After the post-election canvas of votes revealed a tie between Williamsport City Council candidates Republican Eric Beiter and Democrat April Line, the winner of the seat will be determined with a drawing as dictated by state law, according to Forrest Lehman, Lycoming County director of elections.
Although the election was held over a week ago, additional ballots were expected via mail. The deadline for those ballots typically is seven days after the election, which would have been Nov. 11. Due to the Veterans Day holiday, however, the deadline was moved to Nov. 12….
While Lehman noted Wednesday morning that one overseas military ballot cast in the city’s election had not arrived, he confirmed late afternoon that the ballot had missed the deadline required by state law.
Lehman stressed that this is not a thing “where the voter can decide at the last minute — that they’re going to come in and drop off the ballot.”
“A military or overseas voter has to have signed an affirmation stating they put their ballot in the mail before Election Day,” he explained.
The reason the ballot is given seven days to arrive is because some military ballots come from service people who have been deployed to remote locations or from overseas voters who are mailing ballots via foreign mail.
Because the ballot did not arrive, the state election code’s protocol for ties must be followed.
Lehman stressed that he doesn’t make up the rules governing this.
“It’s not a Williamsport thing or Lycoming County thing. This is how every county in the state does it when there are tie votes,” he said.
“The Stakes in the Supreme Court Mail Ballot Case; It is a weak case, but it is best seen as part of a larger strategic effort to change how election rules are made.”
“Unilateral Election Administration”
John Martin has posted this article, which is forthcoming in the NYU Law Review and was awarded the AALS Election Law Section’s Distinguished Scholarship Award:
Election administration in the United States is fragmented. Instead of having one uniform system, each state governs elections under distinct rules and hierarchies. Yet, one feature remains consistent among the fifty systems: Each is led by a “chief election official.” Though some states rely on boards, most vest this authority in a single person—what this Article calls a “unitary chief election official.”
The unitary chief election official wields immense power. They enjoy unilateral authority to render decisions affecting voter registration, voting equipment, access to voting, ballot access, ballot measures, election counting and certification, and election official training, among other things. What is seemingly a procedural office can accordingly be used to impact substantive electoral outcomes. Because of this, subversive partisan actors have made increasing attempts over the years to co-opt the position, viewing it as a means to legally sway elections in their party’s favor.
Despite their significance, unitary chief election officials remain relatively underdiscussed in the literature. Questions remain about the precise extent of their authority, as well as what mechanisms exist to ensure that abusive officials can be held to account. This Article therefore makes a first, detailed attempt to answer these questions. To begin, the Article provides a descriptive account of the breadth of powers that the average unitary chief election official enjoys. It draws upon the election codes of eleven states to do this.
Next, the Article considers how to best construct an accountability regime that insulates the office from partisan manipulation. Through the lens of democracy theory, the Article concludes that we should deemphasize electoral accountability, as truly neutral chief election officials must answer to democratic principles rather than popular whims. Furthermore, we should treat ex-post forms of accountability, such as lawsuits, as secondary fail-safe options rather than as primary ones. On the other hand, we should channel more resources to ex-ante legal and internal modes of accountability. By reframing accountability for unitary chief election officials, this Article offers a path to shielding the office from undue partisan capture and, in turn, strengthening the democratic process.
“Will People Trust Voting by Phone? Alaska Is Going to Find Out.”
NYT:
The largest city in Alaska is about to undertake an experiment that feels both inevitable and impossibly futuristic in an era of pervasive mistrust toward elections: allowing all voters to cast ballots from their smartphones.
Anchorage, home to about 240,000 registered voters, is starting small. Mail and in-person voting will still exist, but voters will also be able to open a link on their phones to cast a ballot in municipal races in April, when six city assembly seats and two school board seats are up for election. The change will not apply to higher-profile races later in the year for state legislature, governor and federal offices.
But even at the local level, the trial run of phone voting — the first of its scale in the nation — could offer a blueprint for expanded use in future elections beyond Alaska.
The cautious technological step forward is designed to help offset Alaska’s logistical challenges: harsh weather, long drives to vote in rural areas, a transient population and, for Anchorage itself, a large military base nearby. Lots of ballots never get delivered, and plenty more arrive too late to be counted. Local election officials hope that the phone experiment will make it easier to vote, while also keeping their elections secure….
Even if an all-digital system can be kept secure — which is far from a guarantee — some experts worry that the political environment is too volatile to even experiment with internet voting.
“I can’t imagine a worse time in American history to be rolling it out,” said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonpartisan group that advises election officials. He noted that many conspiracy theories about mail voting persist even though the literal paper trail makes them easily refutable. Voting digitally, he argued, could ignite new baseless doubts.
“Imagine what it would be like if we made the conspiracy theorists’ jobs that much easier,” Mr. Becker said. “They can just say the votes got changed inside the machine.”
Mr. Tusk, however, believes that it is even more risky if low-turnout elections keep making the nation more polarized….
Tabatha Abu el-Haj is Primary ELB Blogger the Week of November 17
“Kansas Redistricting Was on the Fast Track. Then Some Republicans Said No.”
NYT:
The top Republicans in Kansas were ready to join President Trump’s redistricting push and redraw the state’s political map to deliver another seat in Congress to Republicans. Democrats feared that a special session to pass new district lines was inevitable.
Then something surprising happened. Some Republicans refused.
The pushback on the Plains leaves in place, at least for now, the one Democratic-leaning congressional district in Kansas. It comes as a small but rising number of lawmakers across the country, Republicans and Democrats, have balked at joining the drive to carve up congressional districts to boost their side’s odds in the midterm elections.
The national flurry of remapping, set off this summer when Texas Republicans drew a new one at the president’s behest, happened quickly in several states. But growing resistance from state lawmakers, for reasons both practical and philosophical, has put a chill on the effort.
When the Republican governor of Indiana called a special session for redistricting last month, the Senate Republicans said the votes were not there. Maryland Democratic leaders are divided. And in Kansas, where top Republicans had hoped to meet about a new map last Friday, House leaders failed to get enough support.
The debate over remapping in Kansas is not over, and new boundaries could still pass when lawmakers return for their regular session in January. Some Republican legislators were stripped of committee leadership roles on Friday, a punishment for bucking the party line on redistricting. And several lawmakers said they had considered the possibility of more political repercussions if the president were to become more involved.
But the depth and breadth of Republican skepticism, both conservative and moderate, from both rural areas and cities, suggests that redistricting faces an uphill climb in Kansas even if political pressure continues to increase….