Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Arkansas Ballot Measure: All signatures submitted in favor of putting on the November ballot a proposal to strengthen Arkansas’ initiative and referendum process were tossed because none of them were countable under state law, the secretary of state’s office announced last week. Secretary of State Cole Jester wrote in a letter to the proposed constitutional amendment’s sponsors that 19,924 petition pages submitted to his office had an incorrect ballot name on them. The popular name approved by the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office was “The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment.” Jester said the name attached to the signature pages was “The Ballot Rights Amendment of 2026.” “No petition part had attached or on its face the ballot title approved by the Attorney General,” Jester wrote. “Therefore you have submitted zero countable signatures” under state law. At least 90,704 valid signatures from registered voters must be submitted for a proposed constitutional amendment to qualify for the ballot. Even if the correct name had been attached and submitted properly, Jester said Protect AR Rights, the group behind the measure, would have only had 83,211 signatures, falling short by 7,493 the number required for his office to begin checking whether they were valid.
Missouri Ballot Measure: Secretary of State Denny Hoskins said this week that he wouldn’t certify a referendum seeking to undo the state’s new GOP-drawn congressional map, arguing that the effort was unconstitutional. “After careful consideration, I have determined the challenge to the new ‘Missouri First’ congressional map to be insufficient based on its unconstitutionality,” he said in an interview ahead of his public announcement. In response, a group called People Not Politicians Missouri said it gathered more than 300,000 signatures to force a veto referendum. Missouri law allows voters to block a law if they gather enough petition signatures — this year, that number is around 106,000 spread out around the state — and then win a majority of votes in a statewide election. But Hoskins said he believes state and federal law prohibit such a repeal, adding that Attorney General Catherine Hanaway and Gov. Mike Kehoe, both Republicans, agree with him. “I think, based on the Missouri Constitution, based on Missouri state law and based on the U.S. Constitution, a referendum on a congressional redistricting map is not constitutional,” he said. People Not Politicians, the group behind the ballot measure has filed suit.
Lincoln Nebraska Ballot Measure: The Lancaster County Election Commission rejected more than 65% of the signatures on three petitions from a conservative group seeking to reshape Lincoln elections this November. However, supporters say they’ll restart signature gathering. Lancaster County Election Commissioner Todd Wiltgen confirmed to the Lincoln City Clerk’s Office that his office had reviewed more than 30,100 signatures across the three petitions from Good Government Lincoln, according to a public records request. The group did not meet its goal of securing at least 4,981 valid signatures on each petition. Nearly 10,400 total signatures were validated. The Good Government Lincoln campaign, led by former state Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln, is seeking three amendments to Lincoln’s city charter to move the dates of city elections to align with statewide elections, allow certain residents within a few miles of city limits to vote in municipal elections, and place term limits on Lincoln City Council members.
Nevada: The Nevada State Legislature’s Joint Interim Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections voted to sponsor a bill for the 2027 session modeled after legislation passed by New Mexico earlier this year. The legislation would, among other things, restrict armed federal agents near polling places–something that is already banned by federal law but that President Donald Trump didn’t rule out when asked about potentially deploying the option in the future. New Mexico’s bill requires county clerks to adopt procedures to request police help in emergencies and created a fourth degree felony for “intentionally obstructing access to polling places,” according to reporting from Source New Mexico. The Legislature isn’t slated to meet until February 2027. But interim committees typically select their bill draft requests (BDRs) in the summer prior.
The Joint Interim Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections also instructed staff to draft a bill setting more stringent timelines for the processing of mail ballots in Nevada’s two largest counties. Clark and Washoe counties would be required to record the return of a mail ballot within 12 hours of arrival and review the signatures on mail ballot envelopes within 24 hours of its arrival. Rural counties would be permitted to send their in-state mail ballots out sooner. That bill draft request (BDR) stemmed from recommendations made to the committee by the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office. It was one of several SOS-backed recommendations.
North Carolina: House Republicans approved wide-ranging changes to the conduct of elections, pushing past Democrats’ objections. The House approved House Bill 958 in a 62-47 vote, with only Republicans in favor. Among other changes, the Senate added a provision that would reduce the early voting period in primaries, run-offs, and special elections from 17 days to 10 days. Republicans said turnout for those non-general elections is so low it doesn’t justify staffing polling sites for a full early voting period. The bill also allows challenges to ballots cast during early voting or by mail for up to three days after an election. People whose voter registrations are canceled because a federal database says they are deceased won’t have the chance to prove that their removal was a mistake. “Those databases we know are flawed,” said Rep. Phil Rubin, D-Wake.” We know they list people that are dead who are not dead.” The lack of due process will lead to lawsuits, he said. “It violates constitutional protections.” Rubin said the measure also opens the door to strategic ballot challenges. Gov. Josh Stein says he’ll veto the bill. House Bill 834, which focuses on ballot counting and obtaining missing voter signatures, passed with a vote of 74-35. Eleven Democrats and Rep. Carla Cunningham, U-Mecklenburg, voted with all Republicans.
Ohio Ballot Measure: State officials have finalized the language voters will see on the ballot this November when they decide whether to add Ohio’s existing voter ID requirement to the state constitution. The Ohio Ballot Board approved the ballot language for Issue 3, the measure’s official name, during a meeting at the Statehouse on August 3. The vote was 4-1, with Democratic state Sen. Bill DeMora joining the board’s Republican members, including Secretary of State Frank LaRose, in approving the language. The ballot language’s title describes Issue 3 as requiring “voters to present photo identification in order to vote.” The approved language also includes four bullet points that describe what the amendment does. Issue 3 would add Ohio’s existing voter ID requirement, which has been in place since 2023, to the state constitution. It would result in no immediate changes to Ohio’s voting laws, but it would make it harder for lawmakers to change or repeal the voter ID requirement in the future. Doing so would require another statewide vote. Notably, the amendment would not change Ohio’s rules for mail-in voting. Voters casting mail ballots, also known as absentee ballots, would still be exempt from the photo ID law, and instead would continue to be allowed to provide an alternative form of ID, such as the last four digits of their Social Security number.
Wood County, West Virginia
: The Wood County Commissioners unanimously approved the county’s emergency absentee voting policy, renewing a measure that allows eligible voters who are hospitalized or placed in a care facility on Election Day to receive a ballot. Under the policy, the county clerk’s office sends two poll workers — one Democrat and one Republican — to hospitals, personal care facilities, and rehabilitation facilities on Election Day to provide ballots to voters who were suddenly placed in those facilities and did not request a traditional absentee ballot. County Clerk Joe Gonzales said the policy is designed to ensure no eligible voter is unable to cast a ballot due to circumstances outside their control. “We want to make sure everybody gets out to vote or is able to vote,” Gonzales said. “If they can’t get out, you know, we want to take it to them. But these are usually emergency situations where they’ve been placed in a hospital or have been moved to a personal care facility or a rehab facility.” Gonzales said the policy has been in place for a number of years. It applies only to voters who are in a medical facility on Election Day itself and is separate from standard mail-in voting. The commissioners approved the policy renewal for this year’s general election.
Legal Updates
U.S. Supreme Court: States warned the Supreme Court this week against allowing President Donald Trump to enforce an executive order upending mail-in voting ahead of November’s midterm elections. Led by California, officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia urged the justices to keep Trump’s order on pause, arguing that the proposed changes posed a high risk of errors and a limited window to correct them. “[Trump’s] rushed effort to change the rules of mail voting on the eve of the November midterms risks disenfranchising a substantial number of voters — an intolerable risk that weighs heavily against a stay,” the states wrote. The “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections” order directs the federal government to create lists of eligible voters in each state and instruct the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to verified voters. It also requires mail ballots to be used with secure envelopes featuring unique tracking barcodes. Federal funding could be withheld from states and localities that do not comply. States questioned whether the program could be implemented as soon as this month. It would require the Postal Service to create a portal for states to upload voter rolls, scan ballot barcodes to verify voter eligibility and withhold delivery of ballots for voters not found in the database. “Even with ‘heroic efforts’ by state and local officials in the coming weeks, the EO’s rollout would be ‘disastrous from a practical perspective,’” the states wrote.
The Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) organized election officials and experts for an amicus brief urging the US Supreme Court to block President Trump’s executive order on voter citizenship verification and mail voting. The order directs the US Postal Service to create pre-approved lists of voters eligible to receive mail ballots and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide states with lists of individuals it deems to be citizens in each state. It also prioritizes federal criminal prosecution of election officials who provide ballots to individuals the federal government deems ineligible. A bipartisan and geographically diverse group of 118 state and local election officials, 19 local governments, and two clerks’ associations — represented by Public Rights Project and the Washington Litigation Group — filed an amicus brief in California v. Trump urging the court to maintain a lower court’s block on the order while the appeal moves forward.
Federal Litigation: Judge Adam B. Abelson of the US District Court of the District of Maryland preliminarily blocked the Trump administration’s ban on allowing nonprofit groups to register new US citizens to vote at naturalization ceremonies The plaintiffs “have made a very strong showing that they will prevail on the merits of their claim that the Ban is an unconstitutional restriction on their free speech rights,” Abelson wrote. He similarly ruled on claims under the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act for the preliminary injunction he issued. “The Court is unconvinced that requiring the government to apply the same policy it has been applying for decades and has only recently changed would cause any significant disruption or confusion,” Abelson, an appointee of President Joe Biden, wrote as a reason not to let his ruling move forward. The ruling is a victory for challengers of the policy waged through two lawsuits, one by the League of Women Voters entities and the other by the New Orleans chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women. The lawsuits were filed after the administration in August 2025 enacted rules that only allow US Citizenship and Immigration Services field officers and state and local election officials to provide voter registration services at naturalization ceremonies. This excluded nonprofits and other groups that provided such services for years.
Arizona: A law firm aligned with President Donald Trump is suing Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes over how he plans to describe a Republican election reform proposal on November general election ballots. America First Legal, which was co-founded by Trump advisor Stephen Miller, accuses Fontes of using misleading language to describe Proposition 144. That’s a proposal sent to the ballot by Republican lawmakers that would make a number of changes to Arizona election laws, including requiring all voters to present an I.D. to cast a ballot, even if they vote by mail. Prop. 144 would also ban foreign nationals from contributing to efforts to influence campaigns in Arizona and give the Legislature broad latitude to change election laws in the future to speed up vote counting and maintain election security. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of three Arizona voters who say they support Prop. 144, takes issue with a 50-word “descriptive title” and other language Fontes crafted that will appear on the ballot. The descriptive title crafted by Fontes states the proposed law “requires all voters, including voters who vote by mail, to show government-issued ID to vote in each election; makes other changes to election administration and campaign finance prohibition.” “The Secretary’s 50-word descriptive title and six-clause ‘yes’-vote statement omit Proposition 144’s primary purpose: ensuring that only citizens register and vote in Arizona elections,” according to a statement from America First Legal. The lawsuit also claims that “yes-vote statement,” which explains the impact the law will have if approved by voters, is flawed.
Arkansas: Supporters of a proposal to strengthen direct democracy asked the Arkansas Supreme Court Wednesday to order the secretary of state to verify signatures submitted in favor of putting the measure on the November ballot. The lawsuit asks the court to reverse Secretary of State Cole Jester’s rejection of the petitions for the proposed constitutional amendment, which would prohibit lawmakers from amending or repealing constitutional amendments approved by Arkansans and require voters to approve new laws that affect this process. Jester, a Republican, last week told the proposed constitutional amendment’s sponsors that 19,924 petition pages submitted to his office had an incorrect ballot name on them. “We’re asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to let the voters decide this ballot measure, not Secretary Jester,” said Alexander Jones, one of the attorneys representing the seven petitioners in their legal complaint. At least 90,704 valid signatures from registered voters must be submitted for a proposed constitutional amendment to qualify for the ballot. The ballot question committee Protect AR Rights submitted 95,111 signatures, according to the complaint, but Jester said his office would not count any signatures under a different name than the one Attorney General Tim Griffin approved. The popular name Griffin’s office certified last year was “The Arkansas Ballot Measure Rights Amendment.” The name attached to the signature pages was “The Ballot Measure Rights Amendment of 2026,” which Jester’s office shared online. These changes did not create “any material confusion to Petitioners or the other lawful voters who signed petitions in support of” the proposed amendment, the complaint states.
Colorado: U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer dismissed a lawsuit from the Trump administration that sought to compel Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold to hand over sensitive voter information to the federal government. Colorado was one of 30 states the administration sued for a refusal to supply unredacted voter information. So far, the U.S. Department of Justice has lost 20 of those cases. “Trump and his DOJ are attacking elections and democracy,” Griswold, a Democrat, said in a statement. “We will not let them win. Today’s victory affirms that Trump’s DOJ has no right to Coloradans’ sensitive voter information.” The DOJ sued Colorado in December to demand a copy of its statewide voter registration list that includes full names, dates of birth, addresses and either voters’ driver’s license numbers, last four digits of their Social Security numbers or their unique identifiers provided under the Help America Vote Act. The department first requested that information in May 2025, and then again in December when Griswold shared only publicly-available information. The federal government claimed it wanted the information from Colorado and elsewhere to ensure compliance with federal election laws, and argued it had authority to request the information as a statutorily-defined record. Denver-based U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer wrote in his order, however, that the voter registration list is “not a record or paper that must be produced pursuant” to statute. Brimmer was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush. The DOJ is unable to refile the claim against Colorado because Brimmer dismissed the case with prejudice.
Florida: Giorgio Dominique Mucelli, a Canadian national, has been charged by the Florida Attorney General’s Office after authorities said he illegally voted in seven general elections over two decades. Mucelli registered to vote in Brevard County on April 9, 2004, after claiming he was a U.S. citizen. Uthmeier said Mucelli voted in the general elections in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2012, 2020, 2022 and 2024. According to Uthmeier, Mucelli proceeded to vote early in the 2020, 2022 and 2024 elections and presented photo identification. At the time of voting, authorities said he falsely affirmed that he was a qualified elector. In January 2026, the Brevard County Supervisor of Elections determined that Mucelli was ineligible to vote based on his lawful permanent resident status and information in the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. After being notified that he was ineligible, authorities said Mucelli contacted the Supervisor of Elections Office and claimed he had not falsely voted. During an interview, authorities said Mucelli later admitted to voting in previous elections, lying to election officials and acknowledged that he was ineligible to vote because he was a lawful permanent resident. Investigators also documented his lawful permanent resident card and Canadian passport. Mucelli was charged with one count of voting by a noncitizen elector, a third-degree felony, and one count of false affirmation, also a third-degree felony.
Illinois: U.S. District Judge Colleen Lawless in the Central District of Illinois tossed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, saying the federal agency cannot compel the Illinois Board of Elections to release sensitive information about the state’s roughly 8.3 million registered voters. Seven months after Trump’s DOJ filed suit, Lawless dismissed it with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. Lawless’ 14-page opinion cites a lack of authority from the federal government to demand the Illinois voter rolls. “We’ll let the order speak for itself,” Matt Dietrich, a spokesperson for the Illinois Board of Elections, said in an email. Originally filed in federal court last Dec. 18, the suit sought a judge’s order instructing state election officials to release to then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi “the current electronic copy of Illinois computerized statewide voter registration list, with all fields, including each registrant’s full name, date of birth, residential address, and either their state driver’s license number, the last four digits of their Social Security number” or other unique identifier.
Thorn Smith, 68, of Peoria was acquitted of voting more than once during a municipal election last year. Jurors deliberated for a bit less than two hours before finding Smith not guilty of voting more than once, a felony that could have sent Smith to prison for up to five years. Smith was accused of voting more than once in the April 1, 2025, general election. He allegedly “after having voted once, knowingly accepted another ballot.” Smith voted using a mail-in ballot and on April 1, when he arrived at his polling place, an election judge’s computer indicated he had already gotten a mail-in ballot. “Despite this, Smith signed a form stating that he had not previously voted and proceeded to submit a second provisional ballot,” according to a press release from State’s Attorney Jodi Hoos’ office when he was charged. “Processes in place through the Election Commission noted this second illegal ballot, and it was not counted in the final certified election results.”
Iowa: The Republican National Committee is backing the Iowa GOP in its efforts to return signature verification requirements on absentee voter ballots. It says this is a fight to restore safeguards for Iowa’s election integrity. The filing asks Iowa courts to remove an injunction in the state’s law that blocks the signature requirement. The Iowa District Court of Polk County approved the injunction on September 30, 2019, in a lawsuit between the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa (LULAC) and Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate. The injunction blocks a law from 2017 that lets election officials dispute ballots with signatures that don’t match the voter’s signature on record. If the ballot is disputed, the voter can either send in a new ballot or update their signature on record. The judge ruled with the injunction that there could be a danger of inconsistent enforcement of the signature matching process. At the time, several county auditors said they would not enforce the signature verification procedure. LULAC said at the time the decision was a win against voter suppression and would clear the way for a strong Latino turnout for the 2020 election. The Iowa GOP is now asking the Polk County District Court to lift the injunction mainly because of “substantial” updates to state law, including enhanced ability for the Secretary of State to oversee elections.
Kansas: The Kansas Supreme Court chose not to authorize an expedited review of lower court decisions temporarily blocking enforcement of a new state law repealing the three-day grace period for mail-in advance ballots. A majority of the state’s highest court declined Secretary of State Scott Schwab’s request for extraordinary intervention by justices despite the approaching statewide primary Tuesday. A dissenting opinion signed by two members of the Supreme Court, one appointed by a Republican governor and one appointed by a Democratic governor, argued for immediate intervention into the case. Under the statute adopted by the 2025 Legislature, only advance ballots reaching Kansas election offices by 7 p.m. on Election Day could be counted. A lawsuit was filed to challenge the constitutionality of the change. Douglas County District Judge Carl Folsom issued an injunction in mid-July that resulted, at least temporarily, in preservation of the 2017 law allowing the counting of mail ballots postmarked by Election Day but arriving in county offices up to three days after polls closed. Folsom’s order was based on his belief plaintiffs were “substantially likely” to succeed at trial in their bid to strike down the law closing the three-day window. The Kansas Court of Appeals declined July 27 to suspend the district court’s order. Schwab requested the matter be transferred to the Kansas Supreme Court. A majority of the Supreme Court declined both requests from Schwab, declaring the secretary of state failed to demonstrate “the expeditious administration of justice requires the transfer.” “To the contrary,” the majority of justices said, “the Court of Appeals appears ready, willing and able to administer justice at this stage of the case.”
Minnesota: The Minnesota Voters Alliance urged the Minnesota Supreme Court to force the city of Minneapolis to use bipartisan election judges at early voting locations, arguing state law mandates such oversight before Election Day. The voter advocacy group says the city violates state election laws by relying on nonpartisan early voting officials, such as city clerks and municipal staff, rather than election judges at early voting locations.The group contends in a petition filed June 11 that while state statutes permit any election staff to perform basic administrative tasks during early voting, key statutory duties — such as assisting voters with ballot marking, handling curbside voting and resolving registration challenges — remain strictly reserved for election judges. “It would be senseless to require all those checks and balances on Election Day only to allow them to be completely circumvented by an early voting process where anything goes,” attorney Nicholas Nelson said. Attorneys representing the city of Minneapolis and the Minnesota secretary of state pushed back, warning that imposing full Election Day staffing rules onto early voting sites would disrupt local election administration, especially in rural areas. “The Legislature was well aware of who would administer early voting, what they would do and the burden that would be placed on these counties and municipalities,” Adam Szymanski, senior assistant city attorney for Minneapolis, said. “Petitioners, however, urge this court to impose a burden on election officials and voters the Legislature did not require and plainly did not intend.”
New Mexico: In July, the New Mexico Secretary of State’s Office agreed to release records related to state voters erroneously labeled as deceased, following a lawsuit from a national foundation that has filed similar lawsuits against states across the country. The Public Interest Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit in June after the Secretary of State did not produce records that would show how often and how quickly the state corrected its voter rolls upon learning it had erroneously deemed a voter as deceased. Central to the lawsuit is the Electronic Registration Information Center, also known as ERIC, which New Mexico and 27 other states use to share information regarding voters who have moved or died. ERIC notifies New Mexico and other states when it learns, primarily through the federal Social Security Administration, that a voter has died. ERIC also notifies states if it later learns that state election systems wrongly marked voters as deceased. Logan Churchwell, the foundation’s research director, told Source NM in a recent interview that the lawsuits are simply trying to understand better how states deal with deceased residents on voter rolls. “It’s early days, but the goal is to understand not just how many people, but how long does it take to get corrected?” he said. “And if there is a significant gap between the correction and them being re-established, are they missing opportunities to vote?”
New York City: A group hoping to bring open primaries to New York City is taking the city clerk and the city’s Board of Elections to court after they thwarted the group’s effort to bring the issue to voters. In court papers, United NY, a nonpartisan advocacy group focused on election reforms, claims it filed more than enough valid signatures. But the city clerk invalidated the group’s petitions based on a review conducted by the Board of Elections. The group’s executive director slammed the city, saying it is acting on behalf of partisan interests. “This is by-the-book establishment politics, and we expected it,” said Anthony Thomas, Unite NY’s executive director. “The Board of Elections’ job is to favor political parties, not the overwhelming number of voters who support open primaries, or the 1.1 million independents shut out of the system.” The court filing asks that a judge review its petitions line-by-line. Vincent Ignizio, the deputy executive director and spokesperson of the New York City Board of Elections, declined to comment citing pending litigation. The city clerk did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Pennsylvania: Eugene Kopecki, a Republican Scranton voter and Lackawanna County have settled a federal lawsuit the voter filed because he never received a mail-in ballot in an election last year. The county Bureau of Elections sent corrected mail-in ballots to 545 Republican voters for the May 20, 2025, primary election because the first batch listed candidates for the May 2024 primary election. His lawsuit, filed Dec. 29, said Kopecki called the county Bureau of Elections to report the mistake. An official told him he would get a corrected ballot in the mail. He never did, “leaving him unable to vote in the 2025 primary election,” according to the suit. In all, 395 Scranton Republicans who received corrected mail-in ballots cast them in a primary election that included choices for the party nominee for Scranton mayor, the suit says. There was no mention in the settlement of monetary compensation. Under the consent decree and order settling Kopecki’s suit, filed Monday, the county agreed to, within six months: Adopt a written manual establishing “a comprehensive set of election-related policies and procedures to guide all aspects of (the county’s) administration of elections.” The manual must include “instructions for drafting, designing, proofreading, printing and quality control of mail-in and absentee ballots.” Develop a comprehensive training program for all election workers on how to handle mail-in ballots. Require all newly hired election employees to attend specialized training on election laws, policies and procedures.
Texas: Ada Ngozi Otuka, a 63-year-old British national living in Katy, admitted to illegally voting in the 2020 federal election, officials say. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, Otuka pleaded guilty to illegal voting by aliens and false claim to citizenship. She reportedly pleaded guilty to falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen when filling out her Texas voter registration and statement of residence. Federal officials say Otuka is a lawful resident, but she cannot vote in U.S. elections. However, records allegedly show she voted in 2012, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2024. The U.S. Attorney’s Office says she did not respond to a notice in 2025 about her registration status being examined because information was received regarding her lack of U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Attorney’s Office says she filled out a naturalization application in 2025 that indicated she had voted unlawfully. At her sentencing, Otuka faces up to five years in federal prison for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship and another year for the conviction of illegal voting. She also faces a fine up to $250,000.
Wisconsin: Dane County Circuit Judge Everett Mitchell ruled this week that absentee voting in Wisconsin discriminates against disabled voters, siding with groups that are seeking to force election officials to allow for electronic casting of ballots. But Mitchell stopped short of ordering electronic voting, setting up a trial on that issue later. It almost certainly will not be resolved before the November election. Disability Rights Wisconsin, the League of Women Voters and four disabled voters brought the lawsuit in 2024. They argued that the lack of an electronic absentee voting option violated their right to independence and privacy and the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mitchell issued a temporary injunction in 2024, saying that disabled voters should have the option to vote electronically. But an appeals court reversed that ruling, sending it back to the lower court, saying it was wrong to issue a temporary injunction that would have changed and “significantly disrupted the status quo.” Mitchell ruled on Aug. 4 that the state’s absentee ballot program, which requires voters to complete and return a ballot on paper, denies disabled people “the equal opportunity to vote absentee privately and independently.” The judge declined to order elections officials to offer electronic ballots to qualified disabled voters, saying the parties still disputed whether that was a reasonable remedy. The judge noted that those included the difficulty of instituting such a program and the risks involved.
Michael H. Drucker
