that provided election materials in only English despite having at least five percent of voting age citizens from “a single language minority” that Arizona became an entirely covered jurisdiction. The 1975 iteration relied on 1972 election data, which meant that Arizona’s 1974 implementation of bilingual voter materials did not preclude them from preclearance requirements. The 1982 and 2006 renewals of VRA followed the 1975 formula. [Read more…] about AZ (preclearance): Arizona challenges the Voting Rights Act; why not just bailout?

IN (ballot access): How Indiana’s blank ballot law is depressing us all

Election Law Society · November 10, 2011 ·

by Patrick Genova

There is something cathartic about voting- walking into the booth, choosing the best candidate, and, of course, pinning yourself with the red, white, and blue badge of honor that proudly says, “I Voted.” And for that one day you can hold your head high at the water cooler next to the bigwig foreign investor who swung into town, and in one week got a date with the girl from accounts receivable that you’ve had the hots for. He’s so worldly isn’t he, but what does he know about civic pride? What does he know about the world’s greatest democratic pastime? Nothing.

New election laws in Indiana may take the spark at the water cooler out of some voters this November. The new law in the Hoosier State, which has the 48^th lowest voter turnout, will take unopposed candidates off the ballot. The rationale for the change is that it saves paper, but, while Indiana trees rejoice, the new law leaves little reason for many voters to show up to the ballot box. A skeptic may say that in the case of unopposed candidates there was never a choice in the first place, but the effects of the law have less to do with the outcome of elections, and more to do with the fragile psyche of voters and their perceived notion of choice. [Read more…] about IN (ballot access): How Indiana’s blank ballot law is depressing us all

WI (campaign finance): Serious spending by candidates in Wisconsin recall elections

Election Law Society · November 9, 2011 ·

“[T]he $43.9 million spent on the recalls more than doubled the previous record for spending by candidates and groups in legislative races, which was $20.25 million for 99 Assembly seats and 16 Senate seats in the 2008 general elections.” Wisconsin Democracy Campaign

Wisconsin recently made national news for nine state Senate recall elections, and as the above quote indicates, these recall elections were not cheap campaigns. In an oversimplification of the reasons behind the recalls, 6 Republican and 3 Democrat state Senators “were targeted for recalls in the bitter fighting over Gov. Scott Walker’s budget initiatives. The Republicans were targeted for voting to seriously limit public employee bargaining, the Democrats for leaving the state for three weeks to prevent that vote from taking place.”

MN (campaign finance): A court unites post-Citizens United: the entire Eighth Circuit bench reviews Swanson

Election Law Society · November 7, 2011 ·

by Stephanie Bitto

The full eleven-member bench of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. Swanson on September 21st. The case is an appeal of a ruling by a three-judge panel upholding a lower-court decision that refused to grant a preliminary injunction and enjoin Minnesota election laws regarding independent expenditures and corporate contributions to candidates and political parties. In July, the Eighth Circuit granted the petitioners’ request for en banc review and vacated the Court’s previous ruling.

A three-judge panel found that that an injunction was not proper because the plaintiffs, three Minnesota corporations, were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their claims, and Minnesota’s provisions regarding corporate independent expenditures are similar in both purpose and effect to the federal disclosure laws that the Supreme Court upheld in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. There, the Supreme Court found that both corporate and union contributions to independent political committees were constitutionally protected free speech and upheld contribution disclosure requirements. Following Citizens United, The Eighth Circuit panel found that the Swanson plaintiffs would likely not prevail on the claim that the Minnesota laws were not sufficiently tailored or on the claim that the ban on direct corporate contributions is unconstitutional.