Election Law, Case Study Example

Recommendations on primary elections

In Washington State Grange, the State employed the use of a blanket primary that positioned candidates from all the parties on one ballot and leave the voters to select a candidate from any party. The candidate who garnered most votes within each main party qualified as that party’s nominee. The Washington State Grange swiftly proposed I-872 as a substitute. The I-872 had two stages a general and a primary election. A candidate under the 1-872 was to declare the main and minor party of preference. In this case, a party cannot deny a candidate from choosing that party as a party of choice. This amendment of the position on primary elections is celebrated as the current position deprives the parties the opportunity to have a choice of the part nominee as it allows primary unaffiliated voters to choose party nominees. Recommendations on Voter I.D

In the case of Crawford, the issue before the court was the legality of a law which required citizens voting personally preceding the election date, to have a photo ID issued by the government. The challenges to the provision are that it significantly challenges the right to vote in contravention to the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument is that the use of a government issued photo ID is neither an essential nor a proper technique of evading voting deceptions. It also illogically bares eligible voters, not in possession of the requisite ID and places unfounded burden on individuals who cannot readily get such identification. The recommendation here is that the requirement of a government photo ID is unnecessary and, therefore, done away with to ensure proper voting.

Recommendations on methods of voter registration and voting

The holding of the court in the Burdick case was that persons do not possess a First Amendment right to cast a write-in ballot. An outstanding characteristic of the way the Court considered the First Amendment subject is its irresistible dismissal of an originalist tactic, at any point of specificity. The question is whether the First Amendment originally would have protected a voter’s anonymity inside the proper political procedure. There is the requirement to guarantee that elections carried out in an equitable and efficient manner. The position is that prohibition on write-in voting places a considerable burden on voters, to cast a blank ballot or vote for a candidate whom they no longer support. The write-in prohibitions impose a substantial burden on voting privileges. A write-in vote allows a voter to efficiently exercise the constitutionally protected right to vote freely. The recommendation is if there is a prohibition of a write in ballot the reasons to support the prohibition should be valid and justified. Recommendations on campaign financing

The question in Citizens united dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use funds in its general treasury to facilitate broadcasts during the 30-day period. The ruling of the court used the basis on the premise that the first amendment bars regulatory distinction based on speaker’s identity. It is imperative to amend this provision regarding campaign financing. The importance in averting corruption both actual and the appearance of it in elected representatives is essential in ensuring democracy. The importance in the amendment of campaign financing ensues from the desire to eradicate potentially corrupt practices by corporate bodies. The aim is to regulate participation of cooperate bodies in electoral influences, conserve the integrity of the electoral process and protect the interests of shareholders. Question two

Plan preclearance

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires the demonstration that districting does not have the effect or purpose of refusing or reducing the right of individuals. The act also forbids districting procedures that will have a prejudiced effect on marginal groups. The Act further prohibits legislation that has an effect of reduction of a marginalized group’s voting strength, regardless of the intent of the legislation. This, therefore, implies that the department of justice should not preclear the plan since the plan contravened these provisions. The plan deliberately revised along racial lines that such redrawing violate the Fourteenth Amendment when they are accepted with a prejudiced intention and have the consequence of diluting minority voting strength. Claims to redraw

Racial vote dilution

In the case of Gingles, the Court recognized a standard demonstrated in order for minority group to claim their voting was disadvantaged. In this case, the Hispanic community must demonstrate that it is adequately large and geologically dense to comprise a bulk in a single-member region, and that it is politically organized. They should also demonstrate that the white majority voters adequately as a bloc to facilitate it to overpower the minority favored candidate. The concern of the Court here was whether the marginal group members comprise a politically unified unit and to establish whether the votes of the whites adequately as a bloc to overpower the minority group preferred candidates. The holding of the court that the legal notion of racially polarized elections. As related to claims of vote dilution, it refers only to connection between race of voters and selection of candidates. The claim can be sought to redraw the districts.

Racial Gerrymandering

The plaintiff can also bring a claim under the Equal Protection Law by demonstrating that use of race in drawing of the districts was excessive. Based on the decision in Shaw v. Reno a reapportionment arrangement may be extremely unequal that, on its face, it sensibly cannot be taken as anything apart from an effort to isolate voters on a racial basis. The court in the case decided that plaintiff could argue an Equal Protection Clause claim by stating that creation of districts, though, race-neutrality on its face, reasonably cannot be seen as anything apart from an effort to divide voter into diverse districts based on race, and that division lacks adequate justification. The claim of gerrymandering in this situation based on compared proportions of Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites in district 3 between the 2010 and 2012 vis-à-vis the population of the district.

Reference

Samuel, I., Pamela S. K., & Richard H. P. (2007). The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process (3^rd ed.) University of Michigan.