Electoral College

Can the South Carolina Republican Party Really Cancel its Presidential Primary?

Election Law Society · February 24, 2020 ·

By: Trevor Bernardo

GOP state committees in South Carolina, Kansas, Alaska, Arizona, and Nevada have all cancelled their primary or caucus elections for the 2020 presidential election. The Minnesota GOP also recently announced that Trump would be the only Republican candidate on its primary ballot. How can state parties avoid holding a primary election, even if only to confirm or re-nominate an incumbent, that will ultimately determine who will be on the general election ballot, and pledge electors to vote in the Electoral College?

Who Would Dare Hack Delaware?

Election Law Society · November 27, 2017 ·

By Dorronda Bordley

As the investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 Presidential election continues, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finally announced which states experienced hacking attempts within the last year. Among those targeted was Delaware. With only three Electoral College votes and a consistent Democratic voting record in the last seven presidential elections, it is bizarre to see Delaware in the company of swing states like Wisconsin, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. However, unlike Virginia, which is updating its voting system to ensure election security, Delaware is updating its voting system for a very different reason: efficiency. [Read more…] about Who Would Dare Hack Delaware?

New York, Fusion Voting, and Gary Johnson – What’s an Independence-Libertarian to do?

Election Law Society · October 31, 2016 ·

By: Caiti Anderson

There is no state quite like New York – and not many election laws quite like New York’s, either. As one example, only New York and six other states permit fusion voting. On a fusion ballot, a candidate can be listed as candidate for more than one party. Fusion voting, as noted the 1997 Supreme Court decision of Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, had its heyday during the Gilded Age. Political parties, rather than governmental entities, distributed their own ballots to voters but did not affirmatively tell voters what other parties endorsed the same candidate(s) they supported. Thus, Candidate Smith could be supported by both the Granger and Republican parties, but those who voted the Granger ballot would not necessarily know from the ballot the Granger party handed them that the Republican Party also supported Smith.