Recently in Elections Category

Source: James Sample, Adam Skaggs, Jonathan Blitzer, Linda Casey, Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, August 2010

From the summary:
State judicial elections have been transformed during the past decade. The story of America's 2000-2009 high court contests--tens of millions of dollars raised by candidates from parties who may appear before them, millions more poured in by interest groups, nasty and misleading ads, and pressure on judges to signal courtroom rulings on the campaign trail--has become the new normal.

For more than a decade, partisans and special interests of all stripes have been growing more organized in their efforts to use elections to tilt the scales of justice their way. Many Americans have come to fear that justice is for sale. Unlike previous editions, which covered only the most recent election cycle, this fifth edition of the "New Politics of Judicial Elections" looks at the 2000-2009 decade as a whole. By tallying the numbers and "connecting the dots" among key players over the last five election cycles, this report offers a broad portrait of a grave and growing challenge to the impartiality of our nation's courts. These trends include:

- The explosion in judicial campaign spending, much of it poured in by "super spender" organizations seeking to sway the courts
- The parallel surge of nasty and costly TV ads as a prerequisite to gaining a state Supreme Court seat
- The emergence of secretive state and national campaigns to tilt state Supreme Court elections
- Litigation about judicial campaigns, some of which could boost special-interest pressure on judges
- Growing public concern about the threat to fair and impartial justice--and support for meaningful reforms.

Source: Office of Special Counsel, July 27, 2010

In light of the many questions the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has received concerning Social Media, OSC provides the following guidance on the issue, in the form of frequently asked questions concerning less restricted and further restricted federal employees (see questions one through eleven) as well as federal agencies (see questions twelve through fourteen).

Note: This guidance refers primarily to Facebook and Twitter in the following questions due to the popularity of those sites for social networking, but the advice provided in response to these questions applies equally to all other social media, such as Myspace, Linkedin, etc.

Source: Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Politics & Society, Vol. 38 no. 2, June 2010

The dramatic rise in inequality in the United States over the past generation has occasioned considerable attention from economists, but strikingly little from students of American politics. This has started to change: in recent years, a small but growing body of political science research on rising inequality has challenged standard economic accounts that emphasize apolitical processes of economic change. For all the sophistication of this new scholarship, however, it too fails to provide a compelling account of the political sources and effects of rising inequality. In particular, these studies share with dominant economic accounts three weaknesses: (1) they downplay the distinctive feature of American inequality -namely, the extreme concentration of income gains at the top of the economic ladder; (2) they miss the profound role of government policy in creating this "winner-take-all" pattern; and (3) they give little attention or weight to the dramatic long-term transformation of the organizational landscape of American politics that lies behind these changes in policy. These weaknesses are interrelated, stemming ultimately from a conception of politics that emphasizes the sway (or lack thereof) of the "median voter" in electoral politics, rather than the influence of organized interests in the process of policy making. A perspective centered on organizational and policy change -one that identifies the major policy shifts that have bolstered the economic standing of those at the top and then links those shifts to concrete organizational efforts by resourceful private interests -fares much better at explaining why the American political economy has become distinctively winner-take-all.

Source: Henry S. Farber, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), NBER Working Paper No. w16160, July 2010
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
The standard theoretical solution to the observation of substantial turnout in large elections is that individuals receive utility from the act of voting. However, this leaves open the question of whether or not there is a significant margin on which individuals consider the effect of their vote on the outcome in deciding whether or not to vote. In order to address this issue, I study turnout in union representation elections in the U.S. (government supervised secret ballot elections, generally held at the workplace, on the question of whether the workers would like to be represented by a union). These elections provide a particularly good laboratory to study voter behavior because many of the elections have sufficiently few eligible voters that individuals can have a substantial probability of being pivotal. I develop a rational choice model of turnout in these elections, and I implement this model empirically using data on over 75,000 of these elections held from 1972-2009. The results suggest that most individuals (over 80 percent) vote in these elections independent of consideration of the likelihood that they will be pivotal. Among the remainder, the probability of voting is related to variables that influence the probability of a vote being pivotal (election size and expected closeness of the election). These findings are consistent with the standard rational choice model.

Source: Shang E. Ha, Dean S. Karlan, American Politics Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2009
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
This article reports the results of a field experiment testing the effectiveness of different quality get-out-the-vote (GOTV) nonpartisan phone calls. During the week preceding the November 2004 election, we randomly assigned registered voters in North Carolina and Missouri to one of three live phone calls with varying length and content. The scripts are (1) standard GOTV, (2) interactive GOTV, and (3) interactive GOTV with a request for mobilizing neighbors. We find that people assigned to the interactive GOTV treatment are more likely to turn out, whereas the effect of the "get your neighbors to vote" script is relatively as weak as that of the standard script. The findings suggest that interactive calls generally tend to increase voter turnout, but for a phone call to be effective, the message needs to be focused. The borderline statistical significance of the script that encourages neighbors' participation invites replication of this experiment.
Related:
- Canvasser Affect and Voter Response: Results From National Focus Groups
Source: Andra Gillespie, American Politics Research, July 2010

Source: Chris Finn, Western Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting Paper

From the abstract:
The changes in the world economy over the last several decades have substantially altered the landscape for organized labor. This paper examines the role of unions in turnout and vote choice for the most marginalized communities. It also contributes to the dialogues on whether voters are representative of non-voters and whether turnout matters. Gray and Caul demonstrated that decreasing labor union density and the distancing of labor parties from organized labor has played a significant part in producing the drop in turnout across western industrialized democracies. The effect is greatest for those that traditional models would least expect to vote - those with the lowest education and income levels. In the last several decades, the demographics of union membership have shifted toward those with less education and income, and have included a higher proportion of immigrants and marginalized populations. Hajnal and Trounstine report that, at least in city elections, "lower turnout leads to substantial reductions in the representation of Latinos and Asian Americans." Initial results from the present study confirm that union membership has a significant effect on vote choice, controlling for both ideology and party identification. The recent demographic shifts in union composition and density, therefore, combined with the increased turnout among union households, should have a countervailing effect on turnout, vote choice, and representation.

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.

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

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.

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.