State Legislative Candidates Who Pledge to “Let Us Vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment”
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Nalysts Disagree About How to Frame the Recent
ml-l ii FROM THE CENTER O UT The Evolution of Party Politics: The March of the GOP Continues in North Carolina by Mebane Rash Whitman In March, the Center released the tenth edition of A Reactionary , Revolutionary, or Article II: A Guide to the N.C. Legislature. Article Evolutionary Election? II is a comprehensive guide to the 1995-96 General A nalystsdisagreeabout howtoframe therecent Assembly, containing profiles of each member, ef- electoral wins of the GOP in North Carolina. fectiveness rankings, demographic trends since Were the wins reactionary, that is, were voters 1975, and committee assignments. The latest edi- reacting in an angry anti-incumbent, anti-Democrat, tion reveals three major trends: (1) the significant anti-tax, anti-big government manner? Were the gains of the Republican Party, which now holds 92 wins revolutionary, a changing of the guard in terms of 170 seats in the legislature; (2) women have of which party governs the state-from Democrats, more power in the 1995-96 General Assembly be- whose party has governed the state for almost all of cause they secured plum committee chairs; and (3) the 20th century, to Republicans, who hope to gov- African-American legislators lost the speakership ern much of the 21st century? Or were they evolu- and powerful committee chairs, so their influence tionary, a single step in the long march of the has declined. Republican Party toward true competitiveness in a two-party state? The results of most elections are to some extent elections in North Carolina should not reactionary, but 1994 was not a run-of-the-mill be underestimated. -
Ch 5 NC Legislature.Indd
The State Legislature The General Assembly is the oldest governmental body in North Carolina. According to tradition, a “legislative assembly of free holders” met for the first time around 1666. No documentary proof, however, exists proving that this assembly actually met. Provisions for a representative assembly in Proprietary North Carolina can be traced to the Concessions and Agreements, adopted in 1665, which called for an unicameral body composed of the governor, his council and twelve delegates selected annually to sit as a legislature. This system of representation prevailed until 1670, when Albemarle County was divided into three precincts. Berkeley Precinct, Carteret Precinct and Shaftsbury Precinct were apparently each allowed five representatives. Around 1682, four new precincts were created from the original three as the colony’s population grew and the frontier moved westward. The new precincts were usually allotted two representatives, although some were granted more. Beginning with the Assembly of 1723, several of the larger, more important towns were allowed to elect their own representatives. Edenton was the first town granted this privilege, followed by Bath, New Bern, Wilmington, Brunswick, Halifax, Campbellton (Fayetteville), Salisbury, Hillsborough and Tarborough. Around 1735 Albemarle and Bath Counties were dissolved and the precincts became counties. The unicameral legislature continued until around 1697, when a bicameral form was adopted. The governor or chief executive at the time, and his council constituted the upper house. The lower house, the House of Burgesses, was composed of representatives elected from the colony’s various precincts. The lower house could adopt its own rules of procedure and elect its own speaker and other officers. -
State of North Carolina County of Wake in The
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION No. 18-CVS-014001 COUNTY OF WAKE COMMON CAUSE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Representative David R. LEWIS, in his official capacity as Senior Chairman of the House Select Committee on Redistricting, et al., Defendants. LEGISLATIVE DEFENDANTS’ AND INTERVENOR DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Proposed Findings of Fact ...............................................................................................................2 A. History and Development of the 2017 Plans ...........................................................2 (1) North Carolina’s Redistricting Process In 2017 ..........................................2 (2) Democratic Voters are More Concentrated Than Republican Voters .......11 a. Divided Precincts or VTDs and Divided Precincts in Current and Prior Legislative Plans ............................................................13 b. Members Elected to the General Assembly in 2010, 2016, and 2018................................................................................................14 B. Legislative Defendants’ Fact Witnesses ................................................................14 (1) William R. Gilkeson, Jr. ............................................................................14 (2) Senator Harry Brown .................................................................................17 (3) Representative John R. Bell, IV .................................................................21 -
No. Coa19-384 Tenth District North Carolina Court Of
NO. COA19-384 TENTH DISTRICT NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS ******************************************** NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMOTHY K. MOORE, in his official capacity as SPEAKER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; PHILIP E. BERGER, in his official capacity as PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SENATE, Defendants-Appellants. ************************************************************* MOTION BY THE NORTH CAROLINA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE ************************************************************* ROBERT E. HARRINGTON ADAM K. DOERR ERIK R. ZIMMERMAN TRAVIS S. HINMAN ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 101 N. Tryon St., Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246 (704) 377-2536 TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA: The North Carolina Legislative Black Caucus (the “Caucus”) respectfully moves this Honorable Court for leave to file the attached brief amicus curiae in support of Plaintiff North Carolina State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”). Pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(i), the Caucus sets forth here the nature of its interests, the issues of law its brief will address, its positions on those issues, and the reasons why it believes that an amicus curiae brief is desirable. NATURE OF THE AMICUS’S INTEREST The Caucus is an association of 37 North Carolina State Senators and Representatives of African American, American Indian, and Asian-American Indian heritage. It is a vehicle designed to exercise unified political power for the betterment of people of color in North Carolina and, consequently, all North Carolinians; to ensure that the views and concerns of African Americans and communities of color more broadly are heard and acted on by elected representatives; and to further develop the political consciousness of citizens of all communities and cultures. -
Electronic Voting
Short Report: Electronic Voting 15 SR 001 Date: April 13, 2015 by: Matthew Sackett, Research Manager TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I: Introduction Part II: General Overview of Electronic Voting Systems Part III: Summary of National Conference of State Legislatures Research on Electronic Voting (Survey) Part IV: Wyoming Legislature’s process and procedures relating to vote taking and recording Part V: Conclusion Attachments: Attachment A: NCSL Survey Results WYOMING LEGISLATIVE SERVICE OFFICE • 213 State Capitol • Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 TELEPHONE (307) 777-7881 • FAX (307) 777-5466 • EMAIL • [email protected] • WEBSITE http://legisweb.state.wy.us Page 2 PART I: INTRODUCTION As part of the Capitol renovation process, the Select Committee on Legislative Technology asked LSO staff to prepare an update to a report that was done for them previously (2008) about electronic voting systems. The previous report included as its main focus a survey conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) to other states that asked a variety of questions on electronic voting both in terms of equipment and legislative procedures. For purposes of this update, LSO again reached out to Ms. Brenda Erickson, a staff specialist knowledgeable in the areas of electronic voting and voting process and procedure from NCSL, to again conduct a survey related to process and procedure of other states related to electronic voting. Before engaging in a discussion of electronic voting systems, it is important to recognize that electronic voting systems are tools for facilitating legislative business. These systems are subject to legislative rules, processes and procedures. It is the implementation, and subsequent enforcement, of legislative rules and procedures related to voting process, not just the systems technology, which create accountability in the process. -
State and Local Political Party and Other Political Group Contributions
AT&T Corporate Political Contributions to State & Local Party Committees and Other Political Groups July–Dec. 2020 State & Local Party Committees and Other Political Groups Contributions Advancing Michigan Forward $1,000 Alex Padilla Ballot Measure Committee For Democracy and Justice (California) $25,000 Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee (Wisconsin) $3,750 Assembly Democratic Caucus (Nevada) $5,500 Assembly Republican Caucus (Nevada) $5,500 Associated Republicans of Texas $25,000 Building Bridges Fund (Michigan) $2,000 Bumstead Administrative Account (Michigan) $1,000 California Democratic Party $360,000 Civic Progress Action Committee (Missouri) $4,500 Committee to Elect a Republican Senate (Wisconsin) $8,750 Committee to Elect House Republicans New Hampshire $1,750 Commonwealth Victory Fund (Virginia) $3,500 Community Leaders of America $10,000 Concord Fund (Michigan) $1,000 Conservative Michigan $2,000 Democratic Assembly Campaign (New York) $51,000 Democratic Governors Association $100,000 Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee $50,000 Democratic Party of Arkansas $10,000 Democratic Party of Georgia $35,000 Democratic State Central Committee of Louisiana $10,000 Fairview Fund (Michigan) $2,000 Florida Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee $25,000 Florida Democratic Party $25,000 Florida House Republicans Campaign Committee $75,000 Florida Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee $75,000 Georgia Republican Party $15,000 Georgia Republican Senatorial Committee, Inc. $20,000 GoPAC, Inc. (Kentucky) $5,000 Great Lakes Justice -
Election Night Reporting
Election Night Reporting https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/105975/web.264614/ Report: CO_CO_report_1608179187388 Contest List Total Percent of Contest Name Choice Name Votes Votes Joseph R. Biden / Kamala D. Harris 1,804,352 55.40% Donald J. Trump / Michael R. Pence 1,364,607 41.90% Don Blankenship / William Mohr 5,061 0.16% Bill Hammons / Eric Bodenstab 2,730 0.08% Howie Hawkins / Angela Nicole 8,986 0.28% Walker Blake Huber / Frank Atwood 355 0.01% Jo Jorgensen / Jeremy ''Spike'' Cohen 52,460 1.61% Brian Carroll / Amar Patel 2,515 0.08% Mark Charles / Adrian Wallace 2,011 0.06% Phil Collins / Billy Joe Parker 568 0.02% Roque ''Rocky'' De La Fuente / Darcy 636 0.02% G. Richardson Presidential Electors Dario Hunter / Dawn Neptune Adams 379 0.01% Princess Khadijah Maryam Jacob- 495 0.02% fambro / Khadijah Maryam Jacob Sr. Alyson Kennedy / Malcolm Jarrett 354 0.01% Joseph Kishore / Norissa Santa Cruz 196 0.01% Kyle Kenley Kopitke / Nathan Re Vo 762 0.02% Sorenson Gloria La Riva / Sunil Freeman 1,035 0.03% Joe Mchugh / Elizabeth Storm 614 0.02% Brock Pierce / Karla Ballard 572 0.02% Jordan ''Cancer'' Scott / Jennifer 175 0.01% Tepool Kanye West / Michelle Tidball 8,089 0.25% John W. Hickenlooper 1,731,114 53.50% Cory Gardner 1,429,492 44.18% United States Senator Daniel Doyle 9,820 0.30% Stephan ''Seku'' Evans 8,971 0.28% Raymon Anthony Doane 56,262 1.74% Shane Bolling 105,955 23.53% Representative to the 117th United States Diana Degette 331,621 73.65% Congress - District 1 Paul Noel Fiorino 2,524 0.56% 1 of 16 12/16/2020, 8:26 PM Election Night Reporting https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/105975/web.264614/ Jan Kok 1,441 0.32% Kyle Furey 8,749 1.94% Joe Neguse 316,925 61.46% Representative to the 117th United States Charlie Winn 182,547 35.40% Congress - District 2 Thom Atkinson 13,657 2.65% Gary Swing 2,534 0.49% Lauren Boebert 220,634 51.39% Representative to the 117th United States Diane E. -
State of North Carolina in the General Court of Justice County of Wake Superior Court Division 18 Cvs 15292
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE COUNTY OF WAKE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 18 CVS 15292 JABARI HOLMES, FRED CULP, DANIEL E. SMITH, BRENDON JADEN PEAY, and PAUL KEARNEY, SR., Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY K. MOORE, in his official [PROPOSED] capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER PHILLIP E. BERGER, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; DAVID R. LEWIS,1 in his official capacity as Chairman of the House Select Committee on Elections for the 2018 Third Extra Session; RALPH E. HISE, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Election for the 2018 Third Extra Session; THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; and THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendants. 1 David Lewis is no longer a member of the General Assembly. Plaintiffs Jabari Holmes, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, and Paul Kearny Sr. (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Timothy K. Moore, Phillip E. Berger, Ralph E. Hise (“Legislative Defendants”), the State of North Carolina, and the North Carolina State Board of Elections (“State Defendants,” and together with Plaintiffs and Legislative Defendants, the “Parties”) hereby submit this Proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order. I. List of Participating Counsel A. Plaintiffs’ Counsel SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 1415 W. Highway 54, Suite 101 Durham, NC 27707 Allison J. Riggs State Bar No. 40028 Telephone: 919-323-3909 [email protected] Jeffrey Loperfido State Bar No. 52939 Telephone: 919-323-3380 [email protected] Mitchell Brown State Bar No. 56122 Telephone: 919-323-3380 [email protected] Hilary Harris Klein State Bar No. -
2020 Abstract of Votes Cast
2020 Abstract of Votes Cast Office of the Secretary of State State of Colorado Jena Griswold, Secretary of State Christopher P. Beall, Deputy Secretary of State Judd Choate, Director of Elections Elections Division Office of the Secretary of State 1700 Broadway, Suite 550 Denver, CO 80290 Phone: (303) 894-2200, ext. 6307 Official Publication of the Abstract of Votes Cast for the Following Elections: 2019 Odd-Year 2020 Presidential Primary 2020 Primary 2020 General Dear Coloradans, It is my privilege to present the biennial election abstract report, which contains the official statewide election results for the 2019 coordinated election, 2020 presidential primary, 2020 statewide primary, and 2020 general election. This report also includes voter turnout statistics and a directory of state and county elected officials. The Colorado Secretary of State’s Election Division staff compiled this information from materials submitted by Colorado’s 64 county clerk and recorders. Additional information is available at Accountability in Colorado Elections (ACE), available online at https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/ACE/index.html. Without a doubt, the 2020 election year will be remembered as one of our state’s most unusual and most historic. After starting with the state’s first presidential primary in 20 years, we oversaw two major statewide elections amidst a global pandemic and the worst forest fires in Colorado’s history. Yet, despite those challenges, Colorado voters enthusiastically made their voices heard. We set state participation records in each of those three elections, with 3,291,661 ballots cast in the general election, the most for any election in Colorado history. -
S.B. 581 Session 2021 Principal Clerk S D Senate Bill Drs15230-Mt-87
FILED SENATE Apr 6, 2021 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA S.B. 581 SESSION 2021 PRINCIPAL CLERK S D SENATE BILL DRS15230-MT-87 Short Title: Redistricting Criteria for 2021. (Public) Sponsors: Senators Clark and Fitch (Primary Sponsors). Referred to: 1 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED 2 AN ACT TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL 3 REDISTRICTING FOLLOWING THE RETURN OF THE 2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS. 4 Whereas, following the receipt on March 2, 2011, of population data from the 2010 5 decennial census pursuant to P.L. 94-171 (2010 Redistricting Data File), the General Assembly 6 realigned districts for the following bodies on the following dates: 7 (1) House of Representatives of the United States Congress on July 28, 2011, in 8 S.L. 2011-403, as amended by S.L. 2011-414, hereinafter referred to as Senate 9 Bill 453. 10 (2) North Carolina Senate on July 27, 2011, in S.L. 2011-402, as amended by S.L. 11 2011-413, hereinafter referred to as Senate Bill 455. 12 (3) North Carolina House of Representatives on July 28, 2011, in S.L. 2011-404, 13 as amended by S.L. 2011-416, hereinafter referred to as House Bill 937; and 14 Whereas, on February 5, 2016, the United States District Court for the Middle District 15 of North Carolina held in Harris v. McCrory, 159 F. Supp. 3d 600, that Senate Bill 453 was an 16 unconstitutional racial gerrymander; and 17 Whereas, on February 19, 2016, the General Assembly enacted a remedial plan for 18 congressional districts in S.L. -
Interrogatory on House Bill 21-1164 Submitted by the Colorado General Assembly
temporary tax credits as provided in House Bill 21-1164 without again obtaining voter approval. Here, school district voters previously approved waivers of the applicable TABOR limits; per the erroneous advice of the Colorado Department of Education, the school districts did not implement those waivers; and, in House Bill 21-1164, the General Assembly seeks to eliminate the tax credits at issue simply to effectuate what the voters had previously authorized. In these circumstances, the court perceives nothing in TABOR requiring further voter approval. Accordingly, the court answers the General Assembly’s two-part interrogatory in the affirmative. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203 2021 CO 34 Supreme Court Case No. 21SA97 Original Proceeding Pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado In Re: Interrogatory on House Bill 21-1164 Submitted by the Colorado General Assembly. General Assembly’s Interrogatory Answered en banc May 24, 2021 Attorneys for the Colorado General Assembly: Recht Kornfeld, P.C. Mark G. Grueskin Denver, Colorado Sharon L. Eubanks, Director, Office of Legislative Legal Services Julie A. Pelegrin, Deputy Director, Office of Legislative Legal Services Denver, Colorado Attorneys for Governor Jared S. Polis: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Terry Gill, First Assistant Attorney General Russell D. Johnson, Senior Assistant Attorney General Denver, Colorado Attorneys for Attorney General Philip J. Weiser: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Natalie Hanlon Leh, Chief Deputy Attorney General Eric R. Olson, Solicitor General Kurtis T. Morrison, Deputy Attorney General Noah C. Patterson, Assistant Solicitor General Denver, Colorado Attorneys for Senators John B. -
Rules Committees
Committee Procedures 4-61 Rules Committees The parliamentary rules and procedures that govern each assembly lie at the heart of the legislative process. Legislative rules provide order, allow for the reasonable man- agement of deliberations and debate, and ensure internal accountability. Stable rules protect the rights of both majority and minority members. Because parliamentary procedures are vital to the legislative process, it is common for chambers to create a committee whose jurisdiction covers legislative rules. More than 70 percent of legislative assemblies reported having rules committees. Only the following chambers responded that they did not. Colorado House Nevada Senate and Assembly Connecticut Senate and House New Mexico House Louisiana Senate and House Texas Senate Michigan House Make-up of a rules committee. Committee chairs generally are appointed by a des- ignated authority such as the presiding officer of the senate or house, another cham- ber leader or a committee on committees. In 36 legislative chambers, rules commit- tees are no exception to this practice, and an appointed legislator serves as the head of the committee. In another third of the chambers, however, a legislative leader is designated to fill this position. Table 97-4.24 illustrates who acts as the rules commit- tee chair. There can be no committee without members. Table 97-4.25 highlights who selects lawmakers to serve on rules committees. In about half the legislative assemblies, the presiding officer appoints the rules committee members. In 13 chambers, another legislative leader makes the selections. Seniority systems are used by the senates in Arkansas, Idaho and Minnesota. Sometimes, all or part of the rules committee mem- bership is set by statute or chamber rule; this is true in six legislative bodies.