Eighth Circuit En Banc Panel Overturns Cumulative Voting for Martin, South Dakota

Posted on by May 5, 2010
Reply

On May 5, the entire Eighth Circuit reversed an earlier decision of a 3-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit, and ruled that Martin, South Dakota, need not use cumulative voting for its city council elections. Here is the decision, which is Cottier v City of Martin, 07-1628.

Cumulative voting systems typically give voters three votes, in an election at which three candidates are to be elected. A voter is free to distribute his or her votes in any way. In other words, a voter can give one vote to each of three candidates; or a voter can give 1.5 votes to each of two candidates, or a voter can give all 3 votes to one candidate. The case arose because Native Americans in Martin have not been able to win seats on the city council under the city’s at-large system. Native Americans had sued, charging that the city’s at-large system violates the federal Voting Rights Act. They had won the case, but the city had asked the full circuit to overturn the decision, and now the city has won by a vote of 7-4. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Six U.S. Senators Introduce Bill to Require States to Use No-Excuse Absentee Voting

Posted on by May 5, 2010
Reply

On May 4, six U.S. Senators introduced a bill to require the states to let any voter vote by mail. The bill only pertains to federal elections. They also introduced a second bill to provide grants to states to help pay for the program. See this press release. The bill doesn’t have a bill number yet.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, one of the six, also introduced his own bill to require the states to set up methods by which unregistered persons may register to vote on-line. The federal government already requires states to use postcard registration forms, although that law doesn’t apply to states that let voters register at the polls on election day. Thus there is already considerable precedent for the federal government to legislative in this area, although the federal laws only relate to federal elections. Wyden’s on-line voter registration bill does not yet have a bill number.

Intervenor Asks U.S. Supreme Court Not to Expedite Republican National Committee v FEC

Posted on by May 4, 2010
Reply

On May 3, U.S. House member Christopher Van Hollen, Jr., asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to expedite the lawsuit Republican National Committee v Federal Election Commission, 09-1287. The three-page response is here. The case concerns the contribution limit to national committees of political parties. The Republican Party had filed this lawsuit in 2008 in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., and lost in that court on March 26, 2010. The party has been hoping that its direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court could be heard in time to affect this year’s election, assuming that the party wins the case.

Representative Van Hollen, a Democrat, had intervened in the case, on the side of the FEC. In this recent filing, he asks that the U.S. Supreme Court not expedite the case.