State of Elections — Page 154 — William & Mary Law School

Law students to run William and Mary VOTEline

Election Law Society · October 25, 2011 ·

Press Release by the William & Mary Election Law Society | October 25, 2011

Students at William & Mary Law School are set to run the W&M VOTEline, a voter assistance hotline aimed at responding to questions local citizens have about voting. This non-partisan voter assistance hotline will be operated by student members of the school’s Election Law Society and other volunteers.

“Voting is an important civic duty,” Election Law Society President Anisa Somani ’13 said. “We want to ensure that all voters – young and old – who are properly registered to vote can do so. We will be manning the VOTEline phones on Election Day, Tuesday November 8th, to answer any questions that might arise as voters arrive at a polling place to cast their vote.”
[Read more…] about Law students to run William and Mary VOTEline

FL (primaries): Florida’s James Dean moment

Election Law Society · October 24, 2011 ·

by Joe Figueroa

In his magnum opus role as Jim Stark in Rebel Without a Cause, James Dean portrays a frustrated teenager who is fed up with his bickering parents and causes all sorts of commotion by acting out against all sorts of authority figures.

JDpic1 — James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause

The Sunshine State can relate.

The G.O.P. establishment has quickly portrayed Florida as the disobedient child after its Legislature decided to move the Presidential Primary date up to January 31st, throwing off the party’s planned schedule and forcing the big four primary states at the beginning of the cycle-Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to move their primaries and caucuses into January as well.

With this move, Florida is flying in the face of a parental grounding of sorts. The Republican National Committee has promised to strip the state of half of its delegates at the National Convention next summer (being held in-you guessed it-Tampa), as well as threaten to move the delegation to the back of the Convention Center and away from the cameras.

All States (motor-voter): The voting poor

Election Law Society · October 20, 2011 ·

by Patrick Genova

Initiatives aimed at registering poor Americans to vote is un-American, or at least that is the conjecture Matthew Vadum made early last month in a controversial article published by American Thinker. Vadum, the author of Subversion, Inc. and Senior Editor for the non-profit watchdog group Capital Research Center, argues that leftist groups are trying to use the poor as a “battering ram” to advance redistributionist policies. The poor masses, Vadum suggests, are the tools with which Obama and like-minded organizations plan to drag America further from small government ideals. Vadum essentially asserts that voter registration is infringing on his American Dream.

The progressive radio host Thom Hartmann went toe-to-toe with Vadum shortly after the article was released. On the Thom Hartmann Program Vadum defended the views he put forward in the article arguing that, given the chance, welfare recipients would vote for their own interests. Hartmann, expressing concern for the one in seven Americans below the poverty line, argued that everyone, not just the poor, votes for their own interests. Vadum had no substantive response to Hartmann’s prodding.

Students’ Voting Rights – Keeping Madison’s Dream Alive?

Election Law Society · October 19, 2011 ·

New Hampshire’s House Speaker, William O’Brien (R-Hillsborough 4), made a name for himself in cyberspace and among voting rights advocates earlier this year when he openly voiced that students in New Hampshire should not be able to vote in-state unless they had established permanent residency in their college towns. O’Brien also vocally supported a recent bill to limit students’ franchise by prohibiting election-day voter registration, a device many students rely upon in New Hampshire to be able to participate in New Hampshire elections. While attempting to justify the proposed bills, H.B. 176 and H.B. 223 respectively, by citing the importance of eliminating voter fraud, his statements were significantly undermined when he also alleged (in a video posted on YouTube) that students in New Hampshire are foolish and merely “vote their feelings.” O’Brien further secured his poor reputation (and the Bills’ fates) by declaring that college students on Election Day cancel out the votes of other, more invested voters, relying on a “dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce.”

Portland’s Instant-Runoff Mayoral Election: Innovative Voting, Constitutional Questions

Election Law Society · October 17, 2011 ·

by Ryan Shallard

On November 8, 2011, Portland, Maine residents will vote for mayor for the first time in nearly a century. For the past 88 years, Portland’s city councilors annually appointed the mayor. However, last year Portland residents voted to popularly elect the mayor. The impetus behind the change is the hope that an elected mayor will carry more political clout in Augusta, the State Capitol. This sudden creation of a very powerful political figure is drawing lots of attention from academics assessing the potential political impacts.

However, the election changes more than just Maine’s political balance and who chooses the mayor. It also establishes a controversial voting procedure for how the mayor is chosen. The 2011 mayor race will use instant-runoff voting (IRV), which encompasses voters’ preferential choices. Here’s how IRV works: each voter votes for as many candidates as he wants, ranking them from his first to last preference. The instant runoff ballot might look like this. Once the votes are collected, voters’ first choices are tallied. If any candidate carries more than 50% of the vote, then that candidate wins. However, given that there are 16 candidates in Portland’s mayoral race, it is extremely unlikely that one candidate will carry the necessary 50% of the vote. If no candidate has more than 50% of the vote, then the candidate receiving the lowest number of first place votes is eliminated, and his votes are redistributed to the candidates his voters ranked as their second choice. This process is repeated from the bottom up until one candidate carries the necessary majority.