bipartisan

A Bipartisan Effort to Change Election Law in South Carolina

Election Law Society · January 20, 2023 ·

By Susanna Clark

This past May, the governor of South Carolina signed a new bill into law that made changes to early voting, both in-person and absentee, and election crimes. The bill was a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. After some back and forth between the House and Senate and the two parties, the bill passed unanimously. It should be noted that both the South Carolina House and Senate are controlled by Republicans by a significant margin, 80-43 and 30-16, respectively, so moderate Republicans may have been standing with Democrats in enacting a less restrictive law—effectively forcing a bipartisan effort. Either way, when compared to other Republican-controlled states, this law appears to be much less restrictive.

Lawmakers have stated that the goal of the bill was to increase election integrity in the state. House Speaker Jay Lucas said the bill would “make it easier to vote and harder to cheat in South Carolina.” The bill was signed into law less than a month before the primary election on June 14, and due to the new early-voting provisions, voters were able to cast their ballots just two weeks after the bill passed. It is unclear whether this created confusion for voters or election officials, since the bill was passed so close to an election; the lack of news reports related to voter confusion caused by the bill suggest that it was not likely an issue. Confusion can likely be avoided by making the new provisions widely available to the public, and ensuring that election officials are properly briefed on the new legislation.

One of the major changes is that an in-person two-week early voting period replaces an in-person absentee voting, which is now done by mail. This means that there is an in-person voting period prior to Election Day and absentee voting by mail for those who cannot vote during the available time. This would operate like Election Day voting–voters can only vote in their respective counties and must bring a form of photo identification This ID requirement dates back to 2013. The hours and locations differ slightly, based on whether it is for a general, primary, or runoff election. Absentee voting is still available, but it is now done through the mail. Requested ballots will be received by mail, but completed ballots can be dropped off in-person to a county election office or mailed in. Voters must meet at least one of the requirements listed in order to receive an absentee ballot and must request an absentee ballot. They are not automatically sent to voters who meet one of the requirements unless they are active military personnel, are disabled, or are over 65. Voters also must be absent from their residence for the entire 12-day early voting period in order to obtain an absentee ballot. The bill also bans ballot drop boxes, which had been proposed in 2020 as a response to the pandemic, but never implemented.

The early voting measures intend to make it easier to vote, but there is also a significant provision intended to enhance election integrity. The bill effectively increases five election law violations to felonies. Punishments include a fine of up to $5,000 and up to five years in prison, which are increased from the punishments before this new law. Some of these violations include fraudulently voting, aiding in fraudulent voting, and requesting or returning more than five absentee ballots in addition to your own. While those convicted of a misdemeanor cannot vote while incarcerated, this measure is significant because those convicted of felonies in South Carolina cannot vote while incarcerated, on probation, or on parole. These punishments do not necessarily make it more difficult to cheat, but they likely deter people from cheating and effectively decrease rates of fraud. Based on an assessment done by Bloomberg News, which takes into account the new law, South Carolina does not score particularly well in the “ease of voting” category, but it does score well in the “ballot security” category, which is the major goal of the bill.

Overall, South Carolina’s new law does not appear overly restrictive, but it definitely is part of a recent trend by states to amend their voting laws in response to the 2020 election, whether by making voting easier, or more difficult, usually depending on which political party is in control. So far, there have not been any legal challenges to the new law, but there has been criticism that it unnecessarily restricts access to voting.

A Case Study in Independent Redistricting – Washington State

jwhowell · January 13, 2023 ·

By Megan Bodenhammer

Any native of Washington State knows, first-hand, the degree of political polarization that exists in the state. The western part of Washington State encompasses the most heavily populated and liberal part of the state, including Seattle and the rest of King County. In contrast, the eastern part of the state is much more conservative and rural. This split makes politics in the state especially contentious and divisive. Interestingly, as a result of this stark geographical and cultural divide, the eastern part of Washington State has threatened to secede and create its own state quite frequently throughout history.

This split political climate forms the background for all legal and political issues in the state. This is especially true for election laws and redistricting. In most states, politicians or legislatures draw the maps for state elections. In other words, the politicians whose job security depends on elections are the same people who draw the districts that determine the outcome of elections. In places like Washington, where political opinions are deeply entrenched and divisive, this can be problematic. In thirty-four states, districting for state elections is done predominately by state legislatures. Washington is just one of fourteen states that has an independent districting commission. The remaining two states have a hybrid model.

The body that draws maps in Washington is called the Washington State Redistricting Commission, which is a board made up of five commissioners. Four of the commissioners are selected by the majority and minority leaders in each chamber of the state legislature. These four commissioners, then, vote on a fifth commissioner who serves as the non-voting chair. The non-voting chair’s role is to establish areas of common ground and facilitate compromise. This results in a bi-partisan commission with two seats for the Democratic Party and two seats for the Republican Party, who decide the fifth, non-partisan chair together. This makes Washington unique because it is only one of nine states with a non-politician districting commission. This means that commissioners may not have been elected as a district, county, or state party officer, nor may they have been another type of elected official within two years of appointment to the commission. Additionally, commissioners may not have been a registered lobbyist within one year of appointment. There are also requirements during a commissioner’s appointment. Commissioners may not campaign for elected office or participate in or donate to any political campaign for state or federal elected office. For two years following their service, commissioners may not hold or campaign for congressional or state legislative office.

In a staunchly divided state like Washington, it would seem beneficial to have a non-politician and bipartisan districting commission. However, it is questionable whether these requirements actually prevent political gamesmanship and gerrymandering. First, the prohibition on politicians is not a difficult hurdle to overcome. Two years without running for public office hardly prevents someone with political motivations or budding political ambitions from being selected to the commission. Further, because commissioners are selected by state legislatures, they are likely colleagues or affiliates of politicians, not far-removed non-partisan individuals as is required. Further, because the majority and minority leaders each get to pick a representative, it is likely they will pick a commissioner that represents their political ideations. Being selected by a group of politicians is not altogether different from the leaders appointing a politician to the commission.

The Washington State Redistricting Commission has not been without its flaws. The Commission was unable to come to a consensus and meet its November 15, 2021, deadline to draw district maps. Instead, the Washington State Supreme Court was tasked with drawing the state’s new legislative maps. In March of this year, the chair of the commission, Sara Augustine, resigned from her position. Her decision came after the commission failed to intervene in a lawsuit regarding its own maps. She claims that in failing to defend the maps, state authorities have undermined the compromise that went into creating maps that protect the public interest. Moreover, the Commission is under suspicionfor conducting their deliberations of map drawing in private, in violation of a Washington law called the Open Public Meetings Act. This act requires all meetings of governing bodies of public agencies be open to the public. Clearly, the realities of bipartisan map drawing are not as idyllic as they may seem on paper.

While the basis of a non-politician and bipartisan districting commission sounds like a modern solution to districting issues, Washington State is an important case study testing out this theory. While the Commission may not have been wholly successful, it will be interesting to see how Washington approaches its next redistricting. If Washington, with its intense political polarization, can find a way to manage bi-partisan and apolitical districting, perhaps the rest of the nation could follow its lead.

The Fourth Time is the Charm: Ohio Voters Implement a Bipartisan Redistricting Commission

Election Law Society · February 3, 2016 ·

By: Kelsey Carpenter

On Election Day 2015, Ohio voters implemented ballot initiative Issue 1. This initiative creates a bipartisan redistricting commission to draw the state legislative district lines following the 2020 census, as opposed to the current system that allows the majority party to elect five partisan members to the redistricting commission. According to Issue 1, a seven-member panel that includes representatives from both the majority and minority parties will redraw the lines. The redistricting plan will pass for four years if four members of the panel accept the lines, while it will last for ten years if at least two of those votes come from members of the minority party. It is an interesting plan that attempts to eliminate partisan politics by incentivizing bipartisanship and cooperation.