State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

All States

Solving the Epidemic of Disappearing Poll Workers – Part 1: Young People

· ·

poll workersThere is a disease spreading throughout our nation’s polling locations. The graying of America is seen most potently behind the polls. Poll workers in America have an average age in the 70s, significantly older than the average age of AARP members (64). The current elderly class of civic-minded individuals who have fulfilled their civic duty responsibly for decades have been leaving out of confusion with new technology and the effects of their old age. As this void continues to grow, more and more options will need to be considered by state and local legislatures in order to ensure that elections go smoothly. This is the first post in a series about what could be done to help solve the problem of disappearing poll workers.

Young people are the future leaders of this country, but some local election laws could be more conductive to this passing of the torch as poll workers. States could learn from one another in this respect. Massachusetts passed a law in 2008 which allowed poll workers as young as 16. 29 other states allow poll workers to be under the age of 18. Arizona allows 16 and 17 year old high-school students to miss the day of school to be a poll worker (with parental permission), and even pays them for their service. There may be some concerns about the ability of minors to act as competent poll workers, but the minors are usually well supervised. The immediate reaction to this legislation in most states has been positive, including in Minnesota, where Secretary of State Mark Ritchie remarked the 16 and 17 year old poll workers “have been a burst of energy” and “a big success.” [Read more…] about Solving the Epidemic of Disappearing Poll Workers – Part 1: Young People

William & Mary Election Law Symposium 2010 Video

· ·

As promised, here’s a video of William & Mary’s Election Law Symposium.

“Back to the Drawing Board: The 2010 Census and the Politics of Redistricting”

From left to right, the panelists are John Hardin Young, Gerald Hebert, Jessica Amunson, and Trevor Potter.  For brief biographies of the panelists, see this post.

But when, after his death, fleming the man began to crop up in the http://www.writemypaper4me.org memoirs and biographies of his contemporaries I found my attention began to focus more on the author himself than his works

Weekly Wrap Up

· ·

Every week, State of Elections brings you the latest news in state election law.

– ACORN, the controversial voter registration and activist group, is disbanding because of declining revenue.

– In the Arkansas Senate race, there’s some controversy over an obscure state law that prevents the use of professional or honorary titles on ballots.  One Republican Senate candidate had hoped to put the title “Colonel” in front of his name on the ballot, but was refused by election officials.  Nicknames, however, are perfectly legal.  Just ask Harold Kimbrell, who will appear on the ballot as “Porky” Kimbrell.

–  During last week’s election law Symposium at William & Mary, the panelists mentioned that census data can be skewed when large numbers of incarcerated felons are counted as “residents” of the state they are incarcerated in.  Here a few editorials discussing that practice.

– More news on the California Redistricting Commission.  Even though over 25,000 people filed the initial application to be on the Commission, less than 1,200 have completed the second step of the application process.  For more general information on the Commission, see this post.

– Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has signed a law that should make absentee voting easier in that state.  The law will require election officials to send a replacement ballot, or notify the voter that he should cast a new ballot, if an absentee voter’s ballot is rejected.

– After much debate, the Florida Senate has passed an electioneering bill.  An alternate version of the bill was ruled unconstitutional for requiring all organizations to register with the state and comply with financial reporting requirements if they even mentioned a candidate or political issue.  The new version of the bill would still require certain organizations to register, but not those that focused only on issues.

The rise of fascism in europe pushed http://pro-essay-writer.com chaplin further to the left and was responsible for his reluctant conversion to sound

Citizens United Against the Supreme Court

· ·

The recent Citizens United ruling by the US Supreme Court, which holds that First Amendment protections apply not just to individual speakers but also to corporations, is only the latest in a decades-long series of decisions by the Court that have expanded the scope of the First Amendment into realms never imagined by our Founding Fathers.

Beginning with Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Justices have embraced the concept that money is equal to speech, and that therefore any limitation on campaign spending violates the First Amendment.  This week’s ruling simply expands this protection to cover corporations, which are by definition aggregators of money.  So now corporate money will completely overwhelm individual money in the arena of political speech, and Madison’s conception of our government as a forum for the broadest possible public deliberation of issues will be rendered legally moot.  [Read more…] about Citizens United Against the Supreme Court

Great Symposium…or Greatest Symposium?

· ·

When future generations study American history, they will need to memorize all the important dates. July 4th 1776, the signing of the Declaration of Independence. June 6th 1944, the D-Day invasion. January 20th 2013, the inauguration of Sarah Palin.

But one date will be remembered more fondly than the rest, and that date is March 18 2010, the date of the Fourth Annual William and Mary Election Law Symposium.

Yes, the Symposium was a resounding success.  The turnout was great, our speakers were insightful, and the cheese and wine reception was delicious.

We’ll link to a video of the Symposium as soon as it can be uploaded.  Sometime shortly after that, we’ll post a full transcript.  Until then, here’s a brief summary of the day’s discussion.

Our three speakers were Trevor Potter, Jessica Amunson, and J. Gerald Hebert.  The discussion was moderated by John Hardin Young.

Trever Potter began the Symposium with a discussion of the history of redistricting in America.  He pointed out that a mere 50 years ago, nobody would have thought to have a conversation about redistricting. Until 1962, the Supreme Court had ruled that how states arranged their districts (apportionment) was a political question, best left to the other branches of government.

But in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, the Court reversed its position and allowed judicial intervention in apportionment cases.  The courts therefore had to establish standards by which  the constitutionality of the district could be determined.  Most notably, the Supreme Court declared the “one man, one vote” principle, which required that districts be drawn in such a way as to have relatively equal populations, so that no person’s vote “counted more” just because they were in a less populated district.

Gerry Hebert spoke next, about how legislators tackle the problem of redistricting and dividing populations into tidy little districts.  Legislators get a great deal of information from the census and other sources, including individual voting histories and racial voting patterns.  Since redistricting is so critical to protecting incumbency, legislators will spend hundreds of thousands to hire a professional redistricting team to ensure the creation of districts that will withstand legal challenges.

Finally, Jessica Amunson spoke about redistricting reform and the future of redistricting.  She noted that over 41 states had redistricting related litigation last census, and she expects that number to rise in the coming year.  Much of that litigation ended with the courts having to redraw the districts, using standards and goals that are often contradictory.  For example, the courts have recognized that incumbency protection is valid justification for drawing a district a certain way (as incumbents get more important positions on legislative committees), but courts also recognize the importance of ensuring partisan fairness and competitiveness.

The three speakers then took questions from the audience on a wide variety of census and redistricting related topics.

Then everyone got to enjoy delicious wine.

All in all, everybody had a great time, and we hope that next year’s Symposium will be even better.

Check back next week for a video and full transcript of the Symposium.

Bonds world was flemings fantasy: www.justbuyessay.com/ a comic strip version of a life he almost lived?