The Regulation of Continuous Election Design’s Implementation Based on the Constitutional Court’s Decision

This study aims to describe the consistency of judges' considerations in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 and the Constitutional Court Decision No. 55/PUU-XVII/2019 and its suitability with the design of the election administration according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. To measure the consistency of the two Constitutional Court Decisions, the meaning of the original intent of holding elections simultaneously according to the Amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia will be used. This is normative legal research, which uses approach legislation (statute approach) and historical approach (historical approach). The results of this study indicate that the judge's considerations in the Constitutional Court Decision 14/PUU-XI/2013 are inconsistent with the Constitutional Court Decision 55/PUU-XVII/2019. Based on the original intent study, the Amendrs to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia disagreed on the simultaneous implementation of the General Election in Indonesia. So the judge's consideration in the Constitutional Court's decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013, which requires simultaneous elections, is not following the design of the election administration according to the amendment to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Six alternatives for the simultaneous implementation of elections.

Chad’s northern protests point to fragile peripheries

Significance Demonstrations had started in mid-November, when the governor decided to confiscate vehicles that did not conform to regulations in an effort to crack down on criminality. However, the severity of the protests reflects deep-seated economic and security-related grievances among youth that extend beyond one administrator. Impacts Further disturbances in Faya-Largeau would cast an unwelcome shadow over the inclusive national dialogue with rebel groups. The weakness of state authority in the north will be a challenge for election administration in 2022. Unrest in Faya-Largeau and the north more broadly may embolden rebels, who attempted major assaults on Chad in 2019 and 2021.

Protests, Pandemics, and Political Participation: Voter Turnout in Georgia in the 2020 Elections

We consider how pandemic-related shifts in election administration and racial justice protest activity impacted participation in 2020 primary and general elections in Georgia. Using a comprehensive statewide voter file, including data on the self-reported race and validated turnout of over 7 million registered Georgians, we analyze the combined effect of these events on racial differences in voter turnout rates, methods, and timing. We find that despite a shift to mail balloting, Black voters were significantly more likely to vote in person during the pandemic than White Democrats. These voters were later less likely to vote by mail (or vote at all) in November. We also demonstrate that Black turnout was significantly higher in the period following racial justice protests in Georgia than it was for other groups. The results of this study indicate how election reforms and non-electoral mobilization can shape turnout disparities even among highly engaged voters.

Why Do Election Results Change after Election Day? The “Blue Shift” in California Elections

The counting of votes in contemporary American elections is usually not completed on Election Night. There has been an increasing tendency for vote shares to shift toward Democratic candidates after Election Day in general elections, in particular, in recent U.S. elections. Leveraging important snapshots of precinct-level election returns and precinct-level demographic and political composition from Orange County, California, we conduct the first full-fledged analysis of the potential drivers of vote share shifts. Using an original large-scale post-election survey and unique snapshots of individual-level administrative records, we also provide the first analysis of the characteristics of voters whose ballots were tallied later versus earlier in the process. Far from being anomalous, our results indicate that the shifts are consistent with underlying precinct voter compositions and the order of precinct and mail ballot processing at the individual level in accordance with election administration practices. We find the same driving forces in North Carolina and Colorado, and discuss the consequences of the “Blue Shift” for public concerns about election integrity as states push policy changes regarding access to voting by mail.

The integration of the authority of judicial institutions in solving general election problems in Indonesia

The authority to adjudicate general election problems/ disputes scattered in various judicial institutions has made the resolution process drawn out and, complicated, creating overlapping powers and the potential for conflicting decisions between judicial institutions. This study examines how the judiciary's authority is regulated in adjudicating election problems, why it is necessary to integrate judicial authority, and how the concept of the judiciary's power is in judging all general election problems. This research aims to map the judiciary's power and find the judicial institution's design with an authority to adjudicate all general election problems. This study used juridical-normative research with a statutory approach, conceptual and case approaches. The results show that the authority to judge general election problems is given to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, State Administrative Court, and District Courts of Appeal. The large number of judicial institutions authorized to judge has been proven to be incompatible with general election administration and judicial power administration principles. The authority to adjudicate all election issues must be exercised in one judicial institution. The judiciary that can exercise this authority refers to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, or the exercise can be performed by establishing a remarkable judicial institution.

Boundary Making in Myanmar's Electoral Process: Where elections do not take place

The 2015 general elections were considered a hallmark of Myanmar's transition from an authoritarian regime towards a new form of government. However, the elections did not take place in all parts of the country, and significant portions of the population were excluded from the vote, including voters in areas of contested sovereignty, those who experienced displacement by conflict, and the Rohingya. Against the background of the regulatory framework for elections in Myanmar and its electoral system, this article looks first into a particular understudied element of the electoral process—the cancellation or postponement of elections in areas affected by conflict, which is little understood by voters, election administrators, and outside observers. Second, the article examines the conditions necessary for internally displaced persons (IDPs) to participate in elections. Third, the article recapitulates the gradual legal disenfranchisement of voters and candidates who self-identified as Rohingya, which preceded their mass exodus to Bangladesh in 2017. While in 2015 all these processes of exclusion were arguably of lesser priority for the election administration, which facilitated the first credible Myanmar election in decades, they have not altered significantly since and will affect the electoral participation of disadvantaged communities again in the future.