Election Law Society

The Prepopulated Paper Chase: Joel Miller’s Battle Over Absentee Ballot Request Forms

Election Law Society · October 21, 2020 ·

By Zee Huff

This is part I on coverage of Iowa’s absentee ballot application dispute; see part 2 here.

Imagine: You’re the auditor for Linn County, Iowa. It’s a warm summer morning. After a June primary which saw record turnout— and a surge in absentee voting — you’re trying to figure out how best to serve the citizens of your county. Drop boxes outside your office and the Public Services Building were a hit, with citizens voting up until 9 p.m. on Election Day. There are ways to help your constituents, and you’ll find them.

Your name is Joel Miller, and you’re about to have a hell of a summer.

Retweet: Colorado Secretary of State Urges Careful Election Night Reporting

Election Law Society · October 21, 2020 ·

By Anna Pesetski

In a Twitter thread on October 1, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold encouraged news outlets to abstain from reporting the results of the presidential election on the night of the election. In her tweets, Griswold stated that this is an “unprecedented election” and “call[ed] on national media networks to pledge to #PressPause for democracy” by refraining from making projections or reporting results on election night. She quickly received backlash for these statements from both sides of the political spectrum. Fox News host Laura Ingraham, a conservative, stated that “[i]t’s not up to her to say what the media or anyone else says on election night.” Colorado state senator Steve Fenberg, the Democratic majority leader, tweeted “[t]his will only cause mass confusion and creates an opening for reckless behavior from the President. Demanding journalists to withhold verifiable facts or rational projections is counter to how a free democracy works.”

U.S. District Court Changes South Carolina Absentee Ballot Witness Requirement

Election Law Society · October 21, 2020 ·

September was an eventful month for South Carolina’s absentee voting laws. On September 16, 2020, the Governor of South Carolina signed into law the state legislature’s bill H5305, which, in effect, permits all registered voters in South Carolina to vote by absentee ballot for the November 3, 2020 General Election. On September 18, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, issued a preliminary injunction against the South Carolina State Election Commission (“SCEC”) in Middleton v. Andino, No. 3:20-CV-01730-JMC (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2020). The court enjoined the SCEC from enforcing South Carolina law requiring another person to witness an absentee voter’s signature on the absentee ballot envelope for the November 2020 general election. South Carolina law requires absentee voters to sign an oath on their absentee ballot envelope in the presence of a witness, who must also sign and provide their address on the ballot envelope. Additionally, Section 7-15-420 of the South Carolina Code provides that an absentee ballot “may not be counted unless the oath is properly signed and witnessed.” Section 6(a) of the recently passed H5305 bill provides that the absentee ballot envelopes will be examined “in accordance with the requirements of Section 7-15-420.”

There are three reasons that the district court in Middleton reached the right result in issuing the preliminary injunction.

The Fifth Circuit Got it Wrong: Last-Second Burdens on Voting Should be Prohibited

Election Law Society · October 21, 2020 ·

The conjunction of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election has wrecked legal and electoral chaos in the state of Texas. In July, in order to accommodate the large amount of individuals filing for mail-in-ballots, Governor Abbott issued several proclamations, permitting voters to turn in their mail-in-ballots in person not only on election day but for the entire early voting period.

In response, several of Texas’s most populous and geographically dispersed counties set up multiple drop-off locations where voters could turn in their mail-in-ballots. This allowed voters to turn in their mail-in-ballots without having to travel far, wait in long lines, and risk exposure to COVID-19. In effect, the counties sought to realize the whole purpose of allowing mail-in-ballots: to avoid exposure to COVID-19.

Schrödinger’s Citizens: The Trouble with Territorial Disenfranchisement

Election Law Society · October 19, 2020 ·

By Scott Meyer

According to a 2017 poll, nearly half of Americans were unaware Puerto Ricans were U.S. citizens. This discrepancy seems to bely the fact that U.S. territories, of which Puerto Rico is the largest, constitute over three and a half million U.S. citizens, have some of the highest military enlistments per capita, and even pay some federal taxes. However, despite over a century of combined history as U.S. territories, their citizens still lack one of the foundations of American democracy: the right to vote in presidential elections.

The reasoning for territories’ disparate treatment comes from Supreme Court rulings from the early nineteen-hundreds, which became known as the Insular Cases. As Justice Kennedy succinctly explained in Boumediene v. Bush: “[i]n a series of opinions later known as the Insular Cases, the Court addressed whether the Constitution, by its own force, applies in any territory that is not a State.” The Court then noted the delicate balance between imputing constitutional rights to territories versus respecting their existing laws, a tension which could result in confusion and instability. To this end, the Insular Cases Court came up with “…the doctrine of territorial incorporation, under which the Constitution applies in full in incorporated Territories surely destined for statehood but only in part in unincorporated Territories.”