Election policy and the 2014 election: statewide ballot measures
 |
 |
|
Election policy continued to be a hot topic in 2014 with 48 election-related ballot measures proposed. Of these, only eight ballot measures made it to the ballot box on November 4, 2014. Many measures that did not make the ballot were about contentious issues such as campaign finance, donor disclosure, voter identification, and even the electoral college. Since getting a measure on the ballot can be so difficult and political, it is not surprising that many of those that made it are less exciting. Nationwide, the number of qualified statewide ballot measures is trending downward from prior even election years. This year's election policy ballots included: early voting in Connecticut and Missouri, special elections for county executives in Maryland, dates for judicial retention and school board elections in New Mexico, open primaries in Oregon, appointment of the adjutant General in South Carolina, and the election of an appointed attorney general in Utah.
- See also: Elections and campaigns on the ballot
Ballot initiatives by state
Connecticut
- See also: Voting in Connecticut
The Connecticut Question 1, Expanded Early and Absentee Voting Amendment (2014) was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Connecticut as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.
If Question 1 had been approved, it would have allowed the state legislature to expand early voting in the state.[1] Specifically, it would have permitted the legislature to eliminate restrictions on early voting and allow residents greater access to absentee ballots.[2]
Maryland
The Maryland Special Elections for County Executive Vacancies Amendment, Question 2 (2014) was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Maryland as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure, upon voter approval, would:[3]
- Permit a county charter to provide for filling vacancies in county executive offices through special elections
- Exempt special elections for county executive officers from the requirement that state and local special elections be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November on even-numbered years.
- Allow county executive special elections to be conducted by mail.
The amendment was introduced into the Maryland Legislature by Delegate Anne R. Kaiser (D-14) as House Bill 1415.[3]
The amendment was introduced into the Maryland Legislature by Delegate Anne R. Kaiser (D-14) as House Bill 1415.[3]
Missouri
- See also: Voting in Missouri
Missouri Early Voting Period, Amendment 6 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Missouri as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure, upon voter approval, would have established a six-day long early voting period starting in 2016.[4]
The measure was sponsored in the Missouri Legislature by Rep. Tony Dugger (R-141) as House Joint Resolution 90.[5]
New Mexico
The New Mexico Candidacy Declarations in Judicial Retention Elections, Amendment 3 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in New Mexico as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment and was approved. The measure permits the legislature to set the date for filing declarations of candidacy for judicial retention elections.[6]
Previously, the constitution required the filing of candidacy declarations for judicial retention elections to be on the same day as filings for candidates in primary elections.[6]
The proposed amendment was sponsored in the New Mexico Legislature by Rep. James E. Smith (R-22) and Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-15) as Senate Joint Resolution 16.[7]
The New Mexico Dates for School Elections, Amendment 1 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in New Mexico as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment where it was defeated. The measure, upon voter approval, would have removed the mandate that school elections be held on different dates than any other elections. However, the amendment would have replaced the mandate with a less restrictive one. School elections would need to be held on different dates than partisan elections. Therefore, the measure would have allowed school elections to happen on the same dates as other nonpartisan elections, such as municipal elections, bond elections, conservancy district elections and other special district elections.[6]
The proposed amendment was sponsored in the New Mexico Legislature by Rep. James E. Smith (R-22) and Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-15) as House Joint Resolution 2.[8]
Oregon
The Oregon Open Primary, Measure 90 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated.
The measure would have created a top-two system of general election voting where all voters receive the same primary ballot that shows all candidates, regardless of political party. Candidates would have been allowed to include on the ballot their party registration and if they've been endorsed by a party. The top two candidates, regardless of political party, would then be voted upon in the general election.[9][10]
South Carolina
The South Carolina Appointment of Adjutant General, Amendment 2 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in South Carolina as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure was designed to provide for the appointment of the South Carolina Adjutant General by the South Carolina Governor, upon consent from the state senate. It also required the South Carolina General Assembly to provide by law for the qualifications for office, the office’s term, duties and compensation, the procedures for appointment and the procedures for removal from office. The measure also classified the adjutant general as a “major general,” rather than the current “brigadier general.”[11]
At the time of Amendment 2's approval, the South Carolina Adjutant General served as head of the Military Department of the state, and was in charge of the South Carolina Army and Air National Guard, Emergency Management Division, the State Guard, Youth Challenge and AmeriCorps. Prior to the amendment's passage, South Carolinians elected the adjutant general. South Carolina was the only state to elect someone to that office.[12]
Utah
The Utah Election of Appointed Lieutenant Governor, Amendment B was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Utah as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure will remove the requirement that an appointed lieutenant governor stand for election in the next regular general election following his or her appointment and, in lieu, provide that an appointed lieutenant governor would not be up for election until the next gubernatorial election.[11]
The Lieutenant Governor of Utah, an elected office, is filled by appointment in the event that the lieutenant governor's office becomes vacant. The Utah Governor, with consent of the Utah Senate, appoints a person to fill the vacancy.[11]
The measure was sponsored by Sen. Stephen Urquhart (R-29) in the Utah Legislature as Senate Joint Resolution 8.[11]
In Utah, an amendment must win a majority of all votes cast on that particular proposal and a majority of the vote of everyone voting in that election. This is known as a double majority.
Recent news
This section links to a Google news search for the term "Electoral + policy + ballot measures"
See also
- Election policy project
- Campaign finance regulation
- History of campaign finance reform
- Elections and campaigns on the ballot
Footnotes
- ↑ CTPost.com, "Connecticut voters to vote on expanding voting," May 10, 2013
- ↑ The Courant, "Connecticut Senate Gives Final Approval To Constitutional Amendment On Early Voting," May 9, 2013
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 General Assembly of Maryland, "House Bill 1415," accessed June 3, 2014
- ↑ Missouri House of Representatives, "HJR 90 Bill Summary," accessed May 27, 2014
- ↑ Missouri House of Representatives, "HJR 90 Summary," accessed May 27, 2014
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 New Mexico Legislative Council Service, "Summary of and Arguments For and Against the Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Legislature in 2013 and 2014," accessed September 11, 2014
- ↑ New Mexico Legislature, "Status of SJR 16: Judicial Retention Election Dates, CA," accessed April 3, 2014
- ↑ New Mexico Legislature, "Status of HJR 2: School Election Timing, CA," accessed April 3, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Detailed display of initiative 55," accessed May 26, 2014
- ↑ OregonLive.com, "Backers of 'top two' primary initiative submit 140,000 signatures to Oregon secretary of state," June 23, 2014
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 South Carolina General Assembly, "Bill 3541 Text," accessed May 28, 2014 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "text" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ WLTX 19, "No More Electing the Adjutant General?" May 20, 2014
