Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Federal Legislation: By a 218-213 vote, the House approved the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America Act on February 11. The bill would require Americans to prove they are citizens when they register to vote, mostly through a valid U.S. passport or birth certificate. It would also require a valid photo identification before voters can cast ballots, which some states already demand. Republicans said the legislation is needed to prevent voter fraud, but Democrats warn it will disenfranchise millions of Americans by making it harder to vote. Federal law already requires that voters in national elections be U.S. citizens, but there’s no requirement to provide documentary proof. Experts said voter fraud is extremely rare, and very few noncitizens ever slip through the cracks. Fewer than one in 10 Americans don’t have paperwork proving they are citizens. The legislation is actually a do-over of a similar bill the House approved last year, which also sought to clamp down on fraudulent voting, particularly among noncitizens. It won the support of four House Democrats, but stalled in the Republican-led Senate. Only one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, voted for the revised bill. This version toughens some of the requirements further, while creating a process for those whose names may have changed, particularly during marriage, to provide the paperwork necessary and further attest to their identity. It also requires states to share their voter information with the Department of Homeland Security, as a way to verify the citizenship of the names on the voter rolls. That has drawn pushback from elections officials as potentially intrusive on people’s privacy. The new rules in the bill would take effect immediately, if the bill is passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law. But with primary elections getting underway next month, critics said the sudden shift would be difficult for state election officials to implement and potentially confuse voters. Voting experts have warned that more than 20 million U.S. citizens of voting age do not have proof of their citizenship readily available. Almost half of Americans do not have a U.S. passport. In the Senate, where Republicans also have majority control, there does not appear to be enough support to push the bill past the chamber’s filibuster rules, which largely require 60 votes to advance legislation.
Alabama: If some lawmakers get their way, Alabamians could avoid long lines at the polls on election day by casting their votes early. House Bill 270 establishes a process for early in-person voting at centers across the state. This bill would require each county commission to establish early voting center locations in the county and establish a communications plan to publish notice of early voting in the respective county. House Bill 45 would allow a designated person to deliver a disabled voter’s absentee ballot application and ballot to the absentee election manager. Members of the Alabama House Democratic Caucus say it’s time to make changes with these. Secretary of State Wes Allen has been very adamant about upholding election integrity and has said he believes in election day, not election month. One sponsor of House Bill 270, Representative Adline Clarke, says that the voter participation rate in the 2022 midterms was 38.5 percent, the lowest rate in 30 years, prompting some lawmakers to push for improved access to voting. Clarke said, “Some people aren’t able to go to the polls on a specific Tuesday, or they may deal with employment, financial, or transportation issues that keep them at home on that one particular day to vote. There’s no reason we can’t give more people more time and more opportunity to exercise their most fundamental right as a citizen.”
Arizona: Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) signed a new law permanently moving Arizona’s primary elections up from August to the second-to-last Tuesday in July. That means this year’s new primary election date is July 21. The change was needed to give election officials enough time to meet federally imposed deadlines and make sure overseas military members can vote. The Legislature had to make a similar change last year after Congress made changes to several election deadlines that conflicted with Arizona’s existing dates and threatened to put ballots for military personnel and the state’s presidential votes at risk. The new law will also move up the voter registration cut-off date for the primary to June 22 and affect other key election dates, including the candidate filing deadline. In addition to changing the voter registration deadline, Kolodin’s bill also clarified that political party observers can oversee activities anywhere voting occurs. It also allows voters more time to address signature issues on early ballots.
The House voted along party lines to pass House Concurrent Resolution 2001, which would make it much harder to vote by mail in the Grand Canyon State. A major provision of HCR2001 would amend the Arizona Constitution to end what election officials call “late earlies” — mail-in ballots dropped off at polling locations on Election Day and the weekend prior. The 200,000 late early ballots dropped off at polling places and drop boxes on Election Day during the past couple of elections slow down the reporting of results because workers have to process them and verify voter signatures before they can be tabulated. (Ballots received prior to Election Day have their signatures verified, and then are tabulated immediately when the polls close, allowing the bulk of them to be reported an hour later, when results can begin to be released.) A provision in HCR2001 would require all voters to provide a government-issued ID concurrently with casting their ballot. Arizonans who vote in person at a polling site already must show identification before they are given a ballot, but early voters aren’t required to do so because their signatures are verified by elections workers. The resolution contains no rules or guidelines for how voters would provide state-issued ID with their mail-in ballots, which currently undergo signature verification to confirm a voter’s identity.
Florida: A sweeping election proposal from Fort Myers Republican Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka has advanced through its first House Committee in the face of sharp Democratic criticism. The bill (HB 991) would require verification of U.S. citizenship before voters can cast a regular ballot, mandate statewide rechecks of existing voter rolls and overhaul how Florida audits election results. The measure cleared the Government Operations Subcommittee after lawmakers rejected a Democratic strike-all amendment that would have expanded voter access through same-day registration, automatic registration and an Election Day holiday. If approved, HB 991 would require citizenship verification at the time of voter registration and during certain registration updates. Applicants whose citizenship cannot be confirmed through Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) records would be designated as unverified voters and barred from casting a regular ballot. Those voters could still vote provisionally, but their ballots would only be counted if citizenship is verified within two days after the election. Supervisors of Elections would remain the final authority on voter eligibility, with voters receiving notice, time to respond and the opportunity to request a hearing if questions arise. Persons-Mulicka emphasized that Supervisors would review citizenship documents but would not collect or retain copies of sensitive personal records. The bill also expands mandatory data sharing between DHSMV and the Department of State, requiring weekly transmission of citizenship and identification information to support voter list maintenance. Florida driver’s licenses and state identification cards would indicate whether the holder is a U.S. citizen beginning July 2027, a change supporters say would streamline verification for voters with state-issued IDs. Beyond voter eligibility, the measure would make broad changes to election administration. It would require most voting to be conducted on paper ballots unless a voter with a disability requests an accessible voting device. It would also establish an automated, independent vote-validation process to review ballots before results are certified.
Hawaii: A state proposal could automatically register eligible residents to vote in elections — unless they explicitly “opt out” of that opportunity. HawaiĘ»i already has an automatic voter registration system, but it follows an “opt-in” model. Eligible residents have to choose registration when they apply for or renew their driver’s license or state ID. House Bill 2132 would instead register voters unless they decline. The measure said unregistered voters would be mailed notices that allow them to opt out. According to the measure, the current model “places the burden of registration on individual voters,” and an opt-out model makes voting easier. It said that “every eligible person should be able to register to vote in a convenient and secure manner that benefits both new voters and election administrators. Improving voter registration processes can help ensure state election systems remain secure and efficient, safeguard the integrity of votes, and reduce administrative costs.”
Iowa: Iowa’s secretary of state is proposing that candidates in Iowa school board and city elections file the petitions to get their names printed on ballots with their county auditor. School board secretaries and city clerks have been handling that paperwork for years. However, at least 34 local candidates were left off ballots this past November after city clerks and school board secretaries in seven counties missed the deadline for submitting the petitions to county auditors. The bill also clarifies when recounts are permitted in bond elections that require 60%. Cerro Gordo County Auditor Adam Wedmore, president of the Iowa State Association of County Auditors — which backs the bill, testified at Wednesday’s subcommittee hearing on the bill. “It’s making some timely tweaks to current election law,” Wedmore said. “It does clean up some of the things that we have found over the last few elections.” The bill would give county auditors authority to decide when to convene the boards that count absentee ballots on election day. Under current law, those boards are required to begin at 9 a.m. That would continue for statewide and federal elections, but officials say in low-turn-out elections for bonding issues or city and school board elections, it doesn’t take that much time to count absentee ballots.
Kansas: The Kansas Secretary of State’s Office wants to block voting rights groups from “forum shopping” legal challenges to election laws by requiring such cases to be filed in Shawnee County District Court, a forum that is often favorable to Republicans. Voting rights groups in the past five years have filed two lawsuits over election laws in state court, one in 2021 in Shawnee County and one in 2025 in Douglas County. Both are ongoing. Other cases have been filed in federal court. Clay Barker, general counsel for the secretary of state, said the idea to set Shawnee County as the venue for election lawsuits was suggested by litigation attorneys retained by Attorney General Kris Kobach. “We want to ensure that there isn’t what’s known amongst lawyers as forum shopping, which is something every competent litigation lawyer does,” Barker said. “You try to find the best venue, the best district court, for the particular case you’re bringing.” Under HB 2569, the lawsuit filed last year over a change in law to eliminate the three-day grace period for mail-in ballots would be moved from Douglas to Shawnee County. Democrats on the House Elections Committee accused Barker of trying to cherry-pick the best forum for defending election laws. They noted the burden that would be placed on a plaintiff from, for example, Colby, a five-hour drive from Topeka. Barker said the plaintiff wouldn’t have to appear in court. “Has there ever been an instance where a plaintiff wanted to be in the courtroom while their case is being heard? Have you witnessed that before?” said Brooklynne Mosley, a Lawrence Democrat.
Maine: Lawmakers are asking the state’s highest court whether it would be legal to expand ranked-choice voting. The majority of legislators in the Democratically-controlled Maine House of Representatives and Senate voted this week in support of LD 1666, which would expand the voting method to special and general elections for governor, state senator or state representative. The legislation passed both chambers last session but was recalled from the governor’s desk and carried over to this year. During a Jan. 30 work session, sponsor Sen. Cameron Reny (D-Lincoln) explained that the governor had intended to veto the bill, but was open to a solemn occasion — a rarely used action in which lawmakers can ask the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to produce a nonbinding decision on the legality of pending legislation. Following initial passage of the legislation, Reny introduced a joint order asking the justices to issue an advisory opinion on whether the changes made in LD 1666 conform with the provisions of the Constitution of Maine. Speaking on the Senate floor, Reny said the motion “isn’t about whether I agree or disagree with ranked-choice voting…It’s about ensuring Maine law embodies the will of the voters and the text of our Constitution.” The bill will remain in possession of the Senate while it awaits that opinion, which lawmakers will consider before deciding whether to advance the legislation to the governor. But, even if the courts deem it legally possible, it remains unclear how such a change would be implemented in time for the November election.
Mississippi: The Senate Elections Committee adopted a measure that would, at least partially, restore the system to allow Mississippians to bypass the Legislature and put issues to a statewide vote. The committee voted to approve Senate Concurrent Resolution 518, which would require initiative organizers to gather signatures from at least 10% of registered voters in the state, or roughly 170,000 signatures, before it can go on a ballot. The committee’s chairman, Republican Sen. Jeremy England of Vancleave, said the measure is a work in progress, but he wanted to advance the bill ahead of Tuesday’s key legislative deadline for the Senate to continue debating the measure. The Mississippi Supreme Court invalidated the state’s initiative process in 2021 over technicalities, and the Legislature has not been able to reach a consensus on how to restore it to voters ever since. “When we have something and get it taken away from us, we want it back,” England said. As it’s currently written, England’s resolution would allow a ballot initiative to change or create state law, but not the state Constitution, as the previous ballot initiative system provided. It would also prohibit initiatives related to abortion and the state’s public pension system.
The House passed a bill that could make it more onerous for people without a driver’s license to register to vote, a proposal its author said would allow local elections officials to verify a person’s citizenship. The Safeguard Honest Integrity in Elections for Lasting Democracy, or SHIELD, Act would require county registrars to conduct extra checks on people who try to register to vote without a driver’s license number. Under the bill, if someone tried to register and could not produce a license number, the clerk would need to verify whether the person appears in a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services database called SAVE. Government agencies use the federal database to verify an applicant’s immigration status or citizenship. The bill would also require election officials to notify applicants flagged as non-citizens and require them to prove citizenship.
Missouri: Republicans are taking a second shot at passing legislation that gives the secretary of state greater authority over ballot summaries and limits how much a court can intervene. The legislation would give the secretary of state three chances to rewrite challenged proposed ballot language that courts deem insufficient. After those three chances, the courts can rewrite the language themselves. The bill requires challenges for all measures, except initiative petitions, to be brought to Cole County Circuit Court no later than the 22nd Tuesday prior to the election when it will be presented to voters. If the court deems the language unfair, then the secretary of state would have those three chances to change the language. The court can give suggestions, but the secretary will be responsible for the new summary, unless the chances have expired. The bill moves up the date when all actions challenging ballot titles for statewide ballot measures should be completed from 56 days prior to the election when the issue will be on the ballot to 70 days. The legislation also expands the ballot summary limit for measures proposed by the General Assembly from 50 to 100 words. Current state law gives that ability to the courts during litigation. Lawmakers successfully passed a nearly identical law last year with Senate Bill 22. However, it included an additional provision allowing the attorney general to appeal preliminary injunctions against state laws or constitutional provisions. The Missouri Supreme Court cited that additional provision as the reason the court struck down the entirety of the law, saying it “is not germane with the original title and contents of Senate Bill 22.”
A bill that’d increase the eligible voting population in Missouri passed through the state’s House with bi-partisan support and now goes on to the state-senate. If approved, the bill would restore voting rights for people currently on probation or parole. The advancing House Bill looks to remove some restrictive language from a state statute that began to include “probation and parole” as temporary disqualifiers in 1993. Missouri has denied the right to vote, suffrage, for various crimes since the state’s first constitution in 1820 was written. “The general assembly shall have the power to exclude from every office of honor, trust, or profit, within this state, and from the right of suffrage, all persons convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous crime,” per Article III, Section 14 of the first Missouri Constitution.
New Mexico: In the wake of President Donald Trump’s recent call to “nationalize” elections, New Mexico could move to set new guardrails against possible federal interference at polling places. A bill filed by Sen. Katy Duhigg, D-Albuquerque, would make it a state-level crime to deploy troops to a polling place or bar registered voters from casting a ballot. Duhigg, a former Albuquerque city clerk, said the bill, Senate Bill 264, would authorize state law enforcement officials to take action under such situations. It would also allow affected voters or state officials to ask a judge to intervene. She said in an interview the bill was prompted by concerns over Trump’s recent remarks. “Best-case scenario, these are laws that are put on the books and never used,” Duhigg said. “But under the worst-case scenario, we need to have them available to us.” The bill intended to gird the state against possible federal interference has already received necessary approval from Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to be considered during the 30-day legislative session that ends Feb. 19. Specifically, the measure would make it a misdemeanor offense to order troops to polling places, impinge on state election laws or interfere with the ability of state election officials or county clerks to do their jobs. It would also authorize New Mexico county clerks to develop contingency plans to run elections after a declared state of emergency. Such emergencies could include wildfires, floods and other natural disasters, but could also apply to other situations. “We don’t know what’s going to happen, so we need to provide some flexibility,” Duhigg said.
Oklahoma: Lawmakers are taking up election bills that could change who is eligible to vote in the Sooner State. Two bills, House Bill 2938 and House Bill 4113, focus on overseas voting and voting rights for felons. House Bill 2938 will tighten voting overseas under the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act. Under the proposed bill, people would have to prove they are a real Oklahoma resident before leaving and that they intend to return. The bill also removes a provision that allowed some voters born outside the U.S. to vote in Oklahoma elections under special circumstances. Under House Bill 4113 felons would not be eligible to vote in the Sooner State until everything tied to their sentence is completed – including time in custody, parole and probation.
Oregon: Lawmakers heard testimony this week on Senate Bill 1530 and Senate Bill 1516, sponsored by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would make threatening a public official, including a candidate for public office, a crime of aggravated harassment. That would be the least severe category of a felony, carrying potential sentences of up to five years in prison and a $125,000 fine. The latter piece of legislation includes the provision in a broader public safety legislative package which also empowers magistrate judges to make pretrial release decisions. Both measures specify that the person who issued threatening phone, electronic or written communications must intend to subject the official to “alarm” by conveying a threat to the public official or their family that vows to inflict serious physical injury. Although the bills would also include local prosecutors and assistant attorneys general, they would not go so far as to include other occupations who have reported rising safety concerns with their public-facing jobs, including teachers, health care workers and journalists. “This bill is designed to look specifically at school board members, city councilors, county commissioners, elected legislators and their families,” said Sen. James Manning Jr., D-Eugene. “I myself am a victim of a bomb threat. Does that mean anybody can say anything to you as an elected official, and you say, ‘Oh, that’s just free speech’? At some point, we gotta get serious about this.”
Rhode Island: A measure to renew electronic voting provisions for disabled, military and overseas voters sailed through the Rhode Island House of Representatives last week. The 61-8 vote, with eight of 10 Republicans voting no, came without debate or questions — a stark contrast to four years ago, when lawmakers first considered online voting for specific groups facing challenges to vote by mail or in-person. The 2022 legislation letting military, overseas and disabled voters submit ballots through an electronic portal was ultimately approved and signed into law, but not before passionate debate and opposition from conservatives and progressives worried about election security. Due to the concerns, the initial law was created as a pilot program that expired Dec. 31, 2025. The 2026 bill, again sponsored in the House by Rep. William O’Brien, a North Providence Democrat, on behalf of Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore, reestablishes and makes permanent the electronic portal for the same groups. The reach of the proposal is limited — 1,871 voters used the electronic portal to submit ballots during the 2024 election, according to data from the Rhode Island Board of Elections. But for this select group of voters, its importance is critical. “If this legislation is not passed, voters who cannot see, hold, or mark a paper ballot will once again be forced to give up their right to vote independently and privately,” Graciela Pires, president of the National Federation of the Blind for Rhode Island, said in a letter to lawmakers. “This is unequal access to the ballot for voters who are blind and visually impaired. Let us not go back.”
South Carolina: A bill that would put a little extra cash in poll workers’ pockets passed the House unanimously last week. Election officials cheered any help they can get in recruiting poll workers. The legislation exempts poll workers’ rather measly pay from state income taxes. Officially, it would match the federal tax code, which already exempts up to $2,300 annually of poll workers’ pay from federal income taxes. South Carolina pays poll workers $60 for several hours of mandatory, pre-election training and $75 on Election Day, for a total of $135 for what can be a 16-hour day. While precincts are open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., poll workers must be there by 6 a.m. and stay as long as it takes for people still in line at 7 p.m. to vote, then process ballots. Some counties supplement that rate. Regardless, the piddling amount is one of the biggest barriers to finding the poll workers needed to run an election, said Isaac Cramer, director of the Charleston County elections board and president of the South Carolina Association of Registration and Election Officials. “We are trying to recruit the next generation of poll workers, and you tell them, ‘Well, you have to work a 16-hour day, and you’re only getting $135 — that doesn’t really move the needle a lot,” he said. The proposal is expected to reduce state revenue by roughly $190,000 annually, depending on the year and how many workers counties hire, according to the state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office. That total “shows how little they actually end up paying into state taxes,” Rep. Brandon Newton, the bill’s main sponsor, said at a committee meeting earlier this week. The bill would also mean less paperwork and a little more cash for retired teachers, police officers, and other former public employees who work the polls. They’d no longer have to pay a percentage of what they make as a poll worker into their state retirement account, saving them both money and an extra form.
Utah: The Republican majority in the Utah House is pushing a plan for the second year in a row to require Utahns to return their by-mail ballots in person and show ID to vote. The proposal, H.B. 479, includes a fiscal note estimating over $10 million in ongoing costs to local counties, $1 million in one-time funds this year, and even more for state costs. The bill would require two poll workers to staff every drop box to check ID’s leading up to the election, along with voter outreach and materials. If passed, county clerks would mail Utahns a ballot but require that they be dropped off in person to show ID to workers, either at a drop box or a polling place. Anyone who wants to continue to return their ballot via the mail would need to apply for it via a form “designated by the Lt. Governor,” and submit it in person to their county clerk. The bill provides a list of accepted IDs beyond a driver’s license, such as a state ID, passport, Military ID, concealed carry permit, tribal ID, Bureau of Indian Affairs card, and others. It also still provides the option of voting remotely and electronically for disabled voters, and for those covered by federal voting laws. “The county Clerks are always willing to collaborate with legislators on good election-related legislation,” Weber County Clerk Ricky Hatch told ABC4 on behalf of the groups. “HB 479 places a staggering $10 million ongoing unfunded mandate directly on the counties and their taxpayers,” he said, “Significantly reducing that amount would require removing the key provisions of the bill.”
According to the Utah News Dispatch, a straightforward proposal to allow Utahns purchasing a hunting or fishing license to receive a voter registration form took an unexpected and controversial turn when it hit the House floor this week. Layton Republican Rep. Trevor Lee, the legislation’s sponsor, introduced a last-minute change so the bill now allows “the lieutenant governor or the legislative auditor general to contract with a third-party to assist in the review and identification of inaccuracies in the voter registration database.” Lee described the change as small, but it drew opposition from lawmakers of both major parties. The bill passed the House with a tight 39-32 vote and now goes to the Senate for consideration. “I appreciate what the sponsor is trying to do here, but I have huge concerns,” Sandy Democratic Rep. Andrew Stoddard told the House. “One is about the change of the tone of the bill. This bill started out initially as a very straightforward bill with no opposition to now having a very concerning part added to it with this substitute.” The bill, according to Stoddard, would allow the state government to hand over private information, like driver’s license records, vital records, among others, to an outside company. Concerns extend from the cost of that potential initiative to the potential of privacy breaches, he said. Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson, the state’s top election official, said Lee hadn’t worked with her office in any way.
Vermont: Vermont’s lower chamber passed a bill that aims to make interference with the voting process punishable by up to 2 years in prison. The bill, H. 541, passed without need for a roll call vote. It shares some wording with a similar federal law, but that law would not apply to local or state elections – which lawmakers sought to fix. Anyone found to be “intentionally or recklessly [intimidating]” a voter, public servant, or election official would be guilty under the law. The specific mention of intimidation of officials is not in the original U.S. law. Legislators said that they originally drafted the bill because of concerns about election interference raised by Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas. “H.541 sits at the nexus of two fundamental democratic principles: the right to vote unobstructed and the right to free political speech,” said Rep. Ian Goodnow (D-Windham), one of the two original sponsors of the bill, along with Rep. Kate Nugent (D-Chittenden). Vermont currently has a $1,000 fine in place for anyone who attempts to influence a voter while at a polling place, but does not cover election interference in other places.
Virginia: Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) has signed bills to set a referendum for four constitutional amendments — some of which have been years in the making, including ex-felon voting rights restoration — officially sending them to Virginians to weigh in on this year. “When Virginians have paid their debt to society, they deserve to regain their right to vote,” Spanberger said of the voting rights amendment. Presently, Virginians with felony convictions permanently lose their voting rights unless a governor restores them. Three previous governors from both parties had streamlined the approvals by tweaking certain eligibility criteria and making the process automatic, so long as a prison sentence was complete. Former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Spanberger’s predecessor, shifted back to a petition process. With reductions in approvals, there was also little criteria to guide applicants on whether their petitions would be successful or not. Several rejected applicants told The Mercury in 2024 that they were dismayed not to be able to participate in the presidential election and their local city councils. Having already repaid the debt to society that Spanberger referenced, the rejected applicants were eager to once again engage in democracy. Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, bore a large grin on Friday as the governor signed the bill. Aside from being the state’s first Black speaker, Scott has gone from past imprisonment for a felony conviction to public service and political leadership. He said previously he supports this amendment based on his personal experience and would like others like him to benefit from it.
A Democratic House subcommittee advanced a broad slate of bills aimed at tightening how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can operate in Virginia. Lawmakers and supporters say the package of proposals is designed to protect access to courts, schools, polling places and other sensitive locations while restoring public trust shaken by recent federal immigration enforcement activity. The measures, many of which were consolidated because of overlapping goals, now head to the full House Public Safety Committee. Taken together, the bills would require judicial warrants for certain civil immigration arrests in courthouses and other public facilities, restrict immigration enforcement near polling places, limit cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, and impose new penalties on officers who conceal their identities or impersonate federal agents.
Washington: Lawmakers want to make it tougher to challenge a voter’s registration as organized efforts to knock residents off the rolls are on the rise. The House approved legislation to put additional burdens on those challenging residents’ voter registration and to make it a crime if they knowingly provide false information in the process. Supporters of House Bill 1916, which passed on a party-line 58-38 vote, said it will reduce challenges that can intimidate voters, especially the electorate’s newest registrants. House Bill 1916 imposes additional demands to challenge a voter. For example, a person may only challenge a voter who is registered in the same county. They would now have to send a certified letter to a voter’s residential and mailing addresses, if different. They would also have to use a form provided by the Secretary of State’s Office outlining the reason for the challenge. Also, the legislation would add language requiring challenges to be “based on personal knowledge,” which is defined as “firsthand knowledge through experience or observation of the facts upon each ground that the challenge is based.” Each challenge must be signed in ink, with electronic signatures rejected. The bill creates new penalties for knowingly providing false information as part of a challenge or knowingly challenging a voter registration without reasonable cause. The bill also gives county auditors greater latitude to reject meritless challenges and it would only allow hearings if the county auditor is unable to confirm the voter’s eligibility and there is probable cause that the challenged voter is not eligible to vote.
West Virginia: Delegates have passed a bill that would require that absentee ballots be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted. The House passed House Bill 4600 with a vote of 79 to 17 and three members absent. Under current law, absentee ballots are counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received before the canvass, when the votes are officially counted. The Republican-led House voted down four amendments by Democrats Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, and Sean Hornbuckle, D-Cabell, that would have kept the current deadline for students studying outside their home counties, for sick and disabled people, for the elderly and for military members. Democrats who opposed the bill have pointed out that the United States Postal Service sometimes delivers mail late and that voters do not control when the mail is delivered. They argue that the bill is based on conspiracy theories about election fraud. If House Bill 4600 becomes law, absentee ballots would need to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted. A similar bill last year was among a slew of “election integrity” bills introduced in last year. Last year’s bill passed in the House last year but did not make it to a vote in the Senate in time.
Wyoming: Lawmakers in the House shot down six election-related committee bills that would have banned ballot drop boxes, barred ballot collecting, required random ballot hand count audits, directed counties to use pen and paper ballots, expanded poll watcher access and raised the bar for independent candidates to appear on the general election ballot . The damage on the Senate side was less severe. Lawmakers killed Senate File 29, a committee bill that would have restricted acceptable identification for voting. Senate File 28, which would create stricter requirements for testing voting machines. (A couple of other election-related committee bills, Senate File 30, “Elections-voter registration revisions,” and House Bill 52, “Elections-hand counting for recounts,” also made it past the introductory hurdle.
Legal Updates
Georgia: U.S. District Court Judge J. P. Boulee ordered that documents related to the FBI’s seizure of Fulton County ballots from the 2020 presidential election be unsealed by February 10. Boulee, an appointee of President Donald Trump, issued the order in response to motions filed Wednesday by Fulton County to unseal the records related to the Jan. 28 FBI raid on an election operations center on Campbellton Fairburn Road. “We will fight using all resources against those who seek to take over our elections,” Fulton County Commission Chair Robb Pitts said last week. “Our Constitution itself is at stake in this fight.” In his order, Boulee wrote that the Justice Department did not object to unsealing the search warrant affidavit related paperwork. The judge’s order follows a week of legal action and escalating rhetoric from Trump, who has long claimed the 2020 election was “rigged” against him. CNN, The Associated Press and other media organizations on Friday filed a separate motion to intervene in the case. Media groups, including The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, have sought access to the affidavit that formed the legal justification for the criminal warrant authorizing the raid.
Iowa: A settlement agreement was reached in the lawsuit challenging Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate’s order 2024 pertaining to more than 2,000 people identified as potential noncitizens. Pate and Attorney General Brenna Bird celebrated what they called an “election integrity win,” while advocates speaking on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union at a Wednesday news conference said the settlement provides “important safeguards” to protect Iowans’ voting rights in future elections. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Iowa and a law firm representing the League of United Latin American Citizens and other plaintiffs, challenged Pate’s guidance to county auditors in 2024, which challenged the ballots of voters identified as potentially not having U.S. citizenship. The settlement in the lawsuit that was brought by the ACLU, LULAC and others listed as “potential noncitizens” is not yet finalized, according to an ACLU news release. As of Wednesday afternoon, the groups and individuals who brought the lawsuit have filed papers seeking to dismiss the case and adopt the settlement agreement, but a judge has not yet entered an order on the case. However, details on the settlement were shared, which include agreements that the list used in 2024 will not be used in future elections or for future voter list challenges, removals or maintenance activities, and a requirement that future voter challenge lists within 90 days of an election will not exclusively rely on Iowa DOT data, according to the ACLU. The Secretary of State’s office stated in a news release the office can now use the SAVE database and “no longer has need of the 2024 list, which has been rescinded.”
Michigan: U.S. District Court Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou of the Western District of Michigan has dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Michigan over the state’s refusal to give the department an unredacted list of registered voters, finding the state isn’t required by federal law to turn it over. The department requested a copy of Michigan’s voter roll in July, along with answers to a series of questions about its voter registration practices. In September, Michigan provided a redacted version of the voter roll that withheld voters’ personally identifiable information, which the state said was necessary to avoid breaking state and federal law. The Department of Justice then sued Michigan for the complete data later that month. Jarbou wrote in her opinion that none of the three laws that the Department of Justice had used to justify its request — the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act — required the disclosure of the data.
Nebraska: Lancaster County District Judge Lori Maret dismissed a lawsuit without prejudice late last week that sought to stop the state from handing over its voter data to the U.S. Department of Justice. Maret said in her Friday ruling that Common Cause lacks standing to sue because the alleged harm is speculative and not imminent, and ruling now would not end the controversy surrounding the DOJ request, including what information the Justice Department would ultimately seek or what Nebraska would provide. She also did not rule on the legal question at the heart of the lawsuit. The judge heard arguments last month. Common Cause argued that Nebraska law affords federal officials no special rights to access residents’ private information included in parts of the voter file. The state argued that federal agencies still play a valuable role in elections overseen by states, noting that the federal government has a wealth of information and resources that help states with election systems. Voting advocacy group Common Cause has appealed the ruling to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which gave the case a docket number. Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen has said he plans to hand over the voter data to the DOJ on Thursday. The Nebraska Supreme Court accelerated the appeal, but even under the court’s expedited timeline, the appeal hearing will be held in March, more than a month after Evnen plans to hand over the data to the federal government.
North Carolina: U.S. District Judge William L. Osteen denied a motion for a preliminary injunction for college students seeking to have polling sites available on their campuses when early in-person voting begins this week. The state Board of Elections rejected early voting sites in January at on-campus locations at NC A&T State University, UNC-Greensboro, and Western Carolina University. College Democrats of North Carolina and students at the three campuses appealed, arguing that denying universities early voting sites was part of a targeted effort to limit young people’s opportunities to vote. The students argued in their suit that because many do not have transportation, it would be difficult to travel to the off-campus polling locations. But Osteen wrote in a Sunday opinion that in the court’s view, the solution being sought by the college students was “problematic” because it would depend on the actions of third parties beyond the court’s control. “Those universities are independent entities that are not party to this case and not subject to this court’s equitable powers,” reasoned Osteen. Further, Osteen said that it was also “speculative” to suggest that granting the motion would result in the opening of on-campus early voting sites at the three campuses in just a matter of days. “That the universities hosted early voting sites in prior elections, or that one of them indicated over a month ago that it could do so in this election, is one thing,” Osteen continued in his 14-page ruling. “Whether they are able or willing to do so now, only days away from the start of the early voting period, is another.”
Pennsylvania: The Republican National Committee (RNC) petitioned the Supreme Court this week to reverse a ruling that requires Pennsylvania to count undated and misdated mail-in ballots, saying its logic transforms the courts into “weapons of political warfare.” The technical requirements for Pennsylvania mail ballots have been the subject of extensive litigation ever since the state passed universal mail voting in 2019. The RNC’s petition urges the justices to review an appeals ruling from last August, which found the state’s instruction to not count ballots that lack a proper date on the outer return envelope imposes an unconstitutional burden on Pennsylvanians’ right to vote. The RNC said the petition was filed February 11. It has not yet been posted to the court’s public docket, which often takes several days. The justices will review the RNC’s request at a closed-door meeting in the coming months. The Supreme Court only agrees to take up roughly 1 to 2 percent of the cases it receives.
Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling permanently banning voters from canceling an absentee ballot they have already returned so they can cast a new ballot, known as ballot spoiling. The ban was handed down in 2023by U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel, who at the time was a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge presiding over a lawsuit brought on behalf of Waukesha County voter Nancy Kormanik. The conservative voting rights group claimed in the suit that the Wisconsin Elections Commission unlawfully advised municipal clerks and the public that ballot spoiling was permitted. An appellate panel reversed Schimel’s decision in a brief, unpublished order that effectively dismisses the action entirely, finding that Schimel wrongly ruled on the merits because Kormanik failed to properly conduct service at the outset. A challenge to the validity of an administrative rule or guidance document requires the plaintiff to serve the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules so that it can intervene if it so chooses.
Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Conway this week rejected the city of Madison’s claim that absentee voting’s characterization in state law as a “privilege” precludes damages against the city for disenfranchising 193 voters, and ruled that Madison can face potential financial liability for the error. In rejecting motions by the city and other defendants to dismiss the case, Conway said that a state law describing absentee voting as a privilege does not mean absentee ballots receive less constitutional protection than votes cast in person. “That right to vote,” Conway wrote, “would be a hollow protection if it did not also include the right to have one’s vote counted.” Conway also rejected former Madison Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl’s legal argument that there is a meaningful legal difference between intentionally not counting votes and mistakenly failing to count them due to human error. He held that state law allows for people to seek damages against election officials who “negligently deprive citizens of the right to vote.” “When an election official fails to count a valid absentee ballot, whether by negligence, recklessness, or malice, he or she deprives the absentee voter of that constitutional right,” he wrote. Conway dismissed the Madison clerk’s office from the case after arguments that it could not be sued separately from the city, but allowed the case to proceed against the city, Witzel-Behl, and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick.
Michael H. Drucker
