Lincoln Chafee, a former United States Senator, emerged as the winner of this year’s Rhode Island gubernatorial race. Chafee received only 36% of the vote in a close election that featured three viable candidates. Additionally, a fourth candidate finished with 6.5% of the vote, which represents about twice the amount of Chafee’s margin of victory. Few can argue that Governor-elect Chaffee lacks the experience necessary to govern, but the real question in Rhode Island is whether a candidate who receives less than 40% of the vote should be deemed the winner of a statewide election. Some states’ laws require an additional runoff election that whittles down the number of candidates when no one candidate receives a majority. Many Rhode Islanders, including term-limited outgoing Governor Donald Carcieri, called for the institution of a runoff election following this year’s race. [Read more…] about The Runoff Debate Intensifies in Rhode Island Following Governor’s Race
Interview with Joan Mandle, Executive Director of Democracy Matters
Joan Mandle, executive director of Democracy Matters, was kind enough to share with us her thoughts on some of the important issues confronting the American election process at this time. Democracy Matters is a national nonpartisan organization dedicated to getting private money out of elections. It is the student branch of Common Cause, and in partnership these groups seek to remove the corruptive influence of money in politics, and ensure the accountability of elected officials, by establishing a viable system of publicly financed (or “clean”) elections on the state and national levels.
Democracy Matters’ staff and student organizers have been at work since 2001, when NBA player Adonal Foyle founded the organization. Six states and two localities already have clean elections, and Democracy Matters hopes to expand that list in its campaign to deepen democracy. [Read more…] about Interview with Joan Mandle, Executive Director of Democracy Matters
Weekly Wrap Up
No more automatic restoration of rights: Governor Rick Scott and the Florida Cabinet have recently attempted to change how released felon regain the right to vote. Their proposal, which the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund suggests must get preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, would prevent people who committed non-violent felonies from regaining the right to vote for 5 years and the 5 year clock would restart if that person were arrested during that period, even if no charges are filed. Some have called these requirements a return to Jim Crow-style voting laws.
Campaign finance again in front of the Supreme Court: As mentioned on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McComish v. Bennett on Monday morning. The case is a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, which includes a trigger fund provision for publicly-funded candidates. This is one a several such cases that have been heard in federal courts in the last year; several other challenges have come out of Florida, Connecticut, and most recently Wisconsin in the ongoing judicial elections.
“Fair Districts” Amendments go to the Justice Department: Three months after Governor Rick Scott quietly withdrew the preclearance request for the “Fair Districts” amendments (Amendments 5 and 6 to the Florida constitution), the legislature has renewed the request, after reviewing the amendments and deciding they were the proper body to make the request, as opposed to the governor. This, however, will likely not end the battle over these amendments as a lawsuit to block these amendments is still pending.
She set out to win jimmy donahue and quickly essays online using https://justbuyessay.com did so
California says “We Draw the Lines”, but Who are “We”?
In 2008, California voters—doing what they do best—amended their constitution to take away the responsibility of redistricting from the state legislature and give it to a “Citizens Redistricting Commission.” That is, by and large, exactly what it sounds like: a panel of citizens who have applied to do the thankless and mind-numbing job of redistricting California’s many, many state and federal electoral districts (it’s a bit more complicated than that, but I’ll get to the details later). This post focuses on the question of who is getting through the process. In particular, I wonder what effect this process has on diversity, in particular the selection of the most qualified diverse applicants.
Here’s how the application and selection process works: California citizens apply, with some important restrictions. While it is not necessary to get into the nitty-gritty details, those who have served in a paid capacity on a political campaign, held public office, or donated a certain amount of money to a political campaign within a certain amount of years from the date of application are prohibited from serving on the Commission. In addition, applicants must have voted in two of the past three elections. The message: be engaged, but not too engaged. [Read more…] about California says “We Draw the Lines”, but Who are “We”?
The End of Public Financing Trigger Provisions? A Review of McComish v. Bennett
The Supreme Court on Monday heard oral argument in a case challenging provisions of Arizona’s public financing law, which it is said burden the free speech rights of opponents who don’t receive the funds. Under the Arizona law, publicly financed candidates receive an initial grant of money with which to conduct their campaign. Then, if an opponent who is not publicly funded spends more than the initial grant, it “triggers” the state to match what the opponent raises up to three times the initial amount. Given the Court’s recent hostility to campaign finance regulations which are said to burden the exercise of political speech, it seems likely that the Court will reverse the Ninth Circuit and strike down at least portions of the matching funds system. This conclusion was reinforced by the questions at oral argument, which seemed to suggest that the Justices will again vote by a 5-4 margin to restrict the ability of the government to regulate campaign finance. This post will briefly review the background of the case and look at how such a decision could effect the twenty-two other states with public financing systems and particularly those with triggering provisions. [Read more…] about The End of Public Financing Trigger Provisions? A Review of McComish v. Bennett