Voting Rights

The Future of Senate Bill 97 and its Consequences

Election Law Society · January 19, 2022 ·

By: Zachary Daniel

Shortly before former president Trump called for Texas Governor Greg Abbot to perform a “forensic audit” of the 2020 election in the state, the Texas legislature proposed Senate Bill 97 as a remedy for the concerns over the unsubstantiated allegations of election fraud. If passed, the audits authorized by the bill could easily be weaponized because the bill empowers partisan political actors and the secretary of state over the county electoral process, and simultaneously burdens the counties. The bill has raised concerns among election law activists in Texas, who argue it would have a harmful, long-term impact on the state’s election system.

In the months following the 2020 election, Republican coalitions in states across the country called for audits of election results in four swing states in the name of uncovering alleged voter fraud. In response, the Republican-dominated legislature of Arizona appointed a private firm to investigate the accusations. After months of uncertainty, as well as squandered time, effort, and money, the audit ended and the results were published, showing no indication of fraud. Unfortunately for the rest of the nation, the damage had been done.

Requiring designated polling places on university campuses through New York’s S.B. S4658

Election Law Society · December 6, 2021 ·

By: Sylvanna Gross

Historically, young adults have a low voter turnout. They are less likely to have a driver’s license, less likely to be contacted by politicians, and less likely to have vehicles. Yet, the number of college students casting ballots doubled between 2014 and 2018. That translates to a 40.3% national student voting rate, up from 19.3% in 2014. The turnout rate is even more incredible considering the numbers compare midterm election results, and the 2018 voting rate is close to that of the last two presidential election rates of 47.6% in 2012 and 50.9% in 2016.

In response to the voting turnout, where college students seemed to skew more liberal, Republican politicians started “throwing up roadblocks” to prevent students from entering voting booths. To counteract the political tactics meant to restrict student votes, Democrats began “orchestrating an expansion of voting rights.”

Maryland: Re-enfranchisement and Absentee Voting Changes

Election Law Society · December 3, 2021 ·

By: Kelsey Nickerson

Recently, a surge of vote restoration initiatives has gained ground throughout the United States. The primary right addressed—restoring voting rights to those who have completed an incarceration for a felony conviction—is now at least partially granted in every state but two, with the vast majority of states re-enfranchising these citizens thanks to community advocacy. However, in some states, re-enfranchisement has been hampered by a spate of litigation and counter-legislation attempting to stem the tide of reform, complicating the process of restoration in multiple states. As the administration of these rights churn through state legislatures, the constitutionality of these contestations to incarcerated people’s voting rights will inevitably need to be addressed.

Voting Early in Arizona? Make Sure You’re Still on the List First.

Election Law Society · December 1, 2021 ·

By: Mike Arnone

In the wake of the 2020 Election, states across the country have enacted a variety of more restrictive voting laws. Over 400 bills that make voting more difficult have been introduced in 49 states. 30 of these have become law in 18 states. Arizona is no exception to this trend.

In May 2021, Governor Ducey signed SB 1485 into law, making significant changes to the state’s early voting procedures. Effective after the 2024 election, the new law will recast Arizona’s former Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) as the Active Early Voting List. As the former’s name suggests, voters could indefinitely remain on Arizona’s early voting list and automatically receive a ballot in the mail for any election in which they were eligible to vote. Now, if a voter doesn’t use their early ballot once in two election cycles (once in four years), county election officials are required to purge them from the early voting list if they do not respond within 90 days to a notice warning them of their impending removal. A voter can still be removed from this list if they have voted in person instead of using their early mail ballot in two election cycles. Voters would still remain registered to vote whether or not they were removed from the early voting list.

Voting Rights and Ancestry in the Virgin Islands

Election Law Society · November 19, 2021 ·

By: Leo Jobsis Rossignol

Thanks to recent media developments, more people are becoming aware of the bizarre fact that, in U.S. territories, citizens cannot vote for the president. However, the vote on the federal level is not the end of the story. There are many further oddities to the voting system in the territories, and we’ll take a moment to explore one of them in this post.

The United States Virgin Islands is one of those territories, and the voting system in place has undergone many changes over time. Originally, those living in the islands had no right to vote or to self-government. Before 1954, the territory was governed by two “municipal” or “colonial” councils (see §5 annotations – prior legislative bodies), one for St. Thomas and St. John, and another for St. Croix (the three main islands), with some positions held by local community leaders. Once a year, or more often if called by the federally-appointed governor, both councils would meet and pass legislation. In the U.S. Virgin Islands Revised Organic Act, passed into law that year, all citizens above the age of twenty-one were granted the right to vote in local elections for both the newly-unicameral legislature and the governor. The law also contained a provision allowing the voting age to be dropped to 18 by popular referendum, which it soon was.