absentee ballot

South Carolina and the Free and Open Elections Clause

Election Law Society · March 28, 2022 ·

By: Anna Miller

In May 2020, the Supreme Court of South Carolina was asked to rule on whether the COVID-19 pandemic constituted enough of a “physical disability” to allow all South Carolina voters to vote absentee in the 2020 election. Currently, South Carolina election law requires absentee voters to have an approved reason for casting an absentee ballot, including being unable to cast an in-person vote due to physical disability. South Carlina Code Section 7-15-310 defines physical disability as “a person who, because of injury or illness, cannot be present in person at his voting place on election day.”

In Bailey v. SEC, the South Carolina Democratic Party sued the South Carolina State Election Commission to reinterpret this provision in light of the global pandemic, which would allow every voter to vote absentee without changing South Carolina’s election laws. However, while this case was pending before the South Carolina Supreme Court, the South Carolina legislature made temporary changes to the election law allowing regions under a state of emergency declaration to vote absentee without a stated reason.

Voting During and After Incarceration: Past, Present, and Future in New York

Election Law Society · December 8, 2021 ·

By: Stephanie Perry

Recent criminal justice reforms have eased access to the ballot for tens of thousands of New Yorkers with criminal records post-release, but perennial state Senate and Assembly bills to stop the disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions in the first place remain stuck in state Election Law Committee purgatory. So, uninterrupted enfranchisement throughout a felony sentence is currently impossible.

Jailhouse voting may sound unexpected, but a Supreme Court decision protecting the right to the ballot for qualified, incarcerated voters arose from a case originating in upstate New York. In 1972, a group of detainees at the Monroe County Jail in Rochester brought a state case that ultimately resulted in the 1974 decision, O’Brien v. Skinner, that affirms the right of pretrial detainees and others in jail who are not otherwise disqualified from voting to access the ballot. At that time (and today), New York did not eliminate the voting eligibility of people convicted of misdemeanors. Of course, people serving short sentences and those awaiting trial in jail could not easily appear at their polling places to vote.

Maryland: Re-enfranchisement and Absentee Voting Changes

Election Law Society · December 3, 2021 ·

By: Kelsey Nickerson

Recently, a surge of vote restoration initiatives has gained ground throughout the United States. The primary right addressed—restoring voting rights to those who have completed an incarceration for a felony conviction—is now at least partially granted in every state but two, with the vast majority of states re-enfranchising these citizens thanks to community advocacy. However, in some states, re-enfranchisement has been hampered by a spate of litigation and counter-legislation attempting to stem the tide of reform, complicating the process of restoration in multiple states. As the administration of these rights churn through state legislatures, the constitutionality of these contestations to incarcerated people’s voting rights will inevitably need to be addressed.

North Carolina’s HB 1169, Part 2: The Witness Requirement Saga Reduces to “Chaos”

cpkelliher · January 4, 2021 ·

By: Forrest Via

As discussed previously, the North Carolina General Assembly passed HB 1169 this summer to, in part, loosen absentee-ballot requirements in response to COVID-19: The legislation lowered the state’s absentee-ballot witness-signature requirement to one person. For some, this change was not enough—the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans filed suit against the State Board of Elections, arguing the presence of any witness requirement violated the state constitution due to the circumstances presented by the pandemic.

“Give me an absentee ballot, or give me death!”

Election Law Society · October 12, 2020 ·

By Parker Klingenberg

Oklahoma is just one of three states, joining Mississippi and Missouri, requiring absentee ballots to be officially notarized. This is a problem for many people in 2020 where it is difficult to do, well, almost anything without putting your health at risk. Before a major vote in Oklahoma on June 30 for the party primaries and a state question regarding expanding Medicare, the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down this requirement in lieu of the pandemic. In response, the Oklahoma legislature immediately passed Senate Bill 210, which waived the notary requirement if a state of emergency had been declared or existed within forty-five days of an election. However, they did not eliminate the barrier completely; instead of notarization, an absentee voter must now include a photocopy of a valid photo ID. When the issue turned to the Federal District Court, Judge John Dowdell of the Northern District of Oklahoma denied a request for temporary injunction requesting a curtailing of absentee voting requirements, specifically pointing to Senate Bill 210 allowing exceptions in a state of emergency, writing that “the state has put in place alternatives that do not necessarily require that voters have direct contact with others in order to cast an absentee ballot,” and that the absentee voting requirements in Oklahoma are “reasonable, nondiscriminatory and legitimate.”