Florida

Weekly Wrap Up

Election Law Society · December 30, 2009 ·

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

– The U.S. Census bureau has released its population estimates, and if their estimates are correct, 8 states stand to gain Congressional seats in 2010, and 10 states will lose seats.

– An editorial in the St. Petersburg Times accuses Florida’s “No Match, No Vote” law of disenfranchising thousands of minority voters during the 2008 presidential election. The law denies voter registration to any applicant whose name on the registration form does not match the Social Security or Florida driver’s license databases.

– The Supreme Court has held its last session of 2009, and still has not released its decision in Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court was expected to overrule existing precedents that allowed the government to limit the amount corporations could spend on campaigns. However, the long delay has fueled speculation that the Court’s decision may not be as clear cut as expected. For a review of the issues involved in Citizen United, see this transcript of oral arguments and this analysis of the possible implications of the case.

apply online essay writing companies

Weekly Wrap Up

Election Law Society · December 11, 2009 ·

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

– Two citizen initiatives in Florida, designed to limit gerrymandering, have faced opposition from the Florida legislature. Opponents of the initiatives claim that they reduce election opportunities for minorities.

– In Illinois, a lawsuit has been filed over an Illinois law that requires the county to use vote-counting machines that make an audible beep if a voter attempts to cast a vote that is blank for some offices.

– The Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Utah’s Democracy has issued a new report recommending “automatic and portable” voter registration in that state.

– Enjoyed last week’s post on felon disenfranchisement? Want to know some of the historical roots and reasoning behind the policy? Then check out Professor Pippa Holloway’s article “‘A Chicken-Stealer Shall Lose His Vote’ – Disfranchisement for Larceny in the South, 1874-1890”

affordable essay writing for http://www.proessaywriting.org

Discriminatory Disenfranchisement in Virginia

Election Law Society · December 4, 2009 ·

Of Felons and Taints

Almost all states place some restriction on the rights of felons to vote. Three states–Kentucky, Florida, and Virginia–maintain a system of permanent disenfranchisement for convicted felons. There’s a long historical tradition of voting restrictions against felons, dating to well before the Constitution was ratified. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment explicitly acknowledges the practice of criminal disenfranchisement (and, to a degree, endorses it by not penalizing states during Congressional reapportionment for denying the franchise to those guilty of “participation in rebellion, or other crime”).

Given this long usage and constitutional recognition, lawyers often find it hard to challenge disenfranchisement laws as violating voters’ rights. Yet as we all know, not every law that appears neutral is constitutional. Literacy tests and poll taxes are both facially neutral, but both have long been recognized as acting to deprive non-white voters of their fundamental rights.

Still, challenges to disenfranchisement regimes are rarely successful. For example, a 2005 challenge to Florida’s law, was decimated by the 11th Circuit sitting en banc in the case of Johnson v. Bush (405 F.3d 1214). There, the court heard an appeal to a summary judgment against a group of felons seeking the restoration of their rights. The plaintiffs argued that Florida had re-authorized its felon disenfranchisement law in 1868 for the purpose of discriminating against black voters, and as such the law should be held invalid as intentionally discriminatory.