Voting Rights Act

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.

Virginia Passes State-Level Voting Rights Measure Mirroring Original Federal 1965 Voting Rights Act

Election Law Society · February 2, 2022 ·

By: Sarah Fisher

In March 2021, Virginia—a state historically marked by racially discriminatory practices in voting—became the first state formerly covered by the landmark federal 1965 Voting Rights Act to adopt state-level voting rights legislation modeled off of the Civil Rights Era measure.

Under the 1965 Act, certain cities, counties, and states with a history of race-based discrimination in voting were required to seek approval (called “preclearance”) from the United States Attorney General before making any changes to their election laws, regulations, or practices. The group of states and municipalities required to seek preclearance was determined by a formula that considered the jurisdiction’s use of certain discriminatory voting practices (such as poll taxes) and the jurisdiction’s voter registration and participation rates as of 1968.

“Colorful Colorado”: State Redistricting Maps In The 2020 Election

Election Law Society · November 15, 2021 ·

By: Weston Zeike

“Colorful Colorado” is one nickname of the “Centennial State.” Perhaps it’s fitting, then, that the state has been making headlines on the way it decided to color in its maps during the 2020 redistricting process.

Redistricting reform has received increasing attention in recent years, with Colorado being no exception to the national trend. In 2018, Colorado voters amended the Colorado Constitution to task an independent redistricting commission with drawing lines. Requiring 55% of the vote while receiving over 70%, these amendments gave the new independent redistricting commission authority to draw both state and congressional lines. Three years after the vote (and only months after the release of the requisite decennial census data release), we have a final congressional redistricting plan drawn by the commission.

Political Process Breakdown: What Happens When the Political Branches Cannot Agree on a Map?

Election Law Society · November 8, 2021 ·

By: Kayla Burris

What happens when the governor and state legislature disagree on how to draw a state’s legislative districts? Should the courts get involved? And how soon should they get involved—at the beginning of the process, or closer to the primaries?

State and federal courts in Wisconsin are grappling with these questions. Two tandem tracks of cases are proceeding—one in the Wisconsin Supreme Court and one consolidated case in the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

To set the scene, Wisconsin is one of the most politically divided states in the country with a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor—both of which are required to agree on a legislative map according to Wisconsin law. Thus far in the redistricting cycle, the two sides seem unlikely to come to an agreement on the new legislative map. The Democratic governor has said that “it’s unlikely he would sign into law any maps drawn by the Republican-controlled [l]egislature that are based on the current boundary lines that have solidified GOP majorities for decades.” The governor instead favors using a nonpartisan commission to draw the maps. The Republican-controlled legislature on the other hand argues for retaining the current maps to the extent possible under the law.