• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Hide Search

Want to Be a Senator, but Hate Those Pesky Elections? Just Become a ‘Temporary’ Appointee

Election Law Society · November 2, 2010 ·

The legal controversy over the appointment of a replacement to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama is likely drawing to a close.  In the process of resolving the controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court also clarified their interpretation of a key portion of the Seventeenth Amendment regarding vacancies in Senate seats.  This topic has been relevant lately, particularly following the 2008 election cycle.  When Senator Obama was elected President, his incoming administration including numerous sitting Senators including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and, of course, himself.  Despite its seemingly straight-forward language, the Seventeenth Amendment required a certain amount of parsing to ensure these senatorial appointments would fulfill its procedural requirements.

The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, in addition to providing for the direct election of senators, altered the procedure for filling vacancies in that office.  The amendment provides that, in the event of a vacancy, the governor must issue a “writ of election” to hold an election for a permanent replacement to fill the seat.  The state legislature may empower the governor to make a temporary appointment, but the appointee may only serve until the special election is held to fill the vacancy.  A date for a special election must be set by the governor, but the amendment does not specify when exactly it must be held. [Read more…] about Want to Be a Senator, but Hate Those Pesky Elections? Just Become a ‘Temporary’ Appointee

William & Mary VOTEline

Election Law Society · November 1, 2010 ·

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

“Voting is an important civic duty,” Election Law Society President Ashleigh Casey ’12 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 2nd, to answer any questions that might arise as voters arrive at a polling place to cast their vote.”

VOTEline is a response to outcries from William & Mary students who faced confusion at local election booths in the past. The Election Law Society has operated VOTEline since November of 2007.  Any citizen who wants to vote in the local election may call the hotline at (757) 221-2890 from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. to seek information regarding their rights at the polls.

“I encourage William & Mary students and members of the Williamsburg community at large to call the VOTEline with any questions or concerns they may have at the polls on Election Day,” Casey said.

Students are also advised to bring a government issued form of identification to the polls on Election Day. Valid forms of identification include a voter identification card, a valid driver’s license, and a W&M ID card for certain voters.

For more information about VOTEline, call or e-mail Brian Rothenberg ’13, at (757) 209-1001 / brian.rothenberg@gmail.com.

http://domyhomework.guru

Image is Everything: Is Disclosure an Effective Check on Corporate Political Donations?

Election Law Society · November 1, 2010 ·

In his January State of the Union address President Obama warned that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United would result in American elections being “bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse foreign entities.” President Obama wasn’t alone in his disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision. The Pew Center reports that a large majority—65%—of Americans also disapprove of the decision. However, the gubernatorial race in Minnesota is demonstrating that corporate donations are not completely unchecked. In fact, the biggest factor limiting a corporation’s exercise of this First Amendment right may be the First Amendment itself.

Minnesota’s upcoming gubernatorial election has become the focus of corporation’s contributions to political organizations because of a Minnesota law requiring organizations to publicly disclose contributions over $100. The law does not set any limitation on the amount of a donation, but if it is more than $100, the public and the press are going to know about it. According to two Minnesota political organizations, the disclosure requirements are unconstitutional. [Read more…] about Image is Everything: Is Disclosure an Effective Check on Corporate Political Donations?

Weekly Wrap Up

Election Law Society · October 29, 2010 ·

Is World Wrestling Entertainment political advertising?  According to election officials in Connecticut, it is.  They have told poll workers that they can ask voters wearing WWE gear to cover it up, fearing that it could be construed as political advertising for Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon, who is also the former CEO of WWE.  Officials said that McMahon is so closely associated with WWE that the gear could easily be considered a violation of rule banning political campaigning within 75 feet of a polling station.  McMahon’s husband, Vince McMahon, said that this was a violation of WWE fans’ First Amendment rights and would deny them their right to vote.  Connecticut Republicans are also up in arms, with the State Party Chairman calling the action “voter intimidation.” This is not unprecedented, however; a similar rule was in place in California, forbidding voters from wearing “Terminator” gear when Arnold Schwarzenegger was on the ballot.

The 9th Circuit struck down part of Arizona’s voter registration laws on October 27, holding that the provisions of the law requiring proof of citizenship conflicted with the federal law. The federal law only requires that applicants “attest their citizenship under penalty of perjury”, while the 2004 voter-approved initiative in Arizona required applicants to register to vote to show proof of citizenship by providing one of the documents on the approved list. The citizenship requirement was “an additional state hurdle” to registration, something the federal law was trying to prevent. The 9th Circuit appeals panel–which included retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor–did not, however, overturn the requirement that voters show identification at the polls in order to vote. [Read more…] about Weekly Wrap Up

An Amendment for One Man? Connecticut Amends the Citizens’ Election Program

Election Law Society · October 29, 2010 ·

Once again the citizens of the Constitution State are questioning the actions of their politicians.  The bi-partisan ‘Clean Elections’ Act has been amended on party lines and sparked serious debate.  With the upcoming Gubernatorial Election, both parties have much at stake, and immediate changes were necessary in light of the 2nd Circuit’s ruling that a part of the act was unconstitutional.  But with the way these changes were adopted, the citizens of Connecticut are wondering if these adaptations are really just making their ‘Clean Elections’ Act dirty.

The original Citizens Election Program (“CEP”) was established under the ‘Clean Election’ Act’s passing in 2005 during a time of political turmoil in Connecticut.  Governor John Rowland’s 2004 resignation amid controversy regarding inappropriate interactions with state contractors helped to contribute to the bill’s support.  Its passage establishemaloyd public financing for all statewide races, banned contributions from contractors and lobbyists, and was widely considered to be a model system for publicly funded elections.  Currently, Connecticut is also operating a pilot program for public financing of municipal elections, which is the first of its kind among the states.  The CEP has been widely supported from both sides of the aisle in Connecticut and beyond. [Read more…] about An Amendment for One Man? Connecticut Amends the Citizens’ Election Program

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 165
  • Go to page 166
  • Go to page 167
  • Go to page 168
  • Go to page 169
  • 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