[EL] AALS Section on Election Law Call for Papers Winner

[Josh Douglas]

I am pleased to announce that the AALS Section on Election Law has selected
the winner of the Call for Papers:  Hank Chambers (U. of Richmond) "Local
Officials and Voter ID."

Hank will join David Schleicher (Yale Law School), Jocelyn Benson (Wayne
State), Richard T. Ford (Stanford), and Trey Grayson (former KY Secretary
of State) at the Section's program, titled "Election Law at the Local
Level," on  Friday, January 8, 2016 from 10:30 am-12:15 pm at the AALS
Annual Meeting in New York City.

The final paper will be published in the Election Law Journal.  I have
pasted the abstract below.

Congratulations, Hank!

*Local Officials and Voter ID*

Henry L. Chambers, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Richmond


The interpretation state and local officials provide of voting laws can be
just as important as the substance of the law. For example, how voter
identification laws are interpreted can be just as important as the fact
that voter identification is required of voters at the polls.  Whether a
voter can vote or be assured that his vote will be counted may depend on
the interpretation of voter identification laws.  However, whether a voter
can vote may also depend on how a poll official or poll worker interprets
the law.  Further, how much time the voter or other voters must devote to
voting may depend on how the local official or the poll worker interprets
voter identification laws.

Virginia’s voter identification law provides an example.  One legitimate
form of identification under that law is “any valid employee identification
card containing a photograph of the voter and issued by an employer of the
voter in the ordinary course of the employer's business.” Va. Code
§24.2-643.  The language of the law raises many issues.  Two are whether
validity requires that the card have an unexpired expiration date and
whether validity requires that the employee continues to be employed by the
employer.  Though these questions can be answered by state or local
officials well before an election, poll officials and poll workers must
understand how officials have interpreted the law.


However, even if the official interpretation of the law is relatively
clear, poll officials and poll workers still must determine whether the
identification the voter presents is sufficient.  For example, if the
validity of the identification requires that the voter be employed by the
employer when the identification card is proffered, whether the poll worker
may deny the identification if the voter cannot prove that he or she works
for the employer or whether the poll worker may deny the identification
only if there is a reason for the poll worker to suspect that the voter
does not work for the employer remains an issue.  Resolving such issues in
the absence of an absolutely clear interpretation of the law may take
time.


The length of time necessary for a poll worker to determine whether a voter
has valid identification matters.  Delays will affect how long other voters
must wait to vote, the likelihood that those other voters will stay in line
to vote, and the likelihood that others will see long lines and not bother
to vote.  Media reports of long lines may also dissuade potential voters
from approaching the polls at all.  That is particularly problematic given
that voter identification is not about voter qualification, but is merely
supposed to prove that the voter is the person identified in the poll book.




-- 
Joshua A. Douglas
Robert G. Lawson & William H. Fortune Associate Professor of Law
University of Kentucky College of Law
620 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40506
(859) 257-4935
joshuadouglas at uky.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150828/845b06f2/attachment.html>