The editors of William & Mary’s Election Law Society Weblog will be on hiatus for the examination period.
We will resume posting May 14, 2012.
Thank you! [Read more…] about Election Law Society Weblog on Break for Finals
Archives for April 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Validates Iowa Judicial Nominating Commission’s Makeup
by Nick Mueller
On April 9, 2012 the Eighth Circuit dismissed a case brought by four Iowa voters challenging the constitutionality of the process for the selection of members of the State Judicial Nominating Commission, the commission that selects candidates for the Governor to nominate to the Iowa Supreme Court. The issue in contention was that seven of the commission’s 15 members are required to be Iowa attorneys and that these attorneys are voted on not by the general public but by members of the Iowa bar. The voters bringing the suit claimed that allowing only attorneys to vote, as opposed to the general public, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.
In deciding this case the court made a number of important legal findings. It found that the commission served a “special and limited purpose” as opposed to performing “general governmental functions” such as taxing or issuing bonds. It also found that, while the decisions of these members will affect all Iowans, they particularly affect attorneys in unique and amplified ways. Having made these two findings they deem this election a “special interest election,” and under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, participation in such elections are reviewed with a lower level of scrutiny. Instead of invoking the familiar “one person, one vote” standard, they ruled that as long as the selection process for commission members had a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, then the process was constitutional. [Read more…] about U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Validates Iowa Judicial Nominating Commission’s Makeup
When judges take money: Campaign contributions in judicial elections
On March 29, 2012, the William & Mary Election Law Society and Election Law Program held a symposium entitled, “More Money, More Problems: Money in Judicial Elections” in Williamsburg, Virginia. The afternoon symposium featured two panels of distinguished speakers moderated by SCOTUSblog reporter Lyle Denniston.
The first panel focused on the financial issues surrounding judicial elections, specifically whether campaign contributions work differently in judicial elections than in legislative elections and if campaign donations result in some form of civic harm even when they do not reach the level of outright bribery. The panelists included: James Bopp, election mega-lawyer and litigator of Citizens United; Justice Thomas R. Phillips, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas; and former Federal Elections Commission Chairman Bradley Smith, who currently serves as Josiah H. Blackmore/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School and Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, an organization he founded. [Read more…] about When judges take money: Campaign contributions in judicial elections
Alabama sidesteps VRA § 5 preclearance status quo: I’ll see you in court
by John Alford
As part of the mandated decennial redistricting, the Alabama legislature will change the lines for the State’s congressional and school board districts. Current and proposed maps can be found here. This redistricting will alter the political landscape of the State, but before Alabama can move forward on redistricting, the Federal Government has to approve of the new map as per the Voting Rights Act § 5 (“VRA”). Under the VRA § 5, there are two paths Alabama can take to get preclearance. It can seek approval through the Justice Department (DOJ) or through the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. (For more on the VRA § 5, particularly why and how states like Alabama get preclearance from the Federal Government, see here.) Alabama has opted to take the matter to court.
Like many other covered jurisdictions, Alabama is unhappy with the requirement that the Justice Department (DOJ) keep tabs on its election process. To wit, Shelby County recently filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the preclearance process, so far unsuccessfully (see more about this lawsuit here.) The opinion in Shelby County emanates from the same court from which Alabama is seeking preclearance on redistricting. But the ruling against Shelby County should not alter how the District Court views the issue here. Overturning VRA § 5 would be an extreme political move, essentially declaring that issues of race no longer disrupt the electoral process in states historically notorious for prejudicial practices. Granting preclearance to a redistricting plan, as routinely done in the past, is nowhere near as high a hurdle for Alabama to clear. [Read more…] about Alabama sidesteps VRA § 5 preclearance status quo: I’ll see you in court
Montana to vote on Supreme Court justice elections
On April 18, 2011, the Montana state legislature passed SB 268 which calls for a referendum vote to determine the future of elections for the Montana Supreme Court. On June 5, 2012, on the 2012 Primary Election Ballot, voters in Montana will determine whether Montana will begin to elect Supreme Court justices by districts.
Although the Montana state senate passed SB 268 the Attorney General’s office and Secretary of State are statutorily obligated to approve of the language of the Statement of Purpose designed to explain the purpose of the referendum. Andrew Huff, Assistant Attorney General of the state of Montana, passed along a copy of the accepted language. The Statement of Purpose reads:
The Montana Supreme Court is composed of seven justices, one of whom is Chief Justice. Under current law, the justices are elected statewide and each Montanan votes for all seven positions. LR-119 would change existing law so that each justice is elected from one of seven districts of approximately equal population, with the Chief Justice then chosen from the seven by majority vote of the justices. Only Montanans living in each district would vote for their district’s justice. Justices must reside in their district when initially elected. [Read more…] about Montana to vote on Supreme Court justice elections