OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Information & Analysis

Miller files federal case over counting write-in ballots in Alaska

Late yesterday, candidate for Senate Joe Miller filed a complaint in federal court asking the court to permanently enjoin election officials from counting any write-in ballot on which the spelling of the candidate’s name varies in any way from the name as written on the candidate’s write-in declaration of candidacy. Miller argues that the Director of the Division of Elections is violating the federal Elections Clause and Equal Protection Clause, as well as some state laws, by permitting officials to use discretion when determining whether a write-in ballot should count. Miller claims that Alaska statutes mandates that any written-in names not deviate from the declaration of candidacy, and any ballots that do so are “statutorily invalid.”

At issue are 92,528 write-in ballots, which constitute over 40% of the total votes cast for the Senate race. According to the Alaska Division of Elections, Miller currently has 35% of the vote. Incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate after losing the Republican primary to Joe Miller, and the current battle focuses on the spelling of her name on write-in ballots.

Citing Bush v. Gore, Miller’s Equal Protection argument states that, while intent of the voter is a starting point, there must be “specific standards” and “uniform rules” to guide officials when determining voter intent. His claim is that Alaska statutes already provide that specificity, and the Director’s new guidance contradicts those standards.

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 are 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 Secretary of State Releases Report on Voter Fraud

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted released a report today on voter fraud in Ohio during the 2012 general election. In a press release, Husted stated that while voter fraud does exist in Ohio, "it is not an epidemic." According to the report, 135 voter fraud cases have been referred to law enforcement for possible prosecution. Twenty of these cases involved voters attempting to vote in Ohio and another state. The report shows that 115 cases were referred to local Ohio county prosecutors. According to Husted as quoted in the Columbus Dispatch, most of these cases involved voters attempting to vote twice within the state, and in a "majority" of instances, only one vote was counted.

more info & analysis...