If you feel your right to vote has been impeded by a “poll watcher” or anyone else, call 800 253-3931 to reach the FBI Civil Rights Division hotline.
Category Archives: Law: Elections
In a 100+ page ruling the Florida Supreme Court orders that eight Congressional districts be redrawn, including several in South Florida.
Here, via the Buzz, is the list of districts to be re-drawn (and, potentially, some of their neighbors too):
• District 5, held by Rep. Corinne Brown, D-Jacksonville
• District 13, held by Rep. David Jolly, R-Tampa
• District 14, held by Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa
• District 21, held by Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton
• District 22, held by Rep. Lois Frankel, D-West Palm Beach
• District 25, held by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Miami
• District 26, held by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Miami
• District 27, held by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami
More, maybe, after I plough through it all.
There’s going to be a big meeting on Election rules at U.Miami tomorrow. Here’s the announcement from the Presidential Commission on Election Administration.
PCEA Announces Public Meeting on Friday, June 28, 2013
WASHINGTON, June 12, 2013 — The Presidential Commission on Election Administration will convene a public meeting on June 28, 2013, in the Hurricane Room at the BankUnited Center, University of Miami, 1245 Dauer Drive, Coral Gables, FL 33146, beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time, ending no later than 5:00 p.m.
The Meeting notice has been published in the Federal Register and is available to view here: *The Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA); Upcoming Public Advisory Meeting. *Note the location has changed from what is posted in the Federal Register. The meeting will be held in the Hurricane Room at the BankUnited Center on the campus of the University of Miami.
For more information, contact:
Mr. Mark Nejbauer
Designated Federal Officer
Presidential Commission on Election Administration
I wonder why they moved it?
Unfortunately, I can’t make it, but if anyone reading this is going, would you consider live Tweeting it? (Let us know your Twitter handle or hashtag in the comments.) Or if you prefer, send in periodic reports as comments below.
Historian David Kaiser asks whether a property qualification for voting would be Constitutional:
It occurred to me this morning that the solution to Republican electoral problems is, when you think about it, obvious, and a friend of mine from a red state pointed out that a Tea Party leader has already mused about it, back in the heady days of 2010. The solution, which has a rich tradition in western and US history, is a property qualification for voting. And what is rather shocking is that there does not seem to be anything in the Constitution to prevent it.
Clearly, there is nothing in the basic, or even 10-amendment, Constitution — at least as originally understood — that would prevent a state from imposing a property qualification. Several states had them in the early years of the Republic (just as at least one had an established church for several years). I think the main federal issue would be whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as currently understood, would block a property qualification. There would, undoubtedly, also be state constitutional law issues in many states.
I’m not an Equal Protection expert by any means, but my knee-jerk reaction is ‘of course that isn’t Constitutional’. That said, it’s not explicitly barred, which I suppose means that were the Court to treat the question doctrinally, it would apply strict scrutiny. I don’t see how a state would come up with justifications for a property requirement that would survive strict scrutiny, but I’m open to correction on anything in this last paragraph by people who actually know stuff.
Slashdot reports on Computerized Election Results With No Election:
“In Honduras, according to breaking Catalan newspaper reports (translations available, USA Today mention), authorities have seized 45 computers containing certified election results for a constitutional election that never happened. The election had been scheduled for June 28, but on that day the president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted. The 'certified' and detailed electronic records of the non-existent election show Zelaya's side having won overwhelmingly.”
Which is indeed interesting.
And one of the tags the editors put on the story is …. “Florida2000”.
Former Senator Norman Coleman's appeal of a court decision rejecting various challenges to Al Franken's Senate victory has failed on all counts. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously per curiam for Franken on every issue.
The decision does not actually order the Governor to certify the election, it just affirms the lower court decision. (The Governor not being a party to the case, it's not clear to me that the court could have issued such an order procedurally.) In the ordinary course that should suffice — the Governor's duty is now clear.
Update: the key language is this: “For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.” That doesn't leave the Governor much wiggle room unless Coleman starts trying to get a federal injunction. Which ether won't be forthcoming or will be really, really brief.
The possibilities for obstruction now are either that the Governor will not certify the result (uncertain, but he's suggested in the past he'd do what the state Supreme Court ordered), and an attempt to take the case to the US Supreme Court. I don't think the Supreme Court will touch this one, but I suppose the cert petition might buy Coleman a little more time. He certainly has no shortage of funds from GOP groups trying to prevent the seating of the 60th Democratic Senator.
(Not that I place great hopes on a 60-strong Democratic contingent. There are still too many who won't vote to break filibusters.)