The 2020 presidential election was historic for many reasons, among them, the special safety measures that state election administrators had to suddenly implement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In its effort to ensure voter safety in the 2020 election process, the Nevada legislature passed a law that would require all counties to mail absentee ballots to registered voters during emergency situations. The law aimed to make it easier for Nevadans to vote without having to physically go to the polls. The law also provided some procedural flexibilities in that it permitted the collection of mail-in ballots by third party collectors.
Alabama Battles Over Redistricting
By: Shelly Vallone
The Alabama Senate gave final approval for a redistricting plan of Alabama’s congressional districts on November 3, 2021 after Governor Kay Ivey commenced a special reapportionment session on October 28, 2021 to complete the mandatory redrawing of Congressional, State House of Representatives, State Senate, and State Board of Education districts after the 2020 Census. The Senate mostly maintained the status quo, notably preserving the state’s only majority-black Congressional district without adding another. Ahead of the plan’s approval, Alabama state Senators Rodger Smitherman and Bobby Singleton, along with four Alabama voters, filed suit on September 27, 2021, in the United States District Court Northern District of Alabama Southern Division, asking the Court to declare the current districting plan unconstitutional and allow the legislature to remedy the violations ahead of the 2022 elections.
In their amended complaint, filed the day after the Senate’s approval, the plaintiffs argue the plan “was drafted by incumbent members of Alabama’s Congressional delegation to maintain their current districts with only those changes necessary to equalize populations.” The plaintiffs also stress the urgency of their claim in light of the fast-approaching 2022 elections. Candidates seeking nomination in a party primary must file a declaration of candidacy with the state party chairman by January 28, 2022. Therefore, the plaintiffs asked the Court to conduct a final hearing before the end of 2021 to settle whether the plan constitutes a racial gerrymander before the primary elections in May 2022.
Did Texas House Members Violate the Texas Open Meetings Act When Redistricting?
By: Sarah Depew
On October 18, 2021, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC), the largest and oldest Latino legislative caucus in the nation, issued a public statement on their Twitter account stating that they filed a petition for deposition in order to investigate a possible violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. More specifically, the public statement raised concerns about the possibility of secret communications and decision-making in Texas’ redistricting process.
[Read more…] about Did Texas House Members Violate the Texas Open Meetings Act When Redistricting?
Spoiler Alert: Sham Candidates Unduly Influence Florida Elections
Sham candidates are influencing outcomes in Florida elections. And it’s “not necessarily illegal.” Running sham candidates, or “ballot management,” is the practice of strategically running a no party affiliation (NPA) or third-party candidate not to win, but to siphon votes from a competitor. The 2020 race for Florida Senate District 37 illustrates the issue.
Incumbent Democratic state senator José Javier Rodríguez ran for reelection to his seat representing Florida’s Senate District 37, which he first won in 2016. His competitors were Republican Ileana Garcia and NPA candidate Alex Rodriguez— an auto parts dealer who conveniently shared the same last name as José Javier Rodríguez. Suspiciously, Alex Rodriquez did not appear to want to win the election, failing to campaign, speak publicly, or otherwise engage with voters. By itself, it’s possible Alex Rodriquez was someone who simply wanted to throw his hat into the ring, but perhaps lacked the will or resources for a full-throated campaign. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
[Read more…] about Spoiler Alert: Sham Candidates Unduly Influence Florida Elections
Beyond Brnovich – How an Arizona Voting Rights Case Will Have Sweeping Consequences
By: Mike Arnone
In July, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brnovich v. DNC, arguably its most significant voting rights decision since Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. Two Arizona election restrictions were at issue in Brnovich, but the Court’s holding will have far-reaching consequences beyond the Grand Canyon State.
The restrictions at the heart of Brnovich prohibited out-of-precinct ballots from being counted and criminalized the collection of ballots for delivery to polling places, a common practice sometimes called “ballot harvesting.” In a 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court upheld both provisions under Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The majority ruled that Section Two of the VRA could only be used to invalidate voting restrictions that place “substantial and disproportionate burdens on minority voters.” Because Arizona provided multiple ways to vote, “any burden associated with one option cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.” Burdens on voting, then, must be evaluated by the totality of the circumstances.