Scott "Pick" Picken’s Post

Cash For Votes May Undermine Democracy Adversely Election is known to be an expensive undertaking as money plays instrumental medium during campaign periods. It costs candidates an assortment of items on the campaign menu. Some costs like transportation are considered normal. Other cost items require proper scrutiny, especially as relates sources and uses of funds during election campaign times. Prospective voters are largely influenced by crowd size of candidates. That is why elections are seen to be unfair when it comes to crowd buying. Not all those seen as part of the campaign crowd are likely to choose the candidate with largest numbers in one gathering. Sponsorship of candidates is one tricky area that attracts objection from others. This is where critics suspect electoral fraud not just from vote buying but how candidates source funding. For different reasons, some sponsors allocate colossal amounts of cash or kind in support of candidates whose offers align with their interests. Undue influence of voter decisions can be seen as morally improper, but after vote counting, results are measured by other instruments without moral consideration. Votes end up as endorsement of legal authority by custodians assuming power after winning election. Any ways of looking at the big picture, cash for votes may undermine democracy by the extend that voters are caught in a trap invisible to most people in that voting queue.

pVote dilution Vote dilution occurs when the design of electoral systems or district maps minimizes or cancels out the voting strength of a minority group. In the context of redistricting, it most often happens in two ways: Cracking: Splitting a minority community into multiple districts so that their vote is not powerful enough to influence any single election. Packing: Concentrating minority voters into a single district to reduce their representation in surrounding districts. Since 1986, the legal framework for proving vote dilution has been guided by the Supreme Court's decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, which established a three-part test. To succeed, plaintiffs must show: Sufficient size and compactness: The minority group is large enough and geographically concentrated enough to form a majority in a reasonably configured district. Political cohesion: The minority group tends to vote together for the same candidates. Majority bloc voting: The white majority votes as a bloc to defeat the minority group's preferred candidates. If these conditions are met, a court considers the "totality of the circumstances," which includes factors like a state's history of discrimination and the use of racial appeals in political campaigns.

Prof. Michael Morse C’13, Assistant Professor of Law, has co-authored a national report with the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) on voter list maintenance. The report, “Modernizing Voter List Maintenance: An Evidence-Based Framework for Access and Integrity”—co-authored by Morse, along with BPC’s Rachel Orey and Joann Bautista—builds on Morse’s 2023 Boston University Law Review article, “Democracy’s Bureaucracy: The Complicated Case of Voter Registration Lists." The report outlines how evidence-based voter list maintenance reforms can help election officials maintain voter registration systems that are secure, inclusive, and accurate. Read more about how Morse’s research is shaping the future of election administration: https://lnkd.in/eYV6frZF

“Voter registration lists are widely regarded as the backbone of election administration,” according to a new report by Michael Morse Rachel Orey, and Joann Bautista of the Bipartisan Policy Center. But keeping these lists up to date isn't easy, according to a Management Update by Barrett and Greene Inc. “To keep these lists up to date, election officials are responsible for identifying when voters move, die, or otherwise become ineligible to vote," says the report. How to keep the lists accurate? In addition to interstate sharing of data, and adopting online and automatic voter registration, the Bipartisan Center focuses in part on the ways that working closely with Department of Motor Vehicles can "make it easier to identify in-state duplicates and merge records from both in-state and out-of-state sources.” As election day approaches there are few topics that are more timely. To read more click here: https://lnkd.in/eVcTfQYe Margaret Spellings Paige Ennis Bailey Childers League of Women Voters Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) Brennan Center for Justice The Voter Participation Center Gina Swabowski League of Women Voters - DC (LWVDC) America First Policy Institute Hans Von Spakovsky Ken Blackwell Principles for Trusted Elections

The cost of relying on self-attestation as a form of program administration is a direct causal factor to the fraud and waste in every government program. But it is also a threat to Democracy when 2m-5m illegals are registered to vote, and citizenship requirement uses self-attestation (honor system). Establishing the identity and verifying the eligibility of ANYONE receiving taxpayer funds or benefits (including voting!) is basic Program Administration 101. We can and must do better!

Reflecting on the Blue Ribbon Commission: What We Heard and What Comes Next Last Thursday marked the final meeting of Georgia’s Blue Ribbon Commission. A series of six listening sessions held across the state from Atlanta to Americus. These full day listening sessions brought together lawmakers, experts, local election officials, and community members to testify on election administration, voter access, and related procedures. The committee’s goal is to study current practices and produce recommendations heading into the 2026 legislative session. The Common Cause Georgia team attended every meeting, providing testimony and ensuring that voters, not misinformation, remained at the center of these conversations. At the final session in Americus, we saw firsthand how powerful it is when community members, organizers, and election experts show up. Despite ongoing disinformation and renewed attacks on our democracy, Georgians from all walks of life stood up for fair, accessible, and secure elections. Across all six meetings, several key themes emerged: ➡️ Access vs. Security: Many called for practical reforms to make elections secure and accessible, rejecting conspiracy-driven narratives. ➡️ Local Capacity and Funding: Counties emphasized the urgent need for predictable funding, updated equipment, and staff training. ➡️ Voter Registration and NVRA: Systems like the National Voter Registration Act and ERIC were recognized as vital tools for secure, up-to-date voter rolls. ➡️ Oversight and Transparency: Concerns about the State Election Board’s backlog and transparency highlighted the need for reform and accountability. Our message at every meeting was clear: Center the lived experiences of voters and listen to election officials and experts, not partisan election deniers. This work isn’t over. Common Cause Georgia will continue to monitor the Commission’s recommendations and upcoming State Election Board meetings, where critical decisions will shape our elections in 2026 and beyond. ➡️ Stay informed and take action: Follow Common Cause Georgia for updates on the Commission’s final report and ways to get involved in protecting Georgia’s democracy. #VotingRights #Democracy #GeorgiaPolitics #CivicEngagement #ElectionIntegrity #CommonCauseGeorgia

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments that will likely reshape the American electoral landscape and the protections afforded to minorities under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A seminal issue argued yesterday in Louisiana v. Callais is how courts should evaluate vote dilution cases under the framework established in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). The Gingles preconditions have long been interpreted along with a holistic “totality of the circumstances” analysis of how election systems impact minority voters’ ability to fully participate in the democratic process. Yesterday, a majority of the justices seemed open to an alternative path, one which will require plaintiffs in Section 2 vote dilution claims to demonstrate intent. That change might sound subtle; it isn’t. By requiring voters to prove intentional discrimination, the Court would not only erase decades of settled precedent under Section 2 but also defy Congress’s unmistakable goal with the 1982 amendments. Those amendments, enacted in direct response to the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980), removed the intent requirement. Congress acknowledged that modern discrimination often hides in structure and outcome, not in explicit motive. That acknowledgement is now at risk. If the Court moves to fold an intent requirement back into Section 2 vote-dilution claims, the true impact will hinge on how heavy a burden it places on plaintiffs to prove intent. History shows that when courts demand direct evidence of discriminatory purpose—rather than allowing it to be inferred from context and effect—even well-documented instances of vote dilution become virtually impossible to remedy. Even if the Court stops short of declaring that any consideration of race in redistricting is unconstitutional, a pivot to a strict intent-based test would still have the same practical effect of rendering Section 2 nearly impossible to enforce. The results test would become an empty shell, stripping one of the nation’s cornerstone civil rights protections of its force. Fundamentally, Section 2 is not about redistricting maps. It addresses the systems and structures that unite citizens under the same umbrella of democracy and asks whether our legal system will continue to confront discrimination as it exists in the real world and afford a voice for all.

**NOTA in Uncontested Polls: SC to Decide on Voter Rights** A PIL challenges laws preventing voting when only one candidate is running, arguing it denies the fundamental right to choose 'None of the Above' (NOTA). **Supreme Court Examines Voter's Right to Reject in Uncontested Elections** **New Delhi** – The Supreme Court of India is set to decide on a critical issue concerning voter rights in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. The case, *Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy vs. Union of India & Anr.* (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 677/2024), challenges the constitutional validity of Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This provision mandates that in an election with only one candidate, the returning officer must declare them elected without conducting a poll. The petitioner argues that this practice, while seemingly efficient, fundamentally violates a citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Citing the landmark 2013 judgment that introduced the 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option, the petition contends that voters have a right not just to choose a candidate but also to reject all candidates. In an uncontested election, this right is completely denied. Furthermore, the petition claims the law violates the right to equality under Article 14 by creating an arbitrary distinction between voters in different constituencies. The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Union of India and the Election Commission of India, who are expected to file their responses. The case, which has seen several procedural hearings since October 2024, is now listed for further hearing on November 6, 2025. The outcome could have profound implications for India's electoral landscape, potentially ensuring that every voter gets a chance to cast their vote in every election, even if it is to express dissent.

BREAKING: Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court to defend long-standing precedent that curbs big money in elections. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is challenging critical, 50-year-old limits on how much money political parties can spend in “coordination” with federal candidates.  The Supreme Court upheld these limits in 2001 as an important barrier to preventing donors from funneling massive amounts of funds to the candidates of their choosing through political parties. Limitations like this are key in preventing wealthy special interests from leveraging deep pocketbooks to manipulate our elections and drown out the voices of everyday Americans.  It's time for SCOTUS to uphold these limits again. Campaign Legal Center, joined the League of Women Voters and Common Cause, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to reaffirm this precedent and the constitutionality of our campaign finance laws. Read more about our brief: https://lnkd.in/exPYa4T8

Judicial Complicity: How Nigeria’s Courts Became the Final Stage of Electoral Capture When electoral injustice escapes the ballot box, it often finds refuge in the courtroom. In Nigeria, the judiciary, once seen as the last hope of the common man, has become, in many cases, the final stage of electoral manipulation. While the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducts elections, it is the courts that decide winners, sometimes months after votes have been cast. This shift from ballot to bench has eroded public confidence in both institutions and blurred the line between judicial interpretation and political intervention. From Arbiter to Actor Over the years, the Nigerian judiciary has moved from being a guardian of democracy to an enabler of state capture. Controversial judgments — such as those that installed candidates who came fourth in official results, or nullified clear mandates on technical grounds, have deepened public distrust. Instead of defending the sanctity of the vote, courts have often legitimized executive and partisan interests, creating what analysts describe as a judicially assisted democracy. In this system, the court’s gavel often carries more weight than the people’s ballot. Why This Happens The roots of judicial complicity lie in a chain of dependency: Judges are appointed and promoted through politically influenced processes. The executive controls judicial budgets and appointments, creating subtle pressures. Electoral petitions are often decided under opaque conditions, with limited accountability and heavy political lobbying behind the scenes. As a result, the judiciary has, at times, served as the final link in the capture chain, sanitizing flawed elections and giving legitimacy to illegitimate mandates. The Consequences When courts decide elections on technicalities rather than transparency, public faith in democracy collapses. Citizens begin to see voting as a futile ritual. The more this happens, the more power shifts from the people to political elites who manipulate both electoral and judicial processes. This judicial complicity has far-reaching effects: It entrenches impunity and corruption. It weakens constitutional accountability. And it transforms elections from contests of ideas into contests of influence. The Road to Redemption Reclaiming judicial integrity requires more than rhetoric. It demands: Transparent judicial appointments insulated from executive interference. Public accountability mechanisms for electoral tribunals. And a constitutional amendment that limits courts from overturning popular mandates on mere technicalities rather than substantive justice. A democracy where courts determine winners is not one governed by law, but one governed by legal convenience. Nigeria must decide whether it wants justice that protects power or justice that protects the people. #NigeriaJudiciary #ElectoralJustice #INEC #StateCapture #ElectionTribunals #Analystroom