All States

The Lone Star State: Hardly Alone in Election Administration Issues

Election Law Society · March 20, 2019 ·

By: Shawn Syed

Election administration is complex, to say the least. Decentralization, low funding, and a myriad of other issues play a role in the problems of administrating our elections. Every single state is sure to encounter some form of administration problem during election season. Texas is not alone in facing these issues. Below are just a few different issues Texas encountered leading up to and during the 2018 midterm elections.

The State of Texas received more than $23 million from the federal government in 2018 for a sole purpose: enhancing election security. This money comes thanks to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). HAVA’s stated purpose is to establish a program to provide funds to states to help the security and administration of elections. According to the Texas Secretary of State’s office, only a portion of the $23 million had been used prior to the midterm election. A new monitoring tool, intrusion detection systems, and firewall protections were all put into place. The thought is that these tools will help discover potential problems by 2019 in order to fix them by the 2020 presidential election.

Voter ID and Automatic Voter Registration Compromise in West Virginia

Election Law Society · March 13, 2019 ·

By: Jakob Stalnaker

Voter ID legislation has become an intensely ideological issue. Traditionally, Republicans support such legislation, while Democrats tend to oppose it. Further, some Democratic states have innovated automatic voter registration, which automatically registers voters unless they choose to opt out of the voter rolls. In 2016, West Virginia passed compromise legislation which could prove to be a model for other states in the future. Conservative and liberal legislators passed an election law bill, HB 4013, which joined together automatic voter registration with a voter ID requirement. Further, the voter ID portion of the bill had a number of provisions which made it more palatable to traditional opponents, garnering the bill bipartisan support.

Off Trend and Out-Dated: Absentee Ballot Restrictions Effect Pennsylvania First Responders and Shift Workers

Election Law Society · March 11, 2019 ·

By Allie Amado

Absentee voting dates back to the Civil War, when soldiers mailed ballots to family members to cast by proxy in their name. These practices became official in the 1900s when states established processes to allow ballots to be mailed directly to election officials if they had a state-approved excuse for casting an absentee ballot. California was the first state to eliminate the excuse requirement for voting by mail in 1980, followed by other western states, some of which have implemented a permanent mail-in voting process. In 1996, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas opened their election process by permitting in-person early voting in satellite polling places across the state. In 2001, a challenge to Oregon’s no-excuse absentee ballots, in Voting Integrity Project, Inc., v. Keisling, resulted in the holding that early voting is legal, despite the federal law setting a uniform day of voting, as long as ballots are not counted until Election Day.

Elections With Justice

Election Law Society · March 7, 2019 ·

By Kendall Quirk

On Election Day 2018, Justice Department officials were sent to Tarrant County (Arlington and Fort Worth), Harris County (Houston), and Waller County (west of Houston). While Tarrant County election officials reassured the public that their presence was nothing to be concerned about, and Harris County said, “It’s just routine,” many voters may be unaware of the reason for the interest in these counties’ election proceedings. At the time of the Shelby County v. Holder decision in 2013, the state of Texas was a covered jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required the state to submit any changes in voting procedures or election law to the Department of Justice for federal approval to ensure minority voters were protected at the polls. Since pre-clearance is no longer required, states do not have to submit changes to the Department of Justice for approval, yet federal oversight still exists in the form of visits from Department of Justice officials.

Minnesota Unable to Use Federal Funds to Improve Election Security

Election Law Society · March 5, 2019 ·

By: Samantha Becker

Election security was a significant concern leading up to election day in Minnesota. During the 2016 election campaign, the Department of Homeland Security determined that Russia attempted to hack into twenty-one state election systems. One of the states targeted was Minnesota. The attempt was unsuccessful, but it still raised concerns about the state’s ability to detect and protect against future election cyberattacks.