• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Hide Search

Pennsylvania House Bill 934: Friend or Foe

Election Law Society · December 20, 2011 ·

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?”

Election Law Society · December 16, 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

Election Law Society · December 14, 2011 ·

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?

Election Law Society · December 12, 2011 ·

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?

Missouri to hold “beauty contest” primary

Election Law Society · December 8, 2011 ·

by Lindsey Gill

With less  than a year until the 2012 general election, Americans everywhere are gearing up for primary season. With Iowa, as usual, holding the coveted number one spot, the rest of the 50 states will hold their primaries or caucuses sometime between January and June.  Because Missouri law mandates that the state hold a primary election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February, that sets the date for the 2012 primary as February 7th. With only a few states holding a primary or caucus earlier, Missouri’s primary has the possibility to be very influential in the Republican nomination… well, at least it would, if any of Missouri’s votes actually counted.  Instead, the state is set to spend between 6 and 8 million dollars on what Senate Majority Leader Tom Dempsey called a “beauty contest.”

The reason? A rift in the Missouri Republican Party. Nearly a decade after legislators moved Missouri’s primary to February, the Republican and Democratic National Committees instituted new primary rules mandating that all states except Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, hold their primary no earlier than the first Tuesday of March. The Missouri Republican Party immediately began pushing state legislators to change the date of the primary in order to accord with the new rules. Holding the largest Republican majority in state history, one would think that the state legislature would pass an amendment to the primary law with little opposition. Indeed, that appeared to be the case when the legislature passed SB 282 in May of 2011, including the presidential primary provision as one of its several changes to Missouri election law.

Governor Jay Nixon, however, agreeing with the presidential primary provision, vetoed the bill for other reasons. With the national party threatening to sanction any state that did not adhere to the new primary rules by seating only half their delegates, Missouri legislators tried again during special session, limiting HB 3 specifically to the issue of changing the primary date. After barreling through the House, the bill stalled in the Senate as the Republican majority could not decide whether to submit to the national party rules. [Read more…] about Missouri to hold “beauty contest” primary

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 148
  • Go to page 149
  • Go to page 150
  • Go to page 151
  • Go to page 152
  • 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