California: Lawmakers Consider Automatic Recounts in California Elections | KQED

To hear Kevin Mullin tell it, this summer’s saga in the race for state controller was the first time even he — a sitting assemblymember — realized just how antiquated and unfair California election law is when it comes to recounting votes in razor-thin races. “That really opened my eyes to how undemocratic our process is and how potentially chaotic,” said Mullin (D-South San Francisco). On Thursday Mullin introduced legislation to create a process for an automatic statewide recount in California — something other states have, and something supporters say will make clear just how and when to tally votes a second time. “It strikes me as a fundamental fairness question,” Mullin said.

Russia: Kremlin Seeks Research on Foreign Electoral Systems | The Moscow Times

The Department of Presidential Affairs has announced a tender for research on the electoral systems of foreign countries in a potential bid to reform Russia’s own electoral system, the Vedomosti newspaper reported Tuesday. Citing a copy of the tender’s technical requirements, Vedomosti reported that the president’s advisers on domestic policy are interested in themes including the practice of limiting citizens’ right to elect and to be elected “within the framework of democratic norms,” various electoral systems and practices for uniting electoral blocs and international practice in regulating the activities of election monitors and campaigners.

California: Secretary of state candidates call for changes in recount law  | Los Angeles Times

Both candidates vying to be California’s next secretary of state say the controversial recount in the controller’s race demonstrates the need to change election laws. Sen. Alex Padilla, the Democratic candidate from Pacoima, called the process “embarrassing.” Pete Peterson, a Republican who leads a public policy institute at Pepperdine University, said recount laws are “a mess.” The recount was called by Assemblyman John A. Pérez after he finished 481 votes behind Betty Yee, a Board of Equalization member, in the June 3 primary. The two Democrats are vying for the chance to face off with Ashley Swearengin, the Republican mayor of Fresno, in the November general election. In California, any candidate or registered voter can call for a recount, but he or she has to pay for it.

Massachusetts: House quietly approved amendment to help state GOP | The Boston Globe

The House Republican leadership, with the cooperation of Democratic leaders, quietly attached an amendment to an election law bill last month that would allow the cash-strapped state GOP party to raise unlimited donations to pay for an expensive legal battle with Tea Party gubernatorial candidate Mark Fisher. If the House version of the bill becomes law, the Massachusetts Republican Party can avoid a serious financial pinch caused by the nearly $100,000 in legal bills it has so far incurred in its fight with Fisher. Halfway through this election year, it now has only about $247,000 in its account, with its legal bills threatening to eat up the money it needs to mount challenges to Democrats in statewide and legislative elections this year.

Ohio: Attorney General’s office argues against boss in court case | Dayton Daily News

Ohio Solicitor Eric Murphy Wednesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a lower court ruling that two independent organizations from Cincinnati failed to show they have been harmed by a state election law that prohibits making false statements with malice. In an unusual legal twist, Murphy finds himself on the opposite side of the same case with his boss, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, who earlier this month filed a separate brief with the justices declaring that the Ohio law violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. The justices in January agreed to accept the election law cases from Ohio, but it is unclear whether the court wants to rule on whether the law violates the Constitution instead of more narrowly concluding that the organizations could not demonstrate they faced prosecution.

Utah: Election law reins in tea party | Los Angeles Times

Four years ago, the fledgling tea party claimed one of its first and greatest victories in Utah, ousting the state’s veteran Republican senator in a thunderclap of anti-incumbent anger. Now the establishment has struck back, with a new law giving more voters a say in nominating the candidates for public office. The measure, signed this month, amounts to a compromise in a fight to limit the influence of grass-roots activists and others bent on purging the GOP of all but the most ideologically pure. Under the agreement, primary candidates can still be chosen, as they long have been, at party conventions, attended by just a few thousand delegates chosen at neighborhood meetings. But others can bypass delegates and appeal directly to voters if they collect enough signatures to make the ballot. Those unaffiliated with a party, a big chunk of Utah’s electorate, will also be allowed to vote in Republican primaries.

South Carolina: Lawmakers seek fix for election law to avoid ‘catastrophic’ problems | The Greenville News

State lawmakers are warning that another flawed election law could make the debacle of 2012 that knocked hundreds of candidates out of primaries seem tame by comparison. Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the Senate on Wednesday that the office of state Attorney General Alan Wilson has issued an opinion concluding that a 2008 law under which most of the state’s counties combined election and voter registration boards is unconstitutional. The reason, state Solicitor General Robert Cook explained in the opinion, is that under the state’s Constitution, the Legislature is prohibited from passing laws that are customized for certain parts of the state but not others. “Act No. 312 is simply an amalgam of laws, each for a particular county,” Cook wrote.

Ohio: Supporters of Voters Bill of Rights can now collect signatures to put issue on November ballot | Cleveland Plain Dealer

A group pushing to enshrine voting provisions in the Ohio Constitution got the green light Thursday morning to collect signatures to put the amendment on the November ballot. The Ohio Ballot Board unanimously agreed Thursday the “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights” should be presented to voters as one amendment. The amendment writes into the Constitution minimum early, in-person voting hours — 12 hours during the weekend before Election Day and 10 hours each day during the preceding week — current identification standards, absentee ballot procedures and online voter registration. One of the group’s leaders, Cincinnati Democratic Rep. Alicia Reece, said the amendment protects those voting provisions from changes by lawmakers and removes the “political football” game played by both parties over voting procedures.

Ohio: State election law violates First Amendment, Dewine says | The Columbus Dispatch

In a highly unusual move, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine yesterday told the U.S. Supreme Court that the state’s election law banning candidates from making false statements with malice violates the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech. In legal papers filed with the justices, DeWine said the Ohio law has a “chilling” impact on the speech not only of candidates, but independent organizations wishing to advertise against a candidate. The attorney general contended that the law “polices not just ‘false’ speech, but speech that indisputably is protected under the First Amendment.” Normally, the state attorney general would defend a law approved by the legislature in his or her state. The justices are expected later this spring to hear two challenges — both from Cincinnati — to the Ohio law. They have been consolidated into one case.

Arizona: Governor signs bill to repeal 2013 election reform law, kills referendum | Arizona Capitol Times

It’s official: Arizonans won’t get the last word on a series of controversial changes in state election law. Without comment, Gov. Jan Brewer signed legislation Thursday to repeal the 2013 law. More to the point, by repealing the law the governor killed the referendum drive that had held up enactment until the voters made the final decision. Democratic lawmakers who opposed the 2013 law sought to keep the referendum on the ballot, saying voters deserved to have their say. Foes of the changes gathered more than 146,000 signatures on petitions to put the law on “hold” pending the election. But Democrats also were interested in attracting voters to the polls in November who objected to the changes forced through by the Republican-controlled Legislature. That included limiting who can take someone else’s early ballot to polling places, erecting some new procedural hurdles in the path of citizens proposing their own laws, and requiring minor parties to get far more signatures to get their candidates on the ballot.

Arizona: Brewer signs bill repealing elections overhaul that angered many and led to voter referendum | Associated Press

13 elections overhaul by Republicans that left voter-rights groups incensed and led to a petition drive that put the law on hold and referred it to voters. The bill repealed a sweeping elections overhaul that Republicans passed in the final hours of the 2013 legislative session, angering Democrats, some conservative Republicans and third-party candidates. They came together to collect more than 146,000 signatures to place the law on hold and put it on the November ballot. Repealing the law cancels the voter referendum. Brewer issued no statement regarding her action. Both houses of the legislature approved the bill along party lines earlier this month.

Arizona: Senate repeals 2013 election law | Associated Press

The Arizona Senate has voted to repeal a sweeping 2013 Arizona election law that included trimming the state’s permanent early voting list and a host of other provisions that incensed voter-rights advocates. Majority Republicans who pushed House Bill 2305 through last June voted Thursday to repeal the law 17-12. The House passed an identical bill last week. The bill will now go to the governor. Republicans pushing the repeal say they are following the will of the voters and expressed worry that the many provisions in the bill could not be changed without a supermajority vote of the Legislature if it is repealed by voters. Democrats worry the provisions will be re-enacted. Repealing the law will cancel the voter referendum.

Canada: NDP wants to force consultation on ‘unfair’ election law changes | CBC

The New Democrats are forcing a debate in the House over whether to hold cross-Canada consultations on the government’s proposed changes to federal election laws. The party is using its opposition day, a day set aside for it to set the subject of debate in the House, to present a motion that would instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to travel the country and seek input from Canadians. NDP Deputy Leader David Christopherson called the Conservatives a “serial-cheating government” that’s trying to “pre-cheat” the next election through the proposed changes. New Democrat MP Craig Scott called the bill the “unfair elections act,” playing off the government’s title for the bill, the fair elections act.

Canada: Tories open to hearings, amending controversial electoral reform bill | GlobalPost

The Harper government is signalling a willingness to hold extensive hearings and entertain amendments to its controversial proposals for overhauling Canada’s election laws. However, it is so far drawing the line at conducting cross-country hearings, although it has agreed to at least reconsider the idea. Tom Lukiwski, parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, took the conciliatory approach Tuesday as the procedure and House affairs committee met to determine the process for studying Bill C-23. “This is a big bill … Our suggestion will be to give it probably as much time as needed,” Lukiwski said on his way into the meeting, which was held primarily behind closed doors. He also said Conservative MPs are “going to be open” to some “reasonable” amendments to the bill.

Canada: MPs need more time to study major overhaul to elections laws, NDP says | The Globe and Mail

The Conservative government is facing a battle from the NDP Thursday over its efforts to end the first round of debate on legislation that would dramatically rewrite federal election law. Government House Leader Peter Van Loan has signalled he will table a motion to force an end to initial debate over C-23, the Fair Elections Act. The next stage of deliberation would see the legislation head to a committee for scrutiny. Thomas Mulcair’s New Democrats are trying to delay this, saying MPs deserve more time to speak on the legislation.

Arizona: House Judiciary Committee votes to repeal controversial election bill | AZCentral

A House panel took the first step Thursday toward repealing a controversial election law that opponents had successfully referred to voters on the November ballot. On a 4-2 vote, the House Judiciary Committee repealed last year’s package of election changes over the objections of referendum supporters, who say they want their referendum — a repeal of sorts — to proceed because they don’t trust the Legislature will leave elections procedures untouched. “We do not want to see it repealed and re-enacted piecemeal, and that does seem to be the intent,” Sandy Bahr told committee members. Bahr is a member of the coalition that gathered the 146,000 signatures needed to repeal last year’s House Bill 2305.

Alaska: Election Law Revision Before Assembly | Alaska Public Media

A new version of Anchorage Election law, or Title 28, will be before the Assembly at their next meeting. Officials began reviewing the law after problems with an election in 2012. The rewrite comes after polling places ran out of ballots in 2012, even though the turnout was expected to be high and extra ballots had been printed, but not quickly distributed to polling sites. The result was long delays or citizens being turned away. Deputy Clerk Amanda Moser says the clerk’s office worked closely with the election commission along with the department of law for about a year to streamline the voting process.

National: Weird Loophole Allows Corporations to Incentivize Employee Contributions to Corporate PACs | Nonprofit Quarterly

U.S. corporations cannot give money directly to political action committees, but individuals can. Can corporations find a way around the prohibition? Of course they can! That’s what loopholes are for. Bloomberg News reports that corporations are getting their employees to donate to PACs in return for the corporations making matching contributions to the employees’ choices of charities. Among the corporations doing this according to Bloomberg are Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Boeing, and Hewlett-Packard. The loophole isn’t just a recent discovery. The practice was specifically approved by the Federal Election Commission in the late 1980s and has been reviewed and approved by the FEC seven times between 1994 and 2009. It is also a practice that is reprehensible, clearly intended to skirt the intention of the law. Election law prohibits corporations from reimbursing employees for their PAC donations, either directly or indirectly, but the corporations are making the case that making donations to charities is different than offering employees reimbursement, bonuses, or other compensation.

Texas: A Perspective on Name Changes Appearing on Voter Registration Certificates | Texas Election Law Blog

A recent bit of kerfuffle has arisen regarding the practice of listing all of a voter’s prior names on the voter registration certificate – this isn’t a new law, but heightened concerns about how voter I.D. may be enforced have left some women concerned that (1) their voter registration lists some odd typographical mangling of a maiden and married name, or (2) lists a former name that hasn’t been used for many years. I haven’t been shy in my criticism of voter I.D. laws generally, but I think one must be careful to separate one issue (the dreadful policy decision to dramatically restrict the forms of  photo I.D.) from another (the format and treatment of prior names when printing the voter registration certificate). As is so often the case with the state law, the Texas Election Code is not particularly clear about how the voter’s name is supposed to appear on the registration certificate.

Delaware: Panel continues review of Delaware election laws | Associated Press

Members of a task force charged with reviewing Delaware’s election laws seemed to agree Wednesday that there’s no need for a law requiring political candidates to undergo criminal background checks. Background checks for candidates are among several issues that have been explored by the task force, formed by lawmakers earlier this year to conduct a comprehensive review of Delaware’s elections and make recommendations on how to improve them. The panel is to submit its report in March. The issue of background checks came up after New Castle County elections officials ruled last year that Derrick Johnson, pastor of Joshua Harvest Church in Wilmington, was ineligible to run for mayor of Wilmington because he had served prison time for manslaughter — an “infamous crime” that officials determined prevented him from holding office, despite a later pardon. “The only reason we knew about it was because he was so open about it,” said state elections commissioner, the chair of the task force.

North Carolina: Election law changes narrow use of provisional ballots | Winston-Salem Journal

Sometimes, you’re in the “right pew – wrong church,” said Doug Lewis, the executive director of the nonpartisan National Association of State Election Directors, as he talked about one of the ways people use provisional ballots. For years, voters in North Carolina have been able to use a provisional ballot for several reasons. Among them, they could have their vote counted even if they had shown up at the wrong precinct – the wrong church – to pick candidates. Not anymore. Among the sweeping changes brought by North Carolina’s new election law, the one requiring voter-identification by 2016 has drawn much of the attention, but the election law also implemented a slew of other changes. Under the new law, provisional ballots will still be counted under certain circumstances. For example, a provisional ballot will count if voters use one because they did not show up on the list of registered voters at their precinct but are in fact at the correct precinct and were properly registered before the election. But starting in 2014, voters will no longer have their votes counted if they use a provisional ballot outside their correct precinct.

National: The downside of clear election laws | Washington Post

State lawmakers have introduced at least 2,328 bills this year that would change the way elections are run at the local level. Some passed, some stalled. Some are mundane tweaks, others are controversial overhauls. But if election reformers want to prevent their laws from being held up by lawsuits, they would be wise to pay attention to how they’re written, says Ned Foley, an Ohio State University professor and election law expert. “Put clarity at the top of the list of things to achieve, maybe before fairness or integrity or access or whatever, because litigators can’t fight over things that are clear,” he said, speaking on an election law panel during a multi-day conference hosted by the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures in Washington, D.C. “It’s amazing how much ambiguity kind of seeps into laws that is unintended.” But while clear regulations are important, too much can backfire, said Alysoun McLaughlin, deputy director of the Montgomery County Board of Elections in Maryland.

Arizona: Measure to overturn new Arizona election law qualifies for ballot | Los Angeles Times

A ballot measure to overturn a Republican-backed state bill that made sweeping changes to Arizona election law was certified this week as having more than enough valid signatures, but on Friday opponents vowed to challenge those signatures in court. The effort to block the measure is the latest round in a growing fight in Arizona that revolves around voter participation and allegations of fraud. Democrats contend that the Republican-led Legislature passed the measure in June as part of a bigger movement to make it more difficult for minorities to vote and third-party candidates to run in the state. Republicans said the law was needed to curb voter fraud and streamline the voting system. Opponents of the law quickly got to work on qualifying a measure for the ballot in the next general election. On Tuesday, Arizona officials announced that the measure had the necessary signatures required for the 2014 ballot.

Virginia: Cuccinelli: No conflict for AG’s office to preside over election | Richmond Times-Dispatch

This summer, state Sen. John S. Edwards, D-Roanoke, asked Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli whether it is a conflict of interest for Cuccinelli and his office to preside over an election in which he is a candidate. He wanted to know whether that conflict required Cuccinelli to recuse his office from prosecuting any violations of election law. On Friday, Edwards received his answer — no. “It is my opinion that there is no inherent conflict of interest presented, and thus, no per se requirement that the Office of the Attorney General recuse from investigating and prosecuting alleged violations of election law, when the Attorney General is a candidate for public office in the same election that is under investigation,” Cuccinelli wrote in a five-page legal opinion, posted to the Attorney General’s website today. “It is further my opinion that any potential recusal of that office must be determined on a case-by-case basis.”

Arizona: Petition drive seeks to block ‘bad’ election laws | Camp Verde Bugle

Voters apparently are going to get the last word on controversial changes in state election laws pushed through by Republicans at the end of last session. Backers of a referendum drive turned in 146,028 signatures on petitions to block the changes from being implemented as scheduled on Friday. If the Secretary of State determines there are at least 86,405 valid signatures — and a likely legal challenge falters — the law will remain on hold until voters can ratify or reject it at the 2014 election. “It’s not every day that voters get the opportunity to refer a bad piece of legislation to the ballot,’ said Julie Erfle who chairs the campaign. The last successful referendum drive was in 1998.

eSwatini: Election Law Broken Across Kingdom | allAfrica.com

The law banning candidates from campaigning in the forthcoming primary election is being broken across Swaziland. And, police are trying to clamp down on public gatherings, social parties and food distributions. A meeting aimed at sensitising people to the need to elect more women to parliament was abandoned after a warning from the Swazi Elections and Boundaries Commission. Candidates for the primary election to be held on 24 August 2013 were chosen nearly two weeks ago, but they are forbidden by law from campaigning for votes. Allegedly illegal activities reported over the past few days include the distribution of water, clothes and food at a church gathering at Nhlambeni.

North Carolina: Lawmakers may defend laws in court if AG won’t | NBC News

After passing politically divisive legislation on voting laws and setting in motion new abortion restrictions, North Carolina’s Republican-led General Assembly has given itself the authority to defend them in court. Last month, in a last-minute move before adjourning for the year, lawmakers inserted two sentences into legislation clarifying a new hospital-billing law that would give the state House speaker and Senate leader the option to defend a state statute or provision of North Carolina’s constitution and not rely on Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat. Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, has until Aug. 25 to veto the measure. Cooper hasn’t refused to defend the state in any case, though counterparts in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania said they would not defend their states’ same-sex marriage bans.

North Carolina: Widespread voter fraud not an issue in North Carolina, data shows | WNCN

One of the more compelling arguments for voter identification is the suppression of voter fraud. But for North Carolina, the number of cases of voter fraud reported by the state Board of Elections is minimal. In 2012, nearly 7 million ballots were cast in the general and two primary elections. Of those 6,947,317 ballots, the state Board of Elections said 121 alleged cases of voter fraud were referred to the appropriate district attorney’s office. That means of the nearly 7 million votes cast, voter fraud accounted for 0.00174 percent of the ballots. Looking back at the 2010 election cycle — which was not a presidential year — 3.79 million ballots were cast and only 28 cases of voter fraud were turned over to the appropriate DA’s office. So in 2010, voter fraud accounted for 0.000738 percent of ballots cast.

Wisconsin: Government Accountability Board has no plans to discipline tardy election clerks | Wisconsin Reporter

Linda Terry probably won’t get her wish. The Raymond clerk has overseen Wisconsin elections for the past 20 years, first in Kenosha County and now in Racine County. She wants the Legislature to stop futzing with election laws. “I think the clerks know what they’re doing, it’s everybody else that doesn’t,” Terry said with a laugh. County and municipal clerks have taken a lot of heat the past couple years, as Wisconsin’s seemingly unending election cycles have highlighted the downside of the most decentralized election system in the country. Military ballots have gone out late. Lawsuits have been threatened and filed. Voter registration rolls haven’t been properly updated. Some of the problems have been attributed to the series of recalls, recounts, special and regular elections, turning part-time municipal clerk jobs into full-time gigs. The election schedule has returned to normal, and watchdogs have had time to assess how well or how poorly Wisconsin elections are run. So, what’s changing? Not much.

New Jersey: Chris Christie’s Catch-22 — and why he made the right (political) decision | Washington Post

To hear the political media tell it, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) made a stinker of a decision Tuesday by setting the state’s special Senate election for Oct. 16 rather than on the same day as the general election either this year or in 2014. But the decision was probably the best of three bad options for Christie. The Star-Ledger editorial board blasted Christie for a “self-serving stunt“, and it was joined in that criticism by several politicians — most of them Democrats. But as is often the case with Senate vacancies — this one created by the death of Democratic Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg — the controversy was probably unavoidable. Giving a governor carte blanche to interpret the law and make an interim appointment these days often ends poorly (see: Blagojevich, Rod; Paterson; David; and Abercrombie, Neil). In addition, New Jersey special election law put Christie in an especially unenviable position because it is highly contradictory and totally open to interpretation.