Georgia held a special congressional election in the Sixth District on April 18, but no one got a majority, so there will be a runoff on June 20. Georgia does not allow anyone to register, and have that registration take effect, after March 19. Some voting rights organizations filed a lawsuit on April 20, seeking to permit individuals who weren’t already registered to vote by March 19, to vote in the June runoff. The lawsuit is based on a federal voter registration law which outlaws voter registration deadlines earlier than 30 days before any federal election.
On April 28, the state filed this brief in defense of its law. The U.S. Constitution permits the states to establish voter qualifications, as long as they aren’t discriminatory, and aren’t based on sex or race and don’t set a voting age older than age 18. The state argues that its law, forbidding persons from registering to vote and having that registration take effect in time for a runoff, is a voter qualification.
One of the plaintiffs in the case is a voter who moved into the district a few days after voter registration closed. She couldn’t move into the district until her house sale closed. State law won’t let her vote in the June run-off.
The state also argues that it would be administratively inconvenient to have a different rule for federal office and state office. In some cases, special election ballots happen to have both federal and state office on the ballot. But, this administrative problem is a consequence of the state’s decision to restrict voter registration for runoff elections.
I mean, I can vote in a general election even if I don’t vote in a primary, or if I moved to the district after the primary took place, so I must say I don’r understand the state’s logic in this case. Maybe I’m missing something obvious, though.
Richard:
How would YOU comment on another inconsistently in Federal election law, specifically the requirement that ballots MUST be mailed to all over-seas registered voters 45 days before ALL Federal elections, yet local registration must continue to 30 days before the same election?
Doesn’t the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot make the mailing date for state ballots moot?
https://www.fvap.gov/eo/overview/materials/forms
I don’t think there is any inconsistency in federal law. The law requires states to send postal overseas ballots 45 days before the election, but clearly that only refers to ballots to people who are already registered. If someone registers after that, there is no prohibition on the state then mailing the new voters an overseas mail ballot. I have a feeling most overseas absentee ballots will go back and forth in the mail in much less than 45 days. The 45 day rule is designed to protect military in places that are very difficult for mail to reach, such as submarines and remote foreign assignments, like wild areas in Afghanistan. Generally U.S. civilians overseas are in advanced urban areas with good air service and therefore good postal mail service.
I’d think they would have a case under the 26th Amendment, since those turning 18 between April and June would not be able to vote in runoff. They form an identifiable class discriminated against on the basis of age.
After the SCOTUS decision in Foster v Love, Louisiana attempted to switch to a system where if there were one or two congressional candidates, they would face off in November; if there were three or more they would face off in the Open Primary in September/October, but there would still be a possible of election in some races before the date set by Congress.
This was overturned in Daughter of Love v Blanco. The plaintiff was the same Mr. Love as in the earlier case, who had filed on behalf of his minor daughter who happened to turn 18 between the date of the Congressional Open Primary and the Congressional Election. A 26th Amendment claim was asserted, but the case might have been decided on the same basis as Foster v Love.
Thank you, Jim. Is that Daughter of Love case reported?
Richard,
My recollection was a little bit off. The original case was styled Love v. Edwards, since Edwin Edwards was governor at the time (1995). The district court upheld the Louisiana calendar. The 5th Circuit overturned the decision, and that decision was upheld by the SCOTUS in Foster v Love in 1998 (Mike Foster became governor in 1996).
The Louisiana legislature deadlocked on a remedy. The House wanted to move the Open Primary to November, while the Senate wanted to revert back to the old partisan primary system. The district court ordered the Open Primary moved to November. This decision was upheld by the 5th Circuit in Love v Foster, later in 1998. The lawyers for Love argued that Louisiana should revert to the law as it was before the Open Primary, while the State argued that the schedule was not an integral part of the Open Primary, and that a federal court should respect the choices of the legislature in so far as it could consistent with the federal statute.
The legislature never changed the statutes, and so were still operating under the federal court order, until 2005, when the legislature passed a new law that they hoped would get judicial approval. It had a couple of features. If there were only two candidates, the primary would be cancelled, and they would face off in the general election in November. If there was a candidate with a majority in an Open Primary with three or more candidates, he would be unopposed in November, and not be on the ballot, but would not be “elected” until after the November election. (You may recall during oral arguments in Foster v Love, that the SCOTUS justices speculated what would happen if a majority-winner of an Open Primary were not elected, but simply being the only candidate on the general election ballot).
At the end of 2005, Daughter of Love v. Blanco was filed (Kathleen Babineaux Blanco became governor in 2004). As coincidence would have it, Scott Love’s daughter would turn 18, on October 10, 2006, three days after the date scheduled for the Open Primary, but almost a month before the federal election date in November. Since she was a minor, she could not sue, but her father did so on her behalf.
At the same time, the original case was revived. The district court refused to combine the cases, and blocked the new Louisiana law. Daughter of Love v. Blanco was closed without prejudice, so the issue of the 26th Amendment was never argued.
In 2006, the Louisiana legislature passed the law where they regressed to the old partisan primary system. The law did not take effect until January 1, 2007. Thus the 2006 Open Primary was in November. Once Louisiana had passed the new law, the case of Love v. Edwards/Foster/Blanco was finally closed for good.
As happenstance would have it, the 2008 congressional election was not held on the federal election day. Hurricane Gustav disrupted the 1st Congressional Primary in September, which was rescheduled to the date for the 2nd Congressional Primary (primary runoff) in October. Where a primary runoff was required, it was held on general election day, coincident with the presidential election. The general election for these districts was in December. This was a major factor in the upset win of Joseph Cao over William Jefferson. Ironically, Cao did not receive a majority of the votes.
thank you very much.