Protect Democracy link. A new report by John M. Carey and Oscar Pocasangre argues that proportional representation promotes consensus-building, accountability, and political stability without producing excessive fragmentation. Rather than understanding PR and winner-take-all systems as divergent models, the report explains how other institutional design features can influence how each system functions in a particular country. And the authors argue that conditions in the United States, including polarization and presidentialism, would catalyze PR’s virtues and moderate its vices.

We address these concerns by showing how PR can improve governance in the United States. By governance, we mean three things: congruence (policy outcomes that people want); accountability (the ability to course correct by voting out bad politicians); and stability (consistency and pre­dictability of government).

On all three criteria, research suggests a combina­tion of mixed results and reasons to believe that PR could be an improvement for the U.S. compared to winner-­take-­all (WTA) elections. Particularly in a highly polarized society, PR could help improve congruence and accountability by reducing the impact of gerrymandering; making elections more competitive; giving voters more choices within and across parties; allowing for a greater represen­tation of societal diversity; and promoting more consensus-­seeking in the legislative process.

There is little reason to believe PR would create instability or make it difficult to hold politicians accountable. In contrast, there are many reasons to believe the WTA model in the U.S. is failing to ensure good governance. The conditions that allowed WTA to work alongside a presidential system—mainly, significant overlap between Democrats and Repub­licans—no longer exist.

Today, the combination of presidentialism and WTA in the House of Repre­sentatives is proving dangerous and destabilizing, leading to gridlock in times of divided government and to unilateral—even extreme—policymaking in times of unified government (Mainwaring and Drutman 2023). PR is better suited to the country’s conditions and could work well in combination with presidentialism, without sacrificing—and perhaps even enhancing—governance.

AJC link. Former Georgia congressional representative John Barrow filed suit in federal district court to stop the state’s Judicial Qualifications Commission from proceeding with a complaint against him for promises the judicial candidate made to “protect” abortion rights.

Former U.S. Rep. John Barrow filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block the state’s judicial watchdog agency from seeking misconduct charges against him for centering his campaign for a seat on the Georgia Supreme Court on a pledge to support abortion rights.

The lawsuit came days after the Judicial Qualifications Commission informed the former Democratic lawmaker he was facing a complaint for pledging to “protect” abortion rights against a 2019 Republican-backed state law that restricts the procedure.

In the five-page letter, the agency said Barrow had the right to state his views on partisan or disputed issues. But it said he violated the Judicial Code of Conduct by making “misleading” pledges to protect selected rights and promises about “highly sensitive cases” likely to come before the state’s top court. It urged him to immediately change his campaign message.

Barrow’s lawsuit challenging the code said he is “suffering irreparable harm” from the complaint ahead of the May 21 vote. It asked a federal judge to block the judicial agency from sanctioning him on grounds that it violates his free speech rights.

It’s the latest development in one of the most unusual — and closely watched — Georgia judicial races in a generation as Barrow challenges Justice Andrew Pinson, who was Gov. Brian Kemp’s surprise 2022 pick to fill a vacant seat.

Over nearly two centuries, almost all the sitting Georgia Supreme Court justices who have sought another term have won their elections. Barrow, a former five-term Democratic lawmaker, might have the best chance in decades to upend that tradition.

He is bucking convention by treating the nonpartisan contest like a political campaign, telling audiences he supports abortion rights because, as he said at a North Fulton County Democrats forum, “politicians shouldn’t be making your personal health care decisions.”

“I’m running because I believe that women have the same rights today under our state constitution that they used to have under Roe v. Wade,” he said last week at the crowded forum.

AP link. On Monday, Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson removed the Executive Director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, Claire Woodall. Johnson tapped Woodall’s deputy, Paulina Gutiérrez, to step into the role, but Gutiérrez’s nomination must be approved by the city’s Common Council.

The change has nothing to do with how Woodall ran elections, but instead had to do with “other issues internal to the election commission office and to city government that raised concern,” said the mayor’s spokesperson Jeff Fleming. He declined to say what those issues were.

“People see one side on this side of the camera, but there are other things on the other side of the camera that I also have to deal with and that’s exactly what I did with my decision,” Johnson told WISN-TV. He declined to elaborate. . . .

Johnson and others who work in elections stressed that the change would not affect how elections are run in Milwaukee.

“Paulina’s integrity and capabilities are ideally suited to this position,” Johnson said in a statement announcing the change. “She will lead the office at an important juncture when public scrutiny of the work of the department will be extremely high. I have confidence in her, and I will make certain the department has the resources it needs to fulfill its duties.”

Gutierrez has only been a staff member at the city election commission for a little over a year. Neil Albrecht, who led the office for 15 years before retiring in May 2020, has offered his assistance as a volunteer, Fleming said. Woodall took over for Albrecht in 2020 and had been leading the office until now.

This week I’ll be blogging on ELB along with Kunal Dixit. Kunal is about to graduate from HLS and has been a terrific member of HLS’s Election Law Clinic. Welcome, Kunal!

A Common Ground Democracy essay on why, contrary to some recent assertions, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. would not be the “Condorcet winner” in a well-designed Condorcet-based electoral system.

In South Dakota, reformers have gathered far more signatures than needed to get a measure on the ballot in November that would create a Top Two open primary, much like CA and WA use. Those signatures now have to be… Continue reading

NYT on an FEC advisory opinion that candidates can raise unlimited sums for issue advocacy groups working on ballot measures. The Federal Election Commission quietly issued an advisory opinion last week allowing candidates to raise unlimited money for issue-advocacy groups… Continue reading

Detroit News on Democrats’ arguments that recent Republican lawsuits in Michigan have the political aim of sowing doubts about election integrity. On Monday, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee, which is working to reelect President Joe Biden, said two suits… Continue reading

Interesting story about a Missouri county party claiming the authority to “vet” Republican candidates and bar them from running as Republicans if they fail its test. In March, the Vernon County Republican Committee filed what is known as a writ… Continue reading

Politico. Of course, these moves to impede Kennedy’s ballot access and attack his candidacy are a product of winner-take-all electoral rules. Under, say, ranked-choice voting, there wouldn’t be the same incentive to stop minor party challengers. There is a… Continue reading

WaPo reports that the share of Black adults who say they’re certain to vote in this year’s election is down sharply from 2020 — and down by more than the analogous share for all adults. Lower turnout is always a… Continue reading

Charis Franklin has written this Note for the Fordham Law Review. Here’s the excerpt: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“the Voting Rights Act”) is one of the primary vehicles by which plaintiffs receive injunctive relief ahead of elections. More… Continue reading