All States

What’s so wrong with a dead lizard?

Election Law Society · November 21, 2011 ·

A lot, according to a recently filed lawsuit challenging the Missouri congressional redistricting plan. Alleging that the districts violate the state’s constitution, the plaintiffs seek to have the Republican-drawn plan thrown out, and replaced with one drawn by the Missouri courts.

After the 2010 census results indicated that the population of Missouri grew only 7%, compared to the national average of 10%, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that Missouri would lose a congressional seat. With nine representatives currently serving in Congress, Missouri was left with the arduous task of redrawing the congressional districts from nine to eight, inevitably making one incumbent very unhappy. Per the state’s constitution, this task fell on the General Assembly. With Republicans heavily outnumbering Democrats in both the state’s House of Representatives and the Senate, there was little question which party would end up on the losing end of the decision. At the time, Democrats held three of the nine congressional seats, and two of those seats represented parts of St. Louis, Missouri’s largest city. With a substantial amount of the state’s population growth occurring in the Republican-dominated, suburban counties surrounding the city, namely St. Charles, Warren, and Lincoln County, the population of St. Louis City and St. Louis County declined and the area became the inevitable target of the new redistricting plan.

An article on Florida election law that does not contain the word “recount”

Election Law Society · November 17, 2011 ·

by John Loughney

In the cold, competitive (comfortingly predictable) world of election reform, two factions are locked in an epic, endless struggle, and both are positive the guys on the other side of the aisle threaten to undermine our cherished democratic system.

On one side, the shadowy Republicans—or so the Dems would have you believe—ruthlessly disenfranchise the poor, the pigmented, and the felonious. They callously seek to raise identification standards beyond all reason and whittle voting windows to woeful new lows.

On the other, the conniving Democrats—or so the GOP attests—are valiantly protecting nothing more than the madness of an election process riddled with voter fraud. They ignore how administrative inconsistencies have marred our legitimacy and skewed our tallies, how civics teachers run rampantly afoul of state election law, how…

Wait, civics teachers? [Read more…] about An article on Florida election law that does not contain the word “recount”

OH (voter id): Interview with former Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner

Election Law Society · November 16, 2011 ·

by Lindsay Bouffard

One spokesman for the Ohio Republican Party characterized House Bill 194 as being about fairness between rural and suburban counties rather than being about Republicans and Democrats. Do you think this characterization is accurate?

House Bill 194 covers much more than a simple distinction between rural and suburban counties. The aspects of the bill going to voters for referendum have much more to do with curtailing access to voting and making it harder for votes to be counted. The bill as it was originally written by a bipartisan team during my administration in the last legislative session had many provisions that were much more favorable to improving voting, but many of these provisions are no longer in the bill.

If voters choose to repeal House Bill 194 in the November 2012 election, do you foresee legislators trying to pass a similar bill at another time? [Read more…] about OH (voter id): Interview with former Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner

AZ (preclearance): Arizona challenges the Voting Rights Act; why not just bailout?

Election Law Society · November 14, 2011 ·

by Kevin Elliker

On August 25, 2011, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne filed suit on behalf of the state of Arizona against the Department of Justice alleging the unconstitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. Horne specifically challenged the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the act. Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to defend the Voting Rights Act, declaring that it plays “a vital role” in ensuring fairness for American democracy.

A brief primer on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act:

In 1965, Congress passed the VRA in order to better enforce the 15th Amendment. Jurisdictions with histories of pronounced racial discrimination in voting practices were singled out by Section 5 and required to receive preclearance from the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the District Court of the District of Columbia for any changes to their voting laws. The 1965 iteration of the preclearance formula forced mostly southern states into this category, but also specific jurisdictions within Arizona. In 1970, Arizona was once more included as partially covered by preclearance requirements. It was not until 1975, when the formula for preclearance was changed to include states that provided election materials in only English despite having at least five percent of voting age citizens from “a single language minority” that Arizona became an entirely covered jurisdiction. The 1975 iteration relied on 1972 election data, which meant that Arizona’s 1974 implementation of bilingual voter materials did not preclude them from preclearance requirements. The 1982 and 2006 renewals of VRA followed the 1975 formula. [Read more…] about AZ (preclearance): Arizona challenges the Voting Rights Act; why not just bailout?

IN (ballot access): How Indiana’s blank ballot law is depressing us all

Election Law Society · November 10, 2011 ·

by Patrick Genova

There is something cathartic about voting- walking into the booth, choosing the best candidate, and, of course, pinning yourself with the red, white, and blue badge of honor that proudly says, “I Voted.” And for that one day you can hold your head high at the water cooler next to the bigwig foreign investor who swung into town, and in one week got a date with the girl from accounts receivable that you’ve had the hots for. He’s so worldly isn’t he, but what does he know about civic pride? What does he know about the world’s greatest democratic pastime? Nothing.

New election laws in Indiana may take the spark at the water cooler out of some voters this November. The new law in the Hoosier State, which has the 48^th lowest voter turnout, will take unopposed candidates off the ballot. The rationale for the change is that it saves paper, but, while Indiana trees rejoice, the new law leaves little reason for many voters to show up to the ballot box. A skeptic may say that in the case of unopposed candidates there was never a choice in the first place, but the effects of the law have less to do with the outcome of elections, and more to do with the fragile psyche of voters and their perceived notion of choice. [Read more…] about IN (ballot access): How Indiana’s blank ballot law is depressing us all