The Ballot Bulletin: October 2018
From Ballotpedia
In The Ballot Bulletin, Ballotpedia tracks developments in election policy at the federal, state, and local levels. 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, with courts in two states having taken action on the subject, we take a look at straight-ticket voting options in the United States. Plus, with the November elections close at hand, and with several contests shaping up to be very competitive, we take a look at recount laws in the states.
Courts in Michigan and New Mexico bar the use of straight-ticket voting devices on election ballots
- Michigan: On September 5, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit stayed a district court order that had barred enforcement of a Michigan law adopted in 2016 that provided for the repeal of the straight-ticket voting option. The court ruled 2-1 on the matter, with Judges Danny Boggs (a Ronald Reagan appointee) and Raymond Kethledge (a George W. Bush appointee) forming the majority. Judge Bernice Donald (a Barack Obama appointee) dissented. Boggs penned the court's majority opinion, which read, in part, as follows:
- "The alleged evils of eliminating Michigan's straight-ticket system seem unlikely to outweigh the ability of a state to make a public policy choice common across all fifty states. ... The irreparable harm to voters in taking what would be at most very small additional time to register their choices, an additional time largely within the control of the voter, is very small. And the public interest in allowing states to control their own elections is quite strong, as the Constitution itself makes clear."
- Proponents of straight-ticket voting argued that rescission of the straight-ticket option disproportionately discriminated against African-American voters. A federal district court, on August 1, 2018, had ruled that the law rescinding the straight-ticket option violated the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In staying this district court ruling, the appeals court did not make a final ruling on the validity of the Michigan law, instead finding only that the state had "demonstrated a likelihood of reversal" of the district court decision upon further proceedings.
- On September 6, 2018, proponents of Michigan's straight-ticket device petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the appeals court decision and restore the device to the ballot for November's election. On September 7, 2018, the high court declined to intervene in the case, letting the appeals court's ruling stand.
- New Mexico: On September 12, 2018, New Mexico's supreme court disallowed an order issued by Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D) that would have reintroduced the straight-ticket voting option for the first time since 2012 (at which time Republican Secretary of State Dianna Duran removed the option from ballots).
- On August 29, 2018, upon announcing her intent to restore straight-ticket voting, Oliver said, "Like absentee voting and early voting, straight-party voting gives New Mexicans another option for casting their ballot. Voters can choose to use straight-party voting, if they decide it will work best for them. They can also choose to fill out the ballot for each individual race. The more options people have, the easier it is for more eligible voters to participate—and participation is the key to our democratic process."
- On August 30, 2018, opponents, including New Mexico's Libertarian and Republican parties, filed a suit against Oliver in the state supreme court, precipitating the court's September 12 action. In their court filing, the plaintiffs said, "Virtually all political observers agree that straight ticket voting benefits the Democratic Party in New Mexico – of which the Secretary of State is a member, and for whom she is a current candidate for reelection – and harms independent, minor-party, and Republican candidates. As such, the Secretary’s actions are widely perceived as being motivated by partisan interests." The plaintiffs requested that the court bar the inclusion of a straight-ticket option on any general election ballots.
- What do experts and policy advocates think about straight-ticket voting?
- Karen Hobert Flynn: "All eligible voters should have a right to vote free from discrimination and have their ballots counted as cast. Some jurisdictions provide straight-ticket voting as an option to voters. Recent litigation challenging bans on straight ticket voting demonstrates that African Americans use straight-ticket voting at higher rates, and that eradicating straight-ticket voting will significantly increase waiting times at the polls. We expect and deserve elected officials who strive to make every voice heard in our elections rather than trying to manipulate the voting rules to impose unjustified burdens on the right to vote."
- Karen Hobert Flynn is President of Common Cause, a nonprofit group whose stated mission is "to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process." Common Cause was among the challengers involved in the Michigan lawsuit described above.
- Walter Olson: "Long before nudge theory was given that name, the straight ticket lever nudged voters toward partisan alignment and identification. Like other structural and tactical elements of the electoral system from first-past-the-post to gerrymandering, it also discouraged third-party and independent political efforts. How you feel about it will depend in part on how you feel about strong party systems, but the modern trend is clear: compared with innovations like, say, ranked-choice voting, the party lever is as the crank wall telephone to today’s smartphone."
- Walter Olson is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, a public policy research organization "dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace." Olson is the Co-Chair of Gov. Larry Hogan's Maryland Redistricting Reform Commission.
- Karen Hobert Flynn: "All eligible voters should have a right to vote free from discrimination and have their ballots counted as cast. Some jurisdictions provide straight-ticket voting as an option to voters. Recent litigation challenging bans on straight ticket voting demonstrates that African Americans use straight-ticket voting at higher rates, and that eradicating straight-ticket voting will significantly increase waiting times at the polls. We expect and deserve elected officials who strive to make every voice heard in our elections rather than trying to manipulate the voting rules to impose unjustified burdens on the right to vote."
A closer look at recount procedures in the United States
- With the November elections close at hand, and with several contests shaping up to be particularly competitive, let's take a closer look at recount procedures in the United States. The laws governing recounts vary substantially from state to state. In general, state laws often provide for two types of recounts in elections for public offices: automatic recounts, which occur automatically under specific conditions (e.g., margins of victory falling below a threshold set by state statutes), and candidate-initiated recounts, which can be requested by candidates directly.
- Automatic recounts: An automatic recount occurs when the margin of victory separating the apparent winner of an election from the second-place finisher falls below a certain threshold, which can vary from state to state and between offices within a state. Such recounts are considered automatic because a candidate is not required to directly request them. A total of 10 states provide for automatic recounts under certain conditions. These are summarized in the table below.
- Candidate-initiated recounts: Forty-three states permit candidates to initiate recounts in certain circumstances. The following states have no such provisions in state statutes: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee).
Legislation update: Redistricting, electoral systems, and primary systems bills
The maps below identify states in which redistricting, electoral systems, and primary systems bills are being considered in 2018. A darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills.
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)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
