Supreme Court

Supreme Court hearing Maryland Redistricting Case is not “Frivolous” for Future of Election Law Procedure

Election Law Society · October 23, 2015 ·

By: Hayley A Steffen

The Supreme Court has famously asserted that the right to vote is “preservative of other basic civil and political rights.” Recognizing the right to vote is implicated in election law litigation, Congress enacted special procedures for adjudicating these claims under the Three-Judge Act of 1910. Now codified under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, one provision requires a three-judge district court to hear constitutional challenges to redistricting claims of any congressional or statewide legislative body. Although the statute reads that the single judge to whom the request for a three-judge panel is made “may determine that a panel is not necessary,” it is unclear under what standard the judge has the authority to do so. Next month, the Supreme Court will be called upon to clarify this standard in a case brought by a Maryland man challenging the state’s redistricting scheme.

Florida’s Lukewarm Remedy for Chilly Early Voting Policies

Election Law Society · October 24, 2014 ·

By Nick Raffaele

While Florida’s relationship with early voting is still relatively new, the honeymoon may already be over. But to understand the hot and cold affair, it is helpful to look back on the couple’s history. Former Governor Jeb Bush first signed early voting into Florida law in 2004, providing early voting fifteen days before an election, eight hours per weekday and eight hours per weekend. Only a short year later, Bush and a Republican legislature cooled on the partnership, dropping the last Monday of early voting before a Tuesday election. The relations heated up again when former Governor Charlie Crist signed an executive order mandating that early voting be extended in response to overwhelming voter turnout for the 2008 Presidential election. Under the leadership of Governor Rick Scott, Florida again turned its back on early voting in 2011 by passing a controversial law that reduced early voting to eight days before an election for a minimum of six hours and a maximum of twelve hours per day. [Read more…] about Florida’s Lukewarm Remedy for Chilly Early Voting Policies

A Shift in Federal Power? Supreme Court to hear Arizona’s Citizenship Requirements for Voter Registration

Election Law Society · January 11, 2013 ·

by James Adam

Arizona law requires individuals to present documents proving U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote. Acceptable proof includes a photocopied birth certificate, photocopied pages of a passport, U.S. naturalization papers or Alien Registration Number, an Indian Census number, Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, Tribal Treaty Card/Enrollment Number, or a photocopy of one’s Tribal Certificate of Indian Blood or Tribal/Bureau of Indian Affairs Affidavit of Birth. Any change of residence between Arizona counties requires subsequent proof of U.S. citizenship.

In April, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco struck down this Arizona law. The court declared that federal voting laws requiring only that the applicant sign their name to verify US citizenship supersedes local election law. In June, the Supreme Court overturned a stay of the decision, and Arizona was unable to require proof of citizenship for registration in the November 2012 election cycle. However, the state can still urge voters to fill out Arizona registration ballots requiring this proof, but they may not bar an individual from simply registering by merely swearing their citizenship under the federal form. Also at the time of this decision, the Ninth Circuit upheld Arizona’s photo identification requirement. The Supreme Court will hear the citizenship arguments early next year. [Read more…] about A Shift in Federal Power? Supreme Court to hear Arizona’s Citizenship Requirements for Voter Registration

Weekly Wrap Up

Election Law Society · April 1, 2011 ·

No more automatic restoration of rights: Governor Rick Scott and the Florida Cabinet have recently attempted to change how released felon regain the right to vote. Their proposal, which the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund suggests must get preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, would prevent people who committed non-violent felonies from regaining the right to vote for 5 years and the 5 year clock would restart if that person were arrested during that period, even if no charges are filed. Some have called these requirements a return to Jim Crow-style voting laws.

Campaign finance again in front of the Supreme Court: As mentioned on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McComish v. Bennett on Monday morning. The case is a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, which includes a trigger fund provision for publicly-funded candidates. This is one a several such cases that have been heard in federal courts in the last year; several other challenges have come out of Florida, Connecticut, and most recently Wisconsin in the ongoing judicial elections.

“Fair Districts” Amendments go to the Justice Department: Three months after Governor Rick Scott quietly withdrew the preclearance request for the “Fair Districts” amendments (Amendments 5 and 6 to the Florida constitution), the legislature has renewed the request, after reviewing the amendments and deciding they were the proper body to make the request, as opposed to the governor. This, however, will likely not end the battle over these amendments as a lawsuit to block these amendments is still pending.

She set out to win jimmy donahue and quickly essays online using https://justbuyessay.com did so

The End of Public Financing Trigger Provisions? A Review of McComish v. Bennett

Election Law Society · March 30, 2011 ·

The Supreme Court on Monday heard oral argument in a case challenging provisions of Arizona’s public financing law, which it is said burden the free speech rights of opponents who don’t receive the funds. Under the Arizona law, publicly financed candidates receive an initial grant of money with which to conduct their campaign. Then, if an opponent who is not publicly funded spends more than the initial grant, it “triggers” the state to match what the opponent raises up to three times the initial amount. Given the Court’s recent hostility to campaign finance regulations which are said to burden the exercise of political speech, it seems likely that the Court will reverse the Ninth Circuit and strike down at least portions of the matching funds system. This conclusion was reinforced by the questions at oral argument, which seemed to suggest that the Justices will again vote by a 5-4 margin to restrict the ability of the government to regulate campaign finance. This post will briefly review the background of the case and look at how such a decision could effect the twenty-two other states with public financing systems and particularly those with triggering provisions. [Read more…] about The End of Public Financing Trigger Provisions? A Review of McComish v. Bennett