Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Federal Legislation: Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) introduced the District of Columbia Special Elections Home Rule Act, which would give the District complete authority to set the date of special elections for local offices, as other jurisdictions already have. The bill would remove a limitation on the District that is not only inconsistent with the self-government authority granted by the Home Rule Act, but is also counterproductive. This bill would strengthen the District’s home-rule authority and does not require statehood. “Originally, the Home Rule Act required the Board of Elections to hold special elections on the first Tuesday more than 114 days from when the vacancy occurred,” Norton said. “This inflexibility led to special elections being held on religious holidays and forced the District to hold a special election separate from an upcoming general election, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary extra costs. A 2012 law I got enacted requires the Board of Elections to hold a special election on a Tuesday occurring between 70 and 174 days after the vacancy. This bill would provide even greater flexibility for the District.”
Congressman Chris Deluzio (D-Pennsylvania) and Congressman David Valadao (R-California) reintroduced the Strengthening Election Cybersecurity to Uphold Respect for Elections through Independent Testing (SECURE IT) Act. This bipartisan bill would require that voting systems undergo simulated cyberattacks as part of their standard certification process to help bolster the security of our election systems from foreign and domestic bad actors. While federal law requires the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to test and certify voting system hardware and software, current regulations under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 do not explicitly mandate penetration testing—a key cybersecurity practice that helps identify system vulnerabilities.The SECURE IT Act strengthens election security by directing the EAC to incorporate penetration testing into its certification process and establish a voluntary coordinated vulnerability disclosure program, enabling independent researchers to examine election systems for potential cybersecurity risks. “We’ve got to do everything we can to shore up America’s cybersecurity and voting systems and help make sure they remain strong and secure,” said Deluzio. “I’m proud that this bipartisan bill will help identify and fix voting system vulnerabilities and conduct important system testing. We must make sure America’s democratic infrastructure can weather any and all attacks from our adversaries.”
Arizona: Sen. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), is seeking to alter a law so that future supervisors never have to worry that local elections officials are being asked to certify election returns — even when they question the accuracy. Existing law requires county supervisors after each election to “canvass” the results. A similar requirement exists for cities and towns that conduct their own election. The problem with that, according to some officials who are in that position, is they are being asked to certify the results as accurate, under penalty of jail if they refuse. “I was on a town council where I had to certify an election,” said the Fountain Hills Republican. “I had no idea how the election was run,” he said. “I didn’t run the election.” His legislation seeks to get around that by saying that supervisors and other officials only “acknowledge without prejudice” the results of the election. Kavanagh said his legislation would allow supervisors to go ahead and conduct the legally required canvass while not conceding that the results are accurate.
District of Columbia: Councilmember Wendell Felder (D- Ward 7) is introducing emergency legislation to delay ranked choice voting’s implementation, arguing the city simply isn’t prepared. Initiative 83, overwhelmingly approved by District voters in 2024 called for the implementation of ranked choice voting and open primaries. Citywide the initiative was approved 73% to 27% and in Felder’s own ward it was approved 70% to 30%. “Residents deserve city leaders to do their due diligence,” Felder told 7News. “My legislation is not a stop or a pause to ranked-choice voting. What it does is require the Board of Elections to fully conduct a needs assessment. There’s no implementation plan. If you go on the BOE website, it says ranked-choice voting is ‘coming soon,’ but there’s no community outreach or awareness plan.” Supporters of the new system say it ensures winners have broader support and helps prevent vote-splitting among similar candidates. But opponents warn it could confuse voters, strain the city’s already stretched elections office, and create uncertainty heading into what is expected to be one of D.C.’s most competitive mayoral races in decades. Felder withdrew the legislation amid uncertainty about its fiscal impact, but said he intends to “put in the work” to move it forward at a later meeting.
Nebraska Ballot Measure: A new ballot measure seeks to raise the threshold of Nebraska lawmakers necessary to overturn or alter successful voter initiatives. Currently, two-thirds of the state legislature (33 lawmakers) are required to reject or change any initiative passed by voters at the ballot box. If the Respect Nebraska Voters ballot initiative reaches the November 2026 ballot and passes, four-fifths of the legislature (39 lawmakers) would be required. The ballot committee filed language with the Secretary of State’s office November 20 for a constitutional ballot initiative. The petition will need to collect signatures from 10% of registered voters statewide, including at least 5% of voters in 38 of the state’s counties, by the first week of July to qualify. The change to the state constitution would also require the same four-fifths threshold for the passage of new laws affecting the initiative and referendum process. Additional protections would also be placed around the people’s ability to bring initiatives. With the language filed, the initiative will now be reviewed by the Revisor of Statutes office. Once revisions are made and the final language is established, the campaign will host a public launch for the signature gathering phase of the campaign.
New York: New York State Senator Pete Harckham and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz introduced legislation that will protect residents from civil arrest while going to, remaining at or returning from polling places in New York. Civil arrests supported by a judicial warrant or a court order will still be allowable under this new bill, however. The new bill was prompted by the numerous extrajudicial arrests being made by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents around the country. Those arrests, in homes, workplaces, schools, college campuses and immigration courts, along with traffic stops on roadways, have included citizens and non-citizens alike, green card holders, asylum seekers and children, some held incommunicado for days. The legislation (S.8596 / Assembly bill number still pending), which amends the state’s Civil Rights Law, Judiciary Law and Election Law, states that residents who are present at polling places and there in “good faith” are “privileged” from civil arrest, and that it is a contempt of court and false imprisonment for anyone in violation of these proposed protections who makes or willfully assists in a prohibited arrest. In a sense, the new bill simply grants lawful, state authorized protections to residents that already exist regarding courts and school property. During elections polling sites are an extension of state property being used for governance, after all. However, the legislation does not pertain to law enforcement professionals acting lawfully in their duty to maintain safety and order regardless of the nature of the property or premises.
Wisconsin Rulemaking: The Wisconsin Elections Commission has agreed to adjust an order that governs how the city of Madison should run its elections. In its prior order, the commission told Madison to create poll books no earlier than a week before Election Day so the books will be more up to date. That order also said Madison must receive those books from the printer no later than the Friday before Election Day. Now, Madison’s newly-appointed clerk Lydia McComas has asked for that timeline to be pushed back even later to accommodate a new printing vendor. At McComas’ request, the commission voted 6-0 this week to change the deadline for creating the poll books to no earlier than the Friday before an election. The modified order will also give the city more time to get those books from the printer by mandating they be received no later than the Sunday before an election. That extended timeline should help with keeping track of returned ballots, by ensuring that more poll books have time to be stamped with an “absentee ballot returned” watermark, McComas wrote to the commission.
Legal Updates
Federal Litigation: The U.S. Department of Justice has sued six additional states – Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington – for access to the states’ complete voter data. The department announced it was suing the states over their “failure” to produce statewide voter registration lists. It has portrayed the litigation as part of an effort to ensure the security of elections, but Democratic officials have raised concerns over how the data will be used and whether the department will follow privacy laws in protecting it. This week’s actions bring to at least 14 the number of states the Justice Department has sued in its quest for voter information. “Our federal elections laws ensure every American citizen may vote freely and fairly,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the department’s Civil Rights Division. “States that continue to defy federal voting laws interfere with our mission of ensuring that Americans have accurate voter lists as they go to the polls, that every vote counts equally, and that all voters have confidence in election results.” Some states have sent the department redacted versions of their voter lists, which in many cases are also available to the public. But the Justice Department also has requested copies that contain personally identifiable information, including voters’ names, birth dates, addresses and driver’s license numbers or partial Social Security numbers.
Four states agreed to settle lawsuits against the federal government over access to voters’ citizenship data, ending a dispute that began with the Biden administration in advance of the 2024 presidential election. Officials in Florida, Indiana, Iowa and Ohio entered the settlement with the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Kristi Noem roughly a year after the states individually sued the agency under President Joe Biden. They had alleged the previous administration was withholding information about citizenship status that they needed to determine whether thousands of registered voters were actually eligible to cast a ballot. Each of the states could soon run searches for thousands of voters using names, birthdays and Social Security numbers through the federal government’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program. It has been significantly upgraded under the Trump administration. In turn, the settlement reached Friday says the states may share driver’s license records with the Department of Homeland Security “to assist in improving and modernizing” its database. As part of the settlement, Florida, Indiana, Iowa and Ohio will develop a memorandum of understanding with the federal government within 90 days on use of the SAVE program. The settlement also dictates that they will negotiate a new information-sharing agreement for “for the purpose of improving” the SAVE system. That may include providing DHS with 1,000 “randomly selected driver’s license records from their state” within 90 days.
Alabama: A Mobile election worker is accused of threatening to kill workers at the probate court, according to the Mobile County Sheriff’s Office. According to jail records, 43-year-old Robert Allen Jr. is charged with making a terroristic threat. MCSO told FOX10 News Allen previously worked at the polls during the general election but was told he could not work during the run-off. Authorities said Allen was mad that he was not able to work during the run-off and called the probate court and said if he wasn’t allowed to work the next election, he was going to kill everyone there.
Arkansas: A filing in federal court in Fayetteville on December 1 shows that Arkansas intends to dispute a recent court ruling. The notice, on behalf of Secretary of State Cole Jester, states that Arkansas will appeal a recent temporary injunction. The November injunction held that changes to the state’s ballot referendum process enacted during the 95th General Assembly of 2025 will not take effect until the court rules on the case challenging them. The legislature passed a series of bills in its most recent session, signed into law by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, that placed restrictions on how petitions could be drafted and signatures collected. The League of Women Voters of Arkansas, Save AR Democracy, Bonnie Heather Miller and Danielle Quesnell filed suit in April, asking for these laws to be overturned. The appeal is being filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The secretary said the changes to the law were a matter of integrity. “We believe success in the Eighth Circuit is a critical opportunity to protect the integrity of the ballot initiative process,” Jester said. “I am thankful for the excellent representation by the Arkansas Attorney General.”
Colorado: The office of Gov. Jared Polis affirmed this week a decision by state prison officials not to fulfill a request by the Trump administration to transfer custody of Tina Peters from the state to federal authorities. Peters, the former Republican Mesa County clerk, is serving a 9-year prison sentence for her role in a scheme to breach the security of her own election equipment. President Donald Trump has repeatedly demanded that she be released. The director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons sent a letter to the Colorado Department of Corrections last month requesting that the state “initiate the transfer” of Peters to the bureau. “Requests to transfer inmates from the Colorado Department of Corrections emanate from the state, and not from other entities. The state has not made any requests to transfer this inmate,” Shelby Wieman, a Polis spokesperson, said in a text to Colorado Newsline. This almost exactly repeats a statement from Department of Corrections spokesperson Christian Andrade, who also wrote in an email to Newsline that “the Department is not currently seeking any transfer.” A bipartisan group of local election officials last week made an impassioned plea to Polis that he reject the Trump administration’s transfer request, saying failure to do so would set a dangerous precedent. Almost two weeks elapsed between the administration’s formal transfer request and the first indications that the state Department of Corrections would resist it, and Polis’ previous silence on the matter was a widespread source of indignation among election security proponents.
Georgia: Since 2023, part of a controversial Georgia election law banning food and water from being distributed to voters waiting in line has been on hold, as a lawsuit against the measure worked its way through the federal court system. But the ban on “line warming,” as the practice is sometimes called, may be allowed to take effect for the 2026 midterm elections after a three-judge panel on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a lower court to reconsider its ruling in the case. The 11th Circuit Court’s ruling, which was released this week, vacated the 2023 ruling and remanded the case to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee due to a new precedent that was set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. “We find that it would be inappropriate at this juncture to address the merits of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge,” the panel wrote in Monday’s ruling, instructing the district court to conduct a type of legal analysis outlined in the recent Supreme Court ruling, Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. In 2023, Boulee upheld part of the ban on distributing refreshments to voters within a 150-foot “buffer zone” outside polling places. However, he temporarily blocked a provision banning volunteers from offering food and water within a “supplemental zone,” defined as 25 feet from any voter in line at a polling place, arguing that such activities count as “expressive conduct” and are therefore protected by the First Amendment. The appeals court heard arguments in the case this past August. “The 11th Circuit’s ruling reinforces a simple truth: Georgia has the right and the responsibility to shield voters from influence and interference at the polls,” Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said in a statement, adding “our laws safeguard every Georgian’s right to free, fair, and fast elections.”
Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee dismissed the case against President Donald Trump and a group of alleged co-conspirators accused of attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. McAfee’s dismissal marks the end of the last criminal case facing Trump related to that year’s election. Peter J. Skandalakis, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, requested the dismissal after concluding the case belonged in federal court. Skandalakis named himself prosecutor in the case this month after he said he could not find another attorney willing to take the case from embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. A Fulton County grand jury indicted Trump and 18 co-defendants in 2023, but Willis was removed from the case in 2024 amid questions of a conflict of interest stemming from a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor she hired for the case. Four of the alleged co-conspirators pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against Trump and the other defendants. Skandalakis did not express sympathy with the view, still espoused by Trump and allies, that the 2020 election had been stolen or rigged. “Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, millions of citizens and hundreds of politicians continued to make unsubstantiated claims of election fraud,” he wrote. “In response, the Secretary of State undertook extensive audits to verify the vote count and demonstrate that no substantial voter fraud had occurred. Yet, despite these efforts and the evidence confirming a fair election, many individuals continue to believe—and may never be convinced otherwise—that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.”
Federal District Court Judge Steven D. Grimberg this week considered whether to dismiss a lawsuit challenging provisions of a 2024 state elections law that changed where homeless voters could receive election mail and strengthened the ability of activists to challenge the eligibility of voters. The consolidated suit seeks to overturn that voter eligibility challenge law, which has further empowered conservative activists, who have lodged more than 100,000 registration challenges since 2021. County election boards have rejected most of those efforts. The law allows county residents to file voter eligibility challenges with county election boards if a voter registers in another state, at a nonresidential address or claims a homestead exemption in another jurisdiction. Grimberg, asked whether the advocacy groups bringing the suit have constituents who have been directly affected by the eligibility challenge provisions in Senate Bill 189. Attorney Bryan Tyson, who represents the secretary of state and the State Election Board, argued that the advocacy groups haven’t shown actual harm to their constituents. But that’s not the only part of SB 189 the voter advocacy groups are challenging. The lawsuit also contends another provision of SB 189 violates the rights of voters who are homeless. The state law requires homeless voters to pick up election mail at county election offices, which plaintiffs say makes it more difficult for voters who lack transportation. That provision is unnecessary and discriminatory, the plaintiffs contend. Grimberg didn’t give a clear date on when he expects to make any decisions but said he would make an order as soon as he could.
Maryland: Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Pamela K. Alban has dismissed a lawsuit brought by unaffiliated Maryland voters, who argued that the state’s closed primary elections infringe on their voting rights. In her ruling last week, Alban wrote that the state’s precedent is clear, based on prior cases that affirmed political parties’ rights to exclude unaffiliated voters from their primary elections. “While the Maryland Constitution and Declaration of Rights guarantee the right to vote in state elections, neither grants the right to vote in a political party’s primary without affiliating with that party,” Alban wrote. An attorney for the voters who brought the suit, Boyd Rutherford, the former lieutenant governor to Gov. Larry Hogan (R), vowed to appeal Alban’s ruling. The Maryland Attorney General’s Office declined to comment on the dismissal of the case. Alban’s ruling was expected to be appealed — no matter which side she landed on. She said as much during a late-October motions hearing in Annapolis. “I imagine no matter what I do, this may not be the end,” Alban told the courtroom then. The Maryland voters filed their lawsuit challenging Maryland’s system in May, and a few months later, the Maryland State Board of Elections, represented by the state attorney general’s office, filed a motion to dismiss the case on various grounds. During a late October hearing in Annapolis, Alban ruled partially in favor of the aggrieved voters, determining that they had legal standing to sue. But Alban waited to rule on the merits of the case, and to determine whether the voters had stated a claim that could proceed. During her questioning, Alban hinted that she was skeptical of the voters’ case. In their arguments, attorneys for the voters tried to make the argument that their case was distinct from two prior Maryland Supreme Court decisions that validated closed primaries: Hennegan v. Geartner in 1946 and Suessman v. Lamone in 2004. But Alban disagreed. “Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims fall squarely within the scope of the holdings in Seussmann and Hennegan. They assert rights that, under Maryland law, they do not possess,” she wrote.
Michigan: Muhith Mahmood, the candidate who lost the Nov. 5 Hamtramck mayoral election by just six votes, is suing both the city and the Wayne County Board of Canvassers to have more than three dozen uncounted votes included in the final total. Due to what election officials have said was human error, 37 absentee ballots in Hamtramck were separated from the others and not counted on election night. When the ballots were discovered — opened, but still in their envelopes — in the city clerk’s office the following day, they were immediately sealed and taken to the county elections department. But Hamtramck Clerk Rana Faraj later said three non-election officials had walked into the clerk’s sealed office on election night before the ballots were discovered, effectively breaking the chain of custody for those ballots and raising questions about their security. The Wayne County Board of Canvassers ultimately deadlocked on whether to count the ballots, resulting in their exclusion from the official results. Not counting those ballots is “unconstitutional disenfranchisement,” Mahmood’s attorney, Mark Brewer, wrote in the lawsuit filed last week in the Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan, arguing that either the ballots should be counted or the 37 voters should be allowed to cast new ballots. The lawsuit is also filed on behalf of the 37 voters, whose names have not been made public.
Attorney Stefanie Lambert and former Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott are headed to trial over allegations they wrongfully accessed voting data in a failed attempt to prove the 2020 election was rigged against President Donald Trump. A district court judge bound the pair over for trial, according to Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office. They face eight cumulative charges, the bulk of which are felonies. Nessel first charged Scott and Lambert in May 2024. Scott and Lambert did not directly respond to requests for comment. But in a statement provided through attorney Dan Hartman, Lambert argued District Court Judge Megan Stiverson failed to address questions of law raised in Scott’s closing arguments, suggesting an appeal is likely.
The Republican National Committee is suing Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, alleging that state election law and guidance from her office violate the state Constitution by allowing non-Michigan residents to vote in elections. The suit brought by the RNC targets those who haven’t lived in the state but are the spouses of military and overseas Michigan voters and children born to residents of the state. Lawyers for the RNC say provisions around overseas absentee voting in state law, further defined by the state’s elections manual, allow these individuals to vote in Michigan elections despite never having lived in the state. RNC lawyers say this is unconstitutional, as the state Constitution requires a voter to have lived in the state for at least six months, though lawmakers can reduce this requirement or waive it for former residents. Benson spokesperson Angela Benander called the lawsuit the latest attempt by the RNC to “spread distrust in Michigan’s secure and fair elections.”
Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl, two conservative activists who pleaded no contest to orchestrating a series of robocalls aimed at suppressing the vote of Black residents in Detroit, were sentenced to one year of probation by a Wayne County judge. Burkman and Wohl were initially charged with actions aimed at suppressing the vote during the 2020 general election. The no contest pleas and the subsequent sentencing agreement were hashed out by the defendants’ attorneys and the Wayne County 3rd Circuit Court. The Department of Attorney General was not involved in the agreement. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, in a statement, said that Burkman and Wohl engaged in conduct that “used every racist dog whistle – fear of incarceration, fear of the government and fear of one’s benefits being taken away – to steal. “While on probation, if they engage in these types of criminal behaviors, they will be held to account here in Michigan,” Nessel said. “We all are aware, and this court has made these defendants aware, that continuing to engage in criminal conduct while on probation is a violation, for which the department will be ever vigilant about bringing to the attention of their probation agents and this court. If they willingly choose to engage in the types of repulsive behaviors they have gained notoriety for, this court and my department will be watching.”
Mississippi: Testimony concluded this week in a case challenging the results of the mayoral election in Mount Olive last summer. Special appointed Judge Lamar Pickard now is expected to make a ruling in a couple of weeks. Former Mount Olive alderwoman Marcia Hull is contesting her loss in the June 3 election to incumbent mayor Cliff Kelly. Hull is suing Kelly, Mount Olive City Clerk Breyon Magee and the city’s election commission. Hull’s suit alleges numerous voting irregularities, mainly involving the validating and counting of absentee ballots. “We have systemic failures (and) several statutory violations,” Hull’s attorney, ScherriePrince said. Nearly two dozen witnesses testified over three days. All twelve testified they voted absentee and cast their ballots for Kelly. Attorney Alan Buffington, who is representing Breyon Magee and the election commission, said in his closing statement that Hull had failed to prove any of her allegations. “There is no basis for this lawsuit,” he said. Pickard gave defense and plaintiff’s attorneys until Dec. 15 to submit case summaries to the court.
New York: New York State Supreme Court Justice David B. Cohen denied Fox’s motion to pause the $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit brought by voting machine company Smartmatic until newly filed federal corruption charges against the voting technology company are handled. “I don’t find that there’s good cause for a stay,” Cohen said, ruling against Fox’s request to halt proceedings in Smartmatic’s 2021 civil defamation case until the federal indictment is resolved. “This would cause undue delay.” With no stay in effect, Smartmatic’s case is scheduled to advance arguments to summary judgment next week. Smartmatic sued Fox Corporation and its right-wing news network in early 2021 over broadcasts that falsely claimed the company interfered in the 2020 presidential election.
Texas: Texas officials asked a U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel this week to reverse a federal judge’s ruling blocking them from enforcing a state law banning paid political canvassing in the presence of a mail-in ballot. Texas instituted the ban in 2021 as part of Senate Bill 1. The ban prohibits canvassers from receiving “compensation or other benefit” for providing “vote harvesting services,” defined as an “in-person interaction with one or more voters, in the physical presence of an official ballot or a ballot voted by mail, intended to deliver votes for a specific candidate or measure.” A violation of this provision is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. As part of a broader case challenging various provisions of SB 1, a coalition of advocacy groups brought suit to block enforcement of the vote harvesting ban. They claimed the provision is unclearly worded and that, as a result, they’d been forced to scale back their in-person voter outreach efforts for fear of accidentally violating it. In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the Western District of Texas permanently enjoined the Texas secretary of state, the Texas attorney general and the district attorneys for several Texas counties from enforcing the harvesting ban, finding that it violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague. A separate Fifth Circuit panel stayed Rodriguez’s ruling to avoid changes to election laws close to the 2024 election. Texas Deputy Solicitor General William Cole told the panel that the state is allowed to make “reasonable efforts to ensure that the right of a voter to pass the ballot free of taint and intimidation and fraud is secure.”
Texas is back to using its 2025 congressional map, at least temporarily, after Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito granted the state’s request to pause a court ruling that would have required using the lines legislators drew in 2021. The high court has not yet decided what map Texas should use while the court battle over the legality of the map plays out over the coming weeks and months; Friday’s ruling is a short-term pause while they make that decision. President Donald Trump pushed Texas to redraw its map over the summer, hoping to secure five additional GOP seats to shore up the party’s narrow majority in the U.S. House through the midterms. On November 18, a federal court barred Texas from using the new map for 2026, saying there was evidence state lawmakers had racially gerrymandered in redrawing the lines. Galveston District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, authored the opinion ordering Texas to return to its 2021 map, while 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith vociferously dissented. Alito requested that the plaintiffs respond to the motion by the end of the day Monday. The Dec. 8 candidate filing deadline is fast approaching, which the state made clear to the justices in its petition.
Utah: In a flurry of more court filings last week, 3rd District Judge Dianna Gibson was again tasked with sorting through more issues with Utah’s congressional boundaries after Utah’s top election officials raised some technical issues with the new map. Split homes and other boundary issues in Sandy, Cottonwood Heights, Alpine, Highland, Orem, Huntsville and Summit County led the lieutenant governor’s office to ask the court for clarifications to Utah’s new map ahead of implementing it for the 2026 elections. Meanwhile, attorneys for the Utah Legislature — which continues to protest the state’s court-ordered redistricting process as a violation of the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches — argued the lieutenant governor’s request for boundary clarifications “amplifies how these proceedings have transgressed the Utah and U.S. Constitutions,” they wrote in court filings. “Plaintiffs’ counsel can instruct the Lieutenant Governor how to resolve those issues. But in doing so, the constitutional problem — the denial of the Legislature’s constitutional authority to redistrict — only becomes more obvious,” legislative attorneys wrote. In response to the Legislature’s complaints against the new map, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case argued that the boundary issues identified by the lieutenant governor — which were largely the result of annexations that took place after the 2020 census — were not out of the ordinary in redistricting and that the Legislature’s attorneys didn’t follow Utah’s rules of civil procedure when requesting the stay. After hearing recommendations from both the lieutenant governor and the plaintiffs to remedy the boundary issues, Gibson on Friday issued an order implementing a minor fix to move a single home in Sandy from District 1 to District 4 to prevent a one-home precinct, which would have resulted in voter privacy issues. As for the boundary issues, Gibson deferred to the lieutenant governor’s discretion to make boundary clarifications when there is uncertainty. “The Court notes that Plaintiffs have suggested an approach to making determinations with respect to those issues and the Lieutenant Governor may take those suggestions into consideration when making determinations for implementation,” the judge wrote. “Likewise, as the Lieutenant Governor notes, the Utah Code grants discretion in making determinations should questions subsequently arise.”
Michael H. Drucker
