State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Election Law Society

Weekly Wrap Up

· ·

No more automatic restoration of rights: Governor Rick Scott and the Florida Cabinet have recently attempted to change how released felon regain the right to vote. Their proposal, which the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund suggests must get preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, would prevent people who committed non-violent felonies from regaining the right to vote for 5 years and the 5 year clock would restart if that person were arrested during that period, even if no charges are filed. Some have called these requirements a return to Jim Crow-style voting laws.

Campaign finance again in front of the Supreme Court: As mentioned on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McComish v. Bennett on Monday morning. The case is a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, which includes a trigger fund provision for publicly-funded candidates. This is one a several such cases that have been heard in federal courts in the last year; several other challenges have come out of Florida, Connecticut, and most recently Wisconsin in the ongoing judicial elections.

“Fair Districts” Amendments go to the Justice Department: Three months after Governor Rick Scott quietly withdrew the preclearance request for the “Fair Districts” amendments (Amendments 5 and 6 to the Florida constitution), the legislature has renewed the request, after reviewing the amendments and deciding they were the proper body to make the request, as opposed to the governor. This, however, will likely not end the battle over these amendments as a lawsuit to block these amendments is still pending.

She set out to win jimmy donahue and quickly essays online using https://justbuyessay.com did so

California says “We Draw the Lines”, but Who are “We”?

· ·

In 2008, California voters—doing what they do best—amended their constitution to take away the responsibility of redistricting from the state legislature and give it to a “Citizens Redistricting Commission.”  That is, by and large, exactly what it sounds like: a panel of citizens who have applied to do the thankless and mind-numbing job of redistricting California’s many, many state and federal electoral districts  (it’s a bit more complicated than that, but I’ll get to the details later).  This post focuses on the question of who is getting through the process. In particular, I wonder what effect this process has on diversity, in particular the selection of the most qualified diverse applicants.

Here’s how the application and selection process works: California citizens apply, with some important restrictions.  While it is not necessary to get into the nitty-gritty details, those who have served in a paid capacity on a political campaign, held public office, or donated a certain amount of money to a political campaign within a certain amount of years from the date of application are prohibited from serving on the Commission.  In addition, applicants must have voted in two of the past three elections.  The message: be engaged, but not too engaged. [Read more…] about California says “We Draw the Lines”, but Who are “We”?

The End of Public Financing Trigger Provisions? A Review of McComish v. Bennett

· ·

The Supreme Court on Monday heard oral argument in a case challenging provisions of Arizona’s public financing law, which it is said burden the free speech rights of opponents who don’t receive the funds.  Under the Arizona law, publicly financed candidates receive an initial grant of money with which to conduct their campaign.  Then, if an opponent who is not publicly funded spends more than the initial grant, it “triggers” the state to match what the opponent raises up to three times the initial amount.  Given the Court’s recent hostility to campaign finance regulations which are said to burden the exercise of political speech, it seems likely that the Court will reverse the Ninth Circuit and strike down at least portions of the matching funds system.  This conclusion was reinforced by the questions at oral argument, which seemed to suggest that the Justices will again vote by a 5-4 margin to restrict the ability of the government to regulate campaign finance. This post will briefly review the background of the case and look at how such a decision could effect the twenty-two other states with public financing systems and particularly those with triggering provisions. [Read more…] about The End of Public Financing Trigger Provisions? A Review of McComish v. Bennett

With Great Success Comes Great Responsibility: Virginia Bipartisan Commission Asks W&M Law Students to Assist in Redistricting Process

· ·

Last week, a team of W&M law students enjoyed tremendous success in Virginia’s Redistricting Competition.  Because of their success in the competition, the W&M team has been asked by the Bipartisan Governor’s Commission to assist them in drawing its own maps to submit to the Virginia Assembly.   The Commission was so impressed with the W&M team’s maps that they requested at least two students from the team work with them as the Commission draws its own maps to submit to the Assembly.  The last Commission meeting is on Wednesday, so it is crunch time for the Commission to come up with a map they believe the Assembly should adopt.  W&M law students began assisting the Commission on Thursday and will continue to help until the Commission’s last meeting on Wednesday.

In addition, the W&M Law Redistricting Team has been in the press a lot lately.  See below for all of the press coverage.  Well done team!

Washington Post: College Students Compete to Redraw Virginia’s Congressional Districts

Virginia Public Radio: Redistricting Competition Maps Do ‘Something That’s Much Different’

Daily Press: College Teams Redraw Political Maps

Williamsburg Yorktown Daily: Two WM Teams Win In Redistricting Competition

After the acrimonious divorce one headline read writing persuasive essay simply: charlie is a real hero?

Virginia Redistricting Competition

· ·

The Virginia Redistricting Competition announced its winners yesterday and William and Mary Law School team won the Congressional Governor/Commission division!  W&M Law also took home a second place finish for its state senate map in the Competition division!  W&M Law narratives describing decisions behind the map also received distinction from the judges, saying the W&M Law narratives “set the standard” for the competition.  Go W&M Law!!

We spent many hours staring at maps and working to draw lines that met the criteria of the competition along with what the law requires.  Focusing on compactness, contiguity, communities of interest, and equipopulation, the team’s goal was to draw lines that made logical sense.  The team was open to all students, but we ended up with only one student from Virginia.  This proved to be somewhat of an advantage in the sense of we were not aware of current partisan politics and drew lines without knowing where incumbents lived.  For a second category, the competitiveness factor was added where we attempted to make districts as politically competitive as possible, again not taking incumbency into consideration.

Overall, we achieved what we set out to do – draw maps that make logical sense, relying on redistricting case law.  Congratulations to the entire team!

The full results of the Competition are available here.

He wrote to his brother sydney, in his inimitable style, urging him http://pro-essay-writer.com to come over.