14th Amendment

Montana: Changes To Voting Laws In Wake of 2020 Election

Election Law Society · March 23, 2022 ·

By: Kelsey Nickerson

Montana is one of the largest states in the county, but unlike its counterparts Texas and California, it is home to relatively few people and only accounts for 3 electoral votes. The state had some close elections as of late, and with a relatively small population, a small number of votes can play aa large part in election results. As in most states, the 2020 Election inspired Montana to enact much more stringent voting laws relating to registration, identification, and absentee voting. Many of these laws, despite the obvious problematic result of disenfranchisement of indigenous voters, were upheld under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court’s decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee this past summer. In Montana, however, a new group has challenged the restrictive bill: young voters.

HB 506, along with instating various redistricting criteria, requires that “[u]ntil the individual meets residence and age requirements, a ballot may not be issued to the individual and the individual may not cast a ballot” via mail. Though it may seem like a reasonable limitation to place on mail-in voting, it does burden a certain portion of the population. Young people, whose participation has surged in Montana over the past few years, object to stringent absentee requirements that target both their age and transient nature. For example, young Montanans who will be 18 and eligible to vote on Election Day, but will not reach that age before the extremely early deadline to request a mail-in ballot, are prevented from voting if they can’t return to their district on Election Day. Additionally, residency requirements require 30 days of presence in a new location before an absentee ballot may be requested. With large portions of teens in Montana moving both away from home and out of state in the fall, there is little room for error in requesting an absentee ballot, and sometimes the request is impossible.

An Even More Cynical Form of Gerrymandering for Connecticut

Election Law Society · April 9, 2019 ·

By: Sarah Crowe

In a lawsuit being touted as the “first of its kind”, Connecticut was hit with a federal lawsuit in late June 2018 with the aim of ending the practice of prison gerrymandering. According to the NAACP, prison gerrymandering is “the practice of counting prisoners in the towns where they are incarcerated, rather than at their pre-incarceration address, for the purposes of drawing state legislative district lines. The inmate population in Connecticut is a largely African American and Latino population, and these prisoners disproportionately come from urban centers. The prisons in Connecticut, however, are almost all in rural areas. Though many prisoners have lost their voting rights due to felony convictions, they are still counted as residents where they are incarcerated, inflating the votes of those who live in the rural areas near prisons, who are predominately white.

A New Color Under the Voting Rights Act?: Part Two

Election Law Society · February 11, 2019 ·

This is part two. Part I can be viewed here.

Can white minority plaintiffs successfully prove a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA)?

Although a federal district court in the Northern District of Texas recently dealt with such a claim, it stopped short of answering this question by sidestepping the question.

Plaintiffs Anne Harding, Gregory R. Jacobs, Holly Knight Morse, and Johannes Peter Schroer challenged a Dallas County Commissioners Court district map from 2011 under Section 2 of the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment claiming that “the absence of a second county commissioner district that is capable of electing a representative of their choice” diminished their capacity to participate in the political process. [Read more…] about A New Color Under the Voting Rights Act?: Part Two

Top Two Primaries and Third Party Voters: A Due Process Mathematical Mismatch

Election Law Society · January 30, 2019 ·

By: Jonathan Barsky

California currently employs an unusual electoral system, which is colloquially known as the “Top Two” primary, in both federal and state elections. Under this system, all of the candidates are thrown into a nonpartisan “jungle primary” that takes place in June and the two candidates who earn the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the November general election. The only exception to these rules is the presidential election, which still remains open to all major party candidates and several minor party and write-in candidates.

Over two posts, I will address potential constitutional flaws in California’s primary system. This post will discuss a Fourteenth Amendment injury that voters suffer stemming from the Due Process Clause, while the second post will analyze a First Amendment objection rooted in the associational rights of political parties, focusing on California Democratic Party v. Jones and Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party.

Why Was South Carolina’s Voter ID Law Approved in 2012? Will It Remain?

Election Law Society · January 11, 2017 ·

By: Lane Reeder

Prior to Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, South Carolina was a covered jurisdiction under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. In 2011, during Legislative Session 119, the South Carolina legislature passed, and the Governor signed, an act that made voting-related changes. Section Five of Act R54 (A27 H3003) (2011) dealt with voter identification. Because this happened prior to Shelby County v. Holder, pre-clearance was required. The State asked for pre-clearance from the Attorney General of the United States, but it was denied. South Carolina then sought a declaratory judgment in the D.C. District Court.