State of Elections — Page 117 — William & Mary Law School

California Sunshine Shines Light on Dark Money Scandal

Election Law Society · January 13, 2014 ·

By Nandor Kiss

Last November California voters had to decide the fate of two controversial ballot initiatives. Proposition 30 was intended to raise the income tax rate of California’s highest tax brackets and increase sales tax a quarter of a percent in order to fund new education programs. Proposition 32, which many believed was highly deceptive in describing its purpose, was intended to limit the ability of corporations and unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. While many were interested in the results, probably no one as much as Tony Russo, a Republican consultant who raised millions in order to support Prop. 32 and defeat Prop. 30 as part of the GOP’s “California Comeback” plan. Through his fundraising efforts, Russo was able to assemble approximately $74 million in donations for the cause, but he soon ran into a problem.

Messing with Texas: Election Passes, But Litigation Continues

Election Law Society · January 10, 2014 ·

By Melissa Jensen

Election Day on November 5 marked the first time Texas’ controversial voter ID laws were affected in the state. And the results were mixed. There is little evidence that the law suppressed voter turnout. Out of the state’s 13.4 million registered voters, only 1.1 million cast ballots in the 2013 election, about 8.5 percent of the electorate. Compare this to 2011 and 2009, other election “off years.” In 2011 when only 5.4 percent of voters showed up. In 2009, about 1 million people cast ballots, about 8.1 percent of the electorate. So as far as the numbers go, voting seemed on par.

Legislative Appointment of South Carolina’s Judiciary: Somethin’ Could be Finer

Election Law Society · January 8, 2014 ·

By Austin Graham

Among the states, a relative variety exists in the methods employed for selecting state court judges, including partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, gubernatorial appointment, merit-selection systems, and legislative appointment. Out of these, merit-selection systems are the most popular, with over twenty-five states adhering to this process. Judicial elections are the second most common scheme with at least twenty-one states utilizing either partisan or nonpartisan elections to choose their state court judges. The least common system is legislative appointment; only Virginia and South Carolina delegate appointment of the judiciary to state legislators.

Educating Voters on a Law in Limbo: An Update on the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law

Election Law Society · January 6, 2014 ·

By Joshua Bohn

Due to a preliminary injunction on Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law arising from Applewhite et al. v. Commonwealth, the 2013 Pennsylvania off-year general election occurred without being subject to the requirements of the law. As of this date, the judge responsible for issuing this preliminary injunction is still in the process of deliberating. This does not mean, however, that questions about Pennsylvania’s new Voter ID Law have dropped out of the public eye. On the contrary, the government of Pennsylvania and its agencies have spent a significant amount of money advertising the Voter ID Law. Pennsylvania’s Department of State brought back a new variant of its “show it” TV commercials from the 2012 election for this off-year general election. Critics opposed the ad campaign for being a costly use of state funds, and for having a potential to confuse would-be voters—especially if the court refuses to lift the injunction. Governor Tom Corbett and his administration defended the ad campaign; a spokesman argued that the commercials contain useful information in the event that the Voter ID Law is upheld.

In Arkansas, Face Off Over New Voter ID Law

Election Law Society · December 9, 2013 ·

by Euticha B. Hawkins, Contributor

Controversy surrounding voter identification laws has now reached the Natural State. On April 1, 2013, the Arkansas state legislature completed a bicameral majority vote overriding Gov. Mike Beebe’s (D) veto of a law requiring voters to show photo ID. The law, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2014, provides for the state to issue a free photo ID to voters who lack one. The law also allows a voter without photo identification to cast a provisional ballot on election day. The provisional ballot will be counted if the voter reports to the county clerk or county board of election commissioners by noon of the Monday following the election, with proof of identity or an affidavit showing the voter is either indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed. [Read more…] about In Arkansas, Face Off Over New Voter ID Law