Election Reform Topic Paper

ELECTION REFORM TOPIC PAPER

Resolved: The United States should significantly improve its elections by: strengthening campaign finance laws, abolishing the electoral college, reforming redistricting, increasing voting security, or strengthening the right to vote.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 2 Introduction and Topic Significance 3 Issues to Consider 5 Areas of Argumentation 6 Affirmative Cases 6 Overturn Supreme Court Decisions involving campaign finance. 6 Overturn Shelby County v. Holder / Updates to the Voting Rights Act 7 Uphold Whitford et al. v. Gill – Wisconsin Case involving Partisan Gerrymandering 9 A Constitutional Amendment for the Right to Vote 11 Abolish the electoral college / Direct Popular Vote 12 Security/Hacking Concerns 13 Eliminate single member districts/Allow Proportional Representation 16 Other Reforms 18 Affirmative Positions 22 Negative Positions 23 Works Cited 24 Definitions 27 Potential Resolutions 28

Page 2 of 28 Introduction and Topic Significance

The 2016 Elections were the first elections without the full protection of the voting rights act in modern history.

Ari Berman. “Welcome to the First Presidential Election Since Voting Rights Act Gutted” Rolling Stone. 6/23/2016 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/welcome-to-the-first-presidential-election-since- voting-rights-act-gutted-20160623

As a young civil rights activist, Congressman John Lewis was brutally beaten marching for the right to vote in Selma, Alabama. Lewis's heroism spurred the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the country's most important civil rights law.

But three years ago this week, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court invalidated the centerpiece of the law, ruling that states with the longest histories of voting discrimination no longer needed to approve their voting changes with the federal government. "The Supreme Court stuck a dagger into the heart of the Voting Rights Act," Lewis said after the decision.

That means the 2016 election is the first presidential contest in 50 years without the full protections of the VRA — and the country is witnessing the greatest rollback of voting rights since the act was passed five decades ago. This year, 17 states have new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election cycle, including laws that make it harder to register to vote, cut back early voting and require strict forms of government-issued IDs to cast a ballot that millions of Americans don't have.

These states comprise 189 electoral votes — nearly half of the Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency — and include crucial swing states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia. Such efforts have been overwhelmingly backed by Republicans to target Democratically leaning constituencies, particularly people of color and young voters.

The results of the contentious 2016 elections have renewed calls for significant changes to our electoral system. This topic is ripe for debate because there is a feeling among these advocates that unless significant changes are made to our electoral system, some of the issues are likely to be present in future elections.

The high school policy debate community has debated topics related to national elections four times since 1928, but none since 1974-75. The first election topic was debate in 1945 and focused on the voting age (Resolved: That the legal voting age should be reduced to eighteen years). In 1950 a second election topic was debated, this time focusing on Presidential Elections (Resolved: That the president of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people). The 1950 resolution proved so popular that it was debated again in 1954 with nearly the exact same wording. (The only difference between the 1950 and 1954 resolution was that in 1954, President was capitalized). An election topic was also discussed in 1974-75, this time focusing on the primary process (Resolved: That the United States should significantly change the method of selecting presidential and vice-presidential candidates.)

The high school public forum debate community has also debated topics related to national elections several times. Public Forum Debate has had topics about replacing the electoral

Page 3 of 28 college with a direct popular vote in November 2011 (NSDA/NFL resolution), April 2017 (NSDA/NFL resolution), and at the 2007 NCFL Grand Nationals. All of those PF resolutions sustained a good debate on one of cases for a full month.

This topic also is unique in that it has the potential to have a more expansive set of actors than a typical domestic topic: There is the typical lawmaking process through Congress and the President, there are Supreme Court rulings, and there are constitutional amendments to be considered. Constitutional amendments add to the ripeness of this topic: There are calls from both the left and the right to invoke Article V of the Constitution to call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution1. Along with considering the merits of election reform, students would have the opportunity to debate the worthiness of amending the constitution in various ways.

Further, this topic would call for debaters to debate about elections during the 2018 Midterm elections, increasing interest in the upcoming elections and creating excellent politics debates.

1 https://today.law.harvard.edu/states-call-convention-amend-constitution-lessig-debates/

Page 4 of 28 Issues to Consider

The main idea behind this topic is for the affirmative to substantially improve the United State’s election system. There are two major issues to consider:

First, how many actors should be included in the topic? There are a number of actions that a typical United States Federal Government resolution would address, but a resolution that is only the federal government excludes some interesting affirmatives (efforts to abolish the electoral college, efforts to create a constitutional right to vote). I think this topic is the best when these constitutional reforms are considered in the topic/affirmative ground. This also creates a unique feature, in that debaters are introduced to arguments about amending the constitution.

Second, writing this topic to include a direction will be difficult. In past years the committee has avoided bidirectional topics in order to clearly divide affirmative and negative ground. I think this topic proposes a challenge in that election reforms are hard to ascribe single common theme. Additionally, listing a set of purposes or themes may exclude key affirmative cases because it is hard to fit them into the list. For example a topic that includes terms like voting rights and increased participation might arguably exclude cases about campaign-finance and efforts to abolish the electoral college.

The paper suggests some answers to these questions. As a starting point, I have suggested the following topic wording:

Page 5 of 28 Areas of Argumentation

Affirmative Cases

Overturn Supreme Court Decisions involving campaign finance.

Several options: Overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission and/or Buckley v. Valeo.

In the 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that limits on election spending contained in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 were unconstitutional and “that individuals have a right to spend money independently in elections”2. However, the court upheld contribution limits, noting that the state has an interest in “the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions on candidates positions and on their actions if elected to office.3”

In its 2010 ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that “freedom of speech prohibited the government form restricting independent political expenditures by non-profit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations”4. Subsequent to this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia struck down limits as applied to “independent expenditure committees” in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, finding that the Supreme Court’s analysis in Citizens United to “conclude that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to an independent expenditure group” 5.

The net effect of these decisions enabled the creation of so called “SuperPACs” which are allowed to raise and spend an unlimited amount of money on campaign related activities. Numerous individuals have decried effect of the Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions on the American political process, arguing that these decisions have allowed for undisclosed campaign expenditures, expanding the potential for corruption and distorting the voice of the

2 Hasen, Rick. “Should Progressives Worry that Judge Garland Voted to Help Create Super PACs?” Election Law Blog. 3/16/2016. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80929 2 SpeechNow.org v. FEC. Campaign Legal Center. http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/case/speechnoworg-v-fec 3 Buckley v. Valeo. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo 4 Citizens United v. FEC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC 5 SpeechNow.org v. FEC. Campaign Legal Center. http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/case/speechnoworg-v-fec

Page 6 of 28 citizen6. Others support the net effect of these decisions, arguing that the decisions have resulted in more speech and a more informed electorate7.

Potential affirmatives could call for the Supreme Court to reverse any combination of the three decisions. Additionally, affirmatives could call for a Constitutional Amendment to reverse any combination of these decisions. There’s a substantial debate in the literature as to which approach is the best and which decision is the most important to be overturned; creating a substantial case debate as arguments in favor of one alternative become arguments against another.

Overturn Shelby County v. Holder / Updates to the Voting Rights Act

Court Based Affirmatives

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been undermined by the Supreme Court’s Shelby County decision.

Shelby County v. Holder. The Leadership Conference. http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/shelby- county-v-holder.html

“On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which was used to determine the states and political subdivisions subject to Section 5 preclearance, was unconstitutional. Section 5 is the part of the Voting Rights Act that requires certain jurisdictions to demonstrate to either the Attorney General or a federal court in Washington, D.C., that any proposed voting change is not discriminatory, before that change can be implemented. Thus, while the Court did not invalidate the preclearance mechanism in the Voting Rights Act per se, it effectively halted its use by invalidating the formula that determined which places were subject to the preclearance obligation.”8

The Voting Rights Act is an important Civil Rights Law aimed at protecting minority voting rights, the decision in Shelby County undermines one of those key protections.

Syed Umar Farooq. “Smoke, Mirrors, and Legal Precedent: The Problem with Shelby County v. Holder.” The Claremont Journal of Law and Public Policy. October 31, 2015. https://5clpp.com/2015/10/31/smoke- mirrors-and-legal-precedent-the-problem-with-shelby-county-v-holder/

Since 1965, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has been instrumental in enfranchising minorities in the post-Civil Right era. The law contained several sections that are aimed at protecting voting rights from existing threats. Section 2 of the law outlawed such barriers to voting as poll taxes and literacy tests, as well as

6 Kennedy, Liz. Demos. “10 Ways Citizens United Endangers Democracy” 1/19/2012 http://www.demos.org/publication/10-ways-citizens-united-endangers-democracy 7 Samples, John. Cato Institute. “SpeechNow, the Decision that Made a Difference” 1/20/2012 https://www.cato.org/blog/speechnow-decision-made-difference 8 Shelby County v. Holder. The Leadership Conference. http://www.civilrights.org/voting- rights/shelby-county-v-holder.html

Page 7 of 28 legislation that would dilute the votes of minorities. Yet, perhaps the most effective and controversial part of the law was Section 5. This allowed for a process known as “preclearance”, in which jurisdictions with an egregious history of efforts to restrict voting would be required to obtain federal approval for new voting laws. The move was a radical shift in voting policies; instead of simply responding to laws after the fact through Department of Justice lawsuits, the federal government could actually prohibit discriminatory legislation prior to its implementation.

This measure was not without controversy. In the decades since, the VRA went through an extensive history of court proceedings, each challenging the validity of the law, with many focusing on the legality of preclearance. Still, the VRA emerged unscathed each time, building legal precedent enshrining the legality of its components.

In the summer of 2013, the Supreme Court, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder[1], reversed that legal precedent. The court did not rule against the measures in Section 2, nor the process of preclearance in Section 5. Rather, it argued that the coverage formula, used to determine which jurisdictions required preclearance, was outdated and inaccurate, and thus, was unfair to the jurisdictions upon which it was imposed. This means that although preclearance is still possible, Congress must first pass a new coverage formula, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon.9

Potential affirmatives could call for the Supreme Court to reverse its decision in Shelby County v. Holder in order to allow section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to be enforceable again. How exactly this could occur is difficult to envision, since the Court’s decision created the possibility for Congress to update Section 4 with a new formula, and the Court reversing this decision would be a little more than admitting that it erred in the first place.

However, in the wake of Shelby County a number of jurisdictions passed voting restrictions for the first time in decades. A number of those restrictions have since to be found discriminatory and are likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court. This action places into question a central holding of the Shelby County, that discrimination in is the past, and raises the possibility for the decision to be overturned.

Pam Levy. “The Voting Rights Act may be Coming Back from the Dead” Mother Jones. 5/8/2017. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/supreme-court-voting-rights-texas/

“Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices,” Roberts wrote, and “‘current burdens’ must be justified by ‘current needs.'” In other words, states couldn’t be subject to preclearance based on the pervasive discrimination of the Jim Crow era, which Roberts wrote was now firmly in the past. Implicit in that ruling was the idea that states could be brought back under preclearance if they showed new evidence of discrimination. The law contains a provision specifically for that purpose, allowing courts to place jurisdictions under preclearance if they demonstrate intentional discrimination.

Freed by the court’s ruling from oversight for the first time in decades, many of the formerly constrained state and local governments quickly began imposing new restrictions on voting. But by passing measures

9 Farooq, Syed Umar. “Smoke, Mirrors, and Legal Precedent: The Problem with Shelby County v. Holder.” The Claremont Journal of Law and Public Policy. October 31, 2015. https://5clpp.com/2015/10/31/smoke-mirrors-and-legal-precedent-the-problem-with-shelby- county-v-holder/

Page 8 of 28 that curtail voting by minorities, these jurisdictions are essentially calling Roberts’ bluff—and could force the Supreme Court to consider restoring preclearance.

Texas is the likeliest setting for the return of preclearance. In the last two months, federal courts have three times ruled that the state intentionally discriminated against minority voters. Its 2011 voter ID law and two redistricting maps it drew that year—for the state House and for Congress—were intended to limit the voting power of minorities, the courts found. Plaintiffs in the cases are asking the courts to place Texas back under preclearance. One or more of the cases could reach the Supreme Court as early as its next term. If so, the Roberts Court will have to decide what to do with states that demonstrate that racial discrimination in voting laws is not just a thing of the past.

Congress Based Affirmatives

A bipartisan effort to amend the Voting Rights Act was introduced in 2014 (the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014) and the Republican leadership in the House declined to schedule a hearing and vote on the bill. Democrats introduced a stronger piece of legislation in 2015 (the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015) and it received the same fate as the previous effort, with notable Republicans mentioning that the bipartisan bill of 2014 was the only way that an update to the Voting Rights Act would pass10.

A more realistic line of argument is for affirmatives to call on Congress to pass either the 2014 bipartisan update to the Voting Rights Act or the stronger 2015 Democratic update to the Voting Rights Act.

Uphold Whitford et al. v. Gill – Wisconsin Case involving Partisan Gerrymandering

A Wisconsin case working its way to the Supreme Court has the potential to set legal a precedent against partisan gerrymandering.

Michael Wines. New York Times. “Judges Find Wisconsin Redistricting Unfairly Favored Republicans” 11/21/2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/wisconsin-redistricting-found-to-unfairly-favor- republicans.html?_r=0

A panel of three federal judges said on Monday that the Wisconsin Legislature’s 2011 redrawing of State Assembly districts to favor Republicans was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, the first such ruling in three decades of pitched legal battles over the issue.

Federal courts have struck down gerrymanders on racial grounds, but not on grounds that they unfairly give advantage to a political party — the more common form of gerrymandering. The case could now go directly to the Supreme Court, where its fate may rest with a single justice, Anthony M. Kennedy, who has expressed a willingness to strike down partisan gerrymanders but has yet to accept a rationale for it.

10 Ari Berman. “Congressional Democrats Introduce Ambitious New Bill to Restore the Voting Rights Act” The Nation. 6/24/2015 https://www.thenation.com/article/congressional- democrats-introduce-ambitious-new-bill-to-restore-the-voting-rights-act/

Page 9 of 28 Should the court affirm the ruling, it could upend the next round of state redistricting, in 2021, for congressional and state elections nationwide, most of which is likely to be conducted by Republican- controlled legislatures that have swept into power in recent years.

“It is a huge deal,” said Heather Gerken, a Yale Law School professor and an expert on election law. “For years, everyone has waited for the Supreme Court to do something on this front. Now one of the lower courts has jump-started the debate.

“If this were to be a nationwide standard, 2021 would look quite different,” she said, “especially for the Democrats.”

Several election-law scholars said the ruling was especially significant because it offered, for the first time, a clear mathematical formula for measuring partisanship in a district, something that had been missing in previous assaults on gerrymandering.

The Wisconsin Attorney General has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, but the cases is still working its way to the court. SCOTUSblog indicates that the term, much less arguments have yet to be assigned. Depending on how long it takes procedural issues to resolve, its possible that debaters could be afforded the opportunity to discuss this case during the same time that the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments. If that happens, affirmatives could argue that the Supreme Court should uphold the district court’s decision and hold that political gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

Update: The Supreme Court has granted cert for the 2017-18 term and will rule on this case. While it is unlikely that debaters will be given the opportunity to discuss the policy implications of this particular case, potential affirmatives could call for various interactions with this decision, pending the outcome.

Amy Howe. “Today’s orders: Court to tackle partisan gerrymandering” SCOTUSblog. 6/19/17. http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/todays-orders-court-tackle-partisan-gerrymandering/#more- 257119

No matter how the Supreme Court ultimately rules, its decision will be significant. If the justices were to hold that courts cannot review partisan-gerrymandering claims, their ruling could insulate redistricting maps from challenges, allowing the political party in power to extend its control for decades: The dominant party will be able to draw districts to maximize its chances of maintaining control of the state legislature, which will in turn allow it to draw the new map after the next census. On the other hand, a ruling that courts can evaluate partisan-gerrymandering claims could open the door to a flood of litigation challenging existing and future maps. Of course, this assumes that the Supreme Court rules on the merits of the case at all: Today’s announcement also indicated that the justices would put off a decision on whether the court has jurisdiction to review the case until they hear the merits of the case. Postponing the determination of whether the court has jurisdiction could prove to be just a formality, or it could provide a way for the justices to sidestep a ruling on the merits if the case proves too hard – only time will tell.

The case will likely be argued in November or December, with a decision to follow next year – perhaps only a few months before the 2018 elections, and less than two years before the 2020 census.

Page 10 of 28 A Constitutional Amendment for the Right to Vote

Beyond making arguments in favor of changing campaign finance rules, efforts to bring back the Voting Rights Act, and efforts to limit partisan gerrymandering, Affirmatives may call for a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right to vote. If this topic were adopted, this is likely a core affirmative – appealing to all kinds of argument preferences. Teams that run critical arguments and those that run general stock arguments may find much to like under this case. Here’s a preview of some of the main arguments affirmatives would likely make on this case, to give a sense of its breadth:

Contrary to popular belief there is not an affirmative right to vote

“Right to Vote Amendment” Fair Vote. http://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_amendment#why_we_need_a_right_to_vote_amendment

While the U.S. Constitution bans the restriction of voting based on race, sex and age, it does not explicitly and affirmatively state that all U.S. citizens have a right to vote. Even the Supreme Court ruled in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 that citizens do not have the right to vote for electors for president; states control voting policies and procedures. As a result, we have a patchwork of voting systems run independently by 50 states, 3067 counties and over 13,000 voting districts, all separate and all unequal.

A Right to Vote would work to address areas where a revived or improved Voting Rights Act would not be of much use because the jurisdiction did not have a history of discrimination (e.g. the voter ID laws recently passed in Wisconsin, North Dakota, Michigan).

“Right to Vote Amendment” Fair Vote. http://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_amendment#why_we_need_a_right_to_vote_amendment

Even as the rising American electorate gains momentum, new regressive laws, rulings, and maneuvers are threatening voting rights without facing the strict scrutiny that would come with an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution.

In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), stripping the Justice Department of the powers it had for five decades to curb racial discrimination in voting. Congress has effectively neutered the Elections Assistance Commission. And many schools skip civic education, contributing to the decline in voter turnout in local and primary elections.

Enshrining an explicit right to vote in the Constitution would guarantee the voting rights of every citizen of voting age, ensure that every vote is counted correctly, and defend against attempts to enfranchise ineligible voters and disenfranchise eligible voters. It would empower Congress to enact minimum electoral standards to guarantee a higher degree of legitimacy, inclusivity, and consistency across the nation, and give our courts the authority to keep politicians in check when they try to game the vote for partisan reasons.

A Right to Vote would re-enfranchise individuals previously excluded from the political process.

“Right to Vote Amendment” Fair Vote. http://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_amendment#why_we_need_a_right_to_vote_amendment

Page 11 of 28 Approximately 5 million Americans convicted of felonies who have already completed their sentences are permanently disenfranchised. Fourteen states do not have an automatic restoration process in place for citizens once they have completed their felony sentence. Some states like Florida hold hearings chaired by the governor and the cabinet to determine if ex-felons are ready to vote. While this does re- enfranchise some, it is arbitrary and could easily be used for political gain.

However, it is not only ex-felons who face difficulty registering to vote. Americans living overseas have trouble registering in their home district, because their state may not consider them residents anymore. Many college students attempting to register at their college precinct have faced voter intimidation or were simply refused the ability to register to vote. Such reasons are not only arbitrary, but in many cases politically motivated.

The Right to Vote Amendment will guarantee all American citizens at least 18 years of age a constitutionally protected individual right to vote. Much like the rights to speech and religion, a constitutionally protected right to vote will be difficult to limit.

A Voting Rights Amendment would eliminate voting difficulties and empower Congress to set national voting standards.

“Right to Vote Amendment” Fair Vote. http://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_amendment#why_we_need_a_right_to_vote_amendment

Voting should be a simple process in which any registered citizen can easily participate. However, this is not always the case. Voter identification and registration requirements, as well as the machines that voters use, vary widely between states. Nearly every state, as well as most counties, design their own ballots, pursue their own voter education, and have complete authority over their state voting policies and procedures. With over 10,000 different jurisdictions, voters and potential voters are much more likely to cast a counted vote in some states, some counties, and some areas of the country than others, simply based on the difference in standards for each election. Elections in many states are rife with lost and incorrectly counted votes, and many voters are incorrectly told that they cannot cast a ballot.

Since voting is regulated by the states, there is little the national government can do if voters are intimidated or harassed at the polling booth. With the Supreme Court's 2013 decision to strike down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, and Congress's unwillingness to act to restore key components of the Act, a Right to Vote Amendment is needed to further enforce voting rights.

Congress is powerless to set national standards At present, Congress can take no action to formally help improve voting standards across the nation. While the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, which passed in response to the voting fiasco of the 2000 presidential elections, does establish some standards including a provisional ballot, states are not required to follow these policies. The only way to ensure that every vote is counted and that electors follow the will of the people of their state is to create a constitutionally protected right to vote. The Right to Vote Amendment will give Congress the authority to protect the individual right to vote and oversee voting policies and procedures to ensure that elections are fair, accurate and efficient.

Abolish the electoral college / Direct Popular Vote

The 2016 Presidential Election saw the winner fail to win the popular vote for only the fourth time in United State history. As a result, there are renewed calls to abolish the electoral college.

Page 12 of 28

Mark Joseph Stern. “Yes, We Could Effectively Abolish the Electoral College Soon. But We Probably Won’t.” Slate. 11/10/2016. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/10/the_electoral_college_could_be_abolished_withou t_an_amendment.html

The Electoral College is a democratically indefensible anachronism that dilutes minority votes while disproportionately amplifying whites votes. Defenses of the system are almost comically casuistic in light of the fact that we transcended its two original purposes: To water down democracy by choosing independent “electors” who vote for president (which we no longer do), and to help Southern states maintain national influence despite the fact that a large chunk of their population consisted of slaves who were denied the right to vote. But the Electoral College remains lodged in our Constitution, and this year, for the fourth time in history, it elevated to the presidency a candidate who lost the popular vote.

What to do? Over at Daily Kos, with a piece that seems to be going viral on social media, Chris Bowers reminds us of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPVIC, probably our best hope of effectively nullifying the Electoral College. (The only other option is a constitutional amendment, which would require the support of the small states that benefit the most from our current system.) The NPVIC is a proposed agreement among the states and the District of Columbia to render the Electoral College obsolete by ensuring that the winner of the popular vote also wins a majority of electoral votes. Here’s how it works: States are constitutionally empowered to decide how they assign electors. If a state passes the NPVIC, it vows to assign its electors to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote—but only once enough states have joined the NPVIC to guarantee that candidate 270 electoral votes.

Ten states and D.C. have already joined the compact, adding up to a combined 165 electoral votes—or 61.1 percent of the votes necessary for the compact to take effect. If a few more states join, their combined electoral votes will reach 270, and the compact will take legal force. At that point, the Electoral College will become a footnote. The winner of the popular vote will instantly be awarded the necessary electoral votes to become president under the Constitution. States that refused to join the compact can do nothing to stop it.

Affirmatives could call for the Electoral College to be replaced with a direct popular vote. This can be accomplished in two ways: a constitutional amendment or an inter-state compact. Depending on the phrasing of the final resolution, both could be affirmative ground or one could be affirmative ground (amend the constitution), while the other (interstate compact) could be negative ground.

It should be noted that this case area would be same as 1950 and 1954 topics and was a part of the topic in 1974. Public Forum Debate also debated this topic in November 2011, April 2017, and at the 2007 NCFL Grand Nationals.

Security/Hacking Concerns

The 2016 Election has raised several concerns regarding the security and the protection of the democratic process. It has been the finding of the United State Intelligence Community that Russian affiliated hackers/cyber advocates spread “fake news” designed to influence the Presidential election. Further, the Clinton Campaign was directly hacked by cyber advocates.

Page 13 of 28 In his recent public testimony to Congress, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, stated that there’s no indication that any votes were changed as a result of this hacking – but that future hacking efforts and efforts by foreign powers to influence US elections loom large. Since that revelation, it has been revealed that efforts to influence the electoral system were even more widespread than were previously reported:

Michael Riley and and Jordan Robertson. “Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known” Bloomberg. 6/13/17. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian- breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.

In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.

Potential affirmatives could call for reforms to limit foreign powers to influence the democratic process. Affirmatives might also for other security measures designed to protect the votes cast by the American public. Here are at least six major ideas to make our system more secure:

Suzanne Mello-Stark. “It’s now clear US voting is hackable. Here are 6 things we must do to prevent chaos.” Vox. 6/16/2017 https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/16/15816510/voting-security-hacks- russia-georgia-election

1) Establish audit capability in every precinct That means — strange as it may sound in this digital era — reestablishing paper trails. Many precincts attempt post-election audits, but many do not. What’s more, many audits are not vigorous enough to establish with confidence that no interference has occurred. This is something we can, and should, fix immediately. In Connecticut, audits are required by law. Five percent of districts are selected and an electronic audit of the paper ballots is conducted to ensure they match the totals established by the voting machines.

Other states are moving to embrace that standard, but not fast enough. In Rhode Island, which currently lacks audits, legislators have introduced a bill to mandate them. Audits and paper trails should be universal.

2) Ditch direct-recording electronic voting machines (DREs) This will help with the auditing problem. DREs are used in a number of states, including swing states such as Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida. Ironically, some of these machines were acquired in the wake of the “hanging chad” debacle of the 2000 presidential election, with the goal of modernizing voting systems. But these machines often do not have voter verified paper trails (i.e., paper ballots), which makes audits impossible. DREs were a bad idea from the start, and the experiment needs to end.

3) Implement stronger safeguards for online registration systems Many states are switching to electronic pollbooks. Poll workers can log in to them and verify that a voter who shows up at a precinct is registered and eligible. By breaking into these systems — as seems to have

Page 14 of 28 already happened, to some degree — and changing data, hackers could wreak havoc on Election Day. With a few clicks, hackers could unregister voters, change their mailing addresses, or misspell their names.

It would be even easier to unleash a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack on a poll station — overwhelming a crucial server with traffic and preventing poll workers from connecting to the registration database. That could halt voting altogether. The recent news reports conclusively show that states are not sufficiently protecting these systems. We have the knowledge to do so; it’s a question of focusing on the problem and supplying the needed resources and experts. And this is yet another case where paper can be an effective defense: If poll workers have hard copies of voter rolls, they can keep working even if their database connections get blocked.

4) Discourage online voting — at all costs A total of 32 states allow at least some voters to send back marked ballots via a web-based-portal, email, or fax — insecure means of communication. And the MOVE Act (Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act) mandates that all states have a mechanism to allow ballots to be sent to voters in military by electronic means. But it is all too easy to adopt someone’s identity online and thereby get a blank ballot. There must be additional measures put in place to ensure that ballots requested online are going to the right people. (Even checking signatures could help.)

As for allowing votes to be cast online, computer security experts are essentially unanimous in arguing that it should never happen. No states should allow votes to be submitted electronically, period.

5) Strengthen the chain of custody In the context of an election, a strong chain of custody means safeguarding the ballots, as well as the election-related software and hardware used. The public should be confident that the ballots and election machines are secure from the moment of their creation until the tally is finalized at the Board of Elections. Machines must be kept under literal lock and key, given that computer scientists have demonstrated that they can install a new chip into a voting machine, and alter its software, in about a minute. When software is first installed, a “hash” can be applied —essentially, a digital fingerprint that changes if the software has been altered. This is just one example of many protections that security experts with technical expertise can implement.

6) Give states more money To pay for these necessary changes, funding is needed at the state level. There has not been major funding for election reform since the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which disbursed $1.3 billion to 42 states, American Samoa, and the District of Columbia. This law also established the Election Assistance Commission. Although the EAC does not have federal regulatory authority, it provides a needed mechanism to assist states in identifying, evaluating, and adopting new security standards. With the right resources and experts, the states have a better chance to execute the goals I’ve outlined here.

After the election, Department of Homeland Security designated our electoral system as “critical infrastructure” enabling future efforts of federal government to provide additional assistance.

In many states, the extent of the Russian infiltration remains unclear. The federal government had no direct authority over state election systems, and some states offered limited cooperation. When then-

Page 15 of 28 DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said last August that the department wanted to declare the systems as national critical infrastructure -- a designation that gives the federal government broader powers to intervene -- Republicans balked. Only after the election did the two sides eventually reach a deal to make the designation.

Eliminate single member districts/Allow Proportional Representation

Current federal districting law requires the House of Representatives to be selected by single member districts. Multi-member districts or allowing states to select their representatives at large, was at once more common. Some advocates are pushing for the entire United States to return to multimember districts as way to limit partisan extremism, increase participation, improve the diversity among Congress, and increase the potential for third parties to win legislative seats. There are multiple ways this could be implemented

Lee Drutman. Vox. “This Voting Reform Solves 2 of America’s biggest political problems” 4/26/2017. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/26/15425492/proportional-voting-polarization-urban-rural- third-parties Whatever the causes of polarization, there is a relatively straightforward solution to our current predicament that has been embraced by most advanced industrial democracies: proportional representation. There are many versions of this approach, but they all involve some way of electing multiple people, at once, to represent a region. In a proportional system, parties representing as little as 1 percent of the electorate can gain representation, though the most stable systems usually have a threshold percentage level to prevent truly marginal parties from gaining seats. The regions can be as large as an entire nation — but even when they are smaller they tend to be larger than the 435 tiny US congressional districts, each of which is run according to the “winner take all” principle.

Under a proportional system, if you want to live in a big, liberal city in a liberal state, you don’t give up the chance to make a difference with your vote. There is also very little possibility for consequential gerrymandering in proportional representation systems, since districts tend to be so big that there’s not much to gain from alternative line-drawings.

Perhaps most significantly, proportional representation makes third parties more viable. In the US system, many voters might prefer a third party, in theory, but in a winner-take-all scenario a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, since only the two major parties stand a chance of winning. As a result, most proportional systems have at least three major parties, often more. This produces a wider diversity of perspectives in the representative body, and more potential for bargaining across different issues.

Because more parties are competing for voters; because voters are more likely to feel like their voters matter; and because voters are more likely to have the chance to vote for a candidate they are excited about, proportional representation systems tend to have higher voter turnout.

We’ve gotten used to our winner-take-all approach to elections, but proportional representation needn’t be a pie-in-the-sky idea. A group called FairVote has proposed the Fair Representation Act, which would transform the patchwork of state-level congressional districts into a larger ones — typically with three to five members for each district. Members would be elected through a ranked-voting system —an additional reform that lets voters express their true preference while expressing a secondary preference for someone from among the more viable candidates

Page 16 of 28

Potential affirmatives could call for the implementation of the model legislation that FairVote developed. Other affirmatives could simply call for multi-member districts through a change in the federal redistricting law.

Still other affirmatives could call for the Supreme Court to be involved. In 1967, Congress required House members to be elected from single member districts. This development at the time was seen as way to ensure minority participation in government.

Nicolas Flores. “A History of One-Winner Districts for Congress.” http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/flores/index.html

The political context differed in the sense that at-large elections were actually gaining acceptance in 1967. As the Supreme Court began invalidating malapportioned districting schemes, at-large elections were seen as a viable alternative to the increasingly problematic task of creating equipopulous districts. Another factor that added to the popularity of this electoral system was the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[136] No secret was made of the South's disapproval of racial minority enfranchisement, nor was the dilutionary impact of the general ticket considered confidential.[137] As a result, many Southern states began implementing this system for their own legislative elections in an effort to offset the reestablished black vote.

Still, there was one important similarity between these two mandates: both were premised on the need to preserve minority representation. By 1967, the scope of this objective had broadened to include racial minorities as well. A majority of Congress still believed it imperative to avoid any electoral system that egregiously underrepresented a large number of citizens. It was thought that a single-member district mandate was "the only way effectively in that the majority can provide for the protection of the minority voices in the councils of government."[138] Thus much like the 1842 Apportionment Act, the 1967 law signals a continuing progression towards a more inclusive American democracy.

The 1967 mandate for single member districts was motivated out of a fear the Judicary would impose at-large electoral procedures. Justice Black in a dissenting opinion in Colegrove v. Green wrote:

it would leave the State free to elect them from the State at-large, which is a manner authorized by the Constitution. It is said that it would be inconvenient for the State to conduct the election in this manner. But it has an element of virtue that the more convenient method does not have namely, it does not discriminate against some groups to favor others, it gives all the people an equally effective voice in electing their Representatives as is essential under a free government, and it is constitutional.11

And in his dissenting opinion in 44th General Assembly of Colorado v. Lucas, Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “the goal is solely that of equally 'weighted' votes, I do not understand why the Court's constitutional rule does not require the abolition of districts and the holding of all elections at-large.” 12

11 http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/flores/district.htm 12 http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/flores/district.htm

Page 17 of 28 Its possible that the Supreme Court could adopt a holding similar to the dissents of Justices Potter Steward and Black and rule that single-member districts are unconstitutional.

Other Reforms

There a number of smaller based reforms, most of which are dealt with on a state-by-state basis. Some are implemented on a smaller scale – only being used in some municipalities. Still, it is possible that an affirmative could be created by modeling one of these reforms and arguing that it should be implemented nationally.

Ban partisan primaries Some areas of the country have considered banning partisan primaries, under the idea that it would encourage more people to participate in the process and would encourage a wider spectrum of views. The most famous example is Mayor Bloomberg’s effort in New York City:

New York Daily News. 8/23/2003 http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/partisan-primary-ban- voters-nov-article-1.516312

Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to abolish partisan primaries and dramatically alter the way New Yorkers elect their leaders will be on the ballot for voters to decide in November. The Charter Revision Commission - a panel appointed by Bloomberg - voted 8 to 2 last night to place the proposal on the ballot. "One-third of the people who are registered to vote do not participate in the primary elections that really matter in this city," said Commission Chairman Frank Macchiarola, a former schools chancellor. If the voters approve the proposal, the new election system will take effect in 2009 and would not affect Bloomberg. "I would love to see it happen tomorrow, because I think it would bring democracy to this city in ways the city sorely needs," Macchiarola said. Commission member and former Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch, who voted against the proposal with the Rev. Joseph O'Hare, the former chairman of the Campaign Finance Board, said the commission rushed the process. Labor leaders were gearing up last night to wage a massive campaign to get New Yorkers to reject the referendum question. Under the commission's proposal, partisan primaries would be eliminated for all city offices, including mayor, controller, public advocate, borough president and Council member. All candidates would run in a single primary, and the two top vote-getters, regardless of the percentage of votes they receive, would advance to the general election. Under a compromise offered by the mayor, candidates would be allowed to list party affiliation on the ballot, if they so chose. Advocates say eliminating partisan primaries will empower voters and lessen the influence of party bosses. The aim, they say, is to open up the system to everyone. Opponents argue that nonpartisan elections will decrease voter turnout and hurt minority-group members' chances of getting elected.

Reform the presidential primaries Each of the two major political parties has a different system for select its presidential candidate. The process used by each state within that presidential process, also varies from state to state – with options varying from open primaries (open to either political party), closed primaries (only those registered with one political party may participate), using closed caucuses, using a both a primary and a caucus, awarding delegates by congressional district, and the use of super delegates. Some affirmatives may call to change this system, although

Page 18 of 28 doing so on a consistent, nationwide basis for all political parties seems difficult to accomplish. Still, some advocates are arguing for reforms in the system13.

Require bipartisan redistricting A number of states use bipartisan/nonpartisan approaches to creating state and congressional legislative districts to reduce the effect of gerrymandering (Iowa and California are the chief examples). Some states are more effective at this effort than others (each of the states that do this use a slightly different method). Some affirmatives might call for this effort to be replicated nationwide. Here’s a particular proposal from Maryland:

Baltimore Sun 11/3/2017 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-redistrict-20151103- story.html

A state commission charged with reviewing how Maryland draws its congressional and legislative districts is recommending that politicians cede their power to an independent panel.

The Maryland Redistricting Reform Commission proposes that an independent panel draw the maps — and it would be prohibited from looking at party registration data or voting history while doing its work.

"These reforms would put Maryland in the front ranks of redistricting reform and establish an independent, balanced approach to creating congressional and state legislative districts," the commission wrote in a report issued Tuesday.

Republican Gov. Larry Hogan created the commission in August to examine how Maryland could better redraw its congressional and General Assembly district maps after the next U.S. Census. Any changes to the current process would require approval from the General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats wary of Hogan's recommendations.

Maryland's current system gives the power to draw congressional districts to the General Assembly and the power to draw state legislative districts to the governor. The state's congressional boundaries have been widely criticized as gerrymandered to benefit the Democrats, who hold a 2-1 voter registration advantage in Maryland.

Hogan said the "overwhelming majority" of state residents want nonpartisan redistricting.

"There's a handful of professional politicians who want to keep things the way the are," Hogan told reporters Tuesday. "We're the most gerrymandered state in the country. We're hoping that they'll listen to some reason."

Weekend Voting The United States has lower voter participation than other Western Democracies. Some other Western democracies hold their elections on the weekend (most notably – France). There have been efforts to change when elections are held so that more people can participate. In 2012, Representative Israel introduced the Weekend Voting Act. The legislation did not receive a vote

13 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0502-bartels-achen-primary-obsession- 20160502-story.html And http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maru-gonzalez/5-reasons-the- presidential-primary-system-is-in-need-of-reform_b_9583006.html

Page 19 of 28 and was reintroduced in 2013. Affirmatives could call on Congress to change the day of holding elections to the weekend, along the lines of this piece of legislation, or with modifications.

“Weekend Voting Act Reintroduced” Why Tuesday? 4/25/2013 http://www.whytuesday.org/2013/04/25/weekend-voting-act-reintroduced/#more-2729

Today, Reps. Steve Israel (D-NY) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) announced legislation to move Election Day from the first Tuesday in November to the first full weekend, thereby making it more convenient for voters and increasing voter turnout.

Rep. Israel said, “Voting should be easy and accessible. This is why, in 1845, Congress decided that voting on a Tuesday made sense. It was the easiest day for farmers in our agrarian society to get to the polls. But times have changed, and Tuesday voting just doesn’t make sense anymore. By moving Election Day from a single day in the middle of the work week to a full weekend, we are encouraging more working Americans to participate. Our democracy will be best served when our leaders are elected by as many Americans as possible.”

Rep. Slaughter said, “Having Election Day on a Tuesday is an outdated requirement that simply does not comport with the schedules of modern Americans. Instituting weekend voting would make it easier and more convenient for Americans to exercise their right to vote, and would help reduce lines at the polls and increase voter turnout.”

The Weekend Voting Act would allow for national polls to be open from 10 a.m. (Eastern Time) Saturday to 6 p.m. (ET) Sunday in the 48 contiguous states. Election officials would be permitted to close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be inefficient to keep them open. Reps. Israel, Slaughter, Larson, Clyburn and Dingell are the original cosponsors of the legislation.

The long-standing tradition of holding federal elections on the first Tuesday of November began with an act of Congress in 1845. Tuesday was selected for its comparative convenience because it was a designated “court day” and the day in which land-owners would typically be in town to conduct business. The tradition was based on the then-agrarian American society.

Currently, most polls are open only 12 hours (from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) for one day. As seen in our most recent election last November, long lines in many polling places kept voters waiting longer than one or two hours. Voter turnout in the United States has long lagged behind similar democracies around the world. Only 47 percent of eligible voters actually voted in the United States.

Ambassador Andrew Young, Chairman of the Board of Why Tuesday? Said, “It is disgraceful that the greatest democracy in the world ranks 138th out of 172 democracies in voter turnout. We commend Reps. Israel and Larson for proposing the Weekend Voting Act, a commonsense and balanced way to make voting accessible to millions of Americans who find it difficult — or impossible — to reach the polls in the middle of the work week.”

Mimi Marziani, Operations Directors of Why Tuesday? Added, “Voting is a fundamental right and privilege of citizenship, yet our voting system has not been meaningfully upgraded since 1845 when Congress chose Tuesday as the day people vote in national elections. Moving elections to the weekend would expand access to voting and bring us much closer to what a 21st century democracy should be.”

Automatic Voting Registration Traditionally voters have to engage in a specific process in order to register to vote. Some states have implemented a system where by voter registration is automatic if an individual has

Page 20 of 28 interacted with the government in some way and has not opted-out of registering to vote. Oregon was the first state to do this, automatically registering all citizens who had a drivers license in 2015. Affirmatives could require states to have an automatic voter registration information, contingent on some source of federal funding.

“Automatic Voter Registration” Brennan Center for Justice. New York University School of Law. 1/23/2017 http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/automatic-voter-registration

Automatic voter registration, a new reform that will modernize voter registration and dramatically increase registration rates, is gaining momentum around the country. Eight states and the District of Columbia have already approved the policy, and Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner is expected to sign an automatic registration bill that the legislature passed in May. So far in 2017, 32 states have introduced legislation to implement or expand automatic registration (and one more state has an AVR bill that carried over from 2016). A full breakdown of these bills, as well as those introduced in 2015 and 2016, is available below.

Automatic voter registration makes two transformative, yet simple, changes to voter registration: Eligible citizens who interact with government agencies are registered to vote unless they decline, and agencies transfer voter registration information electronically to election officials. These two changes create a seamless process that is more convenient and less error-prone for both voters and government officials. This policy boosts registration rates, cleans up the rolls, makes voting more convenient, and reduces the potential for voter fraud, all while lowering costs.

In March 2015, Oregon became the first to pass a breakthrough law to automatically register eligible citizens who have driver’s licenses (except those who decline). The state has already seen significant registration increases since implementing the policy in January 2016. California — with its estimated 6.6 million eligible but unregistered voters — was the next to pass automatic registration, adopting the policy in October 2015.

Use Instant-Runoff Voting A number of municipalities have implemented Instant Run-off or Ranked Choice Voting for their local offices. Ranked Choice can also a feature of proportional representation reforms. Advocates of this form of voting say a ranked choice ballot increases majority support, discourages negative campaigning, provides clear choices for voters, minimizing strategic voting, minimizing money in politics, saves money when replacing runoffs or primaries, and promotes a reflective representation. Affirmatives could require states to use instant-runoff voting.

“Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff Voting.” FairVote. http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits

Promotes Majority Support

Too often, candidates can and do win election to offices like Mayor and Governor despite being opposed by most voters. With ranked choice voting, if no candidate has more than half the vote in first-choices, candidates finishing last are eliminated round-by-round in an instant runoff until two candidates are left. The winning candidate will be the one with majority support when matched against the other. In a multi- winner election, ranked choice voting promotes majority rule because the majority of voters will always be able to elect a majority of seats, without fear that an entrenched minority has used gerrymandered districts to ensure they stay in office.

Page 21 of 28 Discourages Negative Campaigning

In non-ranked choice voting elections, candidates benefit from “mud-slinging” by attacking an opponent’s character instead of sharing their positive vision with voters. With ranked choice voting, candidates do best when they reach out positively to as many voters as possible, including those supporting their opponents. A comprehensive Rutgers University poll of voters in 7 cities with ranked choice voting found that voters report friendlier campaigns and that RCV had majority support in all of the cities using it.

Provides More Choice for Voters

Democracy is strongest when more voices are heard. Too often, to avoid “vote splitting” in which candidates can and do win with very little support (see “Promotes Majority Support” above), efforts are taken to limit the number of candidates who compete. This limits voters’ choices. In some places, that means a low turnout primary election eliminates most of the candidates; in others it means restrictive ballot access laws keep out challengers; and in others it means that candidates are shamed into staying out the race. Ranked choice voting allows more than two candidates to compete without fear of splitting the vote.

Affirmative Positions There are many potential advantage areas for affirmatives on this topic. Advantages might include but are not limited to:

1. Better Democracy. Many affirmatives will argue that these reforms will lead to a better democratic government. Within this area, there are many reasons for why the democracy will be better. Some of those reasons include: increased participation from all citizens in the society, better representation from all citizens in that society, improving aspects of a campaign (less money, less negative ads, etc), among other reasons will lead to a better functioning democracy. 2. Better Government. If the elections change to include more people in the process or to have those making the rules have a different representation in terms of political views (and a wider variety of views), affirmatives can argue that the government formed will reflect those changes. Affirmatives may argue that this will enable the government to better respond to national issues and to reflect the views of the American public. 3. Rights based arguments. Several of these cases concern existing rights and privileges. Cases that make arguments about campaign finance and gerrymandering make arguments based on the First Amendment. (Buckley and subsequent decision concern free speech and Gill v. Whitford concerns free association). Several of these cases involved voting privileges or making voting a constitutional right. Indeed, the Voting Rights Act was seen as a key piece of civil rights legislation. Changes to any of these areas may increase the ability for citizens to use their rights. 4. Race based arguments. Many of these cases involve minority participation in the democratic process. To the extent that these changes enhance the participation of racial minorities in the democratic process, affirmatives may claim this as an advantage area. 5. Economic Arguments. Some argue that a more participatory democratic process is linked to economic progress. To the extent that the affirmatives increase participation in democracy, affirmatives may argue for an increase in economic benefits.

Page 22 of 28 6. Leadership arguments. The United States is often seen as the world’s leading democracy. Anything that enhances how democratic the United States is may change this perception among other nations. Some affirmatives may claim this is beneficial.

Negative Positions In addition to a strong case debate on the affirmatives identified, negatives could take a number of different positions.

1. Spending/Priorities – Many of these reforms would result in a major change in the election system, which would require a large expense of resources. Negatives could argue that the nation could not afford to spend so much on an election system change or that spending so much in light of other priorities for the nation (health care, infrastructure, education, etc.) would be a poor use of resources. 2. Election Politics – This topic would be debated during the 2018 Midterms election and would concern elections themselves. Under this topic there would be ample disadvantages that argue that this change would change the course and results of the Midterm Elections. Further, efforts to change the electoral rules during an election may be prone to political backlash. Negatives may argue that there are negative consequences from these political effects. 3. State Counterplans – In many areas of election law, state law reigns supreme. Negatives could argue that state governments could engage in the same election law changes on their own, without the need for a federal partner. This is further increased because a number of the core affirmatives involve constitutional amendments – so there’s the option for states to call a constitutional convention, rather than amendments being routed through Congress, or for states to enter into interstate compacts. 4. Alternate Actor Counterplans – Because this topic has a number of advantages that can be solved through many methods, there’s amble ground for alternate actor counterplans. 5. Federalism - Related to the state and local government counterplan, many negatives will argue that an increased federal role in election law will result in a substantial expansion of federal power. Negatives could argue that this limits the ability of state and federal governments and has unwanted consequences. 6. Race criticisms – Affirmatives that would propose multimember districts or changes to the voting rights act, are subject to criticism that those efforts would undermine minority participation in government. 7. Criticisms of Democracy – By claiming that electoral improvements lead to a better (or better functioning democracy), negatives could respond with criticisms that adjustments to elections merely mask deep rooted problems (income inequality, unconscious biases, fear of the other, etc.)

Page 23 of 28 Works Cited

“Automatic Voter Registration” Brennan Center for Justice. New York University School of Law. 1/23/2017 http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/automatic-voter-registration

Baltimore Sun 11/3/2017 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-redistrict- 20151103-story.html

Ari Berman. “Welcome to the First Presidential Election Since Voting Rights Act Gutted” Rolling Stone. 6/23/2016 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/welcome-to-the-first- presidential-election-since-voting-rights-act-gutted-20160623

Buckley v. Valeo. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

Citizens United v. FEC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Nicolas Flores. “A History of One-Winner Districts for Congress.” http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/flores/index.html

Harvard Today. “Should states call a convention to amend the Constitution? Lessig debates” https://today.law.harvard.edu/states-call-convention-amend-constitution-lessig-debates/

Rick Hasen. “Should Progressives Worry that Judge Garland Voted to Help Create Super PACs?” Election Law Blog. 3/16/2016. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80929

Amy Howe. “Today’s orders: Court to tackle partisan gerrymandering” SCOTUSblog. 6/19/17. http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/todays-orders-court-tackle-partisan- gerrymandering/#more-257119

Kennedy, Liz. Demos. “10 Ways Citizens United Endangers Democracy” 1/19/2012 http://www.demos.org/publication/10-ways-citizens-united-endangers-democracy

Pam Levy. “The Voting Rights Act may be Coming Back from the Dead” Mother Jones. 5/8/2017. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/supreme-court-voting-rights-texas/

Suzanne Mello-Stark. “It’s now clear US voting is hackable. Here are 6 things we must do to prevent chaos.” Vox. 6/16/2017 https://www.vox.com/the-big- idea/2017/6/16/15816510/voting-security-hacks-russia-georgia-election

Page 24 of 28 New York Daily News. 8/23/2003 http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/partisan- primary-ban-voters-nov-article-1.516312

“Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff Voting.” FairVote. http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits

“Right to Vote Amendment” Fair Vote. http://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_amendment#why_we_need_a_right_to_vote_amendm ent

Merriam-Webster. “Election” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/election

Merriam-Webster. “Security” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/security

Merriam-Webster. “Reform” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform

Merriam-Webster. “Redistricting” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redistricting

Merriam-Webster. “Strengthen” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strengthen

Michael Riley and and Jordan Robertson. “Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known” Bloomberg. 6/13/17. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states- threatens-future-u-s-elections

Samples, John. Cato Institute. “SpeechNow, the Decision that Made a Difference” 1/20/2012 https://www.cato.org/blog/speechnow-decision-made-difference

Shelby County v. Holder. The Leadership Conference. http://www.civilrights.org/voting- rights/shelby-county-v-holder.html

SpeechNow.org v. FEC. Campaign Legal Center. http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/case/speechnoworg-v-fec

Syed Umar Farooq. “Smoke, Mirrors, and Legal Precedent: The Problem with Shelby County v. Holder.” The Claremont Journal of Law and Public Policy. October 31, 2015. https://5clpp.com/2015/10/31/smoke-mirrors-and-legal-precedent-the-problem-with-shelby- county-v-holder/

Page 25 of 28 “Weekend Voting Act Reintroduced” Why Tuesday? 4/25/2013 http://www.whytuesday.org/2013/04/25/weekend-voting-act-reintroduced/#more-2729

Page 26 of 28 Definitions

All definitions are from the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.

Election – definition for English Language Learners noun : the act or process of choosing someone for a public office by voting https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/election

Security – definition for English Language Learners noun : the state of being protected or safe from harm https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/security

Reform – definition for English Language Learners verb : to improve (someone or something) by removing or correcting faults, problems, etc. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform

Redistrict - definition of redistrict transitive verb : to divide anew into districts; specifically : to revise the legislative districts of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redistricting

Strengthen – definition for English Language Learners verb : to make (someone or something) stronger, more forceful, more effective, etc. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strengthen

Page 27 of 28 Potential Resolutions

Working Resolution:

1. Resolved: The United States should significantly improve its elections by: strengthening campaign finance laws, abolishing the electoral college, reforming redistricting, increasing voting security, or strengthening the right to vote.

I think this the option that the committee would prefer. In this version, the limits/direction come in the list. The by-list restricts the case area. “Strengthening the right to vote” could include Voting Rights Act cases, as well as efforts to make it easier to exercise that right – weekend voting reforms, ranked choice/instant run off, Automatic Voting Registration, among other areas – as well as a constitutional right to vote. “Reforming” (redistricting/legislative districts) is bidirectional, but I think that’s alright. In the literature for districting reforms, no one is writing about how we need more gerrymandering. All of the arguments are in favor of changing the districting laws are on the side of making the election results more representative of the electorate or make the elections more competitive. With respect the redistricting the literature should check any defect in language. The term “Increasing voting security” as written would arguably allow voter ID affirmatives, instead of just focusing on hacking/security issues. Writing a section that focuses exclusively on hacking is difficult.

Other possibilities:

2. Resolved: The United States should significantly reform its elections.

This resolution would allow for the largest amount of potential affirmative cases and would include the largest amount of affirmative actors. However, this resolution is bidirectional and would create the possibility for restrictive affirmatives, blurring affirmative and negative ground.

3. Resolved: The United States should significantly reform its elections in one or more of the following areas: voting rights, (increased participation), campaign finance, and security (of results), and redistricting.

This resolution is directional to the areas in which reform should take place but is bidirectional within those areas, thus providing some limits. I am not sure if this topic covers all of the major issues. This topic includes supreme court decisions on campaign finance, cases around the voting rights act, a constitutional right to vote, efforts designed to prevent the election from hacking, and cases around redistricting. The term increased participation is vague, but arguably would include efforts to abolish the electoral college, among other reforms. It is listed as optional because of the vagueness of the term.

Page 28 of 28