OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Information & Analysis

MN Senate race - talk of reviewing even more ballots

Not much has changed in the story of the election contest.  The 3-judge panel has not been announced and no new documents have been filed in the suit.  The Star Tribune had a weekend story, however, about the Coleman campaign's effort to review more ballots than have so far been contemplated.  The campaigns have requested thousands of documents from the counties to aid their determination of what else should be considered in this contest.  Some counties took another look at all or some of the 654 absentee ballots that Coleman claims should have been reconsidered for inclusion.  So far, only one of these, from Mower County, is now being considered for inclusion because officials believe the signatures on the application and the ballot do in fact match.  The St. Paul Legal Ledger spoke with ex-Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer who believes absentee ballots should not have been included at all in the recount.  She also suggested that wrongly accepted absentee ballots should have been reviewed in addition to wrongly rejected ones but acknowledged that would require a huge effort by officials.  The campaigns did not raise the issue of wrongly accepted absentee ballots during the recount.  The Minnesota Independent has a story about the cost to a voter to challenge the rejection of their ballot.  One Minnesota lawyer estimates it to be $3,000-5,000.  

Commentary

Donald B. Tobin

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

Donald B. Tobin

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio House Committee Recommends Upholding Landis' Election Victory

Yesterday, an Ohio House of Representatives committee recommended 5-4 that the Ohio House uphold the election victory of Republican State Representative Al Landis over Democratic challenger Josh O'Farrell. In February, the Ohio Supreme Court sent the O'Farrell v. Landis record to the House for consideration. According to an article in the Canton Repository, committee chairman and State Representative Matt Huffman said he expects a vote by the full House later this month.

more info & analysis...