Drew Spencer Penrose

Legal Director

Drew Spencer Penrose

Drew Spencer Penrose heads the legal department at FairVote. Additionally, Drew contributes to work around ranked choice voting, primary elections, election administration, and the Voting Rights Act. He and Rob Richie have co-authored two law review articles arguing for the use of ranked choice voting in legislative elections. He has also helped draft and submit amicus curiae briefs in cases concerning voting rights, primary elections, and ballot access.

Drew earned a B.A. in Philosophy and a B.S. in Psychology from the University of Arizona in 2006, and a J.D. from the James E. Rogers College of Law in 2012. He is licensed to practice law in Arizona, where he has also published articles on public financing of elections in the Arizona Law Review and Arizona Attorney Magazine.

E-mail Drew Twitter

Posts by Drew Spencer Penrose

FairVote Provides Research to Canada's Electoral Reform Committee

Posted on August 29, 2016

FairVote joined scholars like Arend Lijphart in submitting a brief to the Canadian Special Committee on Electoral Reform to help guide their decision making as to how Canada’s elections should be reformed. Like the United States, Canada elects its national legislature exclusively from single-winner districts, elected by plurality vote. It does not use a proportional system. Also like the United States, this causes problems.


Fourth Circuit Restores Pro-Voter Practices to North Carolina

Posted on July 29, 2016

Today the Federal Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit reversed a lower court in North Carolina and struck down a bill implementing strict voter ID and repealing many of the state's pro-voter policies, including voter preregistration.


Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Arizona Districts

Posted on April 20, 2016

This week, the Supreme Court in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission reiterated its prior holdings that if a state keeps population disparity between districts below 10%, then they will be upheld unless the population disparity exists because of an illegitimate purpose. In this case, the challengers couldn't prove that the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission had any purpose other than good faith compliance with the Voting Rights Act.


Show Comments
comments powered by Disqus

Join Us Today to Help Create a More Perfect Union