DOCSLIB.ORG

Sos for Democracy Memo

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MEMORANDUM TO INTERESTED PARTIES FROM: Steve Rosenthal & Larry Scanlon RE: Targeting Secretary of State Races in 2014 Date: December 11, 2013 Background The office of Secretary of State is playing an increasingly important role for progressives. With the national right-wing attack on voting rights, conservatives have effectively targeted secretary of state races across the country in an effort to control the offices that administer the electoral processes. Equally as important, in many states, secretaries of state play pivotal roles in the ballot initiative process. With so many important issues being decided through ballot initiatives (increases in the minimum wage, gay marriage, environmental protections, etc.), increasing our involvement in electing secretaries of state who will stand with working families is vital. In many states, secretaries of state have far-reaching influence over the electoral process. Their powers often include controlling the certification of names of candidates on the ballot and ballot proposals/initiatives, conducting recounts, overseeing the testing and implementation of voting machines, maintaining the lists of registered voters in their state, as well as certifying and registering campaign expenditure reports by both candidates and outside groups. Given the importance of this office and the fights our side can expect to have moving forward, we convened a group of progressive organizations on September 12th of this year, hosted by the National Education Association, to discuss forming an independent expenditure committee called SoS for Democracy. The sole purpose of this organization will be to help elect progressive candidates as secretaries of state in targeted states around the country. Based on some early analysis and conversations, we are looking at a handful of secretary of state races for 2014, including Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio.1 However, final targets will be based on our donors’ preferences. Once final targets have been selected, our organization will work with top-notch consultants who have a history of proven success in these states to develop plans for review and approval. Several progressive organizations including AFSCME, NEA, SEIU and Emily’s List have all expressed their support our efforts. The good news is that by and large, the money raised and spent in these races is significantly less than other statewide offices – in most states we are targeting, independent expenditures of $250,000 to $500,000 can have a huge impact. However, the state of Ohio, compared to other states we have discussed thus far, would require a larger investment of resources (see chart below). 1 Note: States were chosen based on whether the Secretary of State is an elected or appointed position and narrowed based on affordability. 1 Amounts Spent by Secretary of State Candidates in 2010 $6,000,000 $5,512,513 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 Dem Rep $2,000,000 $980,939 $1,042,666 $640,898 $1,000,000 $483,618 $388,034 $203,660 $187,710 $354,663 $190,845 $165,398 $0 $275,449 AZ CO NV MI NM OH 2 However, Secretary of State campaigns, even in expensive media market states like Ohio, are much less expensive relative to other statewide campaigns in those states (see below). SoS Races are Rela+vely Inexpensive Compared to Other Statewide Races $40,000,000 $34,942,419 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $26,520,048 $25,000,000 $20,508,149 $20,000,000 Gov $15,000,000 SOS $10,280,579 $10,000,000 $7,327,908 $7,774,466 $6,586,419 $5,000,000 $1,857,509 $936,572 $630,112 $831,743 $369,058 $0 AZ CO MI NV NM OH 3 2 Fundraising totals represent the amount raised by the two general election candidates throughout both the general and primary campaigns. National Institute on Money in State Politics. Amounts represent the 2010 cycle. 3 Totals represent the amount raised by all candidates in both the primary and general elections. National Institute on Money in State Politics. Amounts represent the 2010 cycle. 2 While we certainly anticipate outside groups targeting governors and state legislatures, we cannot simply overlook the secretary of state races if we hope to pass a progressive agenda and stop the right from making further gains. Arizona Incumbent: Ken Bennett (R)—Term Limited: Running for Governor Primary Date: August 26, 2014 Arizona Secretary of State: At-a-Glance 2014 Ken Bennett (R)* Wil Cardon (R) Justin Pierce (R) Michele Reagan (R) Status Running for Governor Declared Candidate Declared Candidate Declared Candidate Total Raised (Oct., 2013) N/A Not Available $18,600 Not Available Cash on Hand (Oct., 2013) N/A Not Available $16,332 Not Available Latest Poll No Polling Available 2010 Chris Deschene (D) Ken Bennett (R)* Results 41.8% 58.2% Total Raised $187,710 $483,618 *Incumbent Powers Related to Elections & Voting The office of the secretary of state in Arizona is powerful, as the state has no Lieutenant Governor, and the secretary of state serves as acting governor when the governor is absent from the state. Additionally, the secretary of state is first in line to succeed the governor in the event of death, resignation, removal from office, or permanent disability to discharge the duties of the office.4 Furthermore, the secretary of state is also the chief elections officer for the state. The secretary of state has the power to: • Certify the names of state candidates and initiative and referendum measures to the ballot • Test the voting equipment in each county before each election • Conduct recounts • Prepare the official canvass for both the primary and general elections • Certify recognition of new political parties5 4 “Department of State, Office of the Secretary of State,” Arizona Blue Book, accessed March 5, 2013. 5 “Department of State, Office of the Secretary of State,” Arizona Blue Book, accessed March 5, 2013. 3 Ken Bennett (R) Ken Bennett, Arizona’s current Secretary of State, was first appointed to the position in 2009 when current Governor and then Secretary of State Jan Brewer (R) replaced Janet Napolitano, who was appointed Homeland Security Secretary. Before his appointment, Bennett served as the president of Arizona’s state senate.6 In 2010, Bennett was elected Secretary of State, beating Democrat Chris Deschene 58.2% to 41.8%.7 Due to term limits, Bennett is ineligible to run for reelection in 2014. Instead, he has formed an exploratory committee for the 2014 governor’s race.8 Bennett came under fire before the 2012 elections when he demanded President Obama prove his citizenship before he would put him on the ballot.9 Bennett eventually put the President on the ballot after the Hawaii Department of Health verified that President Obama was in fact born in the United States.10 Bennett later reneged on a pledge he made while running for office in 2010 not to endorse candidates for office by becoming a Romney co-chair in Arizona.11 Bennett also came under fire for his handling of Proposition 204, a ballot initiative that would have increased sales taxes to benefit education. Bennett attempted to disqualify the initiative, making a technical argument about language on the petitions, after supporters of the measure submitted 290,000 signatures.12 In the end, a high court decided that the technicality was not enough to disqualify the measure.13 In August 2013, Bennett, along with Republican Attorney General Tom Horne, asked a federal court to require that those looking to register to vote prove they are United States citizens. 2014 Bennett is term limited from running for Secretary of State in 2014 and has announced that he is running for Arizona Governor.14 Wil Cardon, who unsuccessfully challenged Sen. Jeff Flake in Arizona’s 2012 Republican primary, has announced that he will be running for Secretary of State in 2014. Cardon is a wealthy real estate mogul and businessman15 who raised $7,267,139 for the 2012 primary election, of which $6,265,709 was self-funded. His campaign spent a total of $7,248,836.16 Cardon received 110,150 of a total 516,025 votes, or 21.3% in that election.17 Republican state Representative Steve Montengro withdrew from the race in August 2013 and endorsed Wil Cardon.18 In October 2013, two Republicans, state Senator Michele Reagan and state Representative Justin Pierce, entered the secretary of state’s race.19,202122 Democrat Christopher Campas, who was one of 6 Fischer, Howard. “Melvin announces campaign for Ariz. Governor,” Arizona Daily Sun, April 23, 2013 7 The Atlas Project Toolkit, Accessed June 3, 2013 8 Campaign Finance Database, Office of the Secretary of State, Arizona Department of State, Accessed June 3, 2013 9 Catalina Camia, “Arizona Official May Keep Obama Off the Ballot,” USA Today, May 18, 2012. 10 Rachel Weiner, “Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett Satisfied Obama Was Born in United States,” The Washington Post, May 23, 2012. 11 Howard Fischer, “Bennett changes personal policy, co-chairs Romney campaign,” East Valley Tribune, May 29, 2012. 12 Mary Jo Pitzl, “Court to decide Arizona tax initiative’s fate,” Arizona Republic, June 26, 2012. 13 Howard Fischer, “State high court doesn’t disqualify sales-tax initiative,” Arizona Daily Star, August 15, 2012. 14 Backhaus, Ben, “Secretary of State Ken Bennett eyes 2014 gubernatorial race,” The Arizona Republic, May 2, 2011. 15 Trygstad, Kyle. “Flake Draws Wealthy GOP Primary Opponent,” Roll Call, August 8, 2012. 16 “Wilford R. Cardon,” Center for Responsive Politics, accessed September 5, 2013. 17 State of Arizona Official Canvass, Arizona Department of State Office of the Secretary of State, Accessed September 5,2012. 18 http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/23152411/2013/08/15/montenegro-bows-out-of-secretary-of-state-race 19 Associated Press, “Scottsdale Legislator May Run for Secretary of State,” Arizona Public Media, August 28, 2013.
Recommended publications
  • NASS White Paper on Business Identity Theft 2 Prevention and Protection in State Policy-Making Efforts

    NASS White Paper on Business Identity Theft 2 Prevention and Protection in State Policy-Making Efforts

    Table of Contents Developing State Solutions to Business Identity Theft Assistance, Prevention, and Detection Efforts by Secretary of State Offices January 2012 Contents National Association of Secretaries of State 444 North Capitol St., NW – Suite 401 Washington, DC 20001 The National Association of Secretaries of State I 444 N. Capitol Street, NW I Suite 401 I Washington, DC NASS White Paper on Business Identity Theft 2 Prevention and Protection in State Policy-Making Efforts Introduction In October 2011, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) held a national forum on business identity theft in Atlanta, Georgia, bringing together top advocates and experts from government and the private sector. The event was part of a NASS Business Identity Theft Task Force plan to develop proactive strategies for combating this relatively new type of crime. Secretaries of State and state business division directors attended the forum to learn how they could better protect the state-held information that offers a potential gateway to business identity theft. They wanted to discuss how they could work with law enforcement, financial institutions and business leaders in their state to educate all of the stakeholders about this type of crime. They were also interested in hearing about tools and technology that would aid in the detection and prevention of business identity theft, with best practices from private sector experts familiar with the issues. Some states were already aware of the increasing number of business identity fraud cases involving unauthorized changes to business records on file with Secretary of State offices. Georgia and Colorado had both spent considerable time and effort implementing comprehensive response and prevention measures, and these offices had plenty of substantive advice to share with their peers.
  • NASS Resolution on Threats of Violence Toward Election Officials and Election Workers

    NASS Resolution on Threats of Violence Toward Election Officials and Election Workers

    NASS Resolution on Threats of Violence Toward Election Officials and Election Workers Introduced by Hon. Kyle Ardoin (R-LA) Co-Sponsored for Introduction by: Hon. Kevin Meyer (R-AK) Hon. John Merrill (R-AL) Hon. Jena Griswold (D-CO) Hon. Paul Pate (R-IA) Hon. Scott Schwab (R-KS) Hon. Michael Adams (R-KY) Hon. Jocelyn Benson (D-MI) Hon. Steve Simon (D-MN) Hon. Michael Watson (R-MS) Hon. Al Jaeger (R-ND) Hon. Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D-NM) Hon. Barbara Cegavske (R-NV) Hon. Shemia Fagan (D-OR) Hon. Kim Wyman (R-WA) WHEREAS, the 2020 election cycle was the most challenging in recent memory, with a global pandemic and multiple natural disasters affecting numerous states and their election infrastructure and processes; and WHEREAS, election workers across the country worked tirelessly under difficult conditions to ensure a fair, safe and accurate election for the more than 155 million voters in November; and WHEREAS, based upon unrelenting misinformation and disinformation from both domestic and foreign sources, extremists have taken to threatening and endangering election workers, from Secretaries of State, state election directors, local election officials and election workers; and WHEREAS, the cornerstone of our republic is the right of Americans to vote in a safe, secure and accurate election, and their exercising of that right; and WHEREAS, election workers are a vital part of ensuring the exercise of that right for all eligible Americans; and WHEREAS, violence and violent threats directed at Secretaries of State, their families, staff, and other election workers is abhorrent and the antithesis of what our nation stands for.
  • 2010-2019 Election Results-Moffat County 2010 Primary Total Reg

    2010-2019 Election Results-Moffat County 2010 Primary Total Reg

    2010-2019 Election Results-Moffat County 2010 Primary Total Reg. Voters 2010 General Total Reg. Voters 2011 Coordinated Contest or Question Party Total Cast Votes Contest or Question Party Total Cast Votes Contest or Question US Senator 2730 US Senator 4681 Ken Buck Republican 1339 Ken Buck Republican 3080 Moffat County School District RE #1 Jane Norton Republican 907 Michael F Bennett Democrat 1104 JB Chapman Andrew Romanoff Democrat 131 Bob Kinsley Green 129 Michael F Bennett Democrat 187 Maclyn "Mac" Stringer Libertarian 79 Moffat County School District RE #3 Maclyn "Mac" Stringer Libertarian 1 Charley Miller Unaffiliated 62 Tony St John John Finger Libertarian 1 J Moromisato Unaffiliated 36 Debbie Belleville Representative to 112th US Congress-3 Jason Napolitano Ind Reform 75 Scott R Tipton Republican 1096 Write-in: Bruce E Lohmiller Green 0 Moffat County School District RE #5 Bob McConnell Republican 1043 Write-in: Michele M Newman Unaffiliated 0 Ken Wergin John Salazar Democrat 268 Write-in: Robert Rank Republican 0 Sherry St. Louis Governor Representative to 112th US Congress-3 Dan Maes Republican 1161 John Salazar Democrat 1228 Proposition 103 (statutory) Scott McInnis Republican 1123 Scott R Tipton Republican 3127 YES John Hickenlooper Democrat 265 Gregory Gilman Libertarian 129 NO Dan"Kilo" Sallis Libertarian 2 Jake Segrest Unaffiliated 100 Jaimes Brown Libertarian 0 Write-in: John W Hargis Sr Unaffiliated 0 Secretary of State Write-in: James Fritz Unaffiliated 0 Scott Gessler Republican 1779 Governor/ Lieutenant Governor Bernie Buescher Democrat 242 John Hickenlooper/Joseph Garcia Democrat 351 State Treasurer Dan Maes/Tambor Williams Republican 1393 J.J.
  • Resolution Reaffirming the NASS Position on Funding and Authorization of the U.S

    Resolution Reaffirming the NASS Position on Funding and Authorization of the U.S

    Resolution Reaffirming the NASS Position on Funding and Authorization of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission WHEREAS, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), on February 6, 2005, voted to approve a resolution by a substantial majority asking Congress not to reauthorize or fund the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) after the conclusion of the 2006 federal election, by which date all the states were required to fully implement the mandates of the Help America Vote Act; and WHEREAS, the 2005 resolution was passed to help prevent the EAC from eventually evolving into a regulatory body, contrary to the spirt of the Help America Vote Act; and WHEREAS, that action was meant to preserve the state’ ability to serve as laboratories of change through successful experiments and innovation in election reform; and WHEREAS, each resolution passed at a NASS conference sunsets after five years unless reauthorized by a vote of the members; and WHEREAS, the NASS position on funding and authorization of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission was renewed by the membership on July 20, 2010; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the National Association of Secretaries of State, expressing their continued consistent position in 2015, reaffirm their resolution of 2005 and 2010 and encourage Congress not to reauthorize or fund the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Adopted the 12th day of July 2015 in Portland, ME EXPIRES: Summer 2020 Hall of States, 444 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20001 (202) 624-3525 Phone (202) 624.3527 Fax www.nass.org On the motion to adopt the Resolution Reaffirming the NASS Position on Funding and Authorization of the U.S.
  • The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election

    The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election

    S. HRG. 112–794 THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER THE 2012 ELECTION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 19, 2012 Serial No. J–112–96 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 81–713 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHUCK SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Coons, Hon. Christopher A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ........... 6 Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 4 Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 178 Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island .....
  • States Reconvene National Task Force on Business Identity Theft

    States Reconvene National Task Force on Business Identity Theft

    NEWS RELEASE Louisiana Tom Schedler Department of State Secretary of State Meg Casper P.O. Box 94125 Press Secretary Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9125 225.362.5086 www.sos.la.gov [email protected] March 10, 2016 STATES RECONVENE NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON BUSINESS IDENTITY THEFT BATON ROUGE, La.—Secretaries of State from more than a dozen states are joining together to re- establish the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) Task Force on Business Identity Theft, a bipartisan initiative aimed at combating the spread of business impersonation and other forms of ID- related fraud. North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine F. Marshall and Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate have been tapped to co-chair the task force's work. The body is tasked with reviewing state business identity theft prevention and security practices, as well as new issues which have emerged since the original task force wrapped up its in work in 2012. "As attempts to hijack business identities have increased and grown more sophisticated in North Carolina and other states, this task force can play an important role in coordinating information-sharing and responses," noted Marshall. "Our goal is to improve protections for business and offer practical solutions for the state registration and filing agencies that serve them." "I am extremely pleased to co-chair this task force," said Pate. "Business ID theft is a very serious issue across the country and requires a joint effort to combat it. We will work hard to develop best practices and provide guidance for business in Iowa and around the U.S.
  • 1 Immigrant Resentment and Voter Fraud Beliefs in the U.S. Electorate

    1 Immigrant Resentment and Voter Fraud Beliefs in the U.S. Electorate

    Immigrant Resentment and Voter Fraud Beliefs in the U.S. Electorate Adriano Udani Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Missouri – St. Louis [email protected] David C. Kimball Professor Department of Political Science University of Missouri – St. Louis [email protected] July 2017 Forthcoming, American Politics Research Abstract Public beliefs about the frequency of voter fraud are frequently cited to support restrictive voting laws in the United States. However, some sources of public beliefs about voter fraud have received little attention. We identify two conditions that combine to make anti-immigrant attitudes a strong predictor of voter fraud beliefs. First, the recent growth and dispersion of the immigrant population makes immigration a salient consideration for many Americans. Second, an immigrant threat narrative in political discourse linking immigration to crime and political dysfunction has been extended to the voting domain. Using new data from a survey module in the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study and the 2012 American National Election Study, we show that immigrant resentment is strongly associated with voter fraud beliefs. Widespread hostility toward immigrants helps nourish public beliefs about voter fraud and support for voting restrictions in the United States. The conditions generating this relationship in public opinion likely exist in other nations roiled by immigration politics. The topic of fraudulent electoral practices will likely continue to provoke voters to call to mind groups that are politically constructed as “un-American.” * We acknowledge the support of the University of Missouri Research Board, the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and National Science Foundation Award # 1430505.
  • Table 4.15 the SECRETARIES of STATE, 2014

    Table 4.15 the SECRETARIES of STATE, 2014

    SECRETARIES OF STATE Table 4.15 THE SECRETARIES OF STATE, 2014 Maximum Length of Number of consecutive State or other Method of regular term Date of Present term previous terms allowed jurisdiction Name and party selection in years first service ends terms by constitution Alabama .................... Beth Chapman (R) E 4 1/2007 1/2015 1 2 Alaska ........................ .....................................................................................................(a) ................................................................................................ Arizona ...................... Ken Bennett (R) E (b) 4 1/2009 (b) 1/2015 (b) 2 Arkansas .................... Mark Martin (R) E 4 1/2011 1/2015 . 2 California .................. Debra Bowen (D) E 4 1/2007 1/2015 1 2 Colorado .................... Scott Gessler (R) E 4 1/2011 1/2015 . 2 Connecticut ............... Denise Merrill (D) E 4 1/2011 1/2015 . Delaware ................... Jeffrey Bullock (D) A (c) 4 1/2009 . Florida ....................... Kenneth Detzner (R) (e) A 4 2/2012 . (e) 2 Georgia ...................... Brian Kemp (R) E (d) 4 1/2010 (d) 1/2015 (d) . Hawaii........................ .....................................................................................................(a) ................................................................................................ Idaho .......................... Ben Ysursa (R) E 4 1/2003 1/2015 2 . Illinois ........................ Jesse White (D) E 4 1/1999 1/2015 3 . Indiana ....................... Connie
  • Risk-Limiting Audits in Arizona

    Risk-Limiting Audits in Arizona

    Risk-Limiting Audits in Arizona By Elizabeth Howard, Paul Rosenzweig, and Turquoise Baker PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 1, 2021 Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Part I: What Is a Risk-Limiting Audit?....................................................................................................... 3 Part II: What Is a Hybrid Risk-Limiting Audit? .......................................................................................... 4 Part III: Improvements to Arizona’s Audit System .................................................................................... 6 Part IV: Risk-Limiting Audit Implementation............................................................................................. 7 Part V: Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 7 About the Authors ................................................................................................................................... 8 Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................ 9 2 Brennan Center for Justice Risk-Limiting Audits in Arizona Introduction1 In the face of record-breaking voter turnout and a global pandemic, Arizona election officials and poll workers
  • Motion for Preliminary Injunction [PDF]

    Motion for Preliminary Injunction [PDF]

    Case 1:21-cv-02070-JPB Document 15 Filed 06/14/21 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION COALITION FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 21-cv-02070-JPB v. BRIAN KEMP, et al., Defendants. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING AND FOR ORAL HEARING Plaintiffs move this Court to enter a preliminary injunction, to grant expedited briefing, and to hold an oral hearing, as follows: PreliMinary Injunction Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs move the Court to preliminarily enjoin Defendants, effectively immediately, from enforcing the following laws: (A) O.C.G.A. § 21-2-568.1 (the “Elector Observation Felony”), which makes it a felony to “intentionally observe an elector while casting a ballot in a manner that would allow such person to see for whom or what the elector is voting”; 1 Case 1:21-cv-02070-JPB Document 15 Filed 06/14/21 Page 2 of 6 (B) O.C.G.A. § 21–2–386(a)(2)(B)(vii) (the “Gag Rule”), which prohibits “monitors” and “observers,” under penalty of criminal misdemeanor, from “[c]ommunicating any information that they see while monitoring the processing and scanning of the absentee ballots” “to anyone other than an election official who needs such information to lawfully carry out his or her official duties”; (C) O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-386(a)(2)(A) and (B)(vi) (the “Estimating Bans”), which make it a misdemeanor for “monitors and observers” to, among other things, tally, tabulate, estimate or attempt to tally, tabulate, or estimate the number of absentee ballots cast or any votes on the absentee ballots cast; (D) O.C.G.A.
  • Table 4.15 the SECRETARIES of STATE, 2016

    Table 4.15 the SECRETARIES of STATE, 2016

    SECRETARIES OF STATE Table 4.15 THE SECRETARIES OF STATE, 2016 Maximum Length of Number of consecutive State or other Method of regular term Date of Present term previous terms allowed jurisdiction Name and party selection in years first service ends terms by constitution Alabama .................... John Merrill (R) E 4 1/2015 1/2019 . 2 Alaska ........................ .....................................................................................................(a) ................................................................................................ Arizona ...................... Michele Reagan (R) E 4 1/2015 1/2019 . 2 Arkansas .................... Mark Martin (R) E 4 1/2011 1/2019 1 2 California .................. Alex Padilla (D) E 4 1/2015 1/2019 . 2 Colorado .................... Wayne Williams (R) E 4 1/2015 1/2019 . 2 Connecticut ............... Denise Merrill (D) E 4 1/2011 1/2019 1 . Delaware ................... Jeffrey Bullock (D) A (c) 4 1/2009 . Florida ....................... Kenneth Detzner (R) (e) A 4 2/2012 . (e) 2 Georgia ...................... Brian Kemp (R) E (d) 4 1/2010 (d) 1/2019 (d) . Hawaii........................ .....................................................................................................(a) ................................................................................................ Idaho .......................... Lawerence Denney (R) E 4 1/2015 1/2019 . Illinois ........................ Jesse White (D) E 4 1/1999 1/2019 4 . Indiana ....................... Connie
  • 2018 NJSBA Annual Meeting

    2018 NJSBA Annual Meeting

    2018 NJSBA Annual Meeting What Does Voter Suppression Look Like Today: A Conversation on the Voting Rights Act, Gerrymandering and Civil Rights in 2018 Co-Sponsored by the Minorities in the Profession Section Moderator/Speaker: Wilfredo Caraballo, Esq. Gaccione, Pomaco, P.C., Belleville Speakers: Justice Walter F. Timpone Supreme Court of New Jersey Donita Judge, Esq. Senior Attorney and Co-Program Director, Advancement Project Power and Democracy Program, Washington D.C. Scott Novakowski, Associate Counsel & Debevoise Legal Fellow New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, Newark Matthew Platkin, Chief Counsel New Jersey Governor’s Administration Amol Sinha Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey We Are 1844 No More: Let Us Vote Restoring the Right to Vote to People with Criminal Convictions www.njisj.org1 | @NJ_ISJ do social justice. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE The Institute’s mission is to empower urban residents to realize and achieve their full potential. Established in 1999 by Alan V. and Amy Lowenstein, the Institute’s dynamic and independent advocacy is aimed at toppling load-bearing walls of structural inequality to create just, vibrant, and healthy urban communities. We employ a broad range of advocacy tools to advance our ambitious urban agenda, including research, analysis and writing, public education, grassroots organizing, the development of pilot programs, legislative strategies, and litigation. Using a holistic approach to address the unique and critical issues facing New Jersey’s urban communities, the Institute advocates for systemic reform that is at once transformative, achievable in the state, and replicable in communities across the nation. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE Ryan P.