State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Pennsylvania Voter ID Bill: The Embodiment of Discrimination or Weapon Against Voter Fraud?

· ·

by Jamel Rowe

Imagine that after months of living off of your meager savings, you can longer pay your rent and are subsequently evicted from your home. You, like an estimated 15,096 Pennsylvanians, have no permanent home. Regrettably, your homelessness could hinder your ability to vote.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R – Butler County) introduced House Bill 934 on March 4, 2011. It passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives by a 108-88 vote and is currently before the Senate.  As it stands, the current election laws require voters to show identification the first time they vote at a new polling location. If approved, the bill will require voters to show valid photo identification every time they vote, even though they may have voted at that particular polling location in the past.

The primary justification for this “common-sense safeguard” is to prevent voter fraud. In an interview with Comcast Newsmakers, Rep. Metcalfe stated that voter fraud is still a relevant concern as demonstrated by the 2009 investigation of ACORN employees in Pittsburgh for fraud. He also discussed how thousands of fraudulent voter registrations were filed in Philadelphia in 2005 and how 1500 of those registrations were turned over to the District Attorney for further investigation. [Read more…] about Pennsylvania Voter ID Bill: The Embodiment of Discrimination or Weapon Against Voter Fraud?

Pennsylvania House Bill 934: Friend or Foe

· ·

by Latisha Woodford

Voter fraud is the illegal interference with the process of an election  the Pennsylvanian House Bill  934 purports to remedy voter fraud.  It could be argued, however, that the Bill itself interferes with the election process. Pennsylvania House Bill 934 imposes what can be viewed as a barrier to eligible voting citizens.  This notion was further explained in an interview with Mrs. Sandy Strauss, the Director of Public Advocacy for the Pennsylvania Council of Churches.

The mission of the Council is much broader than the mission for the Council’s advocacy component. Mrs. Strauss describes their advocacy ministry as empowering people of faith, through education and skill-building, to make a difference for the common good in the public square; while advocating on behalf of the Council’s member church bodies before Pennsylvania’s legislative and administrative branches of government. The Council is governed by a set of principles called the “Principles for Public Advocacy.” These principles are based on scriptural interpretation and determine the position taken by the Council’s twenty member denominations at the national level. The latest draft of a revised set of existing principles say: [Read more…] about Pennsylvania House Bill 934: Friend or Foe

When a state’s constitution says “2011” does it really mean “2011?”

· ·

by Davis Walsh

Virginia’s House of Delegates appears ready to push Congressional redistricting to 2012, when Republicans will effectively control both the Commonwealth’s House and Senate. But such an action may be impermissible because Virginia’s Constitution, Article II, Section 6, mandates redistricting be completed in 2011, but the Constitution prescribes no express penalties for the failure to adopt a plan in 2011. The question that this situation presents is whether the General Assembly can ignore a provision of the Commonwealth’s Constitution when that provision includes no penalties.

Earlier this year, the Democrat-controlled Senate and Republican House of Delegates agreed on state General Assembly redistricting,  but each house passed competing plans for Congressional redistricting. The Republican House of Delegates plan would keep the Commonwealth’s split of eight Republicans and three Democrats in Congress. The Democratic Senate’s plan would create a new minority influence district, which would provide minorities with a substantial number of voters in a district but not a majority. [Read more…] about When a state’s constitution says “2011” does it really mean “2011?”

A time for change: an examination of Baltimore City’s record low voter turnout

· ·

by Ashley Ward

As you drive through the streets of Baltimore City, many areas still bare the campaign efforts of the six mayoral candidates. Posters plastered on walls, fliers in store front windows and stickers on bumpers. The abundance of the campaign fanfare throughout the city turned out to be a rouge when the September 13th primary produced the lowest voter turnout in Baltimore’s history. After the  polls closed, 23% of registered voters had participated, equaling only 12% of the city’s population (rounded from the Unofficial Polling Place Turnout). Even more disappointing was the turnout for the November 8th general election, which produced an even lower turnout than the primaries—reportedly, only 10-12% of registered voters showed. Until September, the lowest turnout Baltimore had seen for a primary was 27% in 1991.

Maryland is not the only state dealing with disappointingly low voter turnout. Kentucky’s November 8th gubernatorial race had only a 29% turnout, and New Jersey saw their lowest turnout in history with 26%. So what is causing such low voter turnout and should there be concern with a Presidential election year approaching? Many scholars and political analysts have their own theories. One of the most popular reasons is voter apathy. The 2010 census reported that the highest population within the 20-24 years and 25-29 years age group. The Unofficial Polling Place Turnout reported that both ages were the least likely to vote, especially the males within the age group. When asked why he did not vote, 21 year old Kevin Clark said, “It was all the same old stuff.”  Many younger citizens do not understand the importance of voting. [Read more…] about A time for change: an examination of Baltimore City’s record low voter turnout

Citizens United: Does it affect New York elections?

· ·

by Andrew Bruskin

The following is a follow-up to an original article written in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

According to several New York publications, not much has changed since this decision was handed down. The Campaign Finance Board states, “NYC already bans direct contributions to candidates and employs strong requirements for disclosure in order to preserve transparency and accountability. As it has for more than 20 years, New York City’s public matching funds program provides candidates with public funds that give small donors a voice to counterbalance the impact of special interest spending.” The New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) states that this decision “will not have too much affect in Albany” anyway. “It is like the Wild Wild west right now anyway,” notes Blair Horner, the legislative director of the group. He further states that New York does not have restrictions on corporate campaign finance, so this ruling is minimal when it comes to New York’s electoral process. Corporations can spend-spend-spend away, with few McCain-Feingold restrictions.

Evan Johnston of the Examiner completely disagrees with the court’s ruling and with both NYPIRG and the New York Campaign Finance Board. Mr. Johnston says, “the ruling, which was to remove any restrictions a corporation might have otherwise run into in paying for virtually unlimited advertising time to sink a candidate who might propose something like term limits, or campaign finance reform, or any number of a host of public policy options that are remotely hostile to corporate interests. That is what New Yorkers need to be concerned about.” [Read more…] about Citizens United: Does it affect New York elections?