State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Election Law Society

William & Mary VOTEline

· ·

Students at William & Mary Law School are set to run the W&M VOTEline, a voter assistance hotline aimed at responding to difficulties local citizens face at the polls. This non-partisan voter assistance hotline will be operated by student members of the school’s Election Law Society (ELS) and other volunteers.

“Voting is an important civic duty,” Election Law Society President Ashleigh Casey ’12 said. “We want to ensure that all voters – young and old – who are properly registered to vote can do so. We will be manning the VOTEline phones on Election Day, Tuesday November 2nd, to answer any questions that might arise as voters arrive at a polling place to cast their vote.”

VOTEline is a response to outcries from William & Mary students who faced confusion at local election booths in the past. The Election Law Society has operated VOTEline since November of 2007.  Any citizen who wants to vote in the local election may call the hotline at (757) 221-2890 from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. to seek information regarding their rights at the polls.

“I encourage William & Mary students and members of the Williamsburg community at large to call the VOTEline with any questions or concerns they may have at the polls on Election Day,” Casey said.

Students are also advised to bring a government issued form of identification to the polls on Election Day. Valid forms of identification include a voter identification card, a valid driver’s license, and a W&M ID card for certain voters.

For more information about VOTEline, call or e-mail Brian Rothenberg ’13, at (757) 209-1001 / brian.rothenberg@gmail.com.

http://domyhomework.guru

Image is Everything: Is Disclosure an Effective Check on Corporate Political Donations?

· ·

In his January State of the Union address President Obama warned that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United would result in American elections being “bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse foreign entities.” President Obama wasn’t alone in his disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision. The Pew Center reports that a large majority—65%—of Americans also disapprove of the decision. However, the gubernatorial race in Minnesota is demonstrating that corporate donations are not completely unchecked. In fact, the biggest factor limiting a corporation’s exercise of this First Amendment right may be the First Amendment itself.

Minnesota’s upcoming gubernatorial election has become the focus of corporation’s contributions to political organizations because of a Minnesota law requiring organizations to publicly disclose contributions over $100. The law does not set any limitation on the amount of a donation, but if it is more than $100, the public and the press are going to know about it. According to two Minnesota political organizations, the disclosure requirements are unconstitutional. [Read more…] about Image is Everything: Is Disclosure an Effective Check on Corporate Political Donations?

Weekly Wrap Up

· ·

Is World Wrestling Entertainment political advertising?  According to election officials in Connecticut, it is.  They have told poll workers that they can ask voters wearing WWE gear to cover it up, fearing that it could be construed as political advertising for Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon, who is also the former CEO of WWE.  Officials said that McMahon is so closely associated with WWE that the gear could easily be considered a violation of rule banning political campaigning within 75 feet of a polling station.  McMahon’s husband, Vince McMahon, said that this was a violation of WWE fans’ First Amendment rights and would deny them their right to vote.  Connecticut Republicans are also up in arms, with the State Party Chairman calling the action “voter intimidation.” This is not unprecedented, however; a similar rule was in place in California, forbidding voters from wearing “Terminator” gear when Arnold Schwarzenegger was on the ballot.

The 9th Circuit struck down part of Arizona’s voter registration laws on October 27, holding that the provisions of the law requiring proof of citizenship conflicted with the federal law. The federal law only requires that applicants “attest their citizenship under penalty of perjury”, while the 2004 voter-approved initiative in Arizona required applicants to register to vote to show proof of citizenship by providing one of the documents on the approved list. The citizenship requirement was “an additional state hurdle” to registration, something the federal law was trying to prevent. The 9th Circuit appeals panel–which included retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor–did not, however, overturn the requirement that voters show identification at the polls in order to vote. [Read more…] about Weekly Wrap Up

An Amendment for One Man? Connecticut Amends the Citizens’ Election Program

· ·

Once again the citizens of the Constitution State are questioning the actions of their politicians.  The bi-partisan ‘Clean Elections’ Act has been amended on party lines and sparked serious debate.  With the upcoming Gubernatorial Election, both parties have much at stake, and immediate changes were necessary in light of the 2nd Circuit’s ruling that a part of the act was unconstitutional.  But with the way these changes were adopted, the citizens of Connecticut are wondering if these adaptations are really just making their ‘Clean Elections’ Act dirty.

The original Citizens Election Program (“CEP”) was established under the ‘Clean Election’ Act’s passing in 2005 during a time of political turmoil in Connecticut.  Governor John Rowland’s 2004 resignation amid controversy regarding inappropriate interactions with state contractors helped to contribute to the bill’s support.  Its passage establishemaloyd public financing for all statewide races, banned contributions from contractors and lobbyists, and was widely considered to be a model system for publicly funded elections.  Currently, Connecticut is also operating a pilot program for public financing of municipal elections, which is the first of its kind among the states.  The CEP has been widely supported from both sides of the aisle in Connecticut and beyond. [Read more…] about An Amendment for One Man? Connecticut Amends the Citizens’ Election Program

Early Voting in Ohio: Voters Take it Easy as the System Tries to Adjust

· ·

Ohio law has allowed early voting since 2005, but the 2010 election will be only the second time that the full slate of statewide offices will be up for election the ballot.  Though the political parties, county election boards and yes, even the Tea Party, are now operating with the new system in mind, one question remains: is it all worth it?

Currently the Ohio voting period stretches for 35 days. Voters may vote early for any reason either in person at their county board of elections office or by mail until November 1. Additionally, the law has created the controversial so-called “golden week“, where citizens may register and cast absentee ballots at their board of elections on the same day. In 2009, the early voting law actually resulted in Barak Obama winning the state even though more votes were cast for John McCain on November 4, 2008, “Election Day”. However, it seems that, rather than dramatically increasing voter turnout, early voting is simply forcing a shift in old campaign strategies, due to timing issues, and making voting more convenient for those who otherwise would have voted anyway. [Read more…] about Early Voting in Ohio: Voters Take it Easy as the System Tries to Adjust