• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Hide Search

Results, Recanvass, Recount

Election Law Society · November 21, 2012 ·

As Kentucky basketball heats up its season against Maryland and Duke on the road,  several campaigns are gearing up for recanvasses and possible recounts.  The 7th Representative District race between Tim Kline and the incumbent, John Arnold, is separated by only 5 votes of the 15,775 cast.  In the 3rd Senatorial District, the vote margin is 297 out of 36,617 cast for either Whitney Westerfield or Joey Pendleton, the incumbent.  Ted Edmonds, the current representative, also ran a narrow race in the 91st Representative District against Gary Herald who leads him by only 134 votes of the 12,530 cast.

It is not clear whether any of the candidates will request a recount, such a decision usually occurs after the completion of a recanvass.  At least two have filed for a recanvass, with Arnold’s race having the most potential for a recount.  There are a number of avenues that can lead to a recount, in Kentucky.  Either a candidate or an election official can trigger the recount process.  Each of these paths have different requirements.  The election-official initiated recount occurs if election officials report errors in administration to the county clerk.  The clerk then must file a petition with the Circuit Court, within 15 days, requesting a recount.  Election officials did not report any substantial election errors in any of the three races, making it unlikely the county clerk will file such a recount petition.  [Read more…] about Results, Recanvass, Recount

Hi, I’m IRV

Election Law Society · November 14, 2012 ·

by Danny Muchoki

The underlying assumption of elections is that they capture voters’ preferences. Voters go into a booth, push a button/punch a card/pop a chad and when they’re all counted up we know that the person who wins over 50% of the votes is the winner. It’s obvious, right?

Not necessarily. In 1992, Bill Clinton became President with 43 percent of the vote. In 1998, Jesse “The Body” Ventura became governor of Minnesota while winning about 37 percent of the vote. In 2010 (again in Minnesota) Mark Dayton became governor with 43.6 percent of the vote. The runner- up was behind by just .4 (point four) percentage points – 43.2 percent.

A plurality system is simple, but some argue it is fundamentally unfair to let a candidate win with a plurality, let alone a plurality that is far short of a bare majority. [Read more…] about Hi, I’m IRV

Nebraska’s Need for Electoral Reform

Election Law Society · November 14, 2012 ·

by Jordan Evans

Since the 1992 Presidential election, Nebraska has used the Congressional District Method (CDM) to distribute its electoral votes.  The 2012 Presidential election should be the last time it is used.  While the CDM seems ideal for adhering to the “one person, one vote” standard articulated in Reynolds v. Sims, it actually does greater harm than good.

The CDM can be much different from the winner-take-all approach.  It is different in that the candidate receiving the most votes statewide does not necessarily receive all of Nebraska’s electoral votes.  Instead, a candidate receives the same number of electoral votes as congressional districts he wins.  The statewide winner then receives two additional electoral votes, representing Nebraska’s two Senate seats. [Read more…] about Nebraska’s Need for Electoral Reform

The Battleground 2012: Can Colorado Keep a (Ballot) Secret? After Citizen Center v. Gessler, It’s Not Required To Do So

Election Law Society · November 6, 2012 ·

by Caitlin Cater

Barcodes are a ubiquitous feature of modern life. They appear on everything from retail products and advertisements to patient forms at the doctor’s office. But perhaps one place a person might not expect to find a barcode is on an election ballot—especially when that barcode can be used to link an individual ballot with the voter who cast it. The notion seems at odds with our venerated tradition of the “secret” ballot. Indeed, that is what the plaintiffs argued in Citizen Center v. Gessler, a recent case before the United States District Court in Colorado.

On February 13, Citizen Center, a nonpartisan group of Colorado voters, filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of election policies and procedures in six Colorado counties. Specifically, Citizen Center alleged that the defendant counties’ election ballots each contain a unique identifying mark that allows a voted ballot to be traced to its specific voter. Citizen Center further alleged that use of these ballots unconstitutionally infringes upon citizens’ fundamental right to vote, as well as their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.   [Read more…] about The Battleground 2012: Can Colorado Keep a (Ballot) Secret? After Citizen Center v. Gessler, It’s Not Required To Do So

The Battleground 2012: Whose [Presidential Ballot] Line Is It Anyway?

Election Law Society · November 6, 2012 ·

by Grant McLoughlin

The new national party Americans Elect was able to achieve ballot access in Oklahoma for the 2012 presidential election even though its bid to put a national third party presidential candidate on the ballot in all fifty states fizzled. Oklahoma has one of the strictest ballot access laws in the nation. Title 26 § 1-108 requires new parties seeking ballot access to submit petitions of registered voters equal to 5 percent of the total votes cast in the most recent general election. This creates a significant barrier for new parties wishing to stand for election in Oklahoma. In 2008 Oklahoma only had two choices, Democratic and Republican candidates. By having more choices voters are able to vote for candidates that best reflect their views.

This year the party Americans Elect was able to qualify in all states due in large part to well financed organization. The problem in Oklahoma, as in other states, is that Americans Elect failed to nominate a candidate for its hard-won slot as a third party on the ballot. As 2012 progressed and no candidate emerged, states began to wonder who would appear on the Americans Elect line on the ballot. [Read more…] about The Battleground 2012: Whose [Presidential Ballot] Line Is It Anyway?

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 130
  • Go to page 131
  • Go to page 132
  • Go to page 133
  • Go to page 134
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 187
  • 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