Search Results for: Daniel Page

Big commission for a small state

Election Law Society · March 5, 2012 ·

Q&A with John Marion of Common Cause on Redistricting in Rhode Island

1. Can you describe the work the Special Commission on Reapportionment has done?

“They’ve met, six times so far. Going around the state, taking testimony from people concerning what the map should look like. But the Commission has not publicly presented any maps. Starting next week it is expected that they will present three or more sets of maps and take them around the state seeking input from the public. They are required by law to choose a plan which is a set of maps and then the legislature has to vote.”

2. What could the Commission do to improve the quality of elections for Rhode Islanders?

“They could continue to do what they seem to be doing, which is taking public input. Besides the public hearings the Commission is allowing members of the public to use the computers that will be used to do the redistricting and draw their own maps and submit them.”

“The Commission should also be publicly debating and trying to rank the criteria that they plan to use and consider when drawing the plans. There are many different legal criteria that must be satisfied but also political criteria that may be taken into account including political competiveness considerations.”

3. What about the process by which the Commission was picked? [Read more…] about Big commission for a small state

News Brief: A Fox in the Henhouse

Election Law Society · February 29, 2012 ·

by Allison Handler

Though Ohio’s U.S. House district lines have been approved since September, it was not until February 17th that the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that those lines would remain in place for the 2012 elections. Much controversy has surrounded the lines, with claims from Democrats that the redistricting map was gerrymandered to favor the GOP. John Husted, Ohio Secretary of State, has called the state’s line-drawing system “partisan and dysfunctional.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court based its ruling on timing; the Democrats “unreasonably delayed” the filing of their suit until 96 days after the districts had already been approved.

The redistricting scheme has famously left two veteran liberal incumbents running against each other: Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich. In addition to this high profile contest, the Ohio Campaign for Accountable Redistricting said the new map, developed last year when Republicans controlled four of the five seats of the Apportionment Board, reduces the number of competitive legislative districts and increases the number of safe Republican districts.

With primary elections only two weeks away, a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Democrats would have required postponed elections. Logistically, the doubt cast over the redistricting lines has led to some insecurity among candidates regarding where exactly they should be campaigning. Such controversies will be put aside for the upcoming primary, but the Supreme Court has agreed to evaluate the district map again for future elections. The lawsuit charged that GOP line drawing violated Article 11 of the state constitution, which requires that the districts be compact and contiguous and that local units of government not be split unnecessarily. The map divides 51 counties, 108 townships, 55 cities and 41 wards for a total of 255 divisions, according to the lawsuit.

The experience has prompted several advocacy organizations, like the League of Women Voters of Ohio and Common Cause Ohio, to band together in coalition to improve the way Ohio draws its districts. Known as Voters First Ohio, the group aims to create, by ballot drive, the Ohio Independent Redistricting Commission. The Commission would be charged with drawing lines for the 2014 election. This plan is meant to assuage some of the damage done by the 2011 redistricting in time to affect elections prior to 2021, when the state will undergo redistricting again after the next census.

“The [2011] plan was secretly drawn, the public hearings were a sham and it’s very clear that the sole goal was to maximize partisan advantage,” said Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Professor Daniel Tokaji, one of the leaders of the coalition. “It was the exact opposite of a fair process — you’d be hard-pressed to find a place where the process or end product was uglier than Ohio.”

Allison Handler is a first-year law student at William & Mary.

permalink:http://stateofelections.pages.wm.edu/2012/02/29/newsbrief-oh-redistricting

Waugh wrote up the occasion in his journal:a two day visit to see what ann essaynara.com has been up to.

Voters? We don’t need no stinkin’ voters

Election Law Society · January 19, 2012 ·

Why recent changes to Texas election laws may unintentionally undermine voter turnout

by Daniel Carrico

The Texas Secretary of State is fighting to uphold Texas’s new voter photo identification law against federal scrutiny. The press has reported extensively on the battle brewing between the states and the United States Department of Justice over the impact that voter ID laws will have on voter turnout. Many groups believe that voter ID laws—which require persons to show photo ID before casting their votes—unfairly target minority voters, making it more difficult for them to participate in the democratic process. While the photo ID requirement is the most widely reported change to the Texas election process, it is not the only new roadblock likely to affect voter turnout in the Lone Star State’s upcoming elections.

New Burdens for Voluntary Deputy Voter Registrars

Earlier this year, the Texas legislature bolstered the requirements for persons wishing to serve as deputy voter registrars by passing House Bill 2194 and House Bill 1570.

In Texas, the voter registrar in each county may appoint one or more deputy registrars. Deputy registrars are volunteers who assist in the registration of voters. They distribute applications, help people fill out applications, and generally promote voter registration. [Read more…] about Voters? We don’t need no stinkin’ voters

When is state law not enforceable?

Election Law Society · December 28, 2011 ·

Texas awaits DOJ approval for its new voter photo ID law.

by Daniel Carrico

The battle over Texas’s controversial new voter identification bill should be over. Instead, it appears to be heating up.

Senate Bill 14 amends the Texas Election Code, requiring voters to present an approved form of photo identification to cast a ballot in state elections. Voters may rely on most forms of commonly-used government-issued photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport. Voters who are unwilling, or unable, to pay for identification are also covered; the bill creates a new form of identification called an “election identification certificate” which can be obtained at no cost from the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Both the Texas House and Senate approved the bill and its photo identification requirements, following months of heated debate across the state. And, on May 27, Governor Rick Perry signed the bill into law. Notwithstanding any post-enactment court challenges, gubernatorial endorsement is the final step in the legislative process—or at least that’s how things usually work in Texas. [Read more…] about When is state law not enforceable?

MN (campaign finance): A court unites post-Citizens United: the entire Eighth Circuit bench reviews Swanson

Election Law Society · November 7, 2011 ·

by Stephanie Bitto

The full eleven-member bench of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. Swanson on September 21st. The case is an appeal of a ruling by a three-judge panel upholding a lower-court decision that refused to grant a preliminary injunction and enjoin Minnesota election laws regarding independent expenditures and corporate contributions to candidates and political parties. In July, the Eighth Circuit granted the petitioners’ request for en banc review and vacated the Court’s previous ruling.

A three-judge panel found that that an injunction was not proper because the plaintiffs, three Minnesota corporations, were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their claims, and Minnesota’s provisions regarding corporate independent expenditures are similar in both purpose and effect to the federal disclosure laws that the Supreme Court upheld in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. There, the Supreme Court found that both corporate and union contributions to independent political committees were constitutionally protected free speech and upheld contribution disclosure requirements. Following Citizens United, The Eighth Circuit panel found that the Swanson plaintiffs would likely not prevail on the claim that the Minnesota laws were not sufficiently tailored or on the claim that the ban on direct corporate contributions is unconstitutional.