The Ballot Bulletin: June 2018

• Redistricting
  • State-by-state redistricting procedures
  • Gerrymandering
• Voting policy
  • Voter identification laws by state
  • Automatic voter registration
  • Early voting
  • Absentee voting
  • Online voter registration
• Ballot access
  • Ballot access for presidential candidates
  • Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
  • List of political parties in the United States

Stay on top of election policy news throughout the states

Email *

First Name

Please complete the Captcha above

In The Ballot Bulletin, Ballotpedia tracks developments in election policy at the federal, state, and local levels. To shed light on these developments, each issue will include an in-depth feature, such as an interview or event timeline. We will also discuss recent prominent events relating to electoral and primary systems, redistricting, and voting provisions.

This month's edition: This month, Maine is poised to implement its ranked-choice voting law for the first time. To shed some light on the implementation process, we spoke with Kristen Schulze Muszynski, communications director for the Maine Department of the Secretary of State. We will also bring you up to speed on redistricting developments in Ohio and voter identification challenges in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Finally, we'll spotlight electoral systems, primary systems, and redistricting legislation in the states.

Federal judge rejects challenge to Maine's ranked-choice voting law, clearing the way for implementation in June 12 primary

See also: Electoral systems in Maine

• What's the story? After months of court battles, RCV is poised to debut statewide in Maine next Tuesday. The last case was resolved on May 29, 2018, when Judge Jon Levy of the United States District Court for the District of Maine issued his ruling in Maine Republican Party v. Dunlap, denying Republicans' request for an injunction against the state's ranked-choice voting law and clearing the way for its implementation in the June 12, 2018, primary election. Republicans had asked that the court bar state officials from implementing ranked-choice voting in the June 12 primary election and subsequent primaries. In the initial court filing, attorneys for state Republicans alleged that Maine's ranked-choice voting law "severely burdens the Party's right to freedom of association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution ... [by requiring] the Party to change the process which the Party has deemed most appropriate for selecting candidates to represent the Party's beliefs and messages." Levy rejected this argument, writing the following in his order: "Because the RCV Act does not regulate who may participate in a primary or intrude on the Maine Republican Party's internal governance or processes, its effect on Maine's primary process does not impose a severe or heavy burden on the Maine Republican Party's associational rights."
• What comes next? We spoke with Kristen Schulze Muszynski, communications director for the Maine Department of the Secretary of State, about what the state has been doing to prepare for the implementation of ranked-choice voting.
  • Ballotpedia: Describe the preparation process for implementation.
  • Muszynski: We've been preparing for several months, getting everything in a row. We do have an implementation plan on our website that runs through most of it, but I can tell you we did put together the rules that oversee the details of how the tabulation is going to play out. Those are complete. We secured a space to do the tabulation and finalized the security measures for that site to make sure that it is secure and that the computers are set up and ready to go. We've rented a high speed tabulator to run the ballots from the hand-count towns and lined up a courier to transport those ballots and the memory devices from every municipality to the centralized tabulation location. We did have to work with our vendor to get the hardware and software in line for doing this. All of that was lined up. The ballot layout and ballot design were finalized and proofed, and we made sure that they all are readable by the tabulating devices. All the voter instruction materials are completed for posting at the polls. We've done our outreach. We've done an outreach tour. Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D) has gone to several locations to do public presentations on what to expect at the voting place. We've also done an explainer animation that's been widely shared via social media and our website to make sure that voters are informed. We've created, actually, a whole page of resource materials for voters. At this point, we're just trying to make sure that voters are aware of what to expect and how it's going to look and making sure they get access to the sample ballot so they'll be comfortable with ranking their choices if they choose to do so and that they're aware of the referendum ballot that all voters will get, which determines how or if we will move forward with using this process in the future. We want to make sure they're aware of that, what their vote would mean on that referendum.
  • Ballotpedia: How has ongoing litigation, such as the recent suit dismissed by a federal judge, impacted implementation efforts?
  • Muszynski: The Secretary was moving forward with implementation during that process while awaiting the outcome. It did not have a great impact, but we were waiting for some final word on what would be the process for the primary based on the legal decisions before finalizing rules and things like that. Some of the timeline issues got a little backed up due to that, but the implementation was moving forward regardless.
  • Ballotpedia: When do you expect to have election results?
  • Muszynski: We expect to have results in the first half of the week of June 18.
• What brought us here? Maine's ranked-choice voting law, adopted via ballot initiative in 2016, has been the subject of ongoing litigation and legislative repeal efforts.
  • In May 2017, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion finding that provisions of the ranked-choice voting law violated the state constitution.
  • In October 2017, the state legislature approved LD 1646, which provides for delayed implementation of the state's ranked-choice voting law pending voter approval of a constitutional amendment allowing for its use. LD 1646 also provides for the repeal of the ranked-choice voting law if no constitutional amendment is approved by December 1, 2021.
  • Ranked-choice voting proponents initiated a veto referendum campaign to suspend and, ultimately, repeal LD 1646. Ranked-choice voting proponents filed the requisite 61,123 valid signatures to place the veto referendum on the June 2018 ballot, suspending LD 1646 pending resolution of the veto referendum and paving the way for implementation of ranked-choice voting in the June 2018 primary election for federal and state offices.
  • A series of legal challenges followed. On April 3, 2018, Kennebec County Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy issued an opinion in Committee for Ranked-Choice Voting v. Dunlap ordering state officials to proceed with the implementation of ranked-choice voting in June. The next day, the Maine State Senate filed a separate suit (Senate of Maine v. Dunlap) requesting that the court bar the state from implementing ranked-choice voting in the upcoming primary election. On April 11, 2018, Murphy transmitted this suit to the state supreme court, which ruled unanimously on April 17, 2018, that "ranked-choice voting is the current statutory law of Maine for the primary elections to be held on June 12, 2018."
• What's going on in the rest of the country? The map below identifies states in which electoral systems and primary systems bills are being considered in 2018. A darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills. For full details about electoral systems legislation, see this article. For full details about primary systems legislation, see this article.

Electoral systems legislation as of June 1, 2018

Primary systems legislation as of June 1, 2018

Ohio voters approve constitutional amendment establishing new congressional redistricting procedures

See also: Redistricting in Ohio

• What's the story? On May 8, 2018, Ohio voters approved Issue 1, establishing new procedures for congressional redistricting the state. Beginning with the 2020 redistricting cycle, the following provisions are set to take effect:
  • Following completion of the United States Census, state legislators can adopt a new congressional district map if three-fifths of the legislature's total membership vote to approve, including one-half of the minority party members. This map would apply for 10 years.
  • If the legislature proves unable to adopt a new map, a commission will be formed to adopt a map. That commission will include the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, and four legislators, two of whom must come from the legislature's minority party. A majority of the commission's members, including two members belonging to the minority party, must agree on a map. The map would apply for 10 years.
  • If the commission proves unable to adopt a map, state legislators will be given a second chance to adopt a map. The map would have to be approved by three-fifths of the legislature's total membership, including one-third of the minority party's members. The map would apply for 10 years.
  • If the legislature fails a second time, the majority party of the legislature, without support from the minority party, can adopt a map that would apply for four years.

Maps drawn by the legislature can be vetoed by the governor or a veto referendum campaign. The amendment stipulates that 65 of Ohio's counties cannot be split during redistricting (18 can be split once, and the state's five most populous counties can be split twice).

• What brought us here?
  • Before the amendment could be put to voters, it had to be approved by both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly. On February 5, 2018, the Ohio State Senate approved the amendment by a vote of 31-0. On February 6, 2018, the Ohio House of Representatives followed suit, approving the amendment by a vote of 83-10.
  • On November 3, 2015, Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment to create a bipartisan state legislative redistricting commission. The commission comprises seven members: the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, one person appointed by the speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, one person appointed by the House leader of the largest political party of which the speaker is not a member, one person appointed by the President of the Ohio State Senate, and one person appointed by the Senate leader of the largest political party of which the president is not a member. Maps drawn by the commission are valid for 10 years if at least two commissioners from each major political party vote for them. Should the maps be passed along strictly partisan lines, the maps are valid for four years.
• What are the reactions and what comes next?
  • On May 23, 2018, the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, and a group of Democratic Ohio voters filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging that Ohio's congressional district map had been subject to unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. The plaintiffs asked that the court prohibit further use of the map in future elections. Freda J. Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio and an attorney involved in the suit, said, "The fundamental thing here to understand is that what we are challenging in Ohio is one of the most egregiously gerrymandering maps in history. This map as designed to generate 75 percent Republican seats in Ohio regardless of how Ohio people voted." Secretary of State Jon Husted, a named defendant in the suit, said the following in a statement: "Why did they wait six years to file a lawsuit challenging the maps? These groups should respect the will of Ohio's voters who overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment earlier this month that established a new, bipartisan process for drawing congressional districts starting in 2021."
• What's going on in the rest of the country? The map below identifies states in which redistricting legislation has been introduced in 2018. A darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills. For full details about redistricting legislation, see this article.

Redistricting legislation as of June 1, 2018

Voter identification developments in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas

See also: Voter identification laws by state

• What's the story?
  • Arkansas: On May 2, 2018, the Arkansas Supreme Court voted 6-1 to stay a lower court's order that barred the state from implementing its voter ID law. Consequently, state election officials were permitted to enforce voter ID requirements in the May 22, 2018, primary election. Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) said the following in a statement: "I am very pleased that the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with the arguments we made on behalf of the State Board of Election Commissioners that the requirement that a voter show photographic identification or sign a statement affirming his or her identity as a registered voter is not burdensome and helps ensure free and fair elections. The stay issued this afternoon provides needed clarity for Arkansas voters and election officials." Jeff Priebe, an attorney for Barry Haas, an Arkansas voter who alleged that the law was unconstitutional, said, "We are disappointed for the voters in Arkansas that the Arkansas Secretary of State and the Attorney General continue to want to enforce an unconstitutional Voter ID Law. We look forward to presenting the whole case to the Arkansas Supreme Court." Arkansas is one of the 18 states that require voters to present photo ID at the polls.
  • Oklahoma: On May 8, 2018, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued its ruling in Gentges v. Oklahoma State Election Board, finding that Oklahoma's voter identification law does not violate the state constitution. The court's per curiam opinion noted the following: "[The] Oklahoma Voter ID Act is based on the State's attempt to prevent voter fraud and the lack of evidence of in-person voter fraud in the state is not a barrier to reasonable preventative legislation. Requiring voters to show proof of identity serves to protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process and prevent in-person voter fraud." The case came to the state supreme court on appeal from the Oklahoma County District Court, which had similarly upheld the constitutionality of the state's voter ID law. The original suit was brought by Delilah Gentges, who alleged that the voter ID law was "unconstitutional as an interference with the free right to suffrage and equivalent to a poll tax." Oklahoma is one of the 16 states that require voters to present a form of ID at the polls that does not have to include a photo.
  • Texas: On April 27, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling reversing a district court order that had barred Texas from enforcing its voter ID law, SB 5. The ruling is the latest in a series of court actions surrounding Texas' voter ID law. On April 10, 2017, Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the state's original voter ID, SB 14, law had been enacted with racially discriminatory intent on the part of the state legislature. On June 1, 2017, Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed SB 5 into law, amending the state's voter identification requirements. For those voters lacking the requisite photo ID, the law established an affidavit option requiring voters to sign a form stating that he or she was unable to obtain photo identification for a specified reason. These provisions were scheduled to take effect January 1, 2018. However, on August 23, 2017, Ramos issued an order barring implementation of SB 5, finding that the legislation was not "an adequate remedy for the findings of [racially] discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect in SB 14." On August 25, 2017, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) petitioned the Fifth Circuit to grant a stay against Ramos' ruling pending appeal proceedings. On September 5, 2017, a three-judge panel of the appellate court voted 2-1 to stay Ramos' ruling. Texas is one of the 18 states that require voters to present photo ID at the polls.
• What's going on in the rest of the country? At present, 34 states enforce or are scheduled to begin enforcing voter identification requirements. A total of 18 states require voters to present photo identification; 16 accept other forms of identification. For more information about voter ID laws in the United States, see this article.

See also

• Election policy on Ballotpedia
• Electoral systems legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
• Primary systems legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
• Redistricting legislation at the state and city levels in the United States, 2018
• Federal redistricting legislation in the United States, 2017-2019 (115th Congress)