• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Hide Search

Minnesota

Dodging Disclosure

Election Law Society · January 23, 2012 ·

How the fight over Minnesota campaign finance disclosure requirements may shape the fate of the state’s marriage amendment 

by Stephanie Bitto

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board’s October clarification of Minnesota campaign finance laws may have quite an impact on a hot topic at issue in the 2012 election.

In 2012, Minnesota voters will be asked to approve an amendment to the Minnesota constitution that declares marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman. The Minnesota House and Senate passed a bill in May 2011 proposing the amendment. Governor Dayton issued a symbolic veto of the bill on May 25, 2011, but as constitutional amendment legislation cannot be vetoed, it will be up to the voters to determine the amendment’s fate. [Read more…] about Dodging Disclosure

MN (campaign finance): A court unites post-Citizens United: the entire Eighth Circuit bench reviews Swanson

Election Law Society · November 7, 2011 ·

by Stephanie Bitto

The full eleven-member bench of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. Swanson on September 21st. The case is an appeal of a ruling by a three-judge panel upholding a lower-court decision that refused to grant a preliminary injunction and enjoin Minnesota election laws regarding independent expenditures and corporate contributions to candidates and political parties. In July, the Eighth Circuit granted the petitioners’ request for en banc review and vacated the Court’s previous ruling.

A three-judge panel found that that an injunction was not proper because the plaintiffs, three Minnesota corporations, were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their claims, and Minnesota’s provisions regarding corporate independent expenditures are similar in both purpose and effect to the federal disclosure laws that the Supreme Court upheld in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. There, the Supreme Court found that both corporate and union contributions to independent political committees were constitutionally protected free speech and upheld contribution disclosure requirements. Following Citizens United, The Eighth Circuit panel found that the Swanson plaintiffs would likely not prevail on the claim that the Minnesota laws were not sufficiently tailored or on the claim that the ban on direct corporate contributions is unconstitutional.

[Read more…] about MN (campaign finance): A court unites post-Citizens United: the entire Eighth Circuit bench reviews Swanson

All states (IRV): The courts got it right: recognizing that instant runoff voting makes every vote count

Election Law Society · October 31, 2011 ·

by: Guest Contributor Elise Helgesen


This November, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), also called ranked choice voting, will be used for fiercely contested elections for mayor in San Francisco (CA), Portland (ME), and Telluride (CO) as well as for city council elections in St. Paul (MN) and Takoma Park (MD). IRV is also used abroad: Ireland will elect its president with IRV this month, and London will use IRV for mayoral elections in 2012. As recommended by Robert’s Rules of Order, more than 50 American colleges and universities now elect their student leaders with IRV.

With IRV, voters get one vote and one ballot, but get to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins with a first-choice majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their supporters’ second choices are added to the totals of the remaining candidates in an “instant runoff.” The process of elimination and redistribution continues until one candidate has a majority. [Read more…] about All states (IRV): The courts got it right: recognizing that instant runoff voting makes every vote count

Defenders of Democracy: The Role of Secretaries of State as Chief Election Officers

Election Law Society · February 14, 2011 ·

This symposium panel will focus on the critical role a secretary of state plays in securing our democratic process. We will discuss bridging the gap between political theory and election reality and what it really takes to ensure the integrity of an election. While each state has laws that govern the execution of an election, it is up to the state’s chief election officer to add detail where only broad strokes exist. Panelists will share their insight into specific areas in which secretaries of state have been particularly active in running elections, from voter registration and voting machines to recounts and provisional ballots.

The symposium takes place on Tuesday, February 15 from 12:50 to 1:50 in Room 127 at William & Mary School of Law.

Panel will be moderated by Law School Dean Davison M. Douglas. Participants include former Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, current president of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

It visit their site is 1935: you are an ageing, not particularly attractive american woman in a loveless marriage to a portly and dull businessman

Weekly Wrap Up

Election Law Society · February 4, 2011 ·

“It’s time to stop stonewalling”: The NAACP and the League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit against new Florida governor Rick Scott, demanding that he submit the voter-approved redistricting amendments to the Justice Department for review. Scott quietly withdrew a request for review in January shortly after taking office.

Misspellings might be OK in AK: A new measure proposed in the Alaska Senate would update the write-in laws, explicitly allowing minor misspellings on write-in votes to count. The law, proposed in response to the 2010 U.S. Senate election, cleared committee this week and should be voted on within days.

Voter IDs High on States’ Agendas: Across the nation, various states are considering voter identification laws. Some, like North Carolina’s proposal, have been in the works for several years; others, like in Minnesota, are new and focus on new technologies to prevent voter fraud. States like Texas, which are subject to the Voter Rights Act, must get these new laws–if passed–approved by the Department of Justice.

In 1951 the recommended site duke was a lugubrious, fussy, hollow man.
  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Pages

  • About Us
  • Election Law Glossary
  • Staff History
  • Links
  • Archived Pages
    • Citizens United + The States
    • Virginia Redistricting Competition

Search

View Posts by State

Archives

Tags

2016 Election 2020 Election Absentee ballots absentee voting Ballot Access ballot initiative Campaign Finance Citizens United Colorado Disenfranchise disenfranchisement Early Voting Election 2016 Electronic Voting Felon Voting Rights First Amendment Gerrymandering in-depth article judicial elections mail-in voting National Voter Registration Act North Carolina photo ID primary election Redistricting Referendum Registration Secretary of State state of elections Supreme Court Texas Virginia Vote by mail Voter Fraud Voter ID Voter Identification voter registration Voter Turnout voting voting and COVID Voting Machines Voting Rights Voting Rights Act VRA William & Mary

Blogroll

  • Election Law Issues
  • William & Mary Law School
  • Williamsburg Redistricting – "The Flat Hat" article

Friends

  • W&M Election Law Program

Contact Information:

To contact us, send an email to
wmstateofelections@gmail.com

Current Editorial Staff

Brendan W. Clark ’24, Editor-in-Chief
Rachel Clyburn ’24, Editor-in-Chief

State of Elections

Copyright © 2025 · Monochrome Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok