State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

All States

Nebraska’s Need for Electoral Reform

· ·

by Jordan Evans

Since the 1992 Presidential election, Nebraska has used the Congressional District Method (CDM) to distribute its electoral votes.  The 2012 Presidential election should be the last time it is used.  While the CDM seems ideal for adhering to the “one person, one vote” standard articulated in Reynolds v. Sims, it actually does greater harm than good.

The CDM can be much different from the winner-take-all approach.  It is different in that the candidate receiving the most votes statewide does not necessarily receive all of Nebraska’s electoral votes.  Instead, a candidate receives the same number of electoral votes as congressional districts he wins.  The statewide winner then receives two additional electoral votes, representing Nebraska’s two Senate seats. [Read more…] about Nebraska’s Need for Electoral Reform

The Battleground 2012: Can Colorado Keep a (Ballot) Secret? After Citizen Center v. Gessler, It’s Not Required To Do So

· ·

by Caitlin Cater

Barcodes are a ubiquitous feature of modern life. They appear on everything from retail products and advertisements to patient forms at the doctor’s office. But perhaps one place a person might not expect to find a barcode is on an election ballot—especially when that barcode can be used to link an individual ballot with the voter who cast it. The notion seems at odds with our venerated tradition of the “secret” ballot. Indeed, that is what the plaintiffs argued in Citizen Center v. Gessler, a recent case before the United States District Court in Colorado.

On February 13, Citizen Center, a nonpartisan group of Colorado voters, filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of election policies and procedures in six Colorado counties. Specifically, Citizen Center alleged that the defendant counties’ election ballots each contain a unique identifying mark that allows a voted ballot to be traced to its specific voter. Citizen Center further alleged that use of these ballots unconstitutionally infringes upon citizens’ fundamental right to vote, as well as their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.   [Read more…] about The Battleground 2012: Can Colorado Keep a (Ballot) Secret? After Citizen Center v. Gessler, It’s Not Required To Do So

The Battleground 2012: Whose [Presidential Ballot] Line Is It Anyway?

· ·

by Grant McLoughlin

The new national party Americans Elect was able to achieve ballot access in Oklahoma for the 2012 presidential election even though its bid to put a national third party presidential candidate on the ballot in all fifty states fizzled. Oklahoma has one of the strictest ballot access laws in the nation. Title 26 § 1-108 requires new parties seeking ballot access to submit petitions of registered voters equal to 5 percent of the total votes cast in the most recent general election. This creates a significant barrier for new parties wishing to stand for election in Oklahoma. In 2008 Oklahoma only had two choices, Democratic and Republican candidates. By having more choices voters are able to vote for candidates that best reflect their views.

This year the party Americans Elect was able to qualify in all states due in large part to well financed organization. The problem in Oklahoma, as in other states, is that Americans Elect failed to nominate a candidate for its hard-won slot as a third party on the ballot. As 2012 progressed and no candidate emerged, states began to wonder who would appear on the Americans Elect line on the ballot. [Read more…] about The Battleground 2012: Whose [Presidential Ballot] Line Is It Anyway?

The Battleground 2012: Armed with More than a Vote: Guns in Polling Places in Virginia

· ·

by Scott Van Der Hyde

Virginia is widely acknowledged as a state that strongly supports the rights of citizens to own and carry guns.  A number of recent laws demonstrate this support by allowing Virginians to open-carry guns in most public places.  These new laws are likely to lead to a greater number of people carrying guns openly in public.  Now that Election Day is drawing near, the question naturally arises: should it be legal to open-carry at Virginia polling places on Election Day.

The issue of open-carry in polling places has come up a few times in recent elections in Virginia and elsewhere.  One specific instance in Virginia occurred in 2011 when an election officer attempted to carry a handgun on his hip at the polling place. The   chief officer at the polling station told the election officer that he could not remain at the polling place while he was wearing his handgun.  The election office informed the chief officer that he was not violating any laws by having his gun at the polling station, but he was still not allowed to remain at the polling station with the handgun.  According to the election officer, the chief officer was concerned about the handgun making people inside the polling station uncomfortable. [Read more…] about The Battleground 2012: Armed with More than a Vote: Guns in Polling Places in Virginia

The Battleground 2012: The Public Financing of Judicial Candidates in North Carolina after Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett

· ·

by Justin Moore

In 2002, North Carolina passed the Judicial Campaign Reform Act (JCRA). A major part of this law created a system for the public financing of all statewide judicial races in North Carolina. The fund is paid for by a combination of state bar licensing fees and a voluntary income tax check off. By agreeing to very low “qualifying contribution limits” from donors (generally $500 per person and about $80,000 overall), statewide judicial candidates can qualify for public funds. If they raise around $40,000 from 350 or more North Carolina residents between the filing deadline and the primary election, they receive about $165,000 to $240,000 (depending on the office sought) in campaign funds from the state. If an opponent or opposition groups spends more than the amount given by the fund, candidates are entitled to receive rescue funds of up to double the amount they initially received. The availability of these “rescue funds” most notably played a pivotal role in assisting the current Chief Justice Sarah Parker win her 2006 re-election campaign against a challenger who did not take public financing. [Read more…] about The Battleground 2012: The Public Financing of Judicial Candidates in North Carolina after Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett