State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Archives for December 2013

In Arkansas, Face Off Over New Voter ID Law

· ·

by Euticha B. Hawkins, Contributor

Controversy surrounding voter identification laws has now reached the Natural State. On April 1, 2013, the Arkansas state legislature completed a bicameral majority vote overriding Gov. Mike Beebe’s (D) veto of a law requiring voters to show photo ID. The law, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2014, provides for the state to issue a free photo ID to voters who lack one. The law also allows a voter without photo identification to cast a provisional ballot on election day. The provisional ballot will be counted if the voter reports to the county clerk or county board of election commissioners by noon of the Monday following the election, with proof of identity or an affidavit showing the voter is either indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed.   [Read more…] about In Arkansas, Face Off Over New Voter ID Law

The High Cost of Recounts in Michigan: Will Candidates Take the Risk?

· ·

by Jillian, Contributor

A new state bill may make it more difficult for Michigan candidates to pursue recounts after elections. On September 19, 2013, the Michigan House of Representatives passed House Bill 4833 (HB 4833). The bill received bi-partisan support and had a high passage rate of 95-9. The Michigan Senate is now considering the bill. [Read more…] about The High Cost of Recounts in Michigan: Will Candidates Take the Risk?

Oregon: A Laboratory With Some Great Inventions

· ·

by Michael Althouse, Contributor

In election law, states can get a bad rap. States are supposed to be the laboratories for democracy, but when it comes to elections, it can seem like they’re more like the inept, maybe-racist, drunk uncle of democracy. It’s not all so bad out there, though, and Oregon is a good example of how states can innovate in a successful way. In 1998, just two years before Florida would grind the nation to a halt while it counted hanging chads, the people of Oregon overwhelmingly passed State Measure 60, requiring all votes to be cast through the mail. Two of the primary motivations behind the measure were that it would save money and it would increase voter participation. It’s hard to say with certainty whether voting by mail had an effect on voter participation, but in 1996 Oregon’s voter turnout was around 57%, and in 2000, two years after State Measure 60, it was around 80%. Any number of things can result in an increased voter turnout, such as passion around a relevant issue, a particularly divisive election, or natural disasters. Regardless of potential causes, since 1998, Oregon has consistently had one of the highest rates of voter turnout in the country. [Read more…] about Oregon: A Laboratory With Some Great Inventions

Standing Aside, D.C. Federal Court May Have to Determine What “After January 1, 2014” Means in D.C. Attorney General Election

· ·

by Brad Tobias, Contributor

When asked, many District of Columbia residents will be quick to point out that the district is not a state, and is subject to the control of Congress, per the U.S. Constitution. The slogan “Taxation without Representation” adorns the city’s vehicle license plates, and it is an issue which fires up many residing in the “202”. While the merits of this question are actively debated, they are not the subject of this modest post. However, one particular consequence of constitutionally-mandated Congressional control over the district is that many laws passed by the D.C. Council, the district’s elected rulemaking body, are subject to congressional approval before they take effect.  While almost all D.C. legislation is approved by Congress – in fact, in the past 40 years Congress has only vetoed D.C. legislation 3 times – there is a congressional review period, and thus a wait-time, of 30 legislative days before D.C. legislation may be approved. This wait time can be critical, especially when elections and election cycles are fixed dates by law. [Read more…] about Standing Aside, D.C. Federal Court May Have to Determine What “After January 1, 2014” Means in D.C. Attorney General Election