State Legislatures

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Is the Supreme Court About to Upend American Election Laws?

      by

      Here’s what to know about a court case that could change the way Americans vote — and who decides how they do.For months, my inbox has been bombarded by anxious Democrats and election experts wanting to talk about a once-obscure legal theory that could fundamentally alter the way Americans vote.Known as the independent state legislature doctrine, it holds, in its purest form, that state constitutions have little to no ability to constrain state legislatures. The doctrine emerged from a novel interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, which grants states the authority to set the “time, places and manner” of federal elections.At the core of the dispute is whether the framers intended the word “legislature” in the document to be understood strictly, or whether they meant that other institutions — like state courts, governors and secretaries of state — also had important roles to play in setting and interpreting the rules around elections and voting.A fringe version of the doctrine entered the public discussion last year when it emerged that one of Donald Trump’s lawyers, John Eastman, had written a memo arguing that it even allowed state lawmakers to send their own slate of presidential electors to Washington.The Supreme Court has traditionally been gun-shy about encroaching on state courts, especially when they are interpreting their own constitutions.But a more mainstream conservative position, embraced by the Republican Party and rejected by Democrats, started gaining support on the right amid legal battles over the accommodations some states made for voters during the pandemic, like the expansion of mail voting.If adopted, the doctrine would, among other things, bar state courts from ensuring that state laws comply with a requirement, common in many state constitutions, that elections be “free and fair” — with potentially vast implications for rules on redistricting, citizen-led commissions and voting. Understand the U.S. Supreme Court’s New TermCard 1 of 6A race to the right. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Losing Another Runoff, Georgia Republicans Weigh an Election Shake-Up

      by

      Some in the party said that additional changes to election rules were likely, after Senator Raphael Warnock’s victory put a new spotlight on a major 2021 voting law passed by the G.O.P.As Georgia Democrats won their third Senate runoff election in two years, the party proved it had crafted an effective strategy for triumphing in a decades-old system created to sustain segregationist power and for overcoming an array of efforts to making voting more difficult. Republicans, meanwhile, were quietly cursing the runoff system, or at least their strategy for winning under a state law they wrote after losing the last election.The various post-mortems over how Georgia’s runoff rules shaped the state’s Senate outcome on Tuesday put a spotlight on a major voting law passed by the Republican-led General Assembly last year. Some Republicans acknowledged that their efforts to limit in-person early voting days might have backfired, while others encouraged lawmakers to consider additional restrictions next year.With Georgia poised to remain a critical political battleground and with Republicans holding gerrymandered majorities in both chambers of its state legislature, some in the party said that additional election law changes were likely.Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who oversees the state’s voting procedures, said in an interview on Wednesday that there would be a debate next year over potential adjustments to Georgia’s runoff laws and procedures after Senator Raphael Warnock’s victory.Mr. Raffensperger said he would present three proposals to lawmakers. They include forcing large counties to open more early-voting locations to reduce hourslong lines like the ones that formed at many Metro Atlanta sites last week; lowering the threshold candidates must achieve to avoid a runoff to 45 percent from 50 percent; and instituting a ranked-choice instant-runoff system that would not require voters to come back to the polls again after the general election.Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said there would be a debate next year over potential changes to Georgia’s runoff laws and procedures. Audra Melton for The New York Times“The elected legislators need to have information so they can look at all the different options that they have and really see what they’re comfortable with,” Mr. Raffensperger said.Understand the Georgia Senate RunoffNew Battlegrounds: Senator Raphael Warnock’s win shows how Georgia and Arizona are poised to be the next kingmakers of presidential politics, Lisa Lerer writes.A Rising Democratic Star: Mr. Warnock, a son of Savannah public housing who rose to become Georgia’s first Black senator, is a pastor and politician who sees voting as a form of prayer.Trump’s Bad Day: The loss by Herschel Walker, the Republican candidate, capped one of the worst days for former President Donald J. Trump since he announced his 2024 bid.Republicans are not the only ones hoping to end Georgia’s requirement that a runoff take place if no candidate in a general election wins at least half of the vote. Democrats have long viewed the practice — a vestige of racist 1960s efforts to keep Black candidates or candidates backed by Black voters from taking office — as an additional hurdle for working-class people of color.Park Cannon, a Democratic state representative from Atlanta who was arrested last year after knocking on the closed door behind which Gov. Brian Kemp signed the state’s voting law, said that last Friday, she had driven for 30 minutes and then waited an hour to vote early in person.Runoffs, Ms. Cannon said, “are not to the benefit of working families.” She added, “It’s very difficult to, within four weeks of taking time off to vote, have to do that again.”Since the law was passed in 2021, Georgia Democrats have criticized the new barriers to voting that it set in place. During the runoff, Mr. Warnock, a Democrat, spared no opportunity to highlight the law and characterize it as the latest in a decades-long push to minimize the influence of Black voters and anyone who opposed Republican control.His stump speech featured a regular refrain reminding supporters that Georgia Republicans had sought to prohibit counties from opening for in-person early voting on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, after the state’s Republican attorney general and Mr. Raffensperger concluded that doing so was in violation of state law. Mr. Warnock and Democrats sued, and a state judge agreed to allow for the Saturday voting.“People showed up in record numbers within the narrow confines of the time given to them by a state legislature that saw our electoral strength the last time and went after it with surgical precision,” Mr. Warnock said in his victory speech on Tuesday night in Atlanta. “The fact that voters worked so hard to overcome the hardship put in front of them does not eliminate the fact that hardship was put there in the first place.”Because of the new voting law, Tuesday’s runoff was held four weeks after the general election, rather than the nine-week runoff period under which Georgia’s high-profile Senate races in early 2021 unfolded. The nine-week runoff period that year had been ordered by a federal judge; runoff contests for state elections have always operated on a four-week timeline.Tuesday’s contest also included fewer days to vote and new restrictions on absentee ballots — and it ended with virtually the same result.The 3.5 million votes cast in Tuesday’s runoff amounted to 90 percent of the general-election turnout in the Senate race on Nov. 8. In 2021, when Mr. Warnock first won his seat, runoff turnout was 91 percent of the general-election turnout, which was higher because 2020 was a presidential year. The outpouring of voters in both years was orders of magnitude higher than in any prior Georgia runoff.A get-out-the-vote event on Tuesday near a polling site in Atlanta.Nicole Buchanan for The New York TimesThe booming turnout this year has led Georgia Republicans to insist that their voting law was not suppressive.“We had what I think was a nearly flawless execution of two huge elections in terms of turnout and in terms of accuracy and integrity,” said Butch Miller, a Republican leader in the Georgia State Senate who helped write the voting law and is leaving the chamber after losing the primary for lieutenant governor.Mr. Miller said he “didn’t care for” the way that some counties, including large Democratic-leaning ones in the Atlanta area, had opened for extra early voting days, a sentiment echoed by other Georgia Republicans after Mr. Warnock’s victory.The new law evidently had an effect on how Georgians voted. In the January 2021 runoffs, 24 percent of the vote came via absentee ballots that had been mailed to voters. On Tuesday, just 5 percent of the vote came through the mail, a result of restrictions on who could receive an absentee ballot and the shortening of the runoff period, which made it more difficult to request and receive a ballot within the allotted time period.The 2021 law also cut the amount of in-person early voting days to a minimum of five, but allowed Georgia’s counties to add more days before the state’s mandated early-voting week. The Warnock campaign pressed the state’s Democratic counties to open for early voting on the weekend after Thanksgiving, giving voters who were more likely to vote for the senator extra days to do so.But then Mr. Raffensperger sought to enforce a state law that forbids in-person early voting on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, leading to Mr. Warnock’s successful lawsuit.Jason Shepherd, a former chairman of the Cobb County Republican Party, said the push to stop Saturday voting “wasn’t worth the fight” and served to energize Democratic voters.“You can be completely right and it can send the wrong message, because it plays into the Democrats’ narrative about voter suppression,” Mr. Shepherd said on Wednesday.In the end, 28 of Georgia’s 159 counties opened for extra in-person early voting days. Of those, 17 ended up backing Mr. Warnock and 11 went for his Republican challenger, the former football star Herschel Walker.Compared with weekdays, when the entire state was open for in-person early voting, relatively few votes were cast on the extra voting days. Just over 167,000 votes in all were cast combined on the Saturday and Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend, along with the Tuesday and Wednesday before the holiday, when just two counties opened for voting. By contrast, 285,000 to 352,000 votes were cast statewide on each day of weekday early voting.But voters who cast ballots during those extra in-person early voting days were likely to tilt heavily toward Mr. Warnock.The largest 14 counties to back Mr. Warnock — including seven in metropolitan Atlanta — all opened for extra early voting days. Just two of the 11 largest counties to back Mr. Walker opened for extra in-person early voting days.Maya King More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Hears Case That Could Transform Federal Elections

      by

      The justices are considering whether to adopt the “independent state legislature theory,” which would give state lawmakers nearly unchecked power over federal elections.WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Wednesday about whether to adopt a legal theory that would radically reshape how federal elections are conducted. The theory would give state legislatures enormous and largely unchecked power to set all sorts of election rules, notably by drawing congressional maps warped by partisan gerrymandering.The Supreme Court has never endorsed the “independent state legislature” theory, but four of its conservative members have issued opinions that seemed to take it very seriously.The theory is based on a reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”Proponents of the strongest form of the theory say this means that no other organ of state government can alter a legislature’s actions on federal elections. They say that state supreme courts cannot require state laws to conform to state constitutions, that governors may not use their veto power to reject bills about federal elections, that election administrators may not issue regulations adjusting legislative enactments to take account of, say, a pandemic and that voters may not create independent redistricting commissions to address gerrymandering.Understand the U.S. Supreme Court’s New TermCard 1 of 6A race to the right. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      North Carolina’s Governor Says a Fringe Claim Before the Supreme Court Would Upend Democracy

      by

      Over the past six months, the United States Supreme Court has handed down one misguided ruling after another, stripping Americans of the constitutional right to an abortion, curtailing the regulation of guns and industrial emissions, and muddying the divide between church and state. The people have protested. They’ve organized. And in 2022, they voted.In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the June decision on abortion, the majority wrote that “women are not without electoral or political power.” That’s one thing they got right, and Republicans found that out the hard way in the November midterm elections that they expected to win big. Now, however, the very ability to exercise electoral and political power at the ballot box is hanging in the balance in a case the court is scheduled to hear on Wednesday.Moore v. Harper is a case from North Carolina that state and national Republicans are using to push an extreme legal premise known as the “independent state legislature theory.” While the United States Constitution delegates the authority to administer federal elections to the states, with Congress able to supersede those state decisions, proponents of this theory argue that state legislatures are vested with the exclusive power to run those elections. This view would leave no room for oversight by state courts and put the ability of governors to veto election-related legislation in doubt.The court’s decision on this alarming argument could fundamentally reshape American democracy. Four justices have suggested that they are sympathetic to the theory. If the court endorses this doctrine, it would give state legislatures sole power over voting laws, congressional redistricting, and potentially even the selection of presidential electors and the proper certification of election winners.Indeed, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in a decision earlier this year, said the theory that state courts are barred from reviewing a congressional redistricting plan was “repugnant to the sovereignty of states, the authority of state constitutions and the independence of state courts, and would produce absurd and dangerous consequences.”You can look to North Carolina to see the potential for dire consequences. In 2010, Republicans took over the state legislature in a midterm election. Since then, North Carolina has been ground zero for Republican attempts to manipulate elections. As the state’s attorney general and now governor since 2017, I’ve dealt with Republican legislative leaders as they advanced one scheme after another to manipulate elections while making it harder for populations they have targeted to vote.These schemes robbed voters from the start to the end of an election: a voter ID requirement so strict that a college ID from the University of North Carolina isn’t good enough. No same-day registration during early voting. No provisional ballots for voters who show up at the wrong precinct. Shorter early voting periods eliminated voting the Sunday before Election Day, a day when African American churches hold popular “souls to the polls” events.Fortunately, these measures were stopped in 2016 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which described them as targeting African Americans “with almost surgical precision.”Republicans in the legislature have also gerrymandered districts in diabolical ways. In 2016, state Republicans drew a congressional redistricting map that favored Republicans 10-3. They did so, the Republican chairman of a legislative redistricting committee explained, “because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”North Carolinians have relied on courts and my veto power as governor to foil many of these schemes. In 2022 a successful lawsuit in state court challenging a 2021 gerrymandered congressional map resulted in fair districts, splitting the state’s 14 districts (the state gained a district after the 2020 census) so that Democrats and Republicans each won seven seats in November’s elections. It seemed only right, given the nearly even divide between Democratic and Republican votes statewide. Republican efforts to avoid this result led to the Moore v. Harper appeal now before the Supreme Court.As recently as 2019, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion on partisan gerrymandering claims in Maryland and North Carolina that state courts were an appropriate venue to hear such cases but that those claims were political issues beyond the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Retreating from that position on the role of state courts would be a shocking leap backward that would undermine the checks and balances established in state constitutions across the country.Republican leaders in the North Carolina state legislature have shown us how the elections process can be manipulated for partisan gain. And that’s what you can expect to see from state legislatures across the country if the court reverses course in this case.Our democracy is a fragile ecosystem that requires checks and balances to survive. Giving state legislatures unfettered control over federal elections is not only a bad idea but also a blatant misreading of the Constitution. Don’t let the past decade of North Carolina voting law battles become a glimpse into the nation’s future.Roy Cooper, a Democrat, has been the governor of North Carolina since 2017. He was previously elected to four terms as attorney general.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Hold Onto Contested State Legislative Chambers

      by

      Democrats made gains in state legislatures, including at least one Midwestern battleground state, while thwarting Republican efforts to flip chambers in the Mountain West and elsewhere. As results of statehouse races were still being counted in several states late Wednesday, experts said that Republicans’ efforts to expand their control of state legislative chambers appeared to have fallen short.In Michigan, Democrats had flipped at least one chamber of the State Legislature, the State Senate, while votes were still being counted in races for control of the state’s House of Representatives, as well as Minnesota’s State Senate.“Last night was a surprisingly good showing for Democrats in statehouses, especially since their gains combat the notion that the president’s party always loses ground during midterms,” said Wendy Underhill, director of elections and redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures.In Colorado, a state heavily targeted by Republicans, Democrats maintained their legislative majorities. And in North Carolina and Wisconsin, states with Democratic governors and Republican-held legislatures, Democrats fended off efforts by Republicans to win supermajorities, which would have given them veto override powers. Democrats also won full control of state government leadership in Massachusetts and Maryland — states where Democrats newly won control of the governor’s office while holding onto majorities in both chambers of their statehouses.Republicans went into the midterms with a grip on a majority of chambers in statehouses around the country. Single-party control of state legislatures has become common, and before voting on Tuesday, Republicans dominated both legislative chambers in 30 states, while Democrats held both chambers in 17.Counts were still continuing on Wednesday in various states, including Arizona and Nevada, where control of state legislatures was in play. But in states big and small where results were clear, Republicans easily maintained control of legislatures, including in Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming.“Republicans continue to absolutely dominate the 50-state landscape, as they have since 2010,” Ms. Underhill said.In a sign of how polarization has characterized thousands of races, including many in rural areas where Republicans were running uncontested, only a few hundred seats at the state legislative level were expected to shift across party lines out of the more than 6,200 up for election, according to the N.C.S.L., a bipartisan organization representing state legislatures.Nevertheless, the results indicate a turn from 2020 when Democrats spent heavily to diminish Republicans’ control of state legislatures only to fail at flipping a single chamber, even as Democrats won the presidency and control of Congress that year.The shifts in state legislative seats come as control of these legislatures may prove more significant than ever. State legislatures already hold sway over a wide range of issues from taxation to what teachers are allowed to discuss in public schools. After the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe this year, state lawmakers gained even more power, deciding in many cases whether to restrict or expand abortion rights for their residents.Their authority could now shift significantly as the Supreme Court, which has leaned to the right, hears a case next month related to the role of state legislatures and their role in setting election rules. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Election Day in New York: Who’s Running and How to Vote

      by

      Democrats are aiming to keep control of the governor’s mansion, the State Legislature and a majority of New York’s House seats, but Republicans seem to have momentum.An unusually frenetic midterms election cycle in New York will come to an end on Tuesday, when voters across the state fill out their ballots in a number of competitive races that have the power to reshape the state’s political future.With Democrats anxiously trying to hold on to their thin majority in Congress and Republicans eager to take power, New York has become a key battleground, with a handful of races that could be key in determining control of the House of Representatives.The State Legislature is also being contested, with Republicans hoping to erase the Democrats’ supermajority, as are other statewide races including the re-election bid of Letitia James, the state attorney general.But perhaps no contest on New York’s ballots has been more dramatic than the unexpectedly tight governor’s race. Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who took office 14 months ago, entered with a significant war chest and a sizable lead in polls. But her Republican challenger, Representative Lee Zeldin, has chipped away at Ms. Hochul’s advantages, surprising Democrats in a liberal state that hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office since 2002.Over the last several months, The New York Times has covered the issues at the heart of the governor’s race and the moneyed forces behind the candidates and has examined how New York has been roiled by the political debates dividing the country.As voters head to the polls, here is a guide to what is likely to weigh on their minds.The candidates for governorMs. Hochul, 64, became New York’s first female governor last year after her predecessor, Andrew M. Cuomo, resigned. A moderate Democrat from Buffalo, Ms. Hochul was not particularly well known outside western New York before she became governor.Not long after assuming office, Ms. Hochul moved quickly to rally state party leaders behind her. As she dominated her primary campaign, she amassed a huge fund-raising haul for the general election.Gov. Kathy Hochul is in an unexpectedly tight race.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesMr. Zeldin, 42, has represented eastern Long Island in Congress since 2014. He was favored by party leaders in his primary but had to fight off challengers in a four-way race before turning his focus to defeating Ms. Hochul.He has surged in the polls over the last two months, surprising Democrats. But behind his rise are years of planning, well-timed alliances with powerful Republicans, an embrace of former President Donald J. Trump and a knack for reinvention.The issuesMr. Zeldin has mostly focused his campaign for governor on crime and public safety in New York City. He has accused Ms. Hochul of being too lenient on crime and has focused heavily on repealing the state’s bail laws, which many Republicans and moderate Democrats, including the city’s mayor, Eric Adams, have blamed for an uptick in crime, though available data do not show a clear link.Mr. Zeldin has also denounced efforts by progressive Democrats in Albany and New York City to overhaul the criminal justice system and has vowed to fire Manhattan’s district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, if elected.Ms. Hochul earlier this year worked with the State Legislature to tighten the bail laws but has said that Mr. Zeldin is overly focused on the issue. With polls showing Mr. Zeldin’s message appearing to resonate, she has in recent weeks trumpeted her push to strengthen New York’s so-called red flag laws and tried to limit where New Yorkers can carry a concealed firearm. Mr. Zeldin opposes limiting access to guns.Representative Lee Zeldin has focused on crime and public safety.Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesThe candidates have also battled over how to boost safety on the city’s subway, which is controlled by New York’s governor. Violent crimes on the subway this year are only about 2.6 percent of New York City’s total, but the rate of such crimes — murder, rape, felony assault and robbery — per subway ride has more than doubled since 2019Ms. Hochul has also tried to draw a sharp contrast with Mr. Zeldin after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a constitutional right to abortion. Earlier this year, she announced a $35 million fund to expand abortion access in New York and moved to put the right to abortion in the State Constitution.Mr. Zeldin voted consistently to limit abortion rights in Congress. But as he has tried to win support from moderate Democrats, he has pledged not to change the state’s existing laws.Following the moneyAs the race between Ms. Hochul and Mr. Zeldin has become more competitive, both candidates have attracted a flurry of outside spending.Mr. Zeldin has benefited from more than $11 million spent by Ronald S. Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir who has been backing conservative causes in the state. Mr. Lauder’s money has largely gone to two super PACs, which the state’s top elections watchdog is investigating over charges that they improperly coordinated with Mr. Zeldin’s campaign.Ms. Hochul has spent the last year putting together a $50 million war chest, often through fund-raising events that Republicans frequently attacked as ethically questionable. Many of her donations have come from the gambling industry, which is eagerly awaiting new licenses for casinos in and around New York City.She has also been taking money from appointees to boards and commissions, despite an executive order designed to prevent such donations.A quick guide to House racesMany states in the country used their redistricting process to lower the number of truly competitive House districts. But after an attempted Democratic gerrymander led to a court battle and new maps, New York has more competitive races than might be expected.They include:Three House seats on Long Island, in suburban swing districts where Republicans hope to chip away at recent Democratic support.The rematch in Staten Island and southern Brooklyn, where former Representative Max Rose is distancing himself from national Democrats in a bid to defeat Representative Nicole Malliotakis, the Republican who unseated him in 2020.The fight in the 17th District in the Hudson Valley, where Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, a Democrat who controls the party’s House campaign arm, appears vulnerable.A neighboring seat near Poughkeepsie, where Representative Pat Ryan, a Democrat, who won a special election just months ago, is trying to win a neighboring seat.A Syracuse-area district that is a rare chance for Democrats to flip a Republican-held seat by appealing to moderate voters.When and where to votePolls will be open on Election Day from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. You can find your polling place at voterlookup.elections.ny.gov, a State Board of Elections website. If you live in New York City, you can also call 1-866-VOTE-NYC.Absentee ballots must be returned by mail, with a postmark no later than Nov. 8, or in person at a polling site or a county Board of Elections office by 9 p.m. on Election Day.Voters who encounter any difficulties can call the attorney general’s election protection hotline at 1-866-390-2992. More