Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Riverhead, New York: Riverhead officials are considering a local law requiring town elections, which take place every two years, to be held in odd-numbered years. A resolution is on the agenda of Wednesday’s Town Board meeting to schedule a Nov. 7 public hearing on the proposed law. The proposal has not been discussed during a public Town Board meeting and was added to the agenda after last week’s work session. The proposed local law would add a new Article VII to Chapter 103 of the town code, pertaining to biennial town elections. It would require elections for the offices of supervisor, town council, town clerk, receiver of taxes, highway superintendent and assessors to be held in odd-numbered years. Riverhead’s action is in response to a state law enacted last year that mandates most local elections in counties outside of New York City to be held in even-numbered years. The bill was vehemently opposed by Republicans, who argued it was an attack on local control in counties outside of New York City. Several upstate counties, along with Nassau and Suffolk counties, two Nassau County towns and four Suffolk County towns, sued the state in the hope of having the law invalidated. Last week, their legal challenge succeeded. A State Supreme Court judge in Onondaga County on Oct. 8 ruled that the “Even Year Election Law” is void because it violates local home rule provisions protected by the state constitution.
Texas: Lawmakers this week signaled plans to consider a new law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, though even one of the strongest supporters of such legislation acknowledged instances of noncitizens voting are rare. During a Senate State Affairs committee hearing, lawmakers expressed interest in reviving legislation modeled on a proof of citizenship requirement in Arizona, currently the only state with such a requirement in force. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called the hearing on noncitizen voting after Gov. Greg Abbott issued a press release boasting that the state had removed more than potential 6,500 noncitizens from its voter rolls. An investigation by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune and Votebeat published this week found the governor’s figure was likely inflated and, in some cases, wrong. The secretary of state’s office confirmed the news organization’s reporting during the hearing after state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, a Democrat, cited the article’s findings and pressed Christina Adkins, the state elections division director. After the hearing, Zaffirini told Votebeat she is concerned that the intense focus on making sure noncitizens aren’t on the voter rolls “will be interpreted as voter intimidation in some cases,” even if it’s not intended that way. Nonetheless, multiple lawmakers on the committee, which is comprised of nine Republicans and three Democrats, said they believe the state needs to adopt requirements similar to Arizona’s 2004 law. Only six committee members attended all or part of the hearing.
Legal Updates
Federal Litigation: Smartmatic convinced a U.S. appeals court to uphold its win against a patent infringement lawsuit brought by rival Election Systems & Software. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, without comment, a Delaware federal judge’s decision to dismiss ES&S’s lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Richard Andrews said last year that the last remaining ES&S patent in the case was invalid. Spokespeople and attorneys for the companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision. Omaha, Nebraska-based ES&S sued the U.S. branch of London-based Smartmatic in 2018. It said Smartmatic infringed two patents covering improved voter-assistance terminals and ballot-marking devices for physically disabled voters. ES&S dropped one of the patents from the case in 2022. Andrews ruled last April that the remaining patent related to the abstract idea of “giving voters a choice of returning or depositing their ballot.” ES&S told the Federal Circuit that the Delaware court had oversimplified its invention. The appeals court held oral arguments in the case last week.
Alabama: Judge Anna M. Manasco ruled that Alabama’s program that flagged thousands of registered voters and accused them of illegally registering must stop until after the presidential election. Manasco said that Alabama must stop moving those voters from active to “inactive” status, as the election is just three weeks away. “As part of this program, they were all reported to Alabama’s chief law enforcement authority for criminal investigation,” said Manasco, adding “as far as I know nothing has been done to undo that.” Manasco, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Donald Trump in 2020, said she could not discount the negative impact that such a notice from the state would have on a potential voter.
A three-judge panel on the 11th Circuit Court unanimously affirmed a lower court decision from September that blocked a portion of the law that limits help with absentee ballot applications. The measure made it illegal to distribute an absentee ballot application that is prefilled with information such as the voter’s name, or to return another person’s absentee ballot application. The new law also made it a felony to give or receive a payment or a gift “for distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining, or delivering a voter’s absentee ballot application.” In a two-page decision, the appeals court judges ruled that removing the lower court’s injunction would “injure” voting access for disabled voters and goes against the public interest. In the original lawsuit, voter outreach groups said their paid staff members or volunteers, who are given gas money or food, could face prosecution for helping disabled voters with an application. “The court’s decision recognizes that many vulnerable voters would be unable to vote if Alabama were allowed to enforce the blocked law,” the plaintiffs said in a joint statement on Friday.
Arizona: Arizona District Judge Krissa Lanham denied a group’s request to require Arizona county election officials to verify the citizenship status of every federal-only voter ahead of the November general election. Current practices for voter roll maintenance will stay in place as litigation continues. This order is in response to a Sept. 15 request from the plaintiffs asking the court to require the defendants to submit citizenship inquiry requests to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for all federal-only voters before the general election. Lanham ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to show how the relief they requested would address the harm of “vote dilution” that they alleged. Additionally, she noted that voters cannot be removed from voter rolls within 90 days of an election per the National Voter Registration Act. In her order, she wrote, “The court declines to order Arizona’s county recorders to divert resources from preparing for the general election to instead submitting thousands of requests to DHS.”
The criminal trial of two rural county supervisors who initially refused to certify election results in 2022 will not occur before this year’s elections after it was again delayed. Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd, two of the three supervisors in the Republican-led Cochise county, face charges of conspiracy and interfering with an election officer, brought by the Democratic attorney general, Kris Mayes. The trial has been pushed back multiple times and is now set for 30 January 2025, the court docket shows. The delay was mutually agreed upon, the attorney general’s office said.
Arkansas: Election officials in an East Arkansas county should not be required to conduct early voting at a West Memphis church because the county clerk acted beyond their authority, Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote in an amicus brief this week. Filed October 15 in a state Supreme Court case that will decide if an early voting site will be available in West Memphis come Monday, Griffin supported the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners, whose members recently appealed a lower court’s ruling that required them to conduct early voting at the Seventh Street Church of Christ. Griffin sought the Supreme Court’s approval to file the “friend-of-the-court” brief around noon, and the 10-page brief appeared on the state’s online court system about four and a half hours later. “The Court’s decision in this case will determine whether State election laws are interpreted inconsistently with the text of the statute and current practice in counties across the state,” Griffin’s brief stated. “The circuit court’s decision sidesteps the safeguards put in place by the Arkansas Legislature, disrupts the balance of power between the county board of election commissioners and the county clerk, and grants unfettered discretion to one county official. Worse, the circuit court’s novel interpretation arrives just before early voting begins, threatening the orderly administration of early voting in the State.” Griffin continues to support the argument brought by commissioners’ attorney Joe Rogers that the county clerk cannot designate an early voting polling site outside of the county clerk’s office in the county seat, which in this case is Marion. Attorney Jennifer Standerfer, who represents two West Memphis voters who intend to cast their ballots early, has asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to strike a recent filing by Attorney General Tim Griffin and disqualify him from the case.
California: Michelle M. Morrow, 55, a supervisor candidate in the March 5 primary election in San Luis Obispo County charged with voter fraud appeared before a judge October 10. Morrow was charged Sept. 11 with four felony counts. She was in a San Luis Obispo County courtroom Thursday morning for her arraignment but did not enter a plea. According to the criminal complaint filed against Morrow by the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office, the Grover Beach resident registered to vote at an address she did not live, adding that in February, she submitted paperwork to run for District 3 supervisor but at the time, lived in District 4 and “did so under penalty of perjury.” The DA’s Office also reports Morrow voted fraudulently in the March 5, 2024 election by voting in District 3 while her home was in District 4. She ran as a write-in candidate, obtaining 866 votes or 7 percent of the vote. The DA reports if convicted, Morrow could face probation, jail time or even a prison sentence.
Georgia: Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney issued a ruling October 15 rejecting a Georgia State Election Board’s new ballot hand-count rule from taking effect on the night of Georgia’s Nov. 5 general election. McBurney issued the ruling temporarily blocking the new Georgia election board rule challenged in a lawsuit filed by Cobb County Board of Elections and Registration, which argued it would impose onerous new rules onto poll workers during the 2024 election in a closely contested presidential election. McBurney wrote in his court order that the election board’s approval of the hand-count rule came too late in this year’s election season to give local election workers time to comply with new procedures for the November election. The injunction will remain in effect until McBurney makes a final decision on the case at a time to be determined, according to McBurney’s order. The new state rule, which the state attorney general says could be invalid, calls for a trio of poll workers to hand count every paper ballot cast on election day and verify that their count matches the machine-calculated totals. McBurney wrote that the hand count rule on paper appears to be consistent with the election boards mission to ensure fair, legal, and orderly elections, however its timing complicates the electoral process in a way that is not in the public interest. “A rule that introduces a new and substantive role on the eve of election for more than 7,500 poll workers who will not have received any formal, cohesive, or consistent training and that allows for our paper ballots – the only tangible proof of who voted for whom – to be handled multiple times by multiple people following an exhausting Election Day all before they are securely transported to the official tabulation center does not contribute to lessening the tension or boosting the confidence of the public for this election,” McBurney said in the Tuesday order.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney has ruled that certifying elections is a required duty of county election boards in Georgia, and they’re not allowed to refuse to finalize results based on suspicions of miscounts or fraud. McBurney rejected claims brought by Fulton County election board member Julie Adams, who voted against certifying this spring’s presidential primary. McBurney ruled that Georgia law requires certification and county election boards don’t have any discretion not to do so. “If election superintendents were, as plaintiff urges, free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge and so — because of a unilateral determination of error or fraud — refuse to certify election results, Georgia voters would be silenced,” McBurney wrote. “Our Constitution and our election code do not allow for that to happen.”
Several Georgia Democrats have filed an appeal seeking to force Gov. Brian Kemp to investigate and potentially remove three Republican members of the State Election Board over rule changes they claim could undermine the integrity of the upcoming election. State Sen. Nabilah Islam Parkes, D-Duluth, former Fulton County Election Board Chair Cathy Woolard, and Democratic state Senate candidate Randal Mangham filed the suit, alleging that the three board members — Janice Johnston, Janelle King, and Rick Jeffares — violated state law and ethics codes. The Democrats sought an administrative law hearing as the first step in the process to remove the trio from their positions. That lawsuit was thrown out last week, but Monday, the trio filed a notice of appeal for the Georgia Court of Appeals to review the merits of the case. Fulton County Chief Superior Court Judge Ural Glanville dismissed the case last Wednesday, dealing a blow to Democrats’ efforts to challenge the GOP-appointed board members. Despite the setback, Sen. Islam Parkes vowed to continue the fight, saying the board members were “sowing chaos within our election system.”
U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross said October 10 that she won’t order Georgia to reopen voter registration for November’s elections despite recent disruptions to registration caused by Hurricane Helene. Ross rejected arguments that the state should reopen registration through next Monday. The registration deadline was last Monday and she said in her ruling from the bench Thursday afternoon that there would be no extension. Ross said in her verbal ruling that three groups that sued didn’t sufficiently prove their members were harmed and said there are no state laws allowing Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the Republican defendants in the case, to order an extension of the voter registration deadline. Although the groups presented testimony Thursday that they know of at least two people unable to register, Ross said the testimony wasn’t detailed enough to link that failure to the burdens of Helene. “I don’t think we had even one voter who had been harmed or would likely be harmed by failure to register to vote,” Ross said.
A right-wing website that spread false claims of election fraud against two former Fulton County poll workers has settled a defamation lawsuit filed by the women. The settlement was filed in a St. Louis, Mo., circuit court, where Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss had sued The Gateway Pundit, an influential site that shared false and misleading information about the 2020 election. The terms of the deal were not made public. We “respectfully provide notice to the court that the parties have reached agreement to settle all claims and counterclaims asserted” in the case, attorneys for Freeman, Moss and The Gateway Pundit stated in a joint notice of settlement, news of which was first reported by The Guardian. In a statement, Freeman and Moss’ legal team said the dispute “has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties through a fair and reasonable settlement.”
Iowa: The Iowa Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the Linn County Auditor can pursue his lawsuit that questions the security of Iowa’s voter registration system. In 2019, Linn County Auditor Joel Miller, a Democrat, alleged the state’s computerized database of registered voters is potentially vulnerable to cyber threats. Secretary of State Paul Pate, a Republican, said Miller failed to give an example of a specific security threat and the Iowa Voter Registration Commission dismissed the complaint. The Linn County Auditor filed a lawsuit in 2020 and a district court dismissed the lawsuit last year. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled Miller has the right to proceed with his lawsuit that questions whether the state’s computerized list of registered voters is vulnerable to hacking. Secretary of State Paul Pate, in a written statement, said “first and foremost,” he wants to “assure Iowa voters that Iowa’s election systems are secure.” Pate said in the years since Miller’s complaint was filed in 2019, the state has installed “robust cybersecurity measures” in its election systems. In a statement to The Des Moines Register, Miller said his complaint is still valid because Iowa is “using the same voter registration system that I complained about in 2019.”
Massachusetts: Justin David Gaglio, 50 of Lynn threatened online to kill an election official and their family, federal authorities said. Gaglio was charged by criminal complaint with one count of transmitting interstate threats, acting U.S. Attorney Joshua S. Levy said in a statement. Gaglio sent over 80 messages to the election official through their website between January 2023 and September 2024, federal prosecutors said. Sometimes he sent several messages within minutes of each other. If found guilty, Gaglio could face up to 20 years in prison, up to three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000, according to Levy’s office.
Michigan: Republicans sued Michigan in a bid to force rejection of votes from what the state says is a “tiny” number of citizens who were born overseas and have never lived here. It’s the latest in a half-dozen “election integrity” lawsuits from the Republican National Committee, which alleges guidance from Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violates residency requirements in the Michigan Constitution. Benson’s office called the suit a public relations “campaign to spread unfounded distrust” in Michigan elections and said it targets voting rights of U.S. citizens, including children of military members “making sacrifices for our freedom.” At issue is a small number of U.S. voters who have never lived in the U.S. but were born to parents who previously lived in Michigan. GOP attorneys fear those voters could “overwhelmingly” support Democrats and thereby harm Republicans like presidential candidate Donald Trump. Federal law requires states to allow eligible citizens living abroad to vote in federal elections. And Michigan is one of 38 states that also allow “never resided” voters to cast ballots, according to the Federal Voting Assistance Program, which aids members of the military and U.S. citizens abroad. Benson’s guidance to Michigan election administrators instructs that a citizen who has never lived in the U.S. “but who has a parent, legal guardian, or spouse who was last domiciled in Michigan” is eligible to vote “as long as the citizen has not registered or voted in another state.” Attorneys for the RNC and Michigan Republican Party contend that violates the state constitution, which says voters must be 21 years old, “resided in this state six months” and meet “the requirements of local residence provided by law.” But both the age and residency requirements in the state constitution were previously nullified by a U.S. constitutional amendment and U.S. Supreme Court ruling, respectively. There is still a 30-day residency requirement in state law, which the lawsuit does not mention.
Minnesota: The Republican Party of Minnesota is part of a lawsuit against Hennepin County regarding the 2024 election and its eventual handling of absentee ballots. A state law requires counties to appoint election judges to absentee ballot boards from lists provided by the two major political parties. Republican Party Chair David Hann says Hennepin County did not select any names from their list of 1,500 provided to the Minnesota Secretary of State’s office. The petition was filed in conjunction with the Minnesota Voters Alliance, a conservative organization that often sues over election matters. It asks the state Supreme Court to require that Hennepin County create party balance on election absentee ballot boards. In a written response, the Hennepin County Auditor says the county is complying with Minnesota law and the Office of the Secretary of State with respect to the absentee ballot board members.
Missouri: A settlement has been reached between the Gateway Pundit and two Georgia poll workers who accused the St. Louis-based far-right website of defamation in a civil suit in St. Louis Circuit Court. Notice of the settlement was filed October 7. The parties to the dispute “provide notice to the court that the parties have reached agreement to settle all claims and counterclaims asserted in the … action, which settlement shall be satisfied on March 29, 2025,” the notice reads. “The parties respectfully request that this court vacate the trial date set in this matter,” the notice continues, “and stay this matter until March 29, 2025, at which point the parties will dismiss this matter pending satisfaction of the terms of the Parties’ settlement agreement.” The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. A representative of the legal team working for the two poll workers wrote in an email that the settlement offers “mutual satisfaction” and is “fair and reasonable.” The poll workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, could not be reached. Jonathan Burns, the St. Louis-based lawyer for Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit’s owner, did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.
Montana: District Judge Judge David Grubich has ordered Cascade County and the Fort Shaw Irrigation District to redo the May 2023 election. Grubich ordered a redo of the election for districts 2 and 4, which he wrote that the district “concedes…were flawed and agree the appropriate remedy is to have a special election.” The Dstrict 5 election was flawed, but the issue is moot because it was a one-year term which was on the May 2024 election. Terry Thompson, county election administrator, told The Electric that she has set the special election for Feb. 25, 2025 and that the Fort Shaw district will pay the election cost since it was also at fault for the election flaws. In his order, Grubich wrote that he was voiding the results of those two seats in the Fort Shaw election and that “regarding ballot irregularities involving Cascade County and Sandra Merchant, those issues have been mooted by ordering special elections.”
Nevada: Citizen Outreach Foundation voluntarily dismissed three lawsuits it filed in Nevada that asked county election officials to process around 30,000 voter challenges weeks before the election. The organization, through its “Pigpen Project” initiative, filed thousands of voter challenges across the state in late July. Following the guidance of Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar (D), election officials in Carson City, Storey County, Clark County and Washoe County did not process those voter challenges. In September, Citizen Outreach Foundation and its President Chuck Muth filed lawsuits against the local election officials claiming that they violated state law when they failed to process the voter challenges. The plaintiffs asked state courts to order county officials to process the challenges immediately by mailing notices to the challenged registrants and marking them as inactive voters if they did not respond within 30 days. The plaintiffs also requested that ballots cast by the challenged registrants be separated until their voter eligibility could be confirmed. County and state officials argued that Pigpen Project had failed to meet state requirements when submitting the challenges and that voter challenges cannot be processed within 90 days of an election per the National Voter Registration Act. Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar announced the withdrawal on Monday, saying: “In a victory for Nevada, several meritless challenges to our voter rolls – which could have affected eligible voters including members of our military and their families, who fight and sacrifice to protect our fundamental right to vote – are being dropped. No eligible voter should be subject to suspicion or confusion about their voter status. That’s especially true when the challenges do not meet the standards of either Nevada or federal law.”
Ohio: In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court has turned down an attempt to make it easier for Ohioans to drop off a family member’s ballot. Under state law, several close relations are legally allowed to do so. But following a federal court ruling requiring greater flexibility for disabled voters, Ohio’s Secretary of State Frank LaRose imposed a new requirement that anyone dropping off a ballot on behalf of someone else must sign a form attesting that they are following state law. Two voters and the Ohio Democratic Party challenged LaRose’s directive, arguing the attestation would unnecessarily restrict voting access. By demanding helpers fill out a form, they said, the directive limits drop off to hours when the board of elections is open, and access to drop boxes is restricted to people dropping of their own ballot. The Supreme Court sidestepped the question of whether LaRose’s directive violates state law. Instead, the majority determined the challenge came too late in the process. But in a pair of dissents, the minority blasted LaRose’s directive as “a sleight of hand that should make our citizens shudder” and chided the majority for its “failure to uphold the rule of law.”
Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court partially dismissed a complaint against the Montgomery County election board, ordering local election officials to pass along updated training materials to precinct election official volunteers who took classes before the evening of Sept. 25 and voting location managers who attended the board’s training before Sept. 29.
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has filed a lawsuit in federal court over the decision of Ohio election officials not to count votes for her after her running mate was named by the national party after a state administrative deadline. Cleveland.com reports that the lawsuit was filed October9 in U.S. district court in Columbus by Stein, the person named as her running mate on the state ballot and three Ohio voters. It alleges that the decision infringes on their constitutional rights to free speech, association, and equal protection and the voting rights of the Ohio-based plaintiffs. The Ohio Secretary of State’s Office granted a request to remove Rios from the ballot but said Ware’s name couldn’t be added because the state deadline to replace an independent vice presidential candidate on the 2024 ballot had passed. Office spokesperson Dan Lusheck told Cleveland.com that Stein’s name will still appear on state ballots, which were already being sent to overseas and military voters, but votes for her would not count. The lawsuit asserts that the withdrawal letter was written and delivered by a local party official without the knowledge or consent of Rios. The plaintiffs are asking the federal court to issue a preliminary injunction and restraining order to ensure that any votes for Stein and Rios are counted.
Pennsylvania: Six Republican Pennsylvania congressmen say in a lawsuit that Pennsylvania violates federal election law by failing to verify the identities of service members who apply for overseas absentee ballots. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg claims the Pennsylvania Department of State guidelines that say military voters and their spouses are exempt from voter identification and eligibility verification requirements violate the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). The suit seeks an injunction requiring election officials to verify the identities of people applying for overseas ballots and any ballots received before Nov. 5 to be segregated and not counted until the senders’ identities have been verified. The Pennsylvania Department of State, which oversees elections in the commonwealth, said in a statement that the suit appears to be a continuation of litigation first filed in 2020 and intended to sow confusion and throw out the votes of millions of Pennsylvania residents in that year’s presidential election. “Thousands of Pennsylvanians are currently serving our country abroad as members of the military, putting their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. But despite the sacrifices they make to protect us, some elected leaders are now making bad-faith arguments to prevent these votes from being counted,” DOS spokesperson Matt Heckel said. Heckel noted the suit was filed two weeks after Pennsylvania counties started mailing ballots to military and overseas voters and it baselessly challenges Pennsylvania law, which clearly lays out procedures for processing ballot applications by overseas voters.
Luzerne County settled a federal lawsuit brought by residents alleging that election administration issues — including paper ballot shortages across at least 50 precincts — disenfranchised voters during the county’s 2022 midterm elections. As part of the settlement agreement, Luzerne County agreed to adopt written election policies and procedures that outline specific requirements to ensure adequate ballot paper supplies in future elections. Per the settlement, the county will continue to order ballot paper after each election cycle to avert potential shortages and will retain an election law attorney to revise its election administration policies. The agreement further stipulates that county election personnel will receive annual training on election administration and states that the county will pay the plaintiffs’ counsel $30,000 for litigation expenses. The county did not, however, admit any wrongdoing. The lawsuit at issue in today’s settlement agreement claimed that Luzerne County and its election officials mismanaged the Nov. 8, 2022 midterm elections in a manner that left some voters unable to cast a ballot on Election Day.
Texas: U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez has ruled that provisions of Texas’ sweeping 2021 voting law that restricts voter assistance violate the federal Voting Rights Act and cannot be enforced. Among the rules struck down by Rodriguez was a ban on compensation for anyone who assists a voter and a requirement for anyone who assists a voter to sign an oath under penalty of perjury that the voter qualifies to receive help. Rodriguez also blocked provisions that require assisters to make certain disclosures about their relationship to the voter they are helping and a provision that restricts voter assistance given during door-to-door voter outreach operations. Rodriguez based his decision on the section of the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act that guarantees voters with disabilities or literacy limitations the right to receive assistance from whoever they choose. Although the judge has blocked any type of prosecution under these provisions, the rules and instructions on forms about requiring voter assisters from signing an oath are technically still in place for the upcoming Nov. 5 presidential election, because it is too close to the election to change the forms themselves. “This ruling will be most impactful for voters with disabilities, voters who have limited English proficiency, voters with literacy issues and the people who assist them,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, voting rights program director at the Brennan Center for Justice.
On October 7, a federal court returned a lawsuit to state court that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had filed against Travis County over an effort to register voters before the November election. The federal court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the issue, as Travis County officials had argued, and it granted Paxton’s request that the lawsuit be returned to state court. The decision is the latest development in a bitter pre-election brawl between Republican state officials and Democratic county leaders. Republican leaders have maintained that they are trying to keep the state’s voter rolls secure ahead of a charged election, while Democrats, county officials and nonprofit groups have accused them of stoking baseless fears to suppress Democratic votes and to cast doubt on the election results.
Virginia: The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Virginia election officials October 11 that accuses the state of striking names from voter rolls in violation of federal election law. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria says that an executive order issued in August by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin requiring daily updates to voter lists to remove ineligible voters violates federal law. The National Voter Registration Act requires a 90-day “quiet period” ahead of elections for the maintenance of voter rolls. “Congress adopted the National Voter Registration Act’s quiet period restriction to prevent error-prone, eleventh hour efforts that all too often disenfranchise qualified voters,” Assistant U.S. Attorney General Kristen Clarke said in a statement. “The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy and the Justice Department will continue to ensure that the rights of qualified voters are protected.” In its lawsuit, the Justice Department said the quiet-period provision reduces the risk that errors in maintaining registration lists will disenfranchise eligible voters by ensuring they have enough time to address errors before the election. A similar lawsuit was filed earlier by a coalition of immigrant-rights groups and the League of Women Voters.
Waynesboro city elections officials are refusing to certify the November election without changes to Virginia election policy in a lawsuit recently filed in Waynesboro Circuit Court “The Plaintiffs believe that to certify the election under the current legal and administrative regime, therefore, would be a violation of their oaths of office and, absent court intervention, shall refuse to certify the 2024 election,” reads the suit. The suit was brought by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Waynesboro city Board of Elections, Curtis Lilly and Scott Mares respectively, against Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections Susan Beals and Chairman of the Board for the State Board of Elections John O’Bannon. According to the Staunton Leader, Lilly and Curtis’s reasoning goes like this. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of Virginia reads, “Secrecy in casting votes shall be maintained, except as provision may be made for assistance to handicapped voters, but the ballot box or voting machine shall be kept in public view and shall not be opened, nor the ballots canvassed nor the votes counted, in secret.” The ballots cannot be counted in secret. “Board members are unable to personally review and verify that: the voting machine program being used to count the ballots is keeping a true and accurate count; the voting machine program being used to count the ballots is recording the true and accurate count; and/or that the voting machine record tape accurately represents the ballots cast,” reads the complaint. Because they cannot check the anonymized ballots themselves, the complaint states, “the plaintiffs believe that the voting machine is counting the votes in secret because neither the program counting the votes recorded on the ballots nor the ballots themselves can be examined.”
Michael H. Drucker
