All States

Declassifying “the Bunker”

Election Law Society · November 12, 2018 ·

By: Emmalyn McCarthy

Congressional district boundaries are the latest dispute in a string of voting-related cases in the state of Ohio. In May, a lawsuit was filed in federal district court by the Ohio League of Women Voters, Ohio’s chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Initiative, and one democratic voter from each of Ohio’s sixteen congressional districts. The suit pertains to congressional district lines drawn by a Republican-controlled process in 2011 which took place in a closed off hotel room called “the bunker.” Map drawers created a twelve to four, Republican-favored districting scheme, splitting up many counties to create a twelve district Republican voting majority.

To Move, or Not to Move (Within the same County): that is the Question Georgia Voters are Trying to Answer

Election Law Society · November 7, 2018 ·

In the wake of the 2018 campaign season, Georgia’s Secretary of State agreed to yet another lawsuit settlement and has instructed local elections officials to automatically update the address of any registered voter who has moved within the same county in the last 2 years.

This settlement was reached nearly a year after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Georgia filed suit against the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections on behalf of Stacey Hopkins, a registered Georgia voter. Mrs. Hopkins was just one of nearly 160,000 Georgia voters that were sent notices stating they would be listed as “inactive” (one of the first steps in being removed from the voter rolls) if they didn’t respond to the notice within 30 days. These registered voters were receiving notices because they had moved (within the same county) and didn’t update their address with the Georgia Board of Registrars.

Virginia Awarded a $9 Million Grant to Improve Election Security, Has Yet to Spend a Dime

Election Law Society · November 5, 2018 ·

By: Chelsea West

The November 6^th midterm elections will soon be upon us and U.S. voters are preparing to go to the polls. Federal, state, and local officials are preparing as well. While voters are debating which candidates to elect, government officials are rigorously working to beef up election security. They intend to do all they can to make sure everyone who is eligible has the opportunity to cast a ballot and that those votes are counted correctly.

Election security is on the forefront of conversation regarding the upcoming November elections. There exist many fears among U.S. intelligence and security officials over possible hacking or cyber-attacks. These fears increased after the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security both accused Russia of orchestrating an operation to hack into the emails of U.S. political organizations and selectively release them to the public.

In North Carolina, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Election Law Society · October 31, 2018 ·

By: Andrew Pardue

In June 2018, the North Carolina General Assembly passed Senate Bill 325, “The Uniform & Expanded Early Voting Act.” The bill mandated that all early voting locations in the state remain open from 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. on all weekdays during the early voting period (in 2018, this period begins on October 17). The bill also requires that if one early voting site in a particular county is open on a Saturday or Sunday, then all sites in that county must be open on that day. And then North Carolina’s Democratic Governor vetoed the bill, which had been passed by a Republican legislature with the ostensible aim of expanding early voting hours statewide.
For casual observers of American politics, this outcome probably seems like a suspension of the laws of partisan physics. Why did it happen this way? Because in North Carolina, no change to state election laws occurs without controversy, and even the most innocuous legislation has cascading second-order effects.

Wisconsin’s 1st District: How the Race to Replace Paul Ryan Was Won Long Before 2018

Election Law Society · October 29, 2018 ·

By: Colin Neal

Wisconsin’s 1st District has been in political prominence since its young Congressman, Rep. Paul Ryan, was tapped as Gov. Mitt Romney’s running mate in the 2012 Presidential election. In 2015, riding the popularity of his Vice Presidential campaign, Rep. Paul Ryan became the youngest Speaker of the House of Representatives in over a century when he replaced Speaker Boehner. More recently, the race to replace outgoing Speaker Ryan in the Wisconsin’s 1^st—a district Ryan has represented since 1999—has come under the national spotlight due to excitement about Democrat Randy Bryce, an ironworker and community activist with a bombastic, yet compassionate, attitude. However, Bryce’s race to replace Rep. Ryan may not be so simple. In the midst of a “blue wave” responding to the unpopularity of President Trump, Wisconsin’s 1st is seen as a potential pick-up district for Democrats. However, Wisconsin’s 1st is a product of a statewide gerrymander plan that may very well raise the Republican shoreline above the incoming blue wave, despite Randy Bryce’s efforts. This is due to a failure of the Wisconsin Constitution and Wisconsin statutes to codify requirements for Congressional districting beyond mere administrative advice, namely requiring compactness and respect for existing political borders. Although the Wisconsin Constitution requires such for the redistricting of the state legislature (the compliance with such constitutional mandate notwithstanding), its failure to include such requirement for federal elections has led to a near-insurmountable gerrymander in Wisconsin’s 1st, which may otherwise be quite competitive.