Election Law Society

Historic Change Again On the Horizon in Mississippi

Election Law Society · October 9, 2020 ·

By Tamikia Carr Vasquez

Mississippi, historically a hotbed of racial hostility between whites and blacks, is once again on the cusp of change. In June, the Mississippi legislature voted to remove the Confederate battle emblem from the state’s flag. In November, voters will have the opportunity to vote on removing the “Mississippi Plan” from the state constitution. This 1890 Jim Crow era provision states that to win certain statewide offices, a candidate must win the majority of the popular vote and win a majority of Mississippi’s 122 House districts. The Mississippi Center for Justice is on the forefront of leading the effort to abolish this procedure. In 2019, the Center worked on a federal lawsuit against the state. I recently spoke with Vangela M. Wade, President and CEO of the Center, about the background of the current electoral process, the prospects of the success of the referendum, and other election law issues facing Mississippi. This is part 1 of a two-part interview.

The Drop Box Dilemma: A Push to Expand Access To Voting in Ohio

Election Law Society · October 9, 2020 ·

By Nicholas Matuszewski

As with most states, Ohio has seen a number of election law cases this year centered around the COVID-19 Pandemic. One of these cases is Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose. In late August, the Ohio Democratic Party and Lewis Goldfarb submitted a formal complaint in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose.

The complaint alleged that LaRose erred when he decided that the state would use secure drop boxes to facilitate the return of marked absentee ballots but prohibited the placement of the drop boxes in any location other than the county board election offices. The plaintiffs argue that state law does not prohibit placing these drop boxes in locations other than the county board election offices. For that reason, and because many Ohio voters do not live near their county board election offices, the plaintiffs believe that LaRose should allow for more drop boxes in different locations.

After a Stormy Primary Season, New York Builds a Levee. But Will it Hold?

Election Law Society · October 7, 2020 ·

By Blake Vaisey

To say that New York’s primary election season this summer didn’t go well would be an understatement. Starting with a failed attempt to cancel the state presidential primary, the state faced a slew of issues regarding a huge influx of absentee ballot requests, an increase of 655% since the 2018 general election. Thousands of ballots were disqualified due to the state’s requirements for absentee ballots, with issues such as missing a dated postmark or misplaced signatures being the main causes of ballots being disqualified. Even issues outside of the control of the voter, such as damage caused by the post office, could result in the ballot being disqualified. These issues were compounded by the fact that a reported 34,000 absentee ballots were not mailed out to voters until one day before the primary.

Footing the Bill: The FRRC’s Fight for Florida Felons

Election Law Society · October 7, 2020 ·

By Nicholas Balbontin

“Past mistakes should not define a person’s future.”

These words, tweeted from the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC) in 2019, have become a rallying cry for those Americans attempting to fight for felons’ right to vote in Florida. ” FRRC was founded bv returning citizerns and is “dedicated to ending the disenfranchisement and discrimination against people with conviction.”

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision to uphold Fla. Stat. § 98.0751 has been widely covered across blogs, articles, and general media. The court upheld Fla. Stat. § 98.0751(2)(a)(5)(b), stating that even when a returning citizen has completed the imprisonment portion of his sentence, he has not fully completed his sentence until all fines and fees are paid. The decision not only sparked controversy but increased the urgency of voting rights restoration efforts as the upcoming presidential election approaches. In an incredibly lengthy, 6-4 split opinion, the majority cited the lack of a suspect class as the main reason behind its holding of no equal protection violation. Without a suspect class in question to elicit strict scrutiny, the court turned to rational basis review. Through this lens, the State was found to have had a rational interest in ensuring that its convicted felons completed the entirety of their sentence. This presents a barrier to restoration for those returning citizens who face financial hardship and are unable to pay off these fines and fees.

Election 2020: Tennessee Slow to Protect Voters

Election Law Society · October 5, 2020 ·

By Maxwell Weiss

Tennessee is among a waning list of states attempting to increase voting restrictions during the pandemic. Many states have changed their election laws to allow any voter to vote using an absentee ballot. However, the Volunteer State is one of five states without no-excuse absentee voting this November, despite the significant health risk of voting in-person during the COVID-19 pandemic. First-time voters were also required to vote in-person, until a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction striking down the restriction. The court held that the state’s only compelling interest in enforcing that restriction is securing valid identification from the voter. Since absentee voting can accommodate identification verification and reduce the burden on voters, the court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction so that first-time voters will be allowed to vote absentee this November, if they meet the narrow set of criteria to vote absentee.

While certainly a step in the right direction, this was the only win for voting rights from the Memphis A. Phillip Randolph Institute this summer. In the same suit, the group challenged Tennessee provisions including: criminal prohibitions on assisting voters to obtain absentee ballot requests; lack of opportunity to cure ballot rejections based on signature mismatches; and failure to make mail-in voting available to all voters.