DOCSLIB.ORG

Senate Election Law Guidebook 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Senate Election Law Guidebook 2010 111TH CONGRESS " ! DOCUMENT 2d Session SENATE 111–18 SENATE ELECTION LAW GUIDEBOOK 2010 A COMPILATION OF SENATE CAMPAIGN INFORMATION, INCLUDING FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS GOVERNING ELECTION TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE CHARLES E. SCHUMER, Chairman COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES SENATE REVISED TO JANUARY 1, 2010 DECEMBER 18, 2010.—Ordered to be printed VerDate Mar 15 2010 08:00 Dec 28, 2010 Jkt 058119 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6012 Sfmt 6012 E:\HR\OC\SD018.XXX SD018 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING E:\Seals\Congress.#13 SENATE ELECTION LAW GUIDEBOOK 2010 VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:46 Dec 27, 2010 Jkt 058119 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 E:\HR\OC\SD018.XXX SD018 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING with DSKGBLS3C1PROD on WReier-Aviles 1 111TH CONGRESS " ! DOCUMENT 2d Session SENATE 111–18 SENATE ELECTION LAW GUIDEBOOK 2010 A COMPILATION OF SENATE CAMPAIGN INFORMATION, INCLUDING FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS GOVERNING ELECTION TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE CHARLES E. SCHUMER, Chairman COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES SENATE REVISED TO JANUARY 1, 2010 DECEMBER 18, 2010.—Ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 58–119 WASHINGTON : 2010 VerDate Mar 15 2010 08:00 Dec 28, 2010 Jkt 058119 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\SD018.XXX SD018 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING E:\Seals\Congress.#13 COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee PATTY MURRAY, Washington JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas PAT ROBERTS, Kansas TOM UDALL, New Mexico MARK R. WARNER, Virginia JEAN PARVIN BORDEWICH, Staff Director JASON A. ABEL, Chief Counsel VERONICA M. GILLESPIE, Elections Counsel MARY SUIT JONES, Republican Staff Director PAUL VINOVICH, Republican Chief Counsel MICHAEL MERRELL, Republican Elections Counsel SENATE RESOLUTION 704 In the Senate of the United States December 18, 2010 Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration shall prepare a revised edition of the Senate Election Law Guidebook, Senate Document 109–10, and that such document shall be printed as a Senate document. SEC. 2. There shall be printed, beyond the usual number, 500 ad- ditional copies of the document specified in the first section for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration. NANCY ERICKSON, Secretary (II) VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:46 Dec 27, 2010 Jkt 058119 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SD018.XXX SD018 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING CAVEAT It is of paramount importance to consult with the appropriate secretary of state or state board of elections when questions arise about the various state statutory materials contained in this publi- cation. Specifically, dates and filing information should be con- firmed by the appropriate secretary of state or state election office because changes in this area of law occur frequently. In addition, due to natural disasters, affected states may alter election dates and filing deadlines. (III) VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:46 Dec 27, 2010 Jkt 058119 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 7633 E:\HR\OC\SD018.XXX SD018 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:46 Dec 27, 2010 Jkt 058119 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 7633 E:\HR\OC\SD018.XXX SD018 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING PREFACE The 2010 publication contains a comprehensive compilation of constitutional and Federal statutory provisions and State election laws relating to the nomination and election of candidates to the United States Senate. This Guidebook is designed as a ready reference, providing high- lights of provisions of Federal and State laws pertaining to the election of Senators, as well as explanatory legal memoranda. It is anticipated that it will benefit senatorial candidates, the Com- mittee on Rules and Administration, and the public in general. The detailed citations will facilitate opportunity for reference to the statutory provisions if one should require complete information on any given subject. This revision of the Senate Election Law Guidebook was prepared at the direction of the Committee on Rules and Administration by Jack Maskell and L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorneys, David S. Mao, Section Head, Cassandra Foley and Julia Taylor, Law Li- brarians, and Stuart Carmody, Reference Assistant, Knowledge Services Group, under the supervision of Karen J. Lewis, Assistant Director, and T.J. Halstead, Deputy Assistant Director, American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. (V) VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:46 Dec 27, 2010 Jkt 058119 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 7633 E:\HR\OC\SD018.XXX SD018 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:46 Dec 27, 2010 Jkt 058119 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 7633 E:\HR\OC\SD018.XXX SD018 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING C O N T E N T S Page Caveat ....................................................................................................................... III Preface ...................................................................................................................... V Key Election Dates .................................................................................................. XIII The United States Senate ....................................................................................... 1 PART I: CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS REGULATING THE NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS OF U.S. SENATORS A. Federal Constitutional Provisions Relating to the Elections of Senators ........ 9 Composition of Senate ...................................................................................... 9 Vacancies ........................................................................................................... 9 Qualifications .................................................................................................... 9 Conduct of Elections ......................................................................................... 9 Dual Office Holding .......................................................................................... 9 Ban on Poll Tax ................................................................................................ 10 Eighteen-Year-Old Vote ................................................................................... 10 Pay of Senators ................................................................................................. 10 B. Selected Laws Relating to the Elections of Senators (Title 2, U.S. Code) ....... 11 2 U.S.C. § 1. Time for Election of Senators ................................................... 11 2 U.S.C. § 1a. Election To Be Certified by Governor .................................... 11 2 U.S.C. § 1b. Countersignature of Certificate of Election .......................... 11 2 U.S.C. § 7. Time of Election ........................................................................ 11 2 U.S.C. § 21. Oath of Senators ..................................................................... 11 2 U.S.C. § 22. Oath of President of Senate ................................................... 12 2 U.S.C. § 23. Presiding Officer of Senate May Administer Oaths ............. 12 2 U.S.C. § 24. Secretary of Senate or Assistant Secretary May Admin- ister Oaths ..................................................................................................... 12 2 U.S.C. § 33. Senators’ Salaries .................................................................... 12 2 U.S.C. § 36. Salaries of Senators ................................................................ 12 2 U.S.C. § 40. Deductions for Withdrawal .................................................... 13 2 U.S.C. § 40a. Deductions for Delinquent Indebtedness ............................ 13 2 U.S.C. § 43d. Organizational Expenses of Senator-elect ........................... 13 2 U.S.C. § 46a–1. Senate Revolving Fund for Stationery Allowances, Availability of Unexpended Balances, Withdrawals .................................. 15 C. Campaign Financing, Reporting and Disclosure (Title 2, U.S. Code) ............ 16 2 U.S.C. § 431. Definitions ............................................................................. 16 2 U.S.C. § 432. Organization of Political Committees .................................. 24 2 U.S.C. § 433. Registration of Political Committees ................................... 27 2 U.S.C. § 434. Reporting Requirements ....................................................... 28 2 U.S.C. § 437. Reports on Convention Financing ........................................ 45 2 U.S.C. § 437c. Federal Election Commission ............................................. 45 2 U.S.C. § 437d. Powers of the Commission ................................................. 48 2 U.S.C. § 437f. Advisory Opinions ................................................................ 59 2 U.S.C. § 437g. Enforcement ......................................................................... 50 2 U.S.C. § 437h. Judicial Review ................................................................... 56 2 U.S.C. § 438. Administrative Provisions ...................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elections--Equal Protection [Williams V
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 20 Issue 4 Article 10 1969 Recent Decisions: Constitutional Law--Elections--Equal Protection [Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)] E. E. E. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation E. E. E., Recent Decisions: Constitutional Law--Elections--Equal Protection [Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968)], 20 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 892 (1969) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol20/iss4/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 20:892 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ELECTIONS - EQUAL PROTECTION Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968). While traditionally two political parties have dominated Amer- ican Presidential elections, there has frequently been a third-party candidate who, although never successful, has often provided color and dignity to an otherwise overbearing ritual. A primary reason for an independent party's lack of success has been its inability to comply with the rigid requirements of diverse state election laws. Usually, state statutes permit voters to write in a party or candidate's name only if that party or candidate has fulfilled certain conditions; moreover, in order to secure a printed position on the ballot, the same party or candidate must comply with more rigid statutory requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: State Regulation of Ballot Measures
    CHAPTER 4: STATE REGULATION OF BALLOT MEASURES I. Introduction A. Nature of Ballot Measures B. Types of Ballot Measures C. State Regulation of Ballot Measures II. State Regulation of Ballot Measure Ballot Access A. Presentation of Intent B. Measure Approved/Title Assigned/Petition Created C. Petition Circulation 1. Circulator Requirements 2. Signature Requirements a. Numerical Requirements b. Geographic Distribution Requirements c. Restrictions on Who May Sign the Petition 3. Witness/Attestation Requirements D. Certification for Ballot Access E. Required Ballot Information III. Court Involvement in Ballot Measure Issues A. Procedural Challenges B. Substantive Challenges 1. Single Issue 2. Constitutional Amendment vs. Revision 3. Measure Exceeds Legislative Authority 4. Constitutionality I. INTRODUCTION A. NATURE OF BALLOT MEASURES Many, but not all,1 states recognize a citizen’s right to place measures on the ballot by one or more of the processes known as initiative,2 referendum, and recall. In some states, these exercises in direct democracy are a reserved power of the people recognized by the state constitution, while in others the ability to propose ballot measures exists only through a legislative grant of authority.3 1 See INITIATIVE & REFERENDUM INSTITUTE, http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm (last visited July 28, 2007) (listing state-by-state information on the initiative and referendum processes available). 2 An initiative is a voter-proposed statute or constitutional amendment that is placed on the ballot by petition. Citizens use initiatives to bypass their governmental representatives and enact change directly. 3 See, e.g., Hoyle v. Priest, 59 F. Supp. 2d 827, 835 (W.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Voter Fraud 7 Clerical Or Typographical Errors 7 Bad “Matching” 8 Jumping to Conclusions 9 Voter Mistakes 11 VI
    Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. Our work ranges from voting rights to redistricting reform, from access to the courts to presidential power in the fight against terrorism. A sin- gular institution—part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group—the Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communications to win meaningful, measurable change in the public sector. ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER’S VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTIONS PROJECT The Voting Rights and Elections Project works to expand the franchise, to make it as simple as possible for every eligible American to vote, and to ensure that every vote cast is accurately recorded and counted. The Center’s staff provides top-flight legal and policy assistance on a broad range of election administration issues, including voter registration systems, voting technology, voter identification, statewide voter registration list maintenance, and provisional ballots. © 2007. This paper is covered by the Creative Commons “Attribution-No Derivs-NonCommercial” license (see http://creativecommons.org). It may be reproduced in its entirety as long as the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is credited, a link to the Center’s web page is provided, and no charge is imposed. The paper may not be reproduced in part or in altered form, or if a fee is charged, without the Center’s permission.
    [Show full text]
  • FIGHTING VOTER SUPPRESSION PRESENTED by ELLEN PRICE -MALOY APRIL 26, 2021 VIDEOS to WATCH Stacey Abrams on 3 Ways Votes Are Suppressed – Youtube
    FIGHTING VOTER SUPPRESSION PRESENTED BY ELLEN PRICE -MALOY APRIL 26, 2021 VIDEOS TO WATCH Stacey Abrams on 3 ways votes are suppressed – YouTube Stacey Abrams discussed with Jelani Cobb the three ways that voter suppression occurs in America: registration access restrictions, ballot access restriction... The History of U.S. Voting Rights | Things Explained Who can vote today looked a lot different from those who could vote when the United States was first founded. This video covers the history of voting rights, including women's suffrage, Black disenfranchisement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the various methods American voters can cast their ballots today. For more episodes, specials, and ... 2020 election: What is voter suppression? Tactics used against communities of color throughout history, in Trump-Biden race - ABC7 San Francisco NEW YORK -- As Election Day draws close, some American citizens have experienced barriers to voting, particularly in communities of color. While stories about voter suppression across the nation ... SUPPORT DEMOCRACY H.R.1/S.1 The legislation contains several provisions to fight voter suppression, including national automatic voter registration, prohibitions on voter roll purging and federal partisan gerrymandering, and improved election security measures. It also strengthens ethics providing a strong enforcement of Congress’ Ethics Code – leading to prosecution of those who break the Ethics code and standards and for all three branches of government, e.g. by requiring presidential candidates to disclose 10 years of tax returns and prohibiting members of Congress from using taxpayer dollars to settle sexual harassment cases. The bill aims to curb corporate influence in politics by forcing Super PACs to disclose their donors, requiring government contractors to disclose political spending, and prohibiting coordination between candidates and Super PACs, among other reforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballot Access Laws
    Denver Law Review Volume 73 Issue 3 Tenth Circuit Surveys Article 7 January 2021 Ballot Access Laws Darla L. Shaffer Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Darla L. Shaffer, Ballot Access Laws, 73 Denv. U. L. Rev. 657 (1996). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. BALLOT ACCESS LAWS INTRODUCTION The United States Constitution expressly grants to states the authority to conduct and regulate elections for public officials.' State election codes may define the time, place, and manner of holding elections, as well as require- ments for voting and the selection of candidates.2 While the Supreme Court has recognized the need for such regulation to effectively implement the dem- ocratic process,3 constitutional tensions arise when such regulations invade the rights of voters. The Supreme Court's review of state election laws, specif- ically ballot access laws,4 has received harsh criticism5 for failing to employ a consistent standard of review.6 In 1983, however, the Court set out to end the confusion with its decision in Anderson v. Celebrezze.7 In Anderson, the Court announced that the proper approach for determining the level of scrutiny in ballot access cases is a balancing of interests test.8 1. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof ...
    [Show full text]
  • House Admin Hearing 6-11-21
    WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ASHLEE N. TITUS PARTNER, BELL, MCANDREWS & HILTACHK, LLP SECRETARY AND BOARD MEMBER, LAWYERS DEMOCRACY FUND VOTING IN AMERICA: THE POTENTIAL FOR POLLING PLACE QUALITY AND RESTRICTIONS ON OPPORTUNITIES TO VOTE TO INTERFERE WITH FREE AND FAIR ACCESS TO THE BALLOT THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 11, 2021 Thank you, Chairperson Butterfield, Ranking Member Steil, and members of the Committee for allowing me to speak before you today. The conversation before the Committee today is vitally important. Free and fair access to the ballot is essential to a functioning and enduring democracy. Free and fair access ensures that all eligible voters can vote and be confident that their votes count. It means that citizens recognize the election as free and fair and therefore accept the results of an election no matter which candidate wins. Safeguards that protect the freedom and fairness of the entire election process give the American people that confidence in the election results. I am excited to address the Committee today on these important issues. My name is Ashlee Titus. I am an attorney at Bell, McAndrews, & Hiltachk in Sacramento, California specializing in campaign finance and election law. As part of my election law practice, I organize lawyers to observe elections in California and have been an observer myself in several California counties over the last 17 years. I also serve as the Secretary and on the Board of Directors for Lawyers Democracy Fund, a non- profit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting the role of ethics and legal professionalism in the electoral process.
    [Show full text]
  • Minority Party Access to the Ballot
    MINORITY PARTY ACCESS TO THE BALLOT Relatively little attention has been devoted to the question of minority party access to the ballot through the petition process, primarily because of the predominant two-party system which prevails in the United States. Not since the Republican emergence in the late 1850's has any third party actually been successful in permanently realigning existing political loyalties, and only in those relatively rare instances when a third party has presented a serious presidential candidate have the laws dealing with access to the ballot been given much consideration.' Thus, it is not surprising that the presidential campaign of George Wallace and his American 2 Independent Party in 1968 generated a flurry of judicial activity. With both liberal and conservative political factions currently expressing a willingness to contest the reign of the established parties in 1972, litigation involving access to the ballot will likely increase rather than diminish in the future. Until recently the judiciary has been reluctant to consider the problems in this area, adhering to the principle that the issue was a political question3 and therefore nonjusticiable. 4 This view was based on the fear that if the courts were to become involved in political matters, relief, if given, might do more 6 harm than good.5 Although some remnants of the doctrine remain, I. See generally Note, Legal Obstacles to Minority Party Success, 57 YALE L.J. 1276 (1948). 2. The Wallace campaign was directly responsible for the landmark case of Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968). See notes 35-48 infra and accompanying text.
    [Show full text]
  • Elections Right of Suffrage and Regulation Thereof - Official Ballots; Validity of Ballot Access and Ballot Position Restrictions
    North Dakota Law Review Volume 57 Number 3 Article 9 1981 Elections Right of Suffrage and Regulation Thereof - Official Ballots; Validity of Ballot Access and Ballot Position Restrictions David R. Oberstar Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Oberstar, David R. (1981) "Elections Right of Suffrage and Regulation Thereof - Official Ballots;alidity V of Ballot Access and Ballot Position Restrictions," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 57 : No. 3 , Article 9. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol57/iss3/9 This Case Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ELECTIONS-RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE AND REGULATION THEREOF-OFFICIAL BALLOTS; VALIDITY OF BALLOT ACCESS AND BALLOT POSITION RESTRICTIONS Harley McLain, an independent candidate in North Dakota's 1978 general election,' brought an action to challenge three North Dakota election statutes,2 alleging that his first and fourteenth amendment rights had been violated. The United States District 1. McLain v. Meier, 637 F.2d 1159, 1160 (8th Cir. 1980). McLain ran as an independent candidate for North Dakota's congressional seat. In the summer of 1978 he attempted to file as the party candidate for "Chemical Farming Banned," a political group organized by McLain. Id. at 1161. He was disqualified as a new party candidate because he failed to submit 15,000 signatures before the June 1 deadline.
    [Show full text]
  • I Mina' Trentai Unu Na Uheslaturan G11ahan I Mina
    Eoorn BAZA CAL VO Governor June 1, 2011 Honorable Judith T. Won Pat, Ed.D. Speaker I Mina ' Trentai Unu na Uheslaturan G11ahan 155 Hesler Place Hagatna, Guam 96932 Dear Madam Speaker, Transmitted herewith is Bill No. 54-31 (COR), entitled: "AN ACT TO AMEND §7105 OF CHAPTER 7, AND §16301(a), (d) AND (e) OF ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 16, ALL OF TITLE 3, GUAM CODE ANNOTA TED , RELATIVE TO THE PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT", which I signed into law on May 24, 2011 as Public Law 31-59. Although I have signed this bill into law, I strongly urge I Mina' Trentai Unu na Liheslaturan Cua/um to address this legislation's deficiencies. The bill does present an item for concern at Section 3(a), where it states: J'The Guam Election Commission shall publish a ballot with the names of all qualified candidates. from the Republican Party on one (1) side of the ballot, and the names of all qualified candidates from the Democratic Party on the opposite side.'' A potential problem arises in the event of any third-party candidates or independent (non-party) candidates who may wish to run for public offi ce and gain access to the ballot. The U.S. Sup reme Court has held that, although citizens are free to associate with one of the two major political parties, to participate in the nomination of their chosen party's canclidates for public office and then to cast their ballots in the general election, local governments must also provide feasible means for other political parties and other candidates to appear on an election ballot.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Run for Federal and State Office
    How to Run for Federal and State Office A Candidate Information Guide 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Step 1: Meet the Basic Qualifications for Office ........................................................................................... 4 Step 2: Announce Your Candidacy ................................................................................................................ 5 Federal Candidates ................................................................................................................................... 5 State Candidates ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Candidate Committees .............................................................................................................................. 6 Step 3: Ballot Access ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Political Party Candidate Nomination ....................................................................................................... 7 Political Party Candidate Petition ............................................................................................................. 8 Signature Requirements for Major Party Candidate Petitions ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • John Roy Harper II Papers
    Manuscripts Collections South Caroliniana Library University of South Carolina John Roy Harper II Papers Contact Information: South Caroliniana Library University of South Carolina Columbia SC 29208 803-777-3132 Email: [email protected] © 2018 University of South Carolina Libraries Manuscripts Division South Caroliniana Library University of South Carolina Papers, c. 1870-2003 (bulk 1930-2003), of John Roy Harper II (Contents List) The papers of John Roy Harper II (1939-2003), an African-American attorney, community organizer, and civil rights leader of Columbia (South Carolina) and of his family, were donated to the South Caroliniana Library in 2007 by Francesca Harper. Materials stored offsite; advance notice required. Creator: Harper, John Roy, II (1939 – 2003) Extent: 47 Cartons 2 Oversize Flat File Boxes Background: Resident of Camden (South Carolina), Nashville (Tennessee), Boston (Massachusetts), New York (New York), and Columbia (South Carolina); born, 1939 (Greenwood, SC); Attorney, 1971 – 2003; died, 2003. Administrative Notes: Processing of this collection and production of the finding aid was made possible through generous support from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). Access Restrictions: This material is open for research. Use Restrictions: Permission to publish material from the John Roy Harper II papers must be obtained from the Director of the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street Access, Columbia, SC 29208. Processing Information: Foldering, arrangement, and creation of this finding aid completed by Katharine Thompson Allen with assistance from Shannon Smith, Mary Kennington Steele, Kira Mikutaitis, and Garrett Urban. Digitization of audio files completed by Andrea L’Hommedieu (2014). 2 | Harper, John Roy (1939‐2003) papers Biographical Sketch: John Roy Harper II was born to John Roy Harper, Senior, and Mary Frances Smith Harper on 29 September 29 1939 in Greenwood, South Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • A Black Party? Timmons, Black Backlash and the Endangered Two- Party Paradigm
    SMITHCORRECTIONS.DOC 02/10/99 9:28 AM A BLACK PARTY? TIMMONS, BLACK BACKLASH AND THE ENDANGERED TWO- PARTY PARADIGM TERRY SMITH† ABSTRACT In a pair of 1997 electoral decisions, the Supreme Court decided that Minnesota could prohibit fusion candidacies in the interest of maintaining a strong two-party system, but that Georgia could not create two new majority-minority congressional districts because the redistricting process had been impermissibly infected by race. In this Article, Professor Smith argues that these two decisions unavoidably conflict. While the fusion case reaffirmed the states’ interest in main- taining a strong two-party system, the racial gerrymandering case se- verely undercut the states’ ability to achieve this interest in jurisdic- tions where the major parties are racially stratified. He demonstrates that blacks operating in a third party could constitutionally obtain the creation of majority-black congressional districts, a result that the Court has denied them when they act within one of the major parties. Professor Smith argues that such an anomaly encourages black exit from the two-party system. He argues that the Court’s failure to insist on an injury to voting in the racial gerrymandering case makes it im- possible for the Court to fashion relief that is consistent with states’ interest in two-party stability. † Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law. A.B. 1986, Brown University; J.D. 1989, New York University School of Law. Many thanks to Paulette Caldwell, Robert Chang, Margaret Chon, Linda Greene, Darren Hutchinson and Karen Porter for their generous and influential comments on an earlier draft of this Article.
    [Show full text]