Section 2

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.

Beyond Brnovich – How an Arizona Voting Rights Case Will Have Sweeping Consequences

Election Law Society · March 11, 2022 ·

By: Mike Arnone

In July, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brnovich v. DNC, arguably its most significant voting rights decision since Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. Two Arizona election restrictions were at issue in Brnovich, but the Court’s holding will have far-reaching consequences beyond the Grand Canyon State.

The restrictions at the heart of Brnovich prohibited out-of-precinct ballots from being counted and criminalized the collection of ballots for delivery to polling places, a common practice sometimes called “ballot harvesting.” In a 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Alito, the Court upheld both provisions under Section Two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The majority ruled that Section Two of the VRA could only be used to invalidate voting restrictions that place “substantial and disproportionate burdens on minority voters.” Because Arizona provided multiple ways to vote, “any burden associated with one option cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.” Burdens on voting, then, must be evaluated by the totality of the circumstances.

Florida Senate Bill 90: Usual or Unusual Beast of Burden?

Election Law Society · October 22, 2021 ·

On May 6, 2021, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida signed Senate Bill 90 into law. While the Governor and his Republican colleagues in the Legislature heralded SB 90 for its election integrity and transparency measures, critics called foul, or rather “voter suppression.” SB 90 is Florida’s contribution to a flurry of state-led reforms sparked by the national discourse on the validity of the 2020 election. As a result of SB 90, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida now has a substantial election law docket. Petitioners assert a variety of claims (including ADA, Equal Protection, and Fifteenth Amendment claims), with claims regarding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act featuring prominently.

Alabama Voter ID Law Here to Stay

cpkelliher · November 13, 2020 ·

By: Jeff Tyler

The Eleventh Circuit recently decided a 2015 lawsuit brought against Alabama’s voter photo ID law. The suit – brought by the Alabama NAACP, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and several individual plaintiffs – challenged Alabama’s requirement that all voters must provide photo ID in order to vote. Alabama’s voter photo ID law passed in 2011 with zero support from black legislators, but did not go into effect until 2014. In its lawsuit, the NAACP claimed that the photo ID requirement, as implemented, violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA,” now codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10301).

ELS Speaker Series: Will Consovoy

Election Law Society · October 31, 2016 ·

By: Nate Burchard

On October 25, 2016, the William & Mary Election Law Society Speaker Series hosted attorney Will Consovoy. Consovoy is an appellate attorney and founding partner of Consovoy McCarthy Park LLC, co-director of the George Mason University School of Law Supreme Court Clinic, and former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.