Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Election policy disputes in the 2016 elections

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


ELECTION POLICY-Masthead.png

Note: The content on this page reflects the state of select election policy matters as of November 2016. For more current information, click here.


Ballotpedia's
Election Analysis
FEDERAL
Battleground elections:
U.S. Senate • U.S. House
STATE
State legislatures • Gubernatorial
State Attorney General
LOCAL
Municipal • School boards
Local courts • Local measures
PUBLIC POLICY
Budget • Education • Election • Energy • Healthcare • Environment
Terms and Concepts
Partisan Risk

A variety of election policy matters played out in statehouses and courtrooms across the nation in 2016. Election policy dictates the conditions under which American citizens vote, encompassing issues such as voter registration, early voting, absentee voting, and voter ID requirements. In addition, election policy determines how candidates get their names on election ballots and how electoral districts are drawn. Set primarily at the state level, these policies were the subject of much debate in 2016.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • As of November 2016, 31 states enforced voter identification requirements. A total of 16 states required voters to present photo identification, while 15 accepted other forms of identification.
  • As of November 2016, 34 states and the District of Columbia permitted no-excuse early voting. Another three states utilized all-mail voting systems.
  • As of November 2016, 13 states and the District of Columbia had implemented same-day registration provisions enabling voters to register and vote at the same time. Another three states had approved same-day registration provisions but had not yet implemented them.

    • This page summarizes some of the key election policy issues that were debated in 2016, as well as the stances of political parties and presidential candidates on those issues. In addition, this page identifies relevant state and local ballot measures that appeared on voters' ballots in 2016. Click on the tabs below to learn more.

    Major issues

    Voter identification laws

    See also: Voter identification laws by state

    As of November 2016, 31 states enforced voter identification requirements. A total of 16 states required voters to present photo identification, while 15 accepted other forms of identification. In some states, a voter who was unable to present valid identification might have been permitted to vote without casting a provisional ballot (known as a non-strict requirement). In eight of the 16 states that required a photo ID, the requirement was non-strict. In 12 of the 15 states that required non-photo identification, the requirement was non-strict. In the remaining states, voters without valid forms of identification were required to cast provisional ballots (known as a strict requirement). Valid forms of identification differed by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID included driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.[1][2]

    Generally speaking, proponents of voter identification requirements maintain that these laws are necessary in order to prevent voter fraud. Critics, meanwhile, contend that voter fraud is very rare and that identification requirements "unduly restrict the right to vote."[1]

    Early voting

    See also: Early voting

    Early voting permits citizens to cast ballots in person at a polling place prior to an election. In states that permit no-excuse early voting, a voter does not have to provide an excuse for being unable to vote on Election Day. States that do not permit no-excuse early voting may still permit some citizens to vote early, provided they prove that they have valid reasons for doing so. This practice is known as in-person absentee voting.

    HIGHLIGHTS
  • As of November 2016, 34 states and the District of Columbia permitted no-excuse early voting. Another three states utilized all-mail voting systems, eliminating the need for early voting.[3]
  • Proponents argue that early voting opportunities make the voting process more convenient for citizens, thereby increasing turnout and diversifying the electorate.
  • Critics argue that citizens who vote early may be more likely to make ill-informed decisions.

    • No-excuse absentee voting

    See also: Absentee voting

    An absentee ballot is a printed ballot that a voter completes and submits without visiting a polling place. In some states, a voter must be able to prove that he or she is unable to vote on Election Day in order to vote absentee; valid reasons for being unable to vote on Election Day include illness, disability, work obligations, and more. In other states, any voter may vote absentee. This latter process is known as no-excuse absentee voting. As of November 2016, no-excuse absentee voting was available in 27 states and the District of Columbia.[3]

    Online voter registration

    See also: Online voter registration

    Watch Ballotpedia's webinar on election policy conflicts in the 2016 election

    Traditionally, paper-based systems have been used by states to register voters. Under these systems, a prospective voter completes a paper form and submits it to election officials. Officials then review the registration and, if appropriate, approve it, adding the name of the voter to the state's voter registration rolls. With an online registration system, "the voter fills out a form via an internet site, and that paperless form is submitted electronically to election officials." Proponents of online voter registration argue that such systems can lower costs and improve accessibility for voters. Some have raised concerns about the security of such systems in the wake of high-profile consumer data breaches; according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, "there have been no known breaches of existing online voter registration systems in participating states" as of January 2016.[4]

    As of November 2016, 30 states, including Washington, D.C., had implemented online voter registration systems. Another three states had passed legislation or adopted regulations authorizing online voter registration; systems in these states had not yet become active as of November 2016. The remaining states did not permit online voter registration.[4]

    Same-day voter registration

    See also: Same-day voter registration

    Throughout the United States, citizens must register in order to be eligible to vote. Generally, voters are required to register or update their registrations several days or weeks in advance of an election. Some states, however, permit same-day registration, which enables voters to register and vote at the same time. Same-day registration is sometimes referred to as Election Day registration.[5]

    HIGHLIGHTS
  • As of November 2016, 13 states and the District of Columbia had implemented same-day registration provisions enabling voters to register and vote at the same time. Another three states had approved same-day registration provisions but had not yet implemented them.
  • In those states that permit same-day registration, voters must generally provide proof of residency (e.g., utility bill, pay stub) and identity (e.g., driver's license) at the time of registration.

    • Proponents argue that same-day registration "increases voter turnout, eliminates arbitrary deadlines that cut off registration when voters are most interested, remedies inaccurate voter rolls, [and] greatly reduces the need for provisional balloting." Mitch Crane, a local Democratic Party official in Delaware, said, "Government works best when people have faith in their elected officials. That faith is best served through citizen participation. Citizen participation is best served by giving access to voting on Election Day to all citizens ... who choose to exercise that most basic democratic right."[6][7]

    Opponents argue that same-day registration processing requirements unduly burden state and local governments. In addition, some argue that same-day registration encourages ill-informed and ill-prepared voters to participate in elections. Matthew Gagnon, a former staffer of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said, "The only people I want anywhere near a ballot box are those who have demonstrated they are actually invested enough in the process that they want to vote. That is the flaw with same-day voter registration: most of the people it serves are unengaged in the process."[8]

    Redistricting

    See also: Redistricting
    "Gerrymandering"

    Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. All United States representatives and state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. [9]

    Redistricting is a fiercely contested issue, primarily due to gerrymandering, the practice of drawing district lines to favor one political party, individual or constituency over another. Two areas of contention include the following:

    Competitiveness: Political parties or incumbents sometimes draw district lines for their benefit at the expense of proportionality and fair representation. Some argue that this practice contributes to the present lack of competitive elections. Uncompetitive elections can, in turn, discourage participation.[10]
    Race and ethnicity: District lines sometimes minimize the influence of minority voters by disproportionately consolidating them within single districts or splitting them across several districts. These practices are examples of "packing" and "cracking," respectively.[10][11][12][13]

    In most states, the legislatures are primarily responsible for redistricting. Reformers argue that partisan legislators are incapable of establishing fair district lines because they have a vested interest in the outcome. Instead, reformers advocate using different redistricting processes, including independent commissions. Others maintain that alternative processes are less accountable to voters and are subject to partisan abuse. While the redistricting cycle immediatly prior to the 2016 election concluded in 2012, maps in several states, including North Carolina and Virginia, were the subject of ongoing litigation and debate at the time.

    Voting Rights Act

    See also: Voting Rights Act
    Lyndon Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965

    The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The act was passed in 1965 with the intent of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The act contains provisions that prohibit state and local governments from passing voting laws that result in discrimination against a racial group. Practices prohibited under the Voting Rights Act include literacy tests and other devices that have historically been used to disenfranchise racial minorities.[14][15]

    In addition to the general provisions that apply nationally, the act also contains special provisions, such as Section 5, that apply only to specific jurisdictions. Section 5 prohibits certain districts from implementing any change in voting law without prior approval from the United States Attorney General of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Shelby County v. Holder, a 2013 United States Supreme Court case, struck down the coverage formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to Section 5 as unconstitutional. As such, Section 5 is currently unenforceable. Some have argued that the United States Congress should amend the coverage formula, thereby effectively reactivating Section 5. Others have maintained that Congress should not intervene.[14][16]

    Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power." [17]

    States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups comprise a majority of the district's total population.[11][12][13]

    Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking. Cracking occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[11][12][13]

    Some critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts results in "packing." Packing occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[11][12][13]

    Federal campaign finance laws

    See also: Federal campaign finance laws and regulations
    Election Policy VNT Logo.png
    Federal campaign finance laws and regulations
    Campaign finance by state
    Comparison of state campaign finance requirements
    Satellite spending
    Campaign finance agencies
    Federal Election Commission
    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

    Federal campaign finance laws regulate the use of money in federal elections. According to the Congressional Research Service, current federal campaign finance laws regulate the sources, recipients, amounts, and frequency of contributions to political campaigns, as well as the purposes for which donated money may be used. Federal campaign finance laws also emphasize regular disclosure by candidates in the form of required reports.

    The first federal campaign finance law was enacted in 1907. In the years following the enactment of that law, campaign finance has remained a source of contention in American politics. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and a series of federal court cases, including Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, together form the foundation of federal campaign finance law.

    Proponents of more stringent federal campaign finance laws claim that the current laws do not go far enough to mitigate corruption and the influence of undisclosed special interests. Opponents claim that strict disclosure requirements and donation limits impinge upon the rights to privacy and free expression, hampering participation in the political process.

    It should be noted that federal campaign finance laws apply only to candidates and groups participating in federal elections (i.e., congressional and presidential elections). States enact and enforce their own campaign finance laws for state and local elections. To learn more about state campaign finance laws, see this article.

    Policy analysis

    Voter identification

    In 1950, South Carolina became the first state to require voters to present identification at the polls. Although a handful of states followed suit over the course of the next several decades, ID requirements were not the norm as of 2000. By 2010, a majority of states either required or requested some form of identification from voters at the polls. The graphic below depicts the expansion of voter identification laws from 2000 to 2016.[18]

    This expansion of voter identification requirements correlates with an increased number of Republican state government trifectas. A trifecta occurs when one political party controls a state's governorship, senate, and house. The graphic below depicts state government trifectas from 2000 to 2016.

    Between 2010 and 2016, the number of Republican trifectas nearly tripled, increasing from eight to 23. During that same period, the number of states either requiring or requesting that voters present photo identification at the polls nearly doubled, increasing from eight to 17. The number of states that did not require voters to present any form of identification at the polls decreased substantially (24 states in 2010 to 17 states in 2016).

    National races

    Summary

    Democrats

    Democratic Party Logo.png

    In 2016, Democrats tended to favor measures that made voting more convenient for citizens. These measures included expanded early voting hours, automatic voter registration, and no-excuse absentee voting. In addition, Democrats typically opposed strict photo identification requirements for voters, arguing that such requirements placed a disproportionate burden on racial minorities, the disabled, and the elderly. The following is an excerpt from the 2016 Democratic Party Platform:[19]

    “ We believe that we must protect Americans’ right to vote, while stopping corporations’ outsized influence in elections. We must rectify the Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, which is a profound injustice. We will stop efforts by Republican governors and legislatures to disenfranchise people of color, low-income people, and young people, and prevent these voters from exercising their right to vote through onerous restrictions. We will ensure that election officials comply with voting protections, including provisions mandating bilingual materials and voter assistance.[20] ”
    —2016 Democratic Party Platform

    In 2016, the Democratic Party tended to favor increased campaign finance regulation, arguing that such regulations were necessary in order to limit corruption. The following is an excerpt from the 2016 Democratic Party Platform:[19]

    “ Democrats believe we must fight to preserve the essence of the longest standing democracy in the world: a government that represents the American people, not just a handful of powerful and wealthy special interests. We will fight for real campaign finance reform now. Big money is drowning out the voices of everyday Americans, and we must have the necessary tools to fight back and safeguard our electoral and political integrity.[20] ”
    —2016 Democratic Party Platform

    Republicans

    Logo-GOP.png

    In 2016, Republicans generally emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the voting process. As such, they tended to favor strict photo identification requirements for voters, arguing that such requirements were necessary in order to hinder electoral fraud. In addition, Republicans tended to be skeptical of expanded voter convenience measures, arguing that such provisions could create increased opportunities for voter fraud. The following is an excerpt from the 2016 Republican Party Platform:[21]

    “ We are concerned ... that some voting procedures may be open to abuse. For this reason, we support legislation to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote and secure photo ID when voting. We strongly oppose litigation against states exercising their sovereign authority to enact such laws. In addition, to guarantee that everyone’s vote is counted, we urge that electronic voting systems have a voter-verified paper audit trail.[20] ”
    —2016 Republican Party Platform

    In 2016, the Republican Party tended to oppose campaign finance regulation, arguing that stringent regulations inhibited free speech. The following is an excerpt from the 2016 Republican Party Platform:[21]

    “ The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot box. Freedom of speech includes the right to devote resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government. Limits on political speech serve only to protect the powerful and insulate incumbent officeholders.[20] ”
    —2016 Republican Party Platform

    Presidential candidates

    Democrats

    Hillary Clinton
    caption
    1. In an op-ed about democracy and voting accessibility published on CNN.com on January 21, 2016, Hillary Clinton said that she would restore and expand the Voting Rights Act. “All Americans should be automatically registered to vote on their 18th birthdays, unless they opt out. Every state should have at least 20 days of early in-person voting. And no one should ever have to wait more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot,” she wrote.[22]
    2. In autumn 2015, Clinton unveiled her plan for campaign finance reform, which included "a push for legislation that would require greater public disclosure of political spending, establish a matching system for congressional and presidential candidates, and support a Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders." Clinton also made known her opposition to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down corporate spending limits in elections. Clinton's campaign website said she would "appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections" and "push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to restore the role of everyday voters in elections."[23][24]

    Republicans

    Donald Trump
    caption
    1. Donald Trump criticized existing campaign finance laws. During the first Republican presidential debate on August 6, 2015, Trump said, "I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I gave to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that's a broken system."[25]
    2. Trump also disavowed political action committees and super PACs, describing these committees as "horrible." Although federal law prohibits candidates from coordinating with super PACs, Trump argued that this prohibition is ineffective. "First of all, everyone's dealing with their PAC. You know, it's supposed to be like this secret thing. They're all dealing with it," said Trump.[26]

    Third-party candidates

    Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)
    caption
    1. Johnson voiced opposition to contribution limits. He also argued that disclosure is necessary. In a 2001 interview with Playboy, Johnson said, "The problem isn't large contributions. The problem is that we don't know who contributed. If you limit contributions from an individual to, say, $1000, then I think just the opposite occurs. Then you have politicians beholden to way too many people."[27]
    2. In 2012, Johnson issued a press statement expressing concern with voter ID laws. "While ballot integrity is clearly important, I am concerned that the growing trend among states to require photo ID's for voting poses a risk of broad vote suppression, particularly among the elderly and minorities, that outweighs the questionable benefits," Johnson said.[28]
    Jill Stein (Green Party)
    caption
    1. Jill Stein advocated for the following electoral reforms: abolition of the electoral college, implementation of instant runoff voting and proportional representation, public campaign financing, and same-day voter registration.[29]
    2. Stein disagreed with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Stein said, "We now have influence-peddling on steroids with Citizens United and the super PACs. And Obama raising $1 billion for his campaign alone. We have a political system which is completely disconnected with the public, and connected instead with those with deep pockets who can find these campaigns with such extreme amounts."[29]

    Ballot measures

    Election and campaign policy ballot measures

    Voting on elections and campaigns
    Campaignsandelections.jpg
    Ballot measures
    By state
    By year
    Not on ballot


    Ballotpedia tracked the following election and campaign policy ballot measures in 2016.

    Certified election policy ballot measures

    1. Maine Question 5, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2016)Template:Yesbox.defaultTemplate:Nobox.default
    2. South Dakota Amendment V, Top-Two Primary Amendment (2016)
      A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of establishing nonpartisan elections.
      A "no" vote was a vote against establishing nonpartisan elections.

    Proposed election policy ballot measures

    The following election and campaign policy ballot measures did not make the ballot in 2016:

    1. Vermont Plurality Vote for Governor Amendment (2016)
    2. New Mexico Dates for School Elections Amendment (2016)
    3. New Mexico Registration for Qualified Electors Amendment (2016)
    4. New Mexico School Elections Amendment (2016)
    5. Massachusetts "Corporations Are Not People" Initiative (2016)
    6. Missouri State Legislature Campaign Contribution Limits Amendment (2016)
    7. Missouri Legislative Limitations Initiative (2016)
    8. Missouri Felon Voter Amendment (2016)
    9. Missouri Legislature Age Eligibility Amendment (2016)
    10. Missouri Public Campaign Finance Initiative (2016)
    11. Missouri Voter Identification Amendment (2016)
    12. Missouri House of Representatives Reduction Amendment (2016)
    13. Missouri State and Local Campaign Contribution Amendment (2016)
    14. Missouri Electing House Members Initiative (2016)
    15. Arkansas Voter Identification Amendment (2016)
    16. Arkansas Single Candidate Elections Amendment (2016)
    17. Arkansas Election of Judicial Officials Amendment (2016)
    18. Nevada Voter Identification Initiative (2016)
    19. Washington Petitioning Industry Accountability Initiative (2016)
    20. Arkansas Wet-Dry Election Act (2016)
    21. Arkansas Campaign Finance Act (2016)
    22. Arkansas Campaign Finance Disclosure Initiative (2016)
    23. Kentucky Dates of Executive Elections Amendment (2016)
    24. Hawaii "Money is not Free Speech" Amendment (2016)
    25. North Dakota Fiscal Impact Initiatives on General Election Ballot Amendment (2016)
    26. California Non-Partisan Ballots Initiative (2016)
    27. Colorado Automatic Voter Registration Initiative (2016)
    28. California Federal Campaign Advertisements Certification Initiative (2016)
    29. California Nonpartisan Ballots Initiative (2016)
    30. California Online Voting System Initiative (2016)
    31. Oregon Voter Privacy Initiative (2016)

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter Identification Requirements|Voter ID Laws," January 4, 2016
    2. ↑ The Washington Post, "Do I need an ID to vote? A look at the laws in all 50 states," October 27, 2014
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Absentee and Early Voting," October 21, 2014
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Online Voter Registration," September 22, 2015
    5. ↑ Pew Center on the States, "Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America's Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade," February 2012
    6. ↑ Demos, "What Is Same Day Registration? Where Is It Available?" accessed January 21, 2016
    7. ↑ DelawareOnline, "Same-day registration will help democracy," June 24, 2015
    8. ↑ Bangor Daily News, "All parties foolish in hyperbolic voting debate," August 4, 2011
    9. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
    13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
    14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 OurDocuments.gov, "Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)," accessed July 21, 2015
    15. ↑ History.com, "Voting Rights Act," accessed July 21, 2015
    16. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Shelby County Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al.," accessed July 21, 2015
    17. ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
    18. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter ID History," January 4, 2016
    19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Democratic Platform Committee, "2016 Democratic Party Platform," July 21, 2016
    20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Republican National Convention, "Republican Platform 2016," accessed August 5, 2016
    22. ↑ CNN Politics, "Hillary Clinton: The cure for Citizens United is more democracy," January 21, 2016
    23. ↑ Hillary for America, "Campaign finance reform," accessed February 18, 2016
    24. ↑ The New York Times, "Hillary Clinton Announces Campaign Finance Overhaul Plan," September 8, 2015
    25. ↑ The Huffington Post, "Donald Trump and Campaign Finance Reform," August 31, 2015
    26. ↑ The Hill, "Trump open to campaign finance reform," January 17, 2016
    27. ↑ On The Issues, "Gary Johnson on Government Reform," accessed June 21, 2016
    28. ↑ ProCon.org, "Should voters be required to show photo identification in order to vote?" accessed June 21, 2016
    29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 OnTheIssues, "Jill Stein on Government Reform," accessed June 21, 2016
    v • e
    Ballotpedia's Election Analysis in 2016
    Main
    Federal Desk
    State Desk
    Local Desk
    Policy Desk
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Election_policy_disputes_in_the_2016_elections&oldid=9067604"