Several dozen LexisNexis employees helped raise nearly $1200, including matching corporate funds, for a Canadian group whose mission is to bring disparate groups together via exposure to the arts. The...
Review this exciting guide to some of the recent content additions to Practical Guidance, designed to help you find the tools and insights you need to work more efficiently and effectively. Practical Guidance...
The following article is a summary of the full checklist , available to Practical Guidance subscribers by following this link . Not yet a Practical Guidance subscriber? Sign up for a free trial here. ...
The following article is a summary of the full practice note , available to Practical Guidance subscribers by following this link . Not yet a Practical Guidance subscriber? Sign up for a free trial here...
The following is a summary of an article by Tom Spiggle, The Spiggle Law Firm Summary of AI in Employment and Regulatory Frameworks Recent years have witnessed a significant transformation in how...
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis and/or its Licensors.
THE LEXISNEXIS U.S. VOTING LAWS AND LEGISLATION CENTER was honored with the Justice Technology Award at the 2023 Legalweek Leader in Tech Law Awards in New York City on March 20. The Tech Law Awards, given at the annual Legalweek expo sponsored by American Law Media and Law.com, celebrate the achievements of law firms, legal departments and vendors leading the legal profession into the future through technology and innovation.
Launched in August 2022 by the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, the Center provides free public access to a comprehensive collection of unbiased, nonpartisan, data-driven information, including more than 40,000 state and federal voting laws, related legislative developments, and news.
The Center was created by a LexisNexis team of more than 50 employee volunteers in collaboration with various organizations, including the Uniform Law Commission and the National Conference of State Legislators. A 50 State Voting Laws Comparison feature and updates on voting laws and litigation from the Law360 news service provide continuous updates.
Users can search the legislation site by various keywords, including bill name and sponsor, and filter results by proposed legislation, recently enacted laws, and failed legislation. State voting laws can be compared using topics such as mail-in voting, military voting, and absentee and electronic voting. A separate tracker provides information on the more than 190 federal voting law proposals currently pending in Congress.
A recent presentation to the North Carolina Bar Association showed how the data contained in the Center could be used to highlight the impact of the judicial selection methods used in the various states on individuals’ perceptions of the local judiciary. Data derived from the Center showed that the majority of states use elections in varying degrees during of the judicial selection process. In 16 states, judges are appointed by the governor and reselected in retention elections; in 14 states, judges are chosen in contested nonpartisan elections, while in eight states, contested partisan elections are used. Governors appoint judges in 10 states; the state legislature makes the appointments in the remaining two states.
While data shows that individuals may have less confidence in the courts in states where judicial elections are partisan, the legislative tracker contained on the Center shows that many proposals to change the judicial selection process have failed. Some examples:
The LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation defines the rule of law as containing four main components: transparency of law, equality for all under the law, an independent judiciary, and access to legal remedy. In addition to the Center, the Foundation’s projects include the LexisNexis Rule of Law Impact Tracker, which tracks public sentiment on the rule of law in 170 countries, and the eyeWitness to Atrocities app, which allows users to document evidence of war crimes using their smartphones.
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.