Virginia

Op Ed: Take Jim Crow Out of the Virginia Constitution: Restore Voting Rights for All

Election Law Society · December 16, 2009 ·

After the 15th Amendment was passed, giving blacks the constitutional right to vote, Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws, designed to keep blacks from actually voting. These laws included disingenuous literacy tests and poll taxes, which served as illegal but thankfully temporary impediments for black voters. One of the few ways that states found they could legally keep at least some blacks from voting, however, was to enact felon disenfranchisement laws. These laws say that after a felon has served his time in prison, he still cannot vote. Although African-Americans represent only about 12.5% of America’s population, they make up about 48.5% of its prison population. So, felon disenfranchisement laws, which are at best arguably constitutional, have proved an effective method of suppressing the black vote.

Virginia is one of only two states in the U.S. that permanently bars ex-felons from voting, even after they have paid their debt to society (the other is Kentucky). In Virginia alone, there are more than 377,000 disenfranchised felons. Of these, more than 208,000 are African-American.This is an abomination. Virginia’s laws must be changed. [Read more…] about Op Ed: Take Jim Crow Out of the Virginia Constitution: Restore Voting Rights for All

Redistricting Reform Part 3

Election Law Society · December 9, 2009 ·

When the inmates control the asylum

So what happens when we allow partisan redistricting? The short answer is “bad things.” Here’s the longer answer:

[Warning: This post is rife with sarcasm. Most of the time, no offense is meant… most of the time.]

Here’s our scenario – your state legislature has gerrymandered the heck out of your home district. So you, a decently moderate Republican are stuck in a district of lots of Democrats… Say, 65% or so of your neighbors vote for Democrats. Republican performance in your precinct is high, the area of Republicans in your town has been broken up between three different districts, ensuring that any republican votes are effectively diluted. Your Republican friend across the street? He’s in a different district. Your conservative father in law down on Main street? He’s in yet another district. And to top it off, your state legislator, who used to live down the street, has been redistricted right out of his own district! In fact, there are so many Democrats who have been put into this district of yours that there’s almost no reason a republican should run – he’ll lose and lose badly, often even if the Democrat isn’t the greatest candidate.

So what happens in this situation? Well, first thing first, Democrats win. Second, Republicans lose. And third, the primary election becomes more important than the general election. In the situation where the opposition party has no chance of winning the general election, and one party will always win the General Election, the real competition comes in the primary election, when the parties choose their nominees. Imagine, for a moment, that America was a 70-30 Democratic country. What would be a more important election? The General or the Democratic primary? Yeah, it’s an easy answer.

Weekly Wrap Up

Election Law Society · December 4, 2009 ·

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

– Events in Virginia’s 21st district are moving quickly, and Virginia Beach Circuit Court Judge Fredrick Lowe has scheduled a recount for the 14th of December.

-Hawaii’s chief election officer, Kevin Cronin, has resigned abruptly, shortly after proposing a plan that would close 40% of that state’s polling places. The plan, Cronin says, is a necessary evil after budget cuts have severely hampered the state’s ability to fund its elections.

– A New Jersey judge has extended restrictions on GOP “ballot security” programs.

– A pro “instant runoff” group in Minnesota has been fined for violating that state’s election laws, as they falsely claimed that Barack Obama, John McCain, and others endorsed a Minnesota ballot measure to institute runoff voting in that state. Instant runoff voting is a form of voting in which voters rank the candidates by preference. Obama and McCain are active supporters of instant runoff voting, but they have not actively endorsed the Minnesota ballot measure, as was claimed in some of the group’s literature.*

Permalink: http://stateofelections.pages.wm.edu/2009/12/03/weekly-wrap-up-2/

*Editor’s note: This posting originally implied that Obama and McCain do not support instant runoff voting, when in fact they do. Stateofelections.com regrets the error.

snap this url

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.

Recount in Virginia’s 21st District

Election Law Society · November 30, 2009 ·

Can a change in the law change the outcome of an election?

Bobby Mathieson On November 3^rd, voters in Virginia went to the polls and handed Republicans a statewide office sweep and gains in the House of Delegates, but, as has become a common occurrence in Virginia, there is one election headed for a recount.

In the 21^st House of Delegates district, Delegate Bobby Mathieson (D) and Virginia Beach City Councilor Ron Villanueva (R) battled throughout the summer and fall and after injunctions, questions about absentee ballots, the Virginia Beach electoral board certified Villanueva the winner by 14 votes. The current margin of victory is a mere nine-tenths of one percent.

Virginia law allows for the trailing candidate to request a recount if the margin of victory is less than one percent and Mathieson has stated that he will be seeking a recount. The state Board of Elections has certified the outcome of the election, and it appears that Mathieson will soon officially request a recount. Any recount would likely occur in mid-December. [Read more…] about Recount in Virginia’s 21st District