U.S. District Court Upholds Voting Rights Section’s Action on Partisan versus Non-Partisan Elections in Kinston, North Carolina

Posted on by December 16, 2010
4

On December 16, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, a Bush Jr. appointee in Washington, D.C., issued a brief order, upholding the action of the U.S. Justice Department (Voting Rights Section) concerning Kinston, North Carolina.  North Carolina is one of the states covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Voters in Kinston voted to switch from partisan city elections to non-partisan city elections.  But the Voting Rights Section rejected the change, finding that the switch would injure black voters.

The city government accepted that decision, but some voters in Kinston sued.  They not only wanted to alter the decision about the type of city elections Kinston should hold, they also wanted to get a ruling that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.  The judge has not yet issued an opinion explaining his reasoning.  See this earlier blog post about the case.  Chances are, the case is dismissed because the judge believes that private citizens do not have standing to challenge a decision of the Voting Rights Section.  UPDATE:  here is the one-page order.  Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.

State Legislators in 2011 Likely to Shift Dates for Presidential Primaries in Some States

Posted on by December 16, 2010
8

State legislators in 2011 are likely to consider bills in some states to move, or in some cases, to abolish presidential primaries.  Florida law currently requires a January presidential primary, but the two major parties don’t recognize the results.  See this story that tries to predict whether the legislature will move it to a later date or not.

In Washington, Governor Christine Gregoire has proposed abolishing the presidential primary, to save $10,000,000.  In California, where the law requires a February presidential primary and a June primary for congress and state office, the legislature is likely to merge the two primaries to save money.

Murkowski Lost 1,553 Write-in Votes Because That Many Voters Forgot, or Didn't Know, to Fill in the Oval

Posted on by December 16, 2010
Reply

Briefs filed with the Alaska Supreme Court in Miller v Treadwell reveal that 1,553 voters in the Alaska U.S. Senate race wrote in “Lisa Murkowski” but didn’t fill in the oval next to the name written in.  The Alaska Elections Division did not count these votes for Murkowski.  However, Murkowski’s attorneys are arguing that they should have been counted.

It appears that Murkowski doesn’t need those 1,553 votes, because the Division of Elections did recognize her write-in vote total as being 101,088, whereas Joe Miller’s vote total is 90,740 (plus 20 votes in which the voter cast a write-in for Joe Miller).  The Alaska Supreme Court hears arguments in this case on Friday, December 17, and it seems likely the decision will rule on the validity of write-in votes in which the voter forgot, or didn’t know, to fill in the oval.  Murkowski’s attorneys argue that the Alaska Supreme Court already ruled in 1978 that such write-ins should be counted, although the 1978 ruling involved punchcard ballots.  In recent years, state courts in Washington and Colorado have ruled that such write-ins must be counted, by California courts ruled that they should not be counted.

Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog has links to all the briefs in Miller v Treadwell here.

Murkowski Lost 1,553 Write-in Votes Because That Many Voters Forgot, or Didn’t Know, to Fill in the Oval

Posted on by December 16, 2010
13

Briefs filed with the Alaska Supreme Court in Miller v Treadwell reveal that 1,553 voters in the Alaska U.S. Senate race wrote in “Lisa Murkowski” but didn’t fill in the oval next to the name written in.  The Alaska Elections Division did not count these votes for Murkowski.  However, Murkowski’s attorneys are arguing that they should have been counted.

It appears that Murkowski doesn’t need those 1,553 votes, because the Division of Elections did recognize her write-in vote total as being 101,088, whereas Joe Miller’s vote total is 90,740 (plus 20 votes in which the voter cast a write-in for Joe Miller).  The Alaska Supreme Court hears arguments in this case on Friday, December 17, and it seems likely the decision will rule on the validity of write-in votes in which the voter forgot, or didn’t know, to fill in the oval.  Murkowski’s attorneys argue that the Alaska Supreme Court already ruled in 1978 that such write-ins should be counted, although the 1978 ruling involved punchcard ballots.  In recent years, state courts in Washington and Colorado have ruled that such write-ins must be counted, by California courts ruled that they should not be counted.

Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog has links to all the briefs in Miller v Treadwell here.

Georgia Secretary of State Forms Election Advisory Council, Appoints One Independent and One Libertarian Among the Sixteen Members

Posted on by December 16, 2010
5

On December 14, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp announced that he had appointed sixteen members to his new Elections Advisory Council.  Among them are Georgia’s only independent state legislator, Representative Rusty Kidd, and Professor David Shock, the Secretary of the state Libertarian Party.  The council will make recommendations that improve the election laws.  It will conduct meetings across the state to receive input from the public, and will meet multiple times.  Its recommendations will be introduced in the legislature in 2012.

The other members of the Council are the Secretary of State himself, two State Senators, one other Representative, the general counsels to each of the two major parties, and eight county and city officials, including some election administrators.  Thanks to Bludgeon and Skewer for this news.