State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Election Law Society

The Battleground 2012: Introduction

· ·

by Jacob Derr & Tony Glosson

During the next two days we’ll be posting a special series of entries under the banner “The Battleground 2012.”

Over the past decade, every major presidential campaign and many state campaigns have litigated state election law as a part of their races. Candidates spend money, time, and human capital fighting in courtrooms in states across the nation, especially if the vote looks close. This is not merely a luxury, but an election strategy itself.

We’ll be taking a look at some of the fights going on in several states considered “battlegrounds” this election cycle, where either the presidential race is close or there is a state race that is strategic to the national party. We will examine a campaign finance free-for-all in Missouri, attempts to shoehorn third party candidates onto the ballot in Oklahoma, and the aftermath and continued importance of the legal wrangling in Ohio this fall.

We hope you will enjoy this series, which aims to take us inside battles that, in an election cycle as contentious as this one, will continue in the courtroom long after election day.

Jacob Derr & Tony Glosson are the editors of the State of Elections blog. [Read more…] about The Battleground 2012: Introduction

It Takes Two: Washington State’s Primary System Divides Scholars, Unites Parties

· ·

by Devin Braun

As states like Arizona contemplate changes to their electoral primary systems, it’s important to give an update of how Washington State, one of the nation’s premier laboratories of the Top Two primary, along with Louisiana and California, has fared politically and legally since its overhaul in 2004. Washington’s system emerged from the wreckage of the Supreme Court’s rejection of blanket primaries in the 2000 case California Democratic Party v. Jones. In Washington, all eligible candidates list their party of preference, including but not limited to classics like the Employment and Wealth Party, and the top two vote-getters regardless of party advance to the general election. The logic behind such a model is that by opening up the primary to more candidates at one time, the likelihood will be greater of having to get the necessary support from closer to the political center. This would, in turn, produce more moderate politicians, activate greater interest among politically independent voters, and cut back against the corrosive influence of party machines. [Read more…] about It Takes Two: Washington State’s Primary System Divides Scholars, Unites Parties

Mail-In Ballot Fraud: Harvesting Votes in the Shadow of Texas’ Voter ID Controversy

· ·

by Andrew Lindsey

Almost every American realizes that democracies are only as legitimate as their rules for counting the votes. Voter fraud is an unfortunate reality in this country that undermines citizens’ faith in the electoral franchise, but few agree on its pervasiveness. Recently, a number of states have moved to enact stricter voting laws based on a concern that voter fraud is a considerably underrated threat to our electoral system. Opponents of these laws maintain that lawmakers are engaging in partisan exaggeration to disenfranchise minority constituents, and numerous lawsuits have already been filed in both state and federal court. Texas is a salient example, and many predict that the recent ruling against its voter identification (ID) law will make its way to the Supreme Court in the near future. [Read more…] about Mail-In Ballot Fraud: Harvesting Votes in the Shadow of Texas’ Voter ID Controversy

DC Ballot Access Free-for-All?

· ·

Is it better to leave the legislative process entirely in the hands of the elite or should the public have input? Recently The Washington Examiner reported on the disparity between getting a candidate on the ballot and getting an initiative on the ballot. According to this article, candidates are required to produce less than 4,000 signatures to qualify for ballot entry while initiatives require approximately 23,300 to qualify.  These standards are given in the DC election code. The candidate requirement is set at 2,000 signatures (for city wide board members participating in a primary)—limited to the political party of the candidate—or 1% of the political party, whichever is less.  If the candidate is not participating in a primary election, then the number of signatures is set at 1.5% of the registered voters or 3,000 signatures, whichever is less. Instead of these set numbers, initiatives require signatures from 5% of registered electors, with this list containing at least 5% of the electors from 5 separate wards. [Read more…] about DC Ballot Access Free-for-All?

Who Draws the Lines? California Experiment Intact, For Now

· ·

by Nathan Yu and Chelsea Bobo

When American legislators sit down to redraw district lines it is difficult to disentangle this redistricting process from the evils of gerrymandering and other forms of partisan abuse. Perhaps the party members we elect should not be closely involved in determining what our electoral districts look like. This is the conclusion a slim majority of California voters reached four years ago with the approval of Proposition 11. Also known as the Voters FIRST Act, Proposition 11 set up the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CCRC), an independent redistricting commission. [Read more…] about Who Draws the Lines? California Experiment Intact, For Now