Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska Ballot Measure: The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) on August 20 finalized the language it will use to describe a ballot petition in the October election that would require ballots in borough elections to be hand-counted. At the special meeting, held in order to meet a tight deadline to print election materials, the assembly members debated the informational language that would summarize the initiative in the municipal election pamphlet, which was first drafted by the Borough Clerk’s Office and Legal Department. “Our clerks put forward good factual information. I trust what they have,” FNSB Mayor Grier Hopkins said before the meeting. “How the assembly wants to make sure it’s worded for full clarity in their ultimate wisdom is up to them.” During the debate, assembly member Brett Rotermund proposed removing a section of the description that claims a hand count takes more time to determine election results than an electronic tabulation system. “We have to acknowledge that there’s a lot of people that are on the fence with these issues, and so they’re going to, maybe they’re reading some of this stuff at the last minute, before they go in and vote,” Rotermund said, calling the information “leading.” The assembly ultimately voted to keep the section, but to add clarification that “A hand-count typically takes longer to determine unofficial election results on election day than an electronic tabulation system. However, the official results will be determined in the same timeframe with either method.”
Colorado Ballot Measure: Voters will be asked in November whether to amend the state constitution to require that people verify their identity when submitting mail ballots by including the last four digits of their social security number or their full driver’s license or state ID number. The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office said that the supporters of Initiative 362 turned in a sufficient number of voter signatures to get the question on this year’s ballot. Under the measure, local election judges would be forced to dismiss ballots without that secondary form of identification. Voters are already required to sign their mail ballots before returning them, which is checked against a state database. Voters would have an opportunity to “cure” their ballot by confirming their identity under Initiative 362 if they forget to add their social security or ID number, or if an election judge couldn’t read it. That’s the current protocol for signature issues or discrepancies on ballots. Initiative 362 was filed by Chuck Broerman, a Republican and the former top elections official in El Paso County, and Suzanne Taheri, a Republican who works at a conservative Colorado law firm and previously served as Colorado’s deputy secretary of state. The Colorado Voter Trust Initiative, a state issue committee, paid signature gatherers to get the measure on the ballot. The committee was funded by $2.2 million from the Coalition for American Prosperity and Growth, which is registered to a shipping store in Colorado Springs that offers mailboxes for rent.
Aspen, Colorado Ballot Measure: The Aspen City Council decided to hold off on asking voters whether to move the city of Aspen’s municipal elections from March to November. The council has debated for the last month about placing a question on the upcoming November ballot that would ask Aspen voters if they wanted to move their elections. But with questions about how potential runoffs would be administered and the best way to increase voter turnout still looming, council members decided to delay the ballot question until the March 2027 municipal election to get answers. Earlier this month, council members moved two potential ballot questions forward that would have asked voters whether they wanted to move the election, one of which had a question about maintaining the city’s runoff system. Results from the city’s biennial community survey show support for moving the city’s elections to even years in November. But the question was broad and didn’t ask about preferences for a runoff election, which has been largely a mainstay of the city’s municipal elections since 2000. “We all agree that more people should vote in November, but it’s our job up here to weigh through the nuances of what that means for the public, and I don’t think we’ve done that thoroughly enough to move this forward for me tonight,” said Councilwoman Christine Benedetti.
Frankfort Township, Illinois Ballot Measure: Voters in Frankfort Township will see an advisory question about voter ID laws on the Nov. 3 General Election ballot. The exact question on the ballot will be: “Shall the State of Illinois enact a law to require a person to present a valid government issued photo identification card or passport establishing proof of their United States citizenship before allowing that person to vote in any Illinois election?” According to The Patch, Frankfort Township is one of several townships in Will County that is asking about voter ID laws. Green Garden Township and Crete Township have also placed similar questions on the ballot. Illinois does not currently require any ID when you go to the polls to vote.
Easton, Maryland: The Easton Town Council is considering an idea that could change who’s eligible to vote in future town elections, though officials stress the concept is still in its earliest stages. The idea to require voter ID in town elections was raised during a town workshop earlier this month. Council member Robert Rankin said the proposal is just a concept at this point. Rankin said the town is in the process of updating its town code, which lays out the town’s rules and regulations, and part of that update includes a section on campaigns. He said while it’s reasonable to ask a voter to confirm their identity at the polls, any changes would need careful legal review first. Under current law, Maryland does not require most voters to present identification at the polls to vote. However, anyone registering to vote in Maryland for the first time is required to provide a Maryland driver’s license number, MVA identification card or Social Security number. Part of the town’s preliminary discussion has centered on government-issued IDs and whether residents are able to obtain them in a timely manner. Rankin said the town attorney is looking into the legality of the idea, and that no decisions will be made before the November elections.
Michigan: The Michigan House of Representatives is forming a new select committee to consider policy changes at the state Bureau of Elections and Board of State Canvassers. According to Michigan Public Broadcasting it was the decision of the state canvassing board to block a proposed state constitutional amendment from appearing on the November ballot that is driving the committee creation. The measure would tighten Michigan’s voter ID laws and require proof of citizenship to register to vote. The board’s decision to stop the ballot drive hinged on technicalities around which petition signatures should count toward the total needed to get the measure on the ballot. House Republicans said that they want answers on how that could happen. The new committee, made up of five Republicans and two Democrats, will have the power to issue subpoenas and call people to testify under oath.
Michigan Ballot Measure: The Michigan Board of State Canvassers has denied ballot access to a state constitutional amendment that would require Michigan voters to prove they are U.S. citizens. In March, the group Americans for Citizen Voting submitted 709,841 signatures to the state in support of the amendment — significantly more than the 446,198 valid signatures required to get on the ballot. To estimate whether the group surpassed that threshold, the Board of State Canvassers checked the validity of a random sample of 1,000 of the submitted signatures. At least 629 of them needed to be valid to certify the proposal for the ballot. The board found 626 were valid, though it had not ruled one way or the other on a decisive number of the signatures by the end of the meeting. According to Votebeat, a long, tense meeting on Monday ended in a deadlock, meaning the effort won’t make the ballot without intervention from the Michigan Supreme Court. The decision — or lack thereof — means that despite the massive numbers of signatures the amendment’s supporters turned in, it will likely be the court that decides whether it makes the November ballot.
North Carolina Rulemaking: Gov. Josh Stein is asking for three new state election rules to be delayed pending review by the General Assembly, just days before they could take effect and absentee ballots start going out for the November midterm election. In a letter sent to the Rules Review Commission, Stein formally objected to three rules recently approved by the State Board of Elections dealing with absentee ballots and voter ID exceptions. Stein’s letter asks that the three rules be delayed and subjected to legislative review “to avoid their potentially damaging effects on our elections.” The Rules Review Commission is scheduled to consider the rules August 27. If approved and not subjected to legislative review, the rules would take effect Sept. 1, just three days before counties start mailing absentee ballots on Sept. 4. “Implementing such changes so close to an election invites confusion and undermines faith in our democratic process,” Stein wrote in the letter. One of the proposed rules changes how election officials handle problems with absentee ballots. Stein argues the changes would increase the chances that some legally cast ballots are rejected. The other two rules deal with voter ID exceptions. That’s when voters fill out an ID exception form in lieu of an acceptable photo ID when casting their ballot.
Oklahoma Ballot Measure: Oklahoma’s state Constitution will now include voter identification requirements. With nearly 55% support in this week’s election, voters approved State Question 846. The state question posed by lawmakers asked voters to amend the state Constitution to require voter identification and give the Legislature the ability to enact laws later to specify ID requirements. State law already required one of three forms of identification, but supporters said it was important to enshrine the requirement into the Constitution. It is more difficult to make changes to the Oklahoma Constitution than to state statute, so any future changes to the state’s voter ID laws will now require a vote of the people/would require a vote of the people if the measure passed.
Legal Updates
U.S. Supreme Court: The Supreme Court cleared the way for President Donald Trump to enforce an executive order dramatically changing mail-in voting ahead of November’s midterm elections. In a per curiam opinion, the high court sided with the federal government in a multistate lawsuit challenging the president’s executive order, which would create lists of U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state and instructs the U.S. Postal Service to send mail ballots only to verified voters. The court’s three liberal appointees issued two dissents. Trump filed an emergency application seeking to enforce the order, which would create lists of eligible voters in each state and instruct the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to verified voters. A dozen Republican-led states joined the president’s appeal, arguing a lower court overstepped by preventing the government from implementing policy changes for this year’s elections. Under the “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections” order, states would be required to update mail ballots with secure envelopes featuring unique tracking barcodes. Federal funding could be withheld from states and localities that do not comply. A Massachusetts court blocked key sections of the order. In the unsigned order, the justices granted a stay after determining Trump was likely to succeed on the merits that a federal court lacked the jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the order’s provisions, as the order had yet to take effect and thus the states had yet to suffer any harm. “Article III prohibits federal courts from stacking hypothetical on hypothetical to speculate that harm will eventually materialize,” the majority wrote. “Adjudicating this claim requires a prediction not only about whether the Secretary [of Homeland Security] will act before the midterms, but also about the shape that any such action might ultimately take. Article III demands more certainty.” The high court further found the government would likely suffer irreparable harm without a stay as the federal court’s injunction “interferes with the internal operations of the executive branch.” Dissenting, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted the majority’s apparent effort to significantly narrow the window in which election-related litigation may be considered. “It also lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges,” Jackson wrote. “The court has held for a while now that even valid election-related legal claims can come too late. Today’s revelation is that such claims can also come too early — never mind that an election is looming and related harms are presently occurring. Never mind too, that the government (which controls the timing of proposed and final rules) can easily game the system.”
Federal Litigation: U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani lifted a major obstacle to President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting, even as Democratic state officials filed a new court challenge with the midterm elections fast approaching. Talwani agreed to lift an order prohibiting the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out Trump’s order for November’s elections. She wrote that she was “compelled” to do so after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that a similar injunction she granted in a separate case was premature. Talwani nevertheless said the executive order could unleash “chaos” and referred to it as “likely unconstitutional.” The administration can now move forward and implement a Postal Service rule published late Friday. It would require states to follow a uniform envelope style for mail ballots and to give the Postal Service a list of voters eligible to receive them. The decision sets the stage for another possible consideration of the executive order by the Supreme Court. So far, the high court has ruled on a procedural issue, but not weighed in on whether Trump’s order is legal.
A new lawsuit, filed by about two dozen Democratically controlled states against the U.S. Postal Service, marked a new phase in the ongoing litigation over vote-by-mail. It came after the Supreme Court ruled against them in a separate case, but did not say Trump’s order was legal. The high court majority found the initial Democratic lawsuit was premature, but that was before the Republican administration issued a rule governing Postal Service delivery of mail ballots. Election officials warn it will be impossible to implement before the first wave of mail ballots are sent out next week. “Across the country, states are already deep into preparations for the 2026 elections. Now, at the last moment, the federal government is attempting to meddle in those preparations and potentially threaten countless Americans’ right to vote,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of 25 Democratic attorneys general filing the lawsuit, said in a statement. “USPS has no authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail.”
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the Justice Department violated her order blocking the U.S. Postal Service from imposing new restrictions on mail-in voting, after the Supreme Court lifted one of her two blocks against the policy, but took no action other than recognizing the breach. Talwani’s ruling leaves in place her prohibition against the Postal Service tracking mail-in ballots through barcodes for the Nov. 3 election. But the legal wrangling continues in both cases. The Postal Service announced Aug. 21 that it adopted the policy even though Talwani in Massachusetts temporarily blocked it in two cases. Then the Supreme Court overturned her block Aug. 24 in the case involving 23 states. But a nationwide block remains in place, which the government acknowledged, in the case dealing with voting-rights groups. Talwani ruled Aug. 25 that the Justice Department hadn’t appealed her decision in the nationwide case. She said the issuance of the final policy ignored the court’s explicit directive not to “initiate or complete” rulemaking. But she took no further action because her nationwide block remains in place.
The Democratic National Committee sued the Justice Department on August 20 over its refusal to turn over documents related to any plans to seize ballots, voting machines and other election materials within a month of any federal primary and general election during the midterms. The DNC filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, after the FBI declined to turn over such documents as requested in a Feb. 6, request brought in the wake of the FBI raid on the Fulton County election office on Jan. 28. “Following the seizure of archived ballots from Fulton County, Georgia — and seeking to ensure that the Trump administration does not attempt unprecedented abuses of criminal law enforcement tools to undermine upcoming elections — the Democratic National Committee sent requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act, to components of the Department of Justice concerning any planned seizure of ballots, voting machines and other voting systems components,” the DNC says in its complaint. The FBI acknowledged the request Feb. 18, then sent a letter on March 27 stating the request was administratively closed because it was “too vague” and thus it could not “reasonably locate records.” When the DNC contacted the FBI public liaison on March 31 to address the vagueness, the FBI “refused to engage in a cooperative process and advised that an administrative appeal was the only path forward.” On April 21, the DNC filed its appeal, but has received no further communications about the appeal’s status.
Alaska: The Alaska Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on legal challenges brought by two groups on opposing sides of the state’s current ranked choice voting election system. The two groups of plaintiffs brought lawsuits against the Alaska Division of Elections challenging the language of a ballot measure, set to go before voters in November, abolishing the voting method along with other changes. Ballot Measure 2, which will appear on the ballot as 24ESEG, would overhaul the state’s elections system via three major components: repeal ranked choice voting; rescind the nonpartisan, open primary system; and repeal campaign disclosure rules enacted by voters in 2020. A Superior Court ruled in June that the state’s ballot summary was “true and impartial,” siding with the Alaska Division of Elections, overseen by Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Alaska Supreme Court, which is expected to issue a fast-tracked ruling before a division deadline of Sept. 2 to print general election ballots. In court, attorneys representing Repeal Now argued against the lawsuits being combined and for a series of language changes, including changing of the term “repeal,” which they say is not easily understood by voters, and the term “true source” of campaign disclosures as “inflammatory partisan suasion.” The Elections Division, represented by attorney Laura Fox with the Alaska Department of Law, argued that the ballot language could be edited thousands of ways, but the division fulfilled its legal duty and prepared the ballot with a “true and impartial” summary and title. The Alaska Supreme Court justices will either uphold the lower court’s decision or order the division to revise the language. They’re expected to issue a ruling before Sept. 2 and then follow sometime later with an extended legal opinion.
Arkansas: The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit that sought to reverse the secretary of state’s decision to disqualify a direct democracy ballot measure from the ballot. Supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment filed the lawsuit earlier this month after Secretary of State Cole Jester rejected thousands of petition signatures in favor of the ballot measure because the incorrect ballot name was on the nearly 20,000 petition pages. The state argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because officials were following the law and that the court had previously upheld the prohibition on counting signatures on petitions with the incorrect popular name. The court’s one-page order did not elaborate on the reason for the dismissal. The lawsuit had asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to order the secretary of state to verify signatures submitted in favor of putting the measure on November’s ballot. Protect AR Rights sponsored the proposed measure, which would have prohibited lawmakers from amending or repealing constitutional amendments approved by voters.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks declared laws restricting Arkansas’ initiative and referendum process unconstitutional and permanently blocked their enforcement. Brooks wrote that laws requiring all canvassers to be Arkansas residents and paid canvassers working on a statewide initiative petition or referendum to be residents living in the state violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. He also declared unconstitutional a prohibition on paying canvassers based on the number of signatures obtained. The decision resulted from a lawsuit filed against Secretary of State Cole Jester in 2025 by the League of Women Voters of Arkansas. Two ballot question committees, Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids, were later allowed to intervene in the case. Jeff LeMaster, a spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin, said the state intends to appeal the ruling.
Delaware: A court order will protect permanent absentee voting for certain voters in the 2026 general election while a legal challenge brought by state Sen. Gerald Hocker moves forward. Attorney General Kathy Jennings announced that her office defeated Hocker’s request for a temporary restraining order after he filed suit Aug. 5 against State Election Commissioner Anthony Albence and the Delaware Department of Elections. Hocker’s lawsuit challenges Delaware’s permanent absentee voting system, which allows qualifying voters to remain on a permanent absentee list and automatically receive absentee ballots for elections. “This is another 11th-hour voter suppression attempt from a plaintiff who seems to have forgotten that he once voted to pass the law he now seeks to destroy”, said Attorney General Kathy Jennings. “Tens of thousands of veterans, senior citizens, and Delawareans with disabilities rely on permanent absentee voting. We’ve beaten this lawsuit before and we’ll do it again.” Hocker brought a similar legal challenge in 2024. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in that case. On Aug. 19, the Court of Chancery entered an order protecting two groups of permanent absentee voters for the 2026 general election: voters who qualify under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and voters who submitted permanent absentee applications after the conclusion of the 2024 general election.
Florida: Broward Circuit Judge Carlos Rodriguez struck down a legal challenge to a referendum that allows voters to decide if Deerfield Beach will cancel its next two municipal elections. The referendum, if approved, would cancel the March 2027 and March 2029 municipal elections and extend the terms of the current commission by 20 months. The language approved by the commission says that pushing elections into November of even numbered years would reduce cost and increase voter turnout. Two potential candidates for the city commission in 2027, Dan Herz and Wayne Adams sued the city arguing that extending the current commission terms violates the city’s term limits law. Herz and Adams had filed an emergency motion for an injunction to prevent the referendum from appearing on the ballot, but that was denied by Rodriguez.
Lauren Mones, 49 of St. Pete Beach was arrested after going to the Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections office seeking answers about why voter records showed her as having no party affiliation, preventing her from voting in the Republican primary. Mones was booked into the Pinellas County Jail on a charge of trespassing in a structure or conveyance after warning, according to jail records. She was arrested by the Largo Police Department and booked at 11:11 a.m. Aug. 18, the same day as Florida’s primary election. After being turned away from the Republican primary, Mones said she drove to the Supervisor of Elections office in Largo to find out what had happened to her registration. She began recording the interaction on her phone, she said, because she wanted a record of what was discussed. Deputy Supervisor Dustin Chase eventually told her he was calling law enforcement. Florida law does give election officials broad authority to maintain order at polling places and enforce lawful commands during an election. State law also allows disruptive or unruly people to be removed by law enforcement in certain circumstances. The law also prohibits photography in polling rooms and early-voting areas, with an exception allowing a voter to photograph his or her own ballot.
Georgia: A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals directed a lower court to reconsider a decision that determined Georgia’s previous political maps had illegally weakened Black voting power. The panel nullified a trial judge’s ruling on Georgia’s 2021 maps, saying it needed to be reexamined in light of a major U.S. Supreme Court decision this spring that significantly changed the legal standard for court challenges under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. “We will afford the district court the opportunity to reassess this case under the new standard,” the judges wrote in an 11-page decision. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the ruling was not unexpected after the high court’s ruling this April in Louisiana v. Callais, which made it significantly more difficult for critics to challenge what they deemed as unfair or discriminatory political maps in court.
Maryland: Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson has ruled against a proposed constitutional amendment that could have paved the way for Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2028 elections. An amendment referred to the ballot by lawmakers seeks to sidestep a court ruling that struck down a previous Democratic redistricting plan in 2022. It would declare that a constitutional requirement for districts to be compact and take into account “natural boundaries” applies only to state legislative districts, not congressional ones. Thompson ruled that lawmakers violated their own deadlines for ballot measures. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed a law signed by Moore that set a July 1 deadline for the secretary of state to certify summaries of all statewide ballot questions to the Maryland State Board of Elections. The state attorney general’s office argued that deadline didn’t apply to the redistricting amendment because lawmakers wrote their own ballot summary for it, using their constitutional authority. The judge disagreed, instead siding with arguments by the conservative Oversight Project and Republican state lawmakers who sued. Thompson also ruled that lawmakers used “intentionally misleading” wording in the ballot question by stating that it merely “clarifies” the Constitution’s redistricting standards. And Thompson said the amendment violates a single-issue requirement in the Constitution by also including a provision that would give the state Supreme Court original jurisdiction in lawsuits over congressional redistricting. “The court has no choice but to enjoin the board of elections from including ballot Question 3 on the general election ballot for November 3, 2026,” Thompson wrote.
Minnesota: A three-judge panel of The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Minnesota officials can’t enforce a state law against election disinformation, siding with a group speaking out on a law that allows felons to vote if they’re not incarcerated. In the ruling, Appeals Judge David Stras said the “First Amendment protects speech on a matter of public concern, like these statements, whether they are correct or not.” Stras, a former Minnesota Supreme Court justice, goes on to say the state regulation went too far and there were other options for elections officials to get correct information out there. “It overreaches because at least one speech-promoting alternative exists: counter speech,” Stras wrote for the unified three-judge panel. “Rather than limiting what others say, it could have launched an education campaign consisting of calls, texts, or emails informing them of their rights.” The Minnesota Voters Alliance has opposed a relatively new state law that restored voting rights to people who are on probation or supervised release for felony convictions. The alliance contends the Minnesota law on felon voting is unconstitutional, an argument that fell short in state courts. It contends it should be able to keep pressing that position without running into trouble with the law restricting false information.
Mike Lindell, a longtime 2020 election denier, sued the Minnesota secretary of state and election officials, claiming they changed the scope of a potential recount in the GOP gubernatorial primary this month. Lindell, who lost Aug. 11 to state House Speaker Lisa Demuth by about 45,000 votes, said last week that he would pay $825,000 to cover the cost of a full hand recount and audit of the race, in which he finished a distant second despite an endorsement from President Donald Trump. The deadline for payment came and went without the money from Lindell. He told NBC News that he refused to pay after he was informed that a recount would focus on the ballots cast for him or Demuth, rather than every ballot cast in the seven-candidate Republican field. “I paid this to have all of the votes counted, not just two people,” he said. “I need to have a real recount, and I will fight this in court and get that real recount. I don’t care if it costs triple. I didn’t hold back anything. They did a bait-and-switch on me, and it’s disgusting.” The secretary of state’s office said in a statement that it provided the contingent recount plan to Lindell after the State Canvassing Board approved it on Aug. 18. The office said that “the plan follows state law and administrative rules on recount procedures and is consistent with previous recount plans.” The lawsuits against the secretary of state’s office and the State Canvassing Board dispute the recount process the state outlined and seek to ensure no recount takes place based on those parameters.
Nebraska: The Republican National Committee appealed a district judge’s ruling to the Nebraska Supreme Court that upheld the validity of a state law allowing certain overseas voters to vote. The RNC and two Lancaster County voters filed the appeal August 19. The case involves a state law dating back to 2005 that allows U.S. citizens who have never resided in Nebraska but have a parent registered to vote in one Nebraska county to register in that county. It would be a felony to register or vote in multiple states or counties. The RNC argues the law “dilutes the votes of lawful Republican voters” and violates Article VI, Section 1 of the Nebraska Constitution, which defines a qualified voter as a U.S. citizen who “has resided within the state and the county and voting precinct for the terms provided by law.” Lancaster County District Judge Ryan Post ruled Aug. 12 that there was at least one constitutional application for the law so it couldn’t be challenged as unconstitutional on its face. “A statute is presumed to be constitutional, and all reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of its constitutionality,” Post wrote in a 13-page order.
Ohio: U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. blocked Ohio from requiring voters show documented proof of citizenship when registering at a motor vehicle bureau. In granting a preliminary injunction against the provision, Oliver said Ohio’s provision is preempted by the National Voter Registration Act and increases the likelihood that U.S. citizens fail to register for elections. “The ‘strong public interest in allowing every registered voter to vote,’ an interest which extends to voter registration and ensuring as many eligible U.S. citizens as possible become registered to vote, will be denied absent an injunction,” the Bill Clinton appointee said in the order. “Such an outcome would be contrary to the NVRA’s purpose, and a strain on the fundamental right to vote.” The ruling suspends the requirement for documentation ahead of the Oct. 5 registration deadline for the midterm election, and contrasts with President Donald Trump’s push for Congress to pass a bill requiring citizenship documentation to register to vote. Ohio Secretary of State Frank Larose announced his office would move to appeal the decision shortly after the ruling was issued, saying he will “vigorously defend our legal authority to safeguard our voter rolls and protect the integrity of Ohio’s elections.”
Oregon: Safer Portland, backers of a stalled initiative to use Portland’s clean energy funds to hire police officers filed a lawsuit on August 21 accusing local elections officials of discrimination and calling for an independent signature recount. The group filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Oregon. “Without immediate action from this court, the initiative will not be on the ballot this election and voters will be irreparably deprived of their constitutional rights,” Safer Portland wrote in its 30-page complaint. The group accuses elections staffers of tossing out numerous sheets of signatures required to qualify a petition for the November ballot. It argued the city’s process violated signatories’ voting rights and treated them in an “arbitrary and disparate manner.” The group said it is seeking a timely recount to get on the ballot. It said it proffered about 63,000 signatures but accused staffers of disqualifying thousands of them over things like mismatched signatures and bad dates.
South Dakota: The League of Women Voters and a Sioux Falls voter filed a lawsuit in federal court over the implementation of South Dakota’s new proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration. Senate Bill 175, passed by lawmakers and signed into law by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden in March, requires documentary proof of citizenship from people registering to vote. That proof can take forms including a birth certificate, passport, driver’s license, non-driver’s identification card or tribal identification card, or “any other type of acceptable documentary evidence of citizenship” under federal law. Photocopies are acceptable for any of the documents except driver’s licenses or state or tribal ID cards. People who don’t provide those documents are registered but receive a “federal-only” ballot, meaning one that lists only candidates for federal offices such as the president and Congress, but not state or local offices. In addition to proof of citizenship, the new law requires a person to provide a physical address in South Dakota, other than a mail-forwarding service or post office box, to be registered for voting in state and local elections. That provision — enforceable at the time of registration or upon a request for an absentee ballot — targets people such as full-time recreational vehicle drivers who may receive forwarded mail and register their vehicles in the state but otherwise don’t live there. The lawsuit alleges that South Dakota’s rollout of the proof-of-citizenship requirement has disqualified eligible voters over erroneous minutiae and failed to offer them a realistic shot at fixing problems with their registration application. The lawsuit asks a judge to force the state to: Accept photocopies of driver’s licenses, tribal IDs and nondriver IDs for voter registration; Rescind guidance requiring in-person registration for people who use such IDs as proof of citizenship; Make sure registrants designated as federal-only are offered accurate explanations as to why they’ve been denied access to state and local ballots; and Offer voters registered as federal-only an opportunity to challenge the designation. The lawsuit also seeks a ruling that the non-acceptance of photocopies for state and tribal IDs violates the U.S. Civil Rights Act, and asks the state to pay the plaintiffs’ attorney fees.
Tennessee: Washington County, Tennessee mayoral candidate James Reeves is contesting the election he lost in court. Reeves filed a lawsuit in chancery court against mayor Joe Grandy, members of the Washington County Election Commission, and officials at the Tennessee Secretary of State’s office. Reeves alleges the certified results are wrong, citing what he calls “irregularity” and “statistical evidence.” The lawsuit does not elaborate on what that evidence is. In the last election cycle in 2022, Reeves did not formally contest the results, but he told News 5’s Caleb Perhne and other reporters there was fraud, despite not providing any evidence beyond his handwritten notes of what he believed the results should have been.
Virginia: Despite winning a lawsuit earlier this year that found that certain Virginians with felony convictions should not have lost their voting rights, some Virginians missed their chance to vote in congressional primary elections earlier this month. But a new ruling from U.S. District Court Judge John Gibney means that they will be able to vote in this November’s general elections and weigh in on a state constitutional amendment that would enshrine restored voting rights for people with felony convictions, so long as their prison sentences are complete. The voting access issue stems from a series of 1870 laws called the Readmission Acts, which banned former Confederate states from constitutionally disenfranchising people other than those convicted of crimes considered “common law” at the time. Virginians with felony records lose the right to vote unless they successfully petition the governor for restoration or are pardoned. The processes are subjective and have not always had clear guidelines.
Wisconsin: In July, the Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5-1 to refer two complaints to the Brown County District Attorney’s office, alleging that Elon Musk’s $1M handouts for voting — which he announced went to people who could prove they had already voted in the election — amounted to bribery. La Crosse County DA Tim Gruenke was appointed as a special prosecutor to decide if charges should be brought against Musk, the world’s richest man. In a letter released Tuesday, Gruenke said that while Musk posted on X, the platform he owns, that the checks he handed out at a political rally in Green Bay would go to people who had cast absentee ballots, he said in a later post that entrance to the rally was limited to people who had signed a petition opposing “activist judges.” “In this case, without the famous name attached and the large dollar amounts involved, it is a simple case of a poorly worded statement that was corrected and brought into compliance with the law,” Gruenke wrote. “Because the original post was poorly worded and ambiguous about who would receive money, and the second post corrected the problem relatively quickly, I do not believe a jury would convict Elon Musk of a crime.”
Michael H. Drucker
