Election security and the ability to vote by mail or remotely instead of at a polling place has become a major question for the 2020 general election.Of course Oregon has had mail-in only ballots since 1998. Now other states will look at Oregon’s system to learn some best practices.
Oregon’s Vote-by-Mail is secure and accurate. It protects voter privacy. Plus, it has many security features to prevent fraud and election interference.
This video is about Election Security with the Vote-by-Mail process in Oregon. It shows the many safeguards that are used to ensure that all votes are counted accurately, that the election process is secure from interference and fraud, and that the privacy of all voters is protected. Elections Director Tim Scott explains how Oregon’s vote-by-mail process works with slides and videos. He also answers audience questions about the incidence of fraud, voter suppression and the security of vote-counting in other states.
We have 20 days as of June 10, 2020 to get fair maps on the ballot in November, and we need all hands on deck! In a matter of minutes, your help can move us closer to reaching our goal.
Sign IP 57 and join us in the fight for a fair and transparent redistricting process in Oregon! The petition calls for an independent citizen-led redistricting commission that will ensure Oregonians choose their representatives and not the other way around.
We believe Oregon voters should choose their politicians—politicians should not choose their voters. Have you signed IP 57?
In this time of uncertainty, there is one thing we can all agree on; every Oregonian deserves to be represented and every eligible voter’s vote should count. That’s why we joined People Not Politicians, and together we have launched a statewide signature gathering campaign for IP 57 to put redistricting reform on the ballot this November and give everyday Oregonians the opportunity to make our voices heard.
What does IP 57 call for? Anindependent, citizen-led redistricting commission.
The balanced commission would be made up of 12 citizens with 4 from each of the two largest political parties and 4 who are not affiliated with the largest parties.
Incumbent politicians, lobbyists, and political operatives are BANNED from the commission.
Commissioners may not favor or discriminate against any candidate, elected official or political party.
Democracy doesn’t stop and neither do we.
The League of Women Voters of Oregon and People Not Politicians need your help. Your signature today makes all the difference in making sure Oregonians can vote for a fair, transparent, and independent redistricting citizen’s commission this November.
It’s simple. Just visit the People Not Politicians website and take a few steps. First, read Initiative Petition 57. Next, enter your information to get your petition. Then, print, hand-sign and mail in your signature sheet.
Other organizations that support the People Not Politicians petition:
Democracy as an ideal and process has always been at the heart of the mission of the LWV. From its incepetion as a way to gain women’s suffrage, the organization has focused on voting rights, and by extension, elections, and thus the whole basis of representative democracy.
In the Spring of 2020, the avenues of democracy have been severely challenged by a global pandemic which has restricted the movement of millions of people. The restrictions have affected every part of the process, from voting and elections, to the US census, on which future representation is counted for Congress. In preparation for a national election in the US and other countries, including South Korea, Israel, and the UK, government leaders have been forced to consider how to invite participation during a near-total social shut-down.
Here are some thoughtful articles on some of these issues in the U.S. The LWV is closely monitoring how the US will promote the workings of our democratic institutions.
While Census forms continue to be collected and counted, the Bureau has postponed or suspended operations around in-person survey collection in hard-to-count communities. Depending on guidance from the CDC, they may also delay the deployment of enumerators hired to go door-to-door and collect outstanding survey data from houses that have not completed the survey online, via phone, or by mail. There are still ways for these communities to participate in the census—online, by mail, or by phone—and the League continues to monitor how the census plans to ensure hard to count communities still get included.
The Census Bureau is being incredibly transparent about the decisions they are making around their operational plan. They continue to hold stakeholder calls, brief officials, and issue guidance to partner organizations who are helping to get out the count! The census timeline is mandated by federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The Census Bureau is doing everything in their power to help those living in the United States, fill out their questionnaires in the appropriate time frame.
Completing the census is about collecting the necessary information to determine funding for our community needs. Census data is used to distribute billions of dollars in funding that goes to ensure that public safety, health facilities, businesses, and communities have the resources they need to take care of their communities. The League is a partner of the Census Counts Campaign which has issued digital guidance on how to turn in-person events into digital ones for those participating in Get Out the Count activities! We have also built out a robust census action kit for individuals and Leagues to use when helping get out the count.
The most important thing we can do right now is to submit the questionnaire via one of the three ways we’ve already discussed. The second most important thing we can do is to ask our friends, families, and yell across the street to our neighbors—“Have you taken the Census, yet?”
The CDC recommendation for social distancing to contain the coronavirus comes at a time when many Americans are preparing to cast their ballots in upcoming primary elections. While voters’ health and that of their communities is paramount, the League of Women Voters still encourages voters to exercise their right to vote! There are many ways for voters to participate in elections while mitigating their risk of exposure.
Early and Absentee Voting
Some version of early voting and absentee voting, or vote-by-mail, is available in every state. For people in high-risk categories of the virus, the League of Women Voters encourages these voters to limit their exposure to crowds on Election Day. Even voters who are not high risk and want to do their part to curb the virus should consider these options. The more voters who cast their ballots early, the fewer long lines and crowds we will see on Election Day.
Local Board of Elections
If voters have missed their absentee ballot deadlines, they still may be able to vote without going to a busy polling place. Many local boards of election offices can support voters in casting a ballot in person and avoid busy polling places. Voters can find their local board of elections information on the League’s election website VOTE411.org and reach out to learn if this is an option where they live.
Non-Peak Hours
We are all familiar with crowds and long lines on Election Day, especially first thing in the morning, over lunch hours, and after work. Voters can limit their interaction with the public by planning to vote during non-peak hours, like the middle of the morning and afternoon.
VOTE411.org
The League’s nonpartisan election website VOTE411.org has everything voters need to find out their options for participating in early and absentee voting. VOTE411 will also have special alerts on primary election days highlighting any changes to normal voting procedures, including any last-minute changes to polling locations. The site is a personalized voting information hub where voters can check their registration, find their polling place, see what will be on your ballot, and more.
Elections and Debates, Coronavirus and Civil Rights: from the LWV-OR
Vote by mail in Oregon
Public health declarations are already affecting our elections. Vote by mail will become more important and our public candidate events are already being revised or cancelled. We are looking at the challenge of collecting initiative signatures.
Vote by Mail Senator Wyden is proposing to mandate national emergency vote-by-mail. The need for it is clear as two states, Louisiana and now Georgia, have delayed their presidential primaries. Oregon has vote-by-mail, with ballot return envelope postage now pre-paid. The League still strongly recommends using the ballot dropboxes instead, as many already do, to keep costs down.
Debates and Events LWVOR Voter Service is adapting by trying to change to virtual debates with distance audiences, looking for ways to give audiences the opportunity to ask questions and listen to candidates remotely. This is challenging as public meeting size limits are getting smaller. The studios we are working with are concerned about how they will sanitize their equipment and some candidates are already cancelling for these much smaller events.
We the people – not politicians – should draw voting maps
The League of Women Voters of Oregon believes in putting our best democracy foot forward. We know that we deserve the best possible government and we invest the energy to achieve it. Oregon led the fight for direct election of Senators to Congress, pioneered vote-by-mail and has one of the nation’s most engaged citizenry. Now we are reforming Oregon’s redistricting process.
The League has joined the People Not Politicians campaign, a diverse coalition made up of all party affiliations, income levels, backgrounds, identities, and all corners of Oregon, to rally for equal, fair and transparent representation at the state and congressional level.
Oregon voters should be choosing their representatives- representatives should not get to choose their voters.
The League supports redistricting reform that would make our system less susceptible to abuse and unrepresentative distortions. With an independent redistricting commission, we would take the process of redistricting out of the hands of partisan politicians and back into the hands of voters. To defend the principles of good government against potential gerrymandering, our proposal combines a multi-partisan independent commission with strong criteria and substantial public input. As we approach the 2020 census and the potential of adding a sixth congressional district to Oregon, we need to make sure district boundaries are fair. Biased political goals can manipulate this process and affect election outcomes at state and national levels.
Norman Turrill and Kate Titus Turrill is president of League of Women Voters of Oregon Advocacy Fund Governance Coordinator and past president of League of Women Voters. He chairs the People Not Politicians campaign committee. Titus is the executive director of Common Cause Oregon, a nonpartisan government watchdog organization.
This simple concept is the basis of our electoral system. It is embedded in the U.S. Constitution’s opening three words, “We the People.” And it is the principle behind a series of ballot initiatives that could reshape Oregon’s political future. Under current Oregon law, state legislators redraw the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts after each census to adjust for population changes. This once-in-a-decade system was designed to ensure that each district contains roughly the same number of people. In the 2020 census, Oregon is projected to gain another U.S. congressional seat due to population growth, which means not only will we have a new district and a new electoral vote, but all five of our existing congressional district boundaries will radically change in shape and size. Not only are congressional districts redrawn, but so are the 90 state representative and state senate seats that make up Oregon’s Legislature. Every single Oregonian will be impacted – every single Oregonian should be represented. These significant changes make the need for a fairer process more important than ever.
Letting politicians draw their own voting maps is an inherent conflict of interest, like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Politicians in power shouldn’t be allowed to draw voting maps that benefit themselves, but that’s exactly what the process allows for now. We need to reform the process to create a fair system so that Oregon voters are choosing their politicians, instead of politicians choosing their voters.
A diverse coalition, People Not Politicians, has united across party, identity and geographic lines to propose a fair and transparent redistricting system that puts everyday Oregonians in charge of drawing these districts. We are asking voters to support a series of measures proposed for the November ballot that would create an independent citizen redistricting commission to draw Oregon’s voting maps in 2021 and beyond.
The independent citizen redistricting commission would be made up of ordinary Oregonians — four members of the state’s largest party, four of the second largest party, and four registered voters unaffiliated with either major party. No lobbyists or consultants, big dollar political donors, party officers or elected officials would be allowed to serve.
The commission would draw district borders with respect to geographic and voter diversity, reflecting city, county or other natural boundaries, as well as language, racial or other communities of interest. Favoritism or discrimination against any political party or office holder is prohibited. Perhaps most importantly, the entire process would be completed with full transparency and public meetings held across the state, instead of behind closed doors in the Capitol. This reform would put Oregon at the forefront of history. We are the latest voice in the chorus of activists across the United States calling for people, not politicians, to be the center of the redistricting process.
Oregon is known for its ballot initiative process which gives ordinary voters the ultimate say in the biggest issues facing our state. Likewise, our coalition of unexpected allies – which includes nonpartisan groups Common Cause and League of Women Voters, the Independent Party of Oregon, NAACP, the Taxpayer Association of Oregon and the Oregon Farm Bureau – wants to put people, not politicians, in charge of drawing our maps.
To be clear, this reform isn’t about taking power from one party and giving it to the other. The goal is to give Oregonians the opportunity for a fair, transparent process by which voting lines are drawn which will allow for more competitive primaries and general elections, for historically marginalized communities to be represented, and for elected officials to be held accountable to their voters. It’s about unrigging the electoral system and holding our officials accountable to the growing number of people who call Oregon home.
Oregonians face a choice – to let politicians draw districts in a way that serve their own interests, or to reform Oregon’s redistricting process with a fair and transparent process to draw districts that represent all Oregonians. After all, the Constitution does not begin with the words “We the Politicians.” In fair elections, voters pick their leaders, not the other way around.
Oregon is one of only five states which votes entirely by mail. Many people are already concerned with this issue during the 2020 general election cycle. This is because the current public health situation may prevent voting in person under some circumstances. Oregon has led the nation in the move to complete vote by mail for all elections. Let’s look at this in more detail.
We are all equal at the ballot box, but only if we vote. We engage millions of voters every year. Thus we ensure Americans have the information they need to participate in elections that determine our future.
Why it matters and what we are doing: LWV
Elections impact every aspect of our lives, and we all need to weigh in. Every year we host thousands of community events to mobilize and help voters participate. LWV also hosts hundreds of debates and forums nationwide for voters to hear directly from the candidates.
The idea of national vote-by-mail:
According to the National Conference of state Legislatures, five states currently conduct all elections entirely by mail: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah. At least 21 other states have laws that allow certain smaller elections, such as school board contests, to be conducted by mail. For these elections, all registered voters receive a ballot in the mail. The voter marks the ballot, puts it in a secrecy envelope or sleeve and then into a separate mailing envelope, signs an affidavit on the exterior of the mailing envelope, and returns the package via mail or by dropping it off.
Ballots are mailed out well ahead of Election Day, and thus voters have an “election period,” not just a single day, to vote. All-mail elections can be thought of as absentee voting for everyone. This system is also referred to as “vote by mail.”
While “all-mail elections” means that every registered voter receives a ballot by mail, this does not preclude in-person voting opportunities on and/or before Election Day. For example, despite the fact that all registered voters in Colorado are mailed a ballot, voters can choose to cast a ballot at an in-person vote center during the early voting period or on Election Day (or drop off, or mail, their ballot back).
Generally, states begin with providing all-mail elections only in certain circumstances, and then add additional opportunities as citizens become familiar with procedures. Oregon’s vote-by-mail timeline includes four times that the legislature acted prior to the 1998 citizens’ vote that made Oregon the first all-mail election state.
LWV Oregon: Our views on how vote by mail works here
Request a mail-in ballot
Oregon is VBM (vote by mail) so all ballots are mail-in. To replace a ballot, see (ballot help): If your ballot arrives damaged, you make a mistake, spill something, lose your ballot, or for any other reason, contact your county elections office for a replacement ballot.
Observing the counting process
Oregon supports unparalleled transparency. Contact your county elections office to observe the election process.
Deadlines for receiving and postmarks for ballots?
In Oregon, by 8pm on election day: received in the mail, into dropboxes/drop sites, or delivered to the County Elections offices. Late arriving ballots are not counted. Campaigns and political parties call daily, using daily ballot return reports from elections, to get ballots in.
Counting Timelines
When do they start counting and when must counting be completed?
Ballot counting in Lane County, Oregon usually starts the Friday before election day. NO results are ever released before polling closes. Counting continues until completed on election day. That is not the same as election certification, determined by statute. For our May 19, 2020 primary, the election must be certified by June 18th. See our 2020 election calendar for state statute references.
Prepare to count-
How many people are needed, how are these people trained?
Experienced staff usually just needs a review, otherwise a day, half-day to train.
What are the top 5 reasons people’s ballots are rejected?
Per our state Elections Director, 2 big reasons- ballot isn’t signed or signature doesn’t match.
How are voters notified if there is a “problem” with their ballot and what processes are in place to allow voters to remedy the “problem”?
If voters share contact info, county elections will call or email. However, this is now problematic since this is public information and voters don’t want the spam. The state could track with ballot tracker, but it needs to verify if it can notify voters for problems.
What are the key considerations when operating a vote by mail infrastructure to ensure all votes are counted?
Voter Registration: publicize widely and remind often because if voters aren’t registered, they can’t vote. Our #MotorVoter through the DMV is not perfect. We haven’t yet addressed party registration online, currently a separate, easily overlooked postcard.
Ballot Mailing Alerts: tell voters when ballots are being mailed, to contact their county elections’ offices if they haven’t gotten theirs.
Track Your Ballot Encourage voters to sign up for ballot tracker, or whatever program may exist in their area, to track their ballots, from mailed, to received, to counted.
Deadline pushing– Ballots must be received by deadlines, in Oregon by 8pm on election day-postmarks don’t help, and now, with pre-paid envelopes, our state Elections Director cautions that there will not be postmarks anyway.
Secure Procedures There are manuals for thorough safety protocols to control location oversight, tracking, redundant staff review, always having political party inclusion in each team with everyone stopping together for meal or rest room breaks, etc.
Who are key allies for this issue? Do they include groups representing communities of color, the disability community, etc.?
ACLU, political parties, even though they do not work directly with LWV.
What research or data can you share to show that vote by mail has actually increased turnout, especially among underrepresented groups?
See The SoS Election Statistics page for general, primary, special election turnout and ballot return history since 2000. OR VBM statistics, a comprehensive history, up to 2006.
LWV oregon public education messaging on how to vote by mail
Is there any type of messages or methods that seemed effective when explaining to the general public on how to vote-by-mail?
Oregon started VBM in the early 1980s, gradually, for local special elections.
How did you measure its effectiveness?
During the implementation of all-mail elections in oregon, what were some of the challenges advocates for all-mail elections had to overcome?
Vote by mail, automatic voter registration, pre-paid ballot postage, pre-registration for younger voters, all have been opposed, sometimes invoking vulnerability to voter fraud. No one has been able to validate those concerns. From NPR, 2018, “If and when a bank gets robbed or a car gets stolen, we don’t stop using banks or cars. We enforce the laws we have in place.”
LWV Oregon Position: How should advocates for all-mail elections prepare for these challenges during the 2020 General Election?
Encourage elections offices to prepare ASAP:
Establish needs (quantity, cost, time, and materials’ availability), for paper, printing, processing and staffing/labor needs.
Equipment needs to be in place and compatible, with staff trained to use it.
We are concerned that our veteran pollworking crew, many older and notably vulnerable to COVID-19, may not be available.
Coordinate a publicity campaign with trustworthy branding, multi-faceted outreach to various communities and media, especially social media.
Include partners like the Dept of ED, youth groups, League, ACLU, disability and minority voters rights’ groups, Chambers of Commerce, City Clubs, etc.
Here is a recap of current legislative affairs in the state of Oregon from the LWV Oregon:
CLIMATE CHANGE
Carbon Cap and Invest: The 2020 session ended three days early due to an impasse over the Republican walk-out. Republican legislators refused to return to work in Salem unless work was restricted to their preferred bills. Jordan Cove Energy Project (JCEP): The highest profile issue at this time continues to be how the members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will vote on the two major federal authorizations JCEP needs to move forward with their proposed project. Our Children’s Trust: LWVUS jointly with LWVOR is submitting on March 12 a new amicus brief to support Our Children’s Trust’s (OCT) planned appeal to the full 9th Circuit Court. Climate Emergency: The city of Portland has a published Draft of their ClimateEmergency Declaration. The deadline for input to Portland’s declaration is March 16. Four or five other Oregon jurisdictions have declared a climate crisis.
Education Committee and Bills: In an abbreviated session, with an abrupt end, leaving without finishing the people’s business…only one minor education bill passed both chambers.
Campaign Finance: As we track the status of bills that were of interest to League positions, we observe that this is really a list of bills that did not pass because of the walkout of Republican legislators, no matter how important. Public Records: Bill would make the Public Records Advocate independent. Redistricting: Redistricting initiatives certified ballot titles appealed to Oregon Supreme Court. Immigration: The League provided testimony on February 5 for HB 4121. This bill did not move from its policy committee, so it died in committee. Resilience and Open Government: The ShakeAlerts system that we have covered had funding approved in the Way & Means Committee. However, it was still in consideration with many other bills lacking final chamber deliberations. No other resilience bills were funded and all are moot at this point. Access: A look at the Oregon legislature and the 40/40 session.
Budgets: Many policy bills had budget requests. None passed due to the walkout. The five final budget bills also did not pass. League members will begin meeting with others in preparation for the 2021-23 biennium while hoping an agreement can be reached to consider those policy bills as well as the budget bills during a special session. Air Quality: HB 4024, 4066, 4068, and SB 5702 did not pass, but the Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ) works year-round on behalf of Oregonians and League volunteers follow that work. With the Governor’s Executive Order 20-04, we will need volunteers to follow every agency. Forestry: The session essentially closed March 5th due to the Republican walkout with only three minor bills passed. None of the dozen wildfire and forestry bills were among them. League attended forestry meetings, including information on the Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan. Coastal Issues: Meetings abound as work continues on coastal issues. The public is welcome to attend. Energy: The Governor’s Executive Order 20-04 includes directions to the Public Utility Commission to work with utilities to move toward GHG reduction goals while considering the impact to vulnerable communities. They also need to evaluate the electric companies’ risk-based wildfire protection plans. The Dept. of Energy is to address energy efficiency standards. The Northwest Energy Coalition recognizes the League. Land Use: League continues to be engaged in rulemaking on “middle housing”. The Dept. of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) Building Codes Division (BCD) and the Dept. of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) will be engaged in the Governor’s Executive Order 20-04. Water: A segment of the Nehalem River is now officially a State Scenic Waterway. Drought has been declared for Klamath County as precipitation has been below-normal across the state. Work on a 100-year Water Vision for Oregon will continue. Toxics/Pesticides: Although HB 4109, banning chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide, was another bill left on the table by the walkout, the Oregon Dept. of Agriculture will continue its Work Group with a meeting scheduled March 30. Transportation: Comment on the STIP! Also, the Governor’s Executive Order 20-04 is directed to conduct a statewide transportation electrification infrastructure needs analysis and evaluate GHG emissions related to transportation projects.
Human Services: Capital Construction and Full Ways and Means heard final bills requesting Funds, but many bills were waiting for Senate or House floor votes. Healthcare: The walkout doomed the two dozen health care bills we were monitoring. SB 1535 B passed the House Rules Committee with a 4 yes to 3 absent vote. Housing: The Legislative session ended with a number of lost opportunities intended to address Oregon’s housing crisis.
As an official “Intervenor” in the on-going legal fights over the construction of the Pembina LNG pipeline, also known as the “Jordan Cove” pipeline, the LWV Klamath County regularly participates in various legal actions. These include filings at the federal and state level, testimony, letters, protests, and support of various parties fighting the pipeline.
Would you like to see what it looks like to build a natural gas pipeline? Have a look.
LWV Activities in 2019:
LWVOR: Jordan Cove Energy Project (JCEP)
Excerpted from recent LWVOR newsletter article. ‘Four Local Leagues of Women Voters from Coos Bay to Malin and LWVOR Call for State and Federal Agencies to Deny Permits to Jordan Cove Energy Project’, Shirley Weathers, LWVRV Climate Change Coordinator and Christine Moffitt, LWVCC Board.
“…the proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project
(JCEP)…. consisting of a 530-acre liquefied natural gas storage and
export facility known as the Jordan Cove LNG project on Coos Bay and a
230-mile 36” Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline…. Proponents see jobs
(mostly temporary) and tax revenues as benefits…. Pembina spares no
expense on high-dollar promotional efforts. Opponents, including the
four local Leagues—Coos and Klamath Counties and Rogue and Umpqua
Valley—and the LWVOR, see unacceptable negative impacts on the natural
environment from air to water to aquatic and wildlife, as well as
serious safety risks…. This joint action by the four local Leagues,
taken in solidarity with other community members and organizations and
Tribes, is a step in the long journey to stop this harmful project.…”
Jordan Cove Energy Project (JCEP) (by Shirley Weathers, LWV Rogue Valley)
As a refresher, while a significant number of key specifics about the JCEP project suggest FERC could issue Denials for the pipeline and terminal as in 2016, most observers expect approvals conditioned on receipt of certain other federal and state authorizations (please see the last issue for a summary). Such an Approval Order could include a number of other issues, making it impossible to predict all of the results and next steps. We expect a flurry of filings of Requests for Rehearing—from landowners who will then be subject to eminent domain proceedings for 90-foot easements across their properties, but also from hundreds of other individual and organizational “intervenors” on the two dockets. For example, the 4 local Leagues (Coos, Klamath, Umpqua Valley and Rogue Valley) that have been jointly opposing the project since 2017 are ready to start drafting.
some Further Explanation
It is also important to note that the State of Oregon is standing firmly against one very real possibility the FERC order may bring: one or more attempts to override state authority. Congress gave states and certain Tribes authority to protect their air, water, and coastal regions. The state permits designed to allow them to do that require input on other important matters, as well. Governor Brown has consistently maintained that all involved state agencies will exercise their permitting authority diligently and in accordance with the law. We have seen throughout this process that they have done so, despite intense pressure from project proponents and mountains of work. The Governor declared in no uncertain terms last week that Oregon will consider all available options to resist unlawful federal attempts to preempt state authority.
Highlights of Recent Activities:
Here is the latest letter that LWV Klamath along with three other local leagues sent to Governor Brown.
Because the proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline project would directly affect the areas of the state covered by the League of Women Voters of Coos County, LWV of Umpqua Valley, LWV of Rogue Valley, and LWV of Klamath County, our Leagues oppose this project. As Intervenors in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the process and discussion in this letter states some of our concerns regarding information provided to FERC by Jordon Cove Energy Project’s attorney following Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development’s objection to JCEP’s Costal Zone Management Act (CMZM) consistency certification and FERC’s February 20, 2020 decision delay.
Here is a recent article that explains in clear language some of the issues surrounding the Jordan Cover pipeline.
The League of Women Voters supports the Environment
As citizens of the world we must protect our planet from the physical, economic and public health effects of climate change while also providing pathways to economic prosperity.
Why it matters
The preservation of the physical, chemical and biological integrity
of the earth’s ecosystem is essential for maximum protection of public
health and the environment. The interrelationships of air, water and
land resources should be recognized in designing environmental
safeguards. The federal government should have the major role in setting
standards for environmental protection and pollution control.
What we’re doing
Since the 1960s, we have been at the forefront of efforts to protect air, land and water resources. Our approach to environmental protection and pollution control is one of problem solving. The League’s environmental goals aim to prevent ecological degradation, and to reduce and control pollutants before they go down the sewer, up the chimney or into the landfill. We support vigorous enforcement mechanisms, including sanctions for states and localities that do not comply with federal standards as well as substantial fines for noncompliance.
Press Release January 17, 2020: Our Children’s Trust
Decision of Divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Primarily for Juliana Plaintiffs, but Holds Federal Judiciary Can Do Nothing to Stop the U.S. Government in Causing Climate Change and Harming Children
The Juliana 21 Continue to Fight for Justice in the Biggest Climate Lawsuit in America
Eugene, Oregon – Today, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “reluctantly” concluded that the youth plaintiffs’ case in Juliana v. United States must be made to the Congress, the President, or to the electorate at large. The decision finds federal courts cannot provide the youth with a remedy for their climate change injuries. In her dissent, District Judge Josephine L. Staton wrote that the youth plaintiffs brought suit to enforce the most basic structural principal embedded in our system of liberty: the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.
Judge Staton would hold that the youth plaintiffs have standing to challenge the government’s conduct, have articulated claims under the Constitution, and have presented sufficient evidence to press those claims at trial. Counsel for the youth plaintiffs vowed to ask the full Ninth Circuit to review the determination that federal courts can do nothing to address an admitted constitutional violation.
Julia Olson , executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, commented: “The Juliana case is far from over. The Youth Plaintiffs will be asking the full court of the Ninth Circuit to review this decision and its catastrophic implications for our constitutional democracy. The Court recognized that climate change is exponentially increasing and that the federal government has long known that its actions substantially contribute to the climate crisis. Yet two of the judges on the Panel refused to set the standard for redressing the constitutional violation, to protect our Nation’s children. The standard is a question of science that should be determined at trial. The majority opinion ignores the fact that we have yet to go to trial on the issue of redressability.”
There were numerous points in which the majority opinion of Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz found in favor of the youth plaintiffs, including: the evidence showed climate change was occurring at an increasingly rapid pace; copious expert evidence established that the unprecedented rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels stemmed from fossil fuel combustion and will wreak havoc on the Earth’s climate if unchecked; the record conclusively established that the federal government has long understood the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions; and the record established that the government’s contribution to climate change was not simply a result of inaction.
The opinion also recognized that the youth plaintiffs had suffered concrete and particularized injuries from climate change. The panel held the district court properly found the youth plaintiffs met the Article III causation requirement because there was at least a genuine factual dispute as to whether a host of federal policies were a “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiffs’ injuries.
Yet, two of the three judges held the youth plaintiffs’ claimed injuries were not redressable by an Article III court. Specifically, the majority held it was beyond the power of federal courts to order, design, supervise, or implement the youth plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan where any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted to the executive and legislative branches. In short, the majority ruled the remedies the youth plaintiffs have requested must be implemented by Congress or the President, not the courts.
Philip Gregory , with Gregory Law Group of Redwood City, California and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, stated: “Despite finding the government was actively contributing to climate change, and despite the fact the court found these youth plaintiffs submitted evidence of concrete and particularized injuries, and despite the fact that the youth plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to show federal policies were a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ constitutional injuries, a majority of the panel concluded there was nothing federal courts could do to address these constitutional violations.
We strongly disagree with this conclusion and will take this determination to the full Ninth Circuit.” Kelsey Juliana , the 23-year-old named plaintiff in Juliana and resident of Eugene, Oregon, said: “ THIS ISN’T OVER. Prepare for a petition for review en banc to the 9th circuit as we refuse to do anything but move forward and ultimately win. Courts do have an obligation to address issues of constitutional, existential crisis, like climate change.
Levi Draheim , 12-year-old plaintiff from Satellite Beach, Florida, commented: “We will continue this case because only the courts can help us. We brought this lawsuit to secure our liberties and protect our lives and our homes. Much like the civil rights cases, we firmly believe the courts can vindicate our constitutional rights and we will not stop until we get a decision that says so.”
Juliana v. United States is not about the government’s failure to act on climate. Instead, these young plaintiffs between the ages of 12 and 23, assert that the U.S. government, through its affirmative actions in creating a national energy system that causes climate change, is depriving them of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and has failed to protect essential public trust resources. The case is one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, all supported by Our Children’s Trust, and all seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.
NPV seeks to ensure that the presidential candidate who wins the most
popular votes nationwide is elected president. When a state passes
legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that
all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever
presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the
candidate who won the vote in just that state.
These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the
electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the
compact. States with electoral votes totaling 270 of the 538 electoral
votes would have to pass NPV bills before the compact kicks in and any
state’s bill could take effect.
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Compact ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The Compact is a state-based approach that preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the President is elected.
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 jurisdictions
possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI,
VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big
states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia. The bill will take
effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes. The bill
has passed at least one chamber in 8 additional states with 75 more
electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK). A total of 3,408
state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it.
The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem
from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state
legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral
votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.
Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012, as shown on the map, all of the 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored.
Campaign events in 2012
Here’s
a map of US with state sizes based on the number of campaign events in
2012. This is how the candidates view the relevant voters (and their
issues). Notice that 38 states are missing altogether:
State sizes based on campaign events in 2012
Similarly,
in 2016, almost all campaign events (94%) were in the 12 states where
Trump’s support was between 43% and 51%. Two-thirds of the events (273
of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).
Campaign events in 2016
This
is how the US map looks with state sizes based on the number of
campaign events in 2016 (missing states received no campaign events):
State sizes based on campaign events in 2016
State
winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground”
states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as
many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement
exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
Also, because of state winner-take-all statutes, five of our 45
Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular
votes nationwide. The 2000 and 2016 elections are the most recent
examples of elections in which a second-place candidate won the White
House. Near-misses are also common under the current state-by-state
winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. A shift of 59,393
votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry despite President
Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states
exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall
appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number
of Electors….” The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes
is state law. It is not in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all
rule was used by only three states in 1789, and all three repealed it by
1800. It was not until the 11th presidential election (1828) that even half the states used winner-take-all laws.
The National Popular Vote interstate compact will go into effect when
enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is,
enough to elect a President (270 of 538). At that time, every voter in
the country will acquire a direct vote for a group of at least 270
presidential electors supporting their choice for President. All of
this group of 270+ presidential electors will be supporters of the
candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states and
DC—thus making that candidate President.
In contrast, under the current system, a voter has a direct voice in
electing only the small number of presidential electors to which their
state is entitled. Under NPV, every voter directly elects 270+
electors.
Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote and at www.NationalPopularVote.com.
Learn More
Click on any of the topics below to learn more. You can also read about the numerous myths.
Today, 48 states (all except Maine and Nebraska) have a so-called “winner-take-all” law that awards all of a state’s electors to the presidential candidate who gets the most popular votes inside each separate state.
These winner-take-all laws are state laws—they are not
part of the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all method of choosing
presidential electors was never debated by the 1787 Constitutional
Convention or mentioned in the Federalist Papers.
Only three states had winner-take-all laws in the first
presidential election in 1789, and all three repealed them by 1800. In
1789, electors were chosen from congressional districts in
Massachusetts, from special presidential-elector districts in Virginia,
and by counties in Delaware. The Governor and his Council appointed the
state’s presidential electors in New Jersey. State legislatures
appointed presidential electors in the other states.
In the nation’s first competitive presidential election in 1796,
Jefferson lost the Presidency by three electoral votes because
presidential electors were chosen by district in the heavily
Jeffersonian states of Virginia and North Carolina, and Jefferson lost
one district in each state.
On January 12, 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote James Monroe (then governor of Virginia):
“On the subject of an
election by a general ticket [winner-take-all], or by districts, … all
agree that an election by districts would be best, if it could be
general;but while 10 states choose either by their legislatures or by a general ticket [winner-take-all],it is folly and worse than follyfor the other 6 not to do it.”
As a result, Virginia quickly passed a winner-take-all law in time for the 1800 election—thereby assuring Jefferson of all the state’s electoral votes.
Meanwhile, the Federalist majority in the legislature of John
Adam’s home state of Massachusetts—alarmed by rising support for
Jefferson in the state—repealed the state’s district system—thereby
assuring John Adams of all the state’s electoral votes in 1800.
This triggered a domino effect in which each state’s dominant
political party adopted winner-take-all so that it could deliver the
maximum number of electoral votes to its party’s nominee. Ten states
enacted winner-take-all by 1824 when Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton
said:
now existing in 10 States was … not [the offspring] of any disposition to give fair play to the will of the people. It was adopted by the leading men of those states, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the State.”
By 1836, all but one state had enacted laws specifying that
their state’s voters would vote for presidential electors on a
winner-take-all basis. By 1880, all states were using this system.
In 1888, incumbent Democratic President Cleveland won the national
popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. When Democrats won control
of the legislature in the then-regularly-Republican state of Michigan in
1890, they replaced winner-take-all with district election of
presidential electors. The Republicans challenged the Democrat’s change.
In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld district elections and ruled in McPherson v. Blacker:
“The constitution does not
provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor
that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket [i.e., the
winner-take-all rule], nor that the majority of those who exercise the
elective franchise can alone choose the electors. … In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.”
The Republicans restored winner-take-all in Michigan as soon as they regained control of the state legislature.
Maine adopted district elections for its electors in 1969, and Nebraska did so in 1992.
Massachusetts has changed its method of appointing electors 11 times.
Contrary to what some may think, the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes decreases the political clout of small states in presidential elections.
The eight smallest states (i.e., those with three electoral votes, including DC) together
received only one of the nation’s 952 general-election campaign events
in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections. In contrast, the closely divided
battleground state of Wisconsin (with about the same population as the
eight smallest states) received 40 events. Wisconsin received more
attention despite having only 10 electoral votes—compared to 24
electoral votes for the eight states.
Presidential candidates ignore the smallest states—not because
they are small—but because they are one-party states in presidential
elections. Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of
awarding electoral votes political power comes from being a closely
divided battleground state.
The 13 smallest states (i.e., those with three or four electoral
votes, including DC) are not predominantly Republican in presidential
elections. In fact, these 13 jurisdictions have split 7-to-6 (or 8-to-5)
in favor of the Democrats in all but one presidential election since
1992 (and 6-to-7 Republicans once).
President Trump did not win the Electoral College in 2016
because of small states. All of the 13 smallest states gave their
electoral votes to the same party in 2016, 2012, 2008, and 2004 (except
for President Trump receiving one electoral vote in Maine by winning its
2nd congressional district). Even if the 25
smallest states are considered, Iowa was the only state to switch
parties between 2012 and 2016, and Iowa’s six electoral votes alone did
not elect Trump.
The fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current
state-by-state winner-take-all system has been long recognized by
prominent officials from these states. In 1966, Delaware led a group of
12 predominantly small states in an effort to get state winner-take-all
laws declared unconstitutional.
Another indication that small states do not benefit from the
current system is that Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the
District of Columbia are among the 16 jurisdictions that have enacted
the National Popular Vote interstate compact into law.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system actually shifts
power from small and medium-sized states to an accidental handful of
closely divided battleground states.
A nationwide vote for President offers a way for small states to
become relevant in presidential elections by making every one of their
voters count directly toward the presidential candidate of their choice.
How would candidates campaign in a nationwide election for President
in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving
the most popular votes throughout the entire United States?
Some people have speculated that a national popular vote for
President would cause campaigns to concentrate disproportionately on
heavily populated metropolitan areas and ignore rural areas.
However, there is no need to speculate about whether candidates would do this.
If there were any tendency for candidates to overemphasize big
cities or ignore rural areas, we would see evidence of that tendency in
the way campaigns are actually conducted today in the dozen or so closely divided “battleground” states where presidential campaigns take place.
Here are the facts as to how candidates actually campaigned for the votes of the 95 million people living inside the dozen closely divided battleground states:
The biggest metro areas of the battleground states actually
received a combined total of 191 general-election campaign visits—
compared to 188 if visits had been based strictly on population.
The areas outside each state’s biggest metro area received 427
visits— compared to 430 if visits had been based strictly on population.
In other words, real-world candidates hew closely to population
when allocating campaign visits within battleground states—indeed they
did so with almost surgical precision. Presidential candidates—advised
by the nation’s most astute political strategists—campaign in this
manner because every vote inside a battleground state is equal, and
because the candidate receiving the most popular votes inside the state
wins everything. There is no evidence that big metro areas exert any
magnetic or intoxicating attraction causing candidates to concentrate
disproportionately on heavily populated metropolitan areas or ignore
rural areas.
For more details on how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, see this memo.
Large cities will not dominate a national popular vote – they are
simply not as large as some people think compared to the entire
population of the country:
The biggest 100 cities contain just one-sixth of the U.S. population (16%), and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The rural areas (i.e., places outside the nation’s Metropolitan
Statistical Areas) contain one-sixth of the U.S. population, and they
voted 60% Republican in 2004. That is, the biggest cities are almost
exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan
composition.
The remaining two thirds of the U.S. population live inside a
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), but outside the central city. These
suburban areas are evenly divided politically.
You can read more about the myths of big cities.
As was discussed in the previous section, a close analogy for a
national campaign is studying presidential campaigns in battleground
states, where they do indeed campaign in cities, suburban and rural
areas. While rural areas have lower population density, advertising and
campaigning costs in those areas tend to be significantly lower than urban areas. The candidates need to win votes in all those areas to succeed overall.
Here are the number of general-election presidential campaign events
(between the party convention and the general election) by state for
the 2008, 2012 and 2016 elections:
Electoral votes
State
2008 events
2012 events
2016 events
9
Alabama
3
Alaska
11
Arizona
10
6
Arkansas
55
California
1
9
Colorado
20
23
19
7
Connecticut
1
3
D.C.
1
3
Delaware
29
Florida
46
40
71
16
Georgia
3
4
Hawaii
4
Idaho
20
Illinois
1
11
Indiana
9
2
6
Iowa
7
27
21
6
Kansas
8
Kentucky
8
Louisiana
4
Maine
2
3
10
Maryland
11
Massachusetts
16
Michigan
10
1
22
10
Minnesota
2
1
2
6
Mississippi
1
10
Missouri
21
2
3
Montana
5
Nebraska
2
6
Nevada
12
13
17
4
New Hampshire
12
13
21
14
New Jersey
5
New Mexico
8
3
29
New York
15
North Carolina
15
3
55
3
North Dakota
18
Ohio
62
73
48
7
Oklahoma
7
Oregon
20
Pennsylvania
40
5
54
4
Rhode Island
9
South Carolina
3
South Dakota
11
Tennessee
1
38
Texas
1
6
Utah
1
3
Vermont
13
Virginia
23
36
23
12
Washington
1
5
West Virginia
1
10
Wisconsin
8
18
14
3
Wyoming
538
Total
300
253
399
In 2008, only 3 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4
electoral votes) received any of the 300 general-election campaign
events. The closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire received
12 events. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional
district) received 2 events. The District of Columbia received one
event. All the other states in this group were ignored. The small
states are ignored not because they are small, but because (except for
New Hampshire), they are one-party states in presidential elections.
In 2008, only 7 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer
electoral votes) received any of the general-election campaign events.
New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada each received a substantial number of
events (12, 7, and 12, respectively). New Mexico (a battleground state
at the time) received 8 events. West Virginia and the District of
Columbia received 1 event each. All the other small states in this group
were ignored.
In 2012, only 1 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4 electoral
votes) received any of the 253 general-election campaign events, namely
the closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire. All the other
states in this group were ignored.
In 2012, only 3 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer
electoral votes) received any of the general-election campaign events.
All the other small states were ignored. The 3 states that received
attention were the closely divided battleground states of New Hampshire,
Iowa, and Nevada. All the other states in this group were ignored.
In 2016, only 2 of the 13 smallest states (3 or 4 electoral
votes) received any of the 399 general-election campaign events. New
Hampshire received 21 because it was a closely divided battleground
state. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional district)
received 3 campaign events because its 2nd congressional district was closely divided (and, indeed, Trump carried it). All the other states in this group were ignored.
In 2016, only 9 of the 25 smallest states (7 or fewer
electoral votes) received any general-election campaign events. New
Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada received attention because they were closely
divided battleground states. Maine and Nebraska (which award electoral
votes by congressional district) received some attention, since one of
their congressional districts was closely divided. New Mexico received
some attention (from the Republican campaign only) because former New
Mexico Governor Johnson was running for President and it appeared his
strong home-state support might make the state competitive. Utah
received some attention from Republicans because the McMullin candidacy
might have made the state competitive. Connecticut and Mississippi also
received one campaign event. All the other small states in this group
were ignored.
Another way to look at why states are ignored in presidential
elections is to see which states consistently vote for one party or the
other. This table shows that 16 states voted Democratic and 22 states
voted Republican in all five presidential elections from 2000–2016.
Because of the winner-take-all approach that states use to assign their
electoral votes, these states, plus some of the others, are almost
certain to deliver all their electoral votes to one candidate or the
other, and therefore are ignored by the candidates.
Dem 5/5
16 states
Dem 4/5
5 states
Dem 3/5
4 states
Dem 2/5
2 states
Dem 1/5
2 states
Dem 0/5
22 states
CA (55)
MI (16)
VA (13)
FL (29)
IN (11)
AL (9)
CT (7)
NH (4)
CO (9)
OH (18)
NC (15)
AK (3)
DE (3)
NM (5)
NV (6)
AR (6)
DC (3)
PA (20)
IA (6)
AZ (11)
HI (4)
WI (10)
GA (16)
IL (20)
ID (4)
MA (11)
KS (6)
ME (4)
KY (8)
MD (10)
LA (8)
MN (10)
MO (10)
NJ (14)
MS (6)
NY (29)
MT (3)
OR (7)
NE (5)
RI (4)
ND (3)
VT (3)
OK (7)
WA (12)
SC (9)
SD (3)
TN (11)
TX (38)
UT (6)
WY (3)
WV (5)
196 EV
55 EV
34 EV
47 EV
26 EV
180 EV
Note: The number of electoral votes
shown are for 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections. DC is counted as a state
for purposes of this chart.
The states are listed below in order of Romney’s 2012
percentage—with the most Republican (red) states at the top. All of the
253 General-Election Campaign Events in 2012 occurred in states where
Romney’s percentage of the two-party vote was between 45% and 51%.
The second column shows the total number of general-election campaign events for each state (out of a nationwide total of 253).
The only states that received any campaign events (second column)
and any significant ad money (third column) were the 12 states (shown in
black in the middle of the table) where the Romney received between 45%
and 51% of the vote—that is, within 3 points of his nationwide
percentage of 48%. Only 8 states received more than a handful of
campaign events.
Only 1 of the 13 smallest states (with 3 or 4 electoral votes)
received any of the 253 general-election campaign events, namely the
closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire. All the other
states in this group were ignored. Only 3 of the 25 smallest states
(with 7 or fewer electoral votes) received any of the general-election
campaign events. All the other small states were ignored. The 3 states
that received attention were the closely divided battleground states of
New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada.
The fourth column in the table shows donations from each state (scroll the table left to see all the columns).
In 2016, there were 399 general-election campaign events. Almost all
campaign events (94%) were in the 12 states where Trump’s support was
between 47% and 55% of the two-party vote. Two-thirds of the events (273
of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).
12 battleground states in 2016 accounting for 94% of the campaign events (375 of 399)
Trump %
Events
State
Trump
Clinton
R-Margin
D-Margin
R-EV
D-EV
Population
55%
21
Iowa
800,983
653,669
147,314
6
3,053,787
54%
48
Ohio
2,841,006
2,394,169
446,837
18
11,568,495
52%
55
North Carolina
2,362,631
2,189,316
173,315
15
9,565,781
52%
10
Arizona
1,252,401
1,161,167
91,234
11
6,412,700
51%
71
Florida
4,617,886
4,504,975
112,911
29
18,900,773
50%
14
Wisconsin
1,405,284
1,382,536
22,748
10
5,698,230
50%
54
Pennsylvania
2,970,733
2,926,441
44,292
20
12,734,905
50%
22
Michigan
2,279,543
2,268,839
10,704
16
9,911,626
49.8%
21
New Hampshire
345,790
348,526
2,736
4
1,321,445
49%
17
Nevada
512,058
539,260
27,202
6
2,709,432
47%
19
Colorado
1,202,484
1,338,870
136,386
9
5,044,930
47%
23
Virginia
1,769,443
1,981,473
212,030
13
8,037,736
51%
375
22,360,242
21,689,241
125
32
94,959,840
Notes: (1) Trump percentage is of the two-party vote (2) Population is from 2010 census.
Only 2 of the 13 smallest states (with 3 or 4 electoral votes)
received any of the 399 general-election campaign events. New Hampshire
received 21 because it was a closely divided battleground state. Maine
(which awards electoral votes by congressional district) received 3
campaign events because its 2nd congressional district was closely
divided (and, indeed, Trump carried it). All the other states in this
group were ignored.
Only 9 of the 25 smallest states (with 7 or fewer electoral votes)
received any general-election campaign events. New Hampshire, Iowa, and
Nevada received attention because they were closely divided battleground
states. Maine and Nebraska (which award electoral votes by
congressional district) received some attention since just one of their
congressional districts was closely divided. New Mexico received some
attention (from the Republican campaign only) because former New Mexico
Governor Johnson was running for President and it appeared his strong
home-state support might make the state competitive. Utah received some
attention from Republicans because the McMullin candidacy might have
made the state competitive. Connecticut and Mississippi also received
one campaign event. All the other small states in this group were
ignored.
39 spectator states in 2016 accounting for 6% of the campaign events (24 of 399)
Trump %
Events
State
Trump
Clinton
R-Margin
D-Margin
R-EV
D-EV
Population
76%
0
Wyoming
174,419
55,973
118,446
3
568,300
72%
0
West Virginia
489,371
188,794
300,577
5
1,859,815
70%
0
North Dakota
216,794
93,758
123,036
3
675,905
69%
0
Oklahoma
949,136
420,375
528,761
7
3,764,882
68%
0
Idaho
409,055
189,765
219,290
4
1,573,499
66%
0
South Dakota
227,721
117,458
110,263
3
819,761
66%
0
Kentucky
1,202,971
628,854
574,117
8
4,350,606
64%
0
Alabama
1,318,255
729,547
588,708
9
4,802,982
64%
0
Arkansas
684,872
380,494
304,378
6
2,926,229
64%
0
Tennessee
1,522,925
870,695
652,230
11
6,375,431
64%
2
Nebraska
495,961
284,494
211,467
5
1,831,825
62%
1
Utah
515,231
310,676
204,555
6
2,770,765
61%
0
Kansas
671,018
427,005
244,013
6
2,863,813
61%
0
Montana
279,240
177,709
101,531
3
994,416
60%
0
Louisiana
1,178,638
780,154
398,484
8
4,553,962
60%
2
Indiana
1,557,286
1,033,126
524,160
11
6,501,582
60%
2
Missouri
1,594,511
1,071,068
523,443
10
6,011,478
59%
1
Mississippi
700,714
485,131
215,583
6
2,978,240
58%
0
Alaska
163,387
116,454
46,933
3
721,523
57%
0
South Carolina
1,155,389
855,373
300,016
9
4,645,975
55%
1
Texas
4,685,047
3,877,868
807,179
38
25,268,418
53%
3
Georgia
2,089,104
1,877,963
211,141
16
9,727,566
49%
2
Minnesota
1,323,232
1,367,825
44,593
10
5,314,879
48%
3
Maine
335,593
357,735
22,142
1
3
1,333,074
45%
3
New Mexico
319,667
385,234
65,567
5
2,067,273
44%
0
Delaware
185,127
235,603
50,476
3
900,877
44%
0
Oregon
782,403
1,002,106
219,703
7
3,848,606
43%
1
Connecticut
673,215
897,572
224,357
7
3,581,628
43%
0
New Jersey
1,601,933
2,148,278
546,345
14
8,807,501
42%
0
Rhode Island
180,543
252,525
71,982
4
1,055,247
41%
1
Washington
1,221,747
1,742,718
520,971
12
6,753,369
41%
1
Illinois
2,146,015
3,090,729
944,714
20
12,864,380
38%
0
New York
2,819,557
4,556,142
1,736,585
29
19,421,055
36%
0
Maryland
943,169
1,677,928
734,759
10
5,789,929
35%
0
Massachusetts
1,090,893
1,995,196
904,303
11
6,559,644
35%
0
Vermont
95,369
178,573
83,204
3
630,337
34%
1
California
4,483,814
8,753,792
4,269,978
55
37,341,989
33%
0
Hawaii
128,847
266,891
138,044
4
1,366,862
4%
0
D.C.
12,723
282,830
270,107
3
601,723
48%
24
40,624,892
44,164,411
181
200
214,825,346
Notes: (1) Trump percentage is of the two-party vote (2) Population is from 2010 census.
Local Leagues don’t usually individually endorse state issues, because of our tradition of “speaking with one voice.” Under that tradition, local Leagues have a choice of either supporting state League advocacy or staying silent. (Likewise, the state League does not intervene in local League advocacy unless it conflicts with state or national Positions.)
In this case,the LWVOR has requested local Leagues to endorse the PNP campaign.
According to this movement:
The process for drawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has, for too long, been controlled by politicians. Letting politicians manipulate voting maps is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Politicians in power shouldn’t draw voting maps that benefit themselves and their party. But that’s exactly how they do it now.
People Not Politicians is proposing a ballot measure to reform that process and create a fairer, more transparent system. At its simplest, this initiative would create an independent citizen redistricting commission comprised of Oregonians.
We believe Oregon voters should choose their politicians—politicians should not choose their voters.
Our diverse coalition has come together from all party affiliations, income levels, backgrounds, identities, and all corners of Oregon. This coalition will rally for equal, fair and transparent representation at the state and congressional level. We represent hundreds of thousands of Oregonians who believe we deserve the best possible representative government. We believe this is produced through a fair, unbiased and transparent process—and we’re working hard to make that happen.
Here is a GRAPHIC VIEW of the reapportionment process.
Ballots are mailed out well ahead of Election Day, and thus voters have an “election period,” not just a single day, to vote. All-mail elections can be thought of as absentee voting for everyone. This system is also referred to as “vote by mail.” 
