Category Archives: Elections

Union Influence on Voter Turnout: Results from Three Los Angeles County Elections

Source: J. Ryan Lamare, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Vol. 63, No. 3, April 2010
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
This paper quantitatively examines the effects of political mobilization contacts by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor on voter turnout, using voting records of several thousands of individuals in South Los Angeles over three local elections in 2003 and 2004. Many view Los Angeles as a key example of U.S. labor movement revitalization, with the County Federation’s political acumen considered paramount to the local labor movement’s success. This paper looks at union mobilization efforts across multiple years and highlights the strong ties between the Federation and Latinos. Using logistic regressions, the paper measures the change in voting odds accorded to union contact in each election. The results indicate that all types of union contacts (including personal visits and live phone calls) play a significant and positive role in affecting turnout levels of voters and are particularly influential amongst Latinos, though the finding that personal contacts do not uniformly increase turnout odds more substantially than phone calls runs contrary to recent political science studies.

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress

Source: R. Sam Garrett, Congressional Research Service, R41054, February 1, 2010

From the summary:
Following the Supreme Court’s January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, questions have emerged about which policy options could be available to Congress. This report provides an overview of selected campaign finance policy options that may be relevant. It also briefly comments on how Citizens United might affect political advertising. A complete understanding of how Citizens United will affect the campaign and policy environments is likely to be unavailable until at least the conclusion of the 2010 election cycle.

If Congress pursues additional legislation, at least two broad choices could be relevant. First, Congress could provide candidates or parties with additional access to funds to combat corporate influence in elections. Second, Congress could restrict spending under certain conditions or require those making expenditures post-Citizens United to provide additional information to voters or regulators. Options within both approaches could generate substantial debate. Some may contend that the only way to provide Congress with the power to directly affect the content of the ruling would be to amend the Constitution.

Bills introduced as of this writing that may be relevant for legislative responses to Citizens United include, but are not necessarily limited to H.J.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 68, H.R. 158, H.R. 1826, H.R. 2056, H.R. 3859, H.R. 4487,H.R. 4511, H.R. 4517, H.R. 4522, H.R. 4523, H.R. 4527, H.R. 4537, H.R. 4540, S. 752, S. 2954, and S. 2959. Given the pace of developments since the ruling, this report is not intended to be exhaustive. Relevant legislation that has been introduced thus far is reflected through selected examples. Additional legislation will be included in future updates. This report is not intended to provide a legal analysis of Citizens United or of legal issues that might affect the policy options discussed here. CRS Report R41045, The Constitutionality of Regulating Corporate Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, by L. Paige Whitaker discusses legal aspects of the decision.
See also:
Life After Citizens United
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, February 18, 2010

Addressing Political Captive Audience Workplace Meetings in the Post-Citizens United Environment

Source: Paul M. Secunda, Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 10-03, February 19, 2010

From the abstract:
Citizens United has wrought widespread changes in the election law landscape. Yet, a lesser-known impact of this watershed case might have a significant impact in the workplace: It may permit employers to hold political mandatory captive audience meetings with their employees.

To eliminate this danger, and consistent with the First Amendment framework for election law issues post-Citizen United, this Article urges Congress to consider language similar to that enacted by the Oregon Worker Freedom Act Law, SB 519 (effective Jan. 1, 2010). SB 519 prohibits termination of employees for refusing to attend mandatory political, labor, or religious meetings held by their employers.

Such a federal law would constitute permissible employment standards legislation and also would not run afoul of the First Amendment speech rights of employers under Citizens United. Employers would still able to communicate their views about political candidates and parties with their employees as the First Amendment now contemplates, but they will not be able to force them to listen to such speeches at the risk of losing their jobs or other benefits of employment.

Elderly Voters: Information on Promising Practices Could Strengthen the Integrity of the Voting Process in Long-term Care Facilities

Source: United States Government Accountability Office, GAO-10-6, November 30, 2009

Voting is fundamental to the U.S. democratic system and federal law provides broad protections for people with disabilities, including older voters. Many long-term care facility residents, who often have physical or cognitive impairments, vote by absentee or early ballot. Concerns have been raised about the extent to which states and localities are helping the increasing number of facility residents exercise their right to vote, especially those requiring voting assistance, who may be subject to undue influence or unauthorized completion of their ballot by facility staff or relatives. Given these concerns, GAO was asked to identify the actions taken to facilitate and protect voting for long-term care facility residents at (1) the state level and (2) the local level. To address these objectives, GAO interviewed federal officials, national organizations, and researchers; reviewed Election Assistance Commission (EAC) guidance on voting in long-term care facilities; surveyed state and local election officials; and visited seven localities in the weeks prior to the November 2008 federal election to observe the voting process in long-term care facilities. Most states have requirements or guidance to facilitate voting for long-term care facility residents, and some states also provide training and conduct oversight of localities’ adherence to state requirements or guidance. States reported that they most commonly provided requirements or guidance for accommodations for absentee voting for residents of long-term care facilities, followed by accommodations for voter registration and voter identification procedures. Almost one-half of the states reported providing training to local election officials specifically on state requirements or guidance to facilitate voting for long-term care facility residents. Additionally, 17 states reported that they conducted one or more oversight activities to ensure that localities were adhering to state long-term care voting requirements or guidance. According to researchers, some of these state requirements or guidance for voting in long-term care facilities may help to protect against voter fraud and undue influence. Localities also used a variety of actions to facilitate voting for long-term care facility residents, including some that may decrease the likelihood of fraud and undue influence. In our survey, 78 of the 92 localities reported taking actions to facilitate voting for long-term care facility residents. The most common actions included supporting facility staff in assisting residents with the absentee or early voting process, including providing staff with early and absentee voting information or guidance. Localities also reported providing services directly to residents. For example, close to one-half of localities we surveyed brought election officials to facilities to assist with the voting process. The seven localities we visited prior to the November 2008 federal election used a range of strategies to facilitate voting for long-term care facility residents, including coordination with facility staff and other stakeholders; the deployment of election teams to facilities; and implementation of procedures to protect and ensure voting integrity, such as requiring bipartisan voting assistance and signed affidavits to document voting assistance. Some local officials reported challenges to implementing these strategies, such as difficulty providing voting assistance to residents with cognitive impairments.

Redistricting the Nation

Source: Avencia Incorporated, 2009

Legislators have long used redistricting as an opportunity to select their constituents, rather than empowering voters to elect their representatives. The redistricting following the 2010 Census is an opportunity to change how the process is conducted. Armed with knowledge and the right tools, the public can redraw the map on redistricting.
See also:
Redraw the Map on Redistricting 2010
Source: Avencia, White Paper, 2009

Political Orientations and Behavior of Public Employees: A Cross-National Comparison

Source: Jason L. Jensen, Paul E. Sum, and David T. Flynn, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 19, Issue 4, October 2009
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
Using data from 18 countries, we study the attitudes, behavior, and characteristics of government employees. Researchers have found mixed support when attempting to determine whether public employees differ from the general population, and they have speculated about the ramifications of any differences, including growth in the size of government and budget maximization. We assess whether government employees are comparatively more left leaning in their political ideology, vote at a higher rate, and vote for candidates on the left. In many countries, we find support for the prediction that public employees are more left leaning but we find much less support for the two behavioral predictions related to voting.

Constraining Public Employee Speech: Government’s Control of Its Workers’ Speech to Protect Its Own Expression

Source: Helen Norton, Duke Law Journal, Volume 59 Number 1, October 2009

This Article identifies a key doctrinal shift in courts’ treatment of public employees’ First Amendment claims–a shift that imperils the public’s interest in transparent government as well as the free speech rights of more than twenty million government workers. In the past, courts interpreted the First Amendment to permit governmental discipline of public employee speech on matters of public interest only when such speech undermined the government employer’s interest in efficiently providing public services. In contrast, courts now increasingly focus on–and defer to–government’s claim to control its workers’ expression to protect its own speech.

Bringing Elections into the 21st Century: Voter Registration Modernization

Source: Pew Center on the States, Issue Brief, August 2009

From the summary:
America’s current voter registration system is outdated, costly and inaccurate. A recent study estimates that more than two million voters were unable to cast a ballot in the 2008 general election due to registration problems.

The Bringing Elections into the 21st Century: Voter Registration Modernization brief reviews the underperformance of the current voter registration system and recommends a 21st century, data-driven registration system that would:

– Utilize multiple official data sources to put eligible voters on the rolls and ensure the accuracy of lists;
– Make voter registration more portable for voters who move or change status;
– Establish a fail-safe method for eligible voters who are omitted from the rolls or whose records contain an error to cast a ballot; and
– Ensure states maintain control of their voter rolls, while allowing for common standards and data exchanges across state lines.America’s current voter registration system is outdated, costly and inaccurate.

A New Era Beckons: Labor and the Turning Point Election of 2008

Source: Bob Master, New Labor Forum, Vol. 18 no. 1, Winter 2009
(subscription required)

In two key ways, strong parallels seem to exist between 1936 and 2008. The first is the emergence of demographic building blocks that will likely provide the foundation for a new, Democratic, and possibly progressive, electoral majority for a generation to come. The second is the way in which a profound economic crisis has utterly discredited the dominant ideology of the preceding electoral alignment.

Voting and Registration in the Election of 2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, July 2009

From the press release:
About 131 million people reported voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, an increase of 5 million from 2004, according to a new table package released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The increase included about 2 million more black voters, 2 million more Hispanic voters and about 600,000 more Asian voters, while the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained statistically unchanged.

Additionally, voters 18 to 24 were the only age group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, reaching 49 percent in 2008 compared with 47 percent in 2004. Blacks had the highest turnout rate among 18- to 24-year-old voters — 55 percent, an 8 percent increase from 2004. The increased turnout among certain demographic groups was offset by stagnant or decreased turnout among other groups, causing overall 2008 voter turnout to remain statistically unchanged — at 64 percent — from 2004.