Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Federal Legislation: U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., unveiled legislation to counter the Trump administration’s “attacks on American elections” last week. The bill, called the Stop Harassment and Intimidation in Elections through Legal Defenses (SHIELD) Our Elections Act, would give state attorneys general and voters a new pathway to enforce federal anti-election interference laws. It would also extend the time limit for bringing federal criminal prosecutions of these laws from five to nine years. “Our elections belong to the voters, and I am fighting to protect every eligible voter’s right to cast a ballot freely and sending a warning that anyone who interferes with our democracy will be held accountable — sooner or later,” Padilla said in a statement. Among other election safeguards, the SHIELD Our Elections Act would strengthen protections against ballot seizure and authorizes a voluntary grant program to support states with mail and absentee tracking programs. Padilla’s office called these measures a “proactive federal response to the Trump administration’s escalating attacks on voting rights and election administration ahead of the 2026 midterms.” The legislation follows the recent passage of California’s SB 73, which prevents election interference at the state level.
Kern County, California: Kern County is preparing to shift election administration away from the Auditor-Controller-County Clerk’s Office and place it under a separately appointed registrar of voters, a step toward alleviating years of complaints about sluggish vote counting. The Kern County Board of Supervisors introduced an ordinance this week establishing a standalone Department of Elections. The ordinance would give the new department responsibility for administering federal, state and local elections throughout Kern County. The department would maintain voter-registration records, manage precincts and election logistics, oversee candidate filings and campaign disclosures, and report election results. The registrar of voters would be appointed by and report directly to the Board of Supervisors. The registrar would also be exempt from the county’s civil service system. According to the county’s recruitment materials, the new Elections Department will have 21 employees and an annual budget of approximately $7.1 million. The registrar position pays between $159,839 and $191,031 annually, depending on qualifications. The benefits package also includes a $599 monthly vehicle allowance. Kern County combined its auditor-controller, county clerk and registrar of voters positions in 1995, placing responsibility for elections under one elected official.
Aspen, Colorado Ballot Measure: The Aspen City Council agreed during a work session this week to ask voters whether they want to move Aspen’s odd-year March municipal elections to November in even years. Moving the city’s elections to November could increase voter turnout and reduce the burden on the city clerk’s office, which manages the election for about six months every two years, City Clerk Nicole Henning first told the city council in November 2024. The city council briefly discussed the possibility of moving the municipal election last year, but council members had not discussed the possibility in depth until the Monday work session. They all agreed to pose the question to voters, but will vote on official ballot language — including what a runoff system would look like and how to stagger terms during the transition — in August. Aspen voters approved a referendum in 2018 that moved municipal elections from May to March. A group of citizens argued at the time that the municipal election being held on the first Tuesday of May resulted in lower turnout because it took place when city occupancy is at its lowest point of the year. Aspen Citizens for Democracy, the committee behind the 2018 referendum, said moving the election to the high season would improve voter turnout.
Madison County, Illinois Ballot Measure: Madison County voters will be asked in November’s ballot if they think Illinois should require identification to vote in elections. The county board recently voted 17-2 to place a nonbinding referendum on the ballot. While supporters of the advisory referendum say it’s a way to measure voter sentiment on a timely issue, critics of the referendum equate the question to President Donald Trump’s SAVE America Act. The question to Madison County voters reads: “Shall the Illinois General Assembly pass legislation to require government-issued identification to vote?” Even if the referendum passes in November, Illinois’ legislature, controlled by Democratic supermajorities, will not likely pass such a measure. In 2024, 56.5% of Madison County voters approved an advisory referendum that asked them about splitting from the Chicago area and forming a new state.
East Lansing, Michigan Ballot Measure: A group of East Lansing residents submitted a petition to the City Clerk’s Office Monday seeking to place a proposal on the November ballot that would move City Council elections to even-numbered years, a change supporters say would boost voter turnout. Adam DeLay, an informal leader of the petition group, told East Lansing Info that 1,167 certified signatures are needed to place the initiative on the November ballot. The group submitted more than 1,400 to the clerk’s office to verify. If the effort is successful, it would have a profound impact on local elections, as far fewer people vote in odd-year elections, when City Council elections may be the only race on the ballot. In the November 2025 City Council election, about 6,300 ballots were cast, compared to more than 17,500 votes cast in the November 2024 election, according to data on the Ingham County Clerk’s Office. “Our view is that you have 6,000 residents shaping the politics of more than 60,000, which includes full- and part-time residents,” DeLay said
New Jersey: Gov. Mikie Sherrill has signed legislation ensuring that New Jerseyans who work the polls will not lose unemployment benefits because of their election-related wages, a move aimed at making it easier for counties to recruit the temporary workers needed to run elections. The bipartisan measure, A1516, removes compensation earned by temporary election workers from the calculation used to determine unemployment benefits. Sherrill signed the bill on July 22, and it took effect immediately. Under the new law, services performed by temporary workers hired by county election boards –including those staffing polling places during early voting and on Election Day or helping process mail-in ballots — will no longer be classified as employment under the state’s unemployment compensation law. Previously, those wages could reduce an individual’s unemployment check, leaving some recipients with little financial incentive to accept temporary election work. Supporters say eliminating that penalty will expand the pool of available poll workers at a time when county election officials routinely face challenges filling shifts, particularly for early voting and the long hours required on Election Day. “This bill sends a clear message that participating in our democracy shouldn’t come at a cost,” said State Sen. Kristin Corrado (R-Totowa), one of the bill’s Senate sponsors. “Counties rely on committed poll workers to ensure every vote is counted during early voting, on Election Day, and when processing mail-in ballots, yet too many people are discouraged from stepping up due to the risk of losing their unemployment benefits.” Corrado said protecting those benefits would encourage greater civic participation while strengthening New Jersey’s election system.
North
Carolina: The North Carolina Senate Elections Committee advanced a pair of election law bills, drawing mixed reactions from voting rights advocates.
The first bill, House Bill 834, received mostly praise, as it extends the period during which voters are able to cure problems on their ballots from three business days after the election to five business days after the election, among other reforms. And it allows voters whose driver’s license expiration was put on hold last year to continue using them as valid voter IDs. But that bill also expands the number of forums for challenges to State Board of Elections decisions, which are currently heard in Wake County Superior Court, by also allowing them to be brought in the superior court of the county where the petitioner resides — a change that advocates say would allow judge-shopping and could lead to an increase in frivolous challenges to lawful votes. Lawmakers on the Senate Elections Committee removed the original language of H834, which would have allowed hunting and fishing license applicants to also register as organ donors or voters, replacing it with this new set of proposals. This version of the bill has not yet been considered by the House. That bill passed the Elections Committee without any opposition.
According to NC Newsline, by contrast, House Bill 958 has been the subject of controversy for months, sparking protests in the House committees in which it was heard, leading to the ejection of members of the public from a hearing. But much of that bill’s language was stripped out by the Senate, with their version cut down to 16 pages from the House’s original 37. Sen. Warren Daniel (R-Burke), who introduced the bill, said he hopes to safeguard and streamline the state’s elections processes, highlighting sections such as a requirement for an attestation that a voter is a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. That provision, among the most contentious kept intact by the Senate, requires the state Board of Elections to vet voter rolls against federal noncitizen registries such as the USCIS SAVE database, which is known to have significant errors that have caused thousands of lawful voters to be wrongly flagged in other states. The Senate also kept in place a requirement for post-election audits by the state auditor, with all county boards of elections undergoing an audit at least once every six years. These may only occur after the election has been certified and cannot be used to challenge election results. A Senate addition to the bill shortens the early voting period before primary elections to 10 days. Like the new ballot curing deadline, it would also extend the deadline for challenging early and absentee ballots to five business days after the election. Senators removed a requirement for a “uniform statewide audit” after each election for any ballots that are ineligible “as evidenced by official government database records.” They also excised one of the most controversial sections of the bill, which would have imposed new restrictions on military and overseas voters.
Legal Updates
U.S. Supreme Court: The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling that in nearly half of U.S. states halted President Donald Trump’s executive order to create a federal list of eligible voters and limit delivery of mail ballots only to people on that list. The ruling rejected the Trump administration’s effort to move forward with the mail-in voting restrictions in 23 U.S. states that sued ahead of November’s midterm elections. Trump issued an executive order in March for the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to create a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. It also ordered the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on that list. While Trump touted the proposed changes as safeguards to keep non-U.S. citizens from voting, state election officials argued they were ripe for abuse and could cause chaos. Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged Trump’s order in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston. They argued that Trump’s order was unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the authority to set election rules. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, agreed and halted Trump’s order from being implemented for the Nov. 3 elections — but only in the states that have sued. On July 27, the Administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to fully implement an executive order signed by Trump that seeks to impose additional restrictions on mail-in voting. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer called an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts that paused portions of the order in 23 states and the District of Columbia “extraordinary,” and he argued that it “flouts settled” doctrines governing when courts can weigh in on a dispute. Sauer also asked the court to issue an immediate administrative stay – an order that temporarily puts the lower court’s order on hold while the justices consider the government’s request. A dozen Republican-led states joined the Supreme Court fight asking the justices to fully enforce an executive order. Republican states filed an emergency application at the Supreme Court July 29 seeking to block the lower court ruling, arguing states have a concrete interest in ensuring the mail-in ballots cast by their voters are securely delivered and counted. “Allowing the federal government to promulgate final rules advancing election integrity reforms enhances the ability of states to ensure the security of mail voting within their jurisdictions,” the Republican states, led by Missouri, wrote. “And state defendants cannot themselves implement some of these commonsense proposed reforms — such as improved USPS delivery systems for election mail.”
Federal Litigation: A D.C. Circuit panel rejected an effort by Democrats to block President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to reshape the nation’s election system by creating a national list of eligible voters and limiting mail-in voting. The three-judge panel upheld U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols’ May 28 decision denying a preliminary injunction after determining the Democratic National Committee and congressional leaders failed to show any imminent or irreparable harm, as neither the Department of Homeland Security or the U.S. Postal Service had yet acted. U.S. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins and Gregory Katsas — two Barack Obama appointees and a Trump appointee, respectively — wrote in a per curiam order that while there may be a “number of serious questions concerning the lawfulness of proposed actions if implemented,” the court cannot rule until those actions occur. “In addition, the executive order, which is itself not self-executing, directs the agencies to act only to ‘the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law, including but not limited to the Privacy Act of 1974,’ and so requires compliance with the very legal limitations about which plaintiffs are concerned,” the panel wrote. “If the defendant agencies take steps to implement the executive order in a manner that violates federal law or the Constitution, plaintiffs can promptly seek relief, which the district court and this court can decide in as expeditious a manner as circumstances require.”
Over two dozen states took on the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, filing suit over new election and immigration requirements to receive grants from the federal government. DHS and FEMA violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the spending clause in the U.S. Constitution, the states argued, by imposing new election- and immigration-related requirements to receive billions in anti-terrorism and emergency response funds. The agencies are attempting to leverage the funds to “coerce” states into adopting the Trump administration’s preferred policies, the states said in their suit. Twenty-five states — including California, Colorado, Arizona and Washington — and the District of Columbia filed suit in Rhode Island, claiming the change in requirements was retaliation after FEMA and DHS were unsuccessful in cutting federal funding from states they felt opposed the administration’s immigration agenda in a prior legal case. The new election requirements are unlawful, “arbitrary and capricious” and ignore investments states have already made in election infrastructure, the plaintiffs said, adding states cannot comply with vague election guidelines DHS has not yet adopted. “The election conditions impose conditions unrelated to the federal funding they encumber, requiring states to comply with specific policies regarding voter eligibility and vote tabulation as a condition for obtaining millions of dollars in funding to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks,” the plaintiffs said in their suit.
Arizona: Maricopa County Superior Court Adele Ponce rejected a legal challenge to Proposition 144, a constitutional amendment Republican lawmakers put on the November ballot. The measure would: Require all voters, including those voting by mail, to present identification before casting a ballot; Enshrine in the Arizona Constitution that only U.S. citizens may vote, a requirement already established in state law; Restrict foreign nationals from spending money to influence Arizona elections; Allow ballots to be counted at individual polling places rather than transported to centralized tabulation centers; and Affirm lawmakers’ authority to pass future election laws aimed at ensuring timely, accurate and secure elections.T empe City Councilman Randy Keating argued the proposal violates the Arizona Constitution because it combines unrelated issues into a single ballot measure, preventing voters from considering each proposal individually. He pointed to court precedents requiring constitutional amendments to be “sufficiently related to a common purpose or principle” to form “a consistent and workable whole.” But Ponce concluded that the measures are “topically related” and “sufficiently interrelated.” “Each aims to improve election integrity,” the judge said. “The fact that the proposed amendment’s provisions address different aspects of election security does not prevent them from being topically related.” An appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court already has been filed.
California: Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39 and an Orange County voter filed suit July 27 against California’s secretary of state and attorney general over a change to the wording of a ballot initiative that will be decided in November’s election. Proposition 39 seeks to impose identification requirements for Golden State voters. If approved, voters would have to show government-issued ID at the polls, or provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID number when voting by mail. Additionally, California would have to provide voter ID cards when requested, and elections officials would have annual reporting requirements, showing the percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they’ve verified. No ID is currently required at the state’s polls. The plaintiffs filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court over a change Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office made to the measure’s title and summary. Initially, it stated the proposition “Establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements.” Bonta’s office changed it to: “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.” “That statement is not a true and impartial statement of the measure’s purpose,” the plaintiffs write in their complaint. The plaintiffs are asking a judge to require the state to amend or strike the challenged language and have the secretary of state include the new language in the voter information guide. Alternatively, they want the phrase “prohibits citizens from voting” removed. They also want the suit resolved quickly, as election deadlines loom.
Kansas: On the eve of the deadline to request a mail-in ballot for the August 4 primary, a decision handed down from the Kansas Court of Appeals reinstates the three-day grace period for mail-in ballot returns. The appeals court denied the secretary of state’s request to keep legislation in place that overturned the allowance of the three-day grace period. On July 16, a Douglas County court blocked Senate Bill 4, the law to end the mail-in-ballot grace period. That law, passed in the 2025 legislative session, was scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, but there hasn’t been a major statewide election in the state this year ahead of the Aug. 4 primary. Secretary of State Scott Schwab, also a Republican gubernatorial candidate, sought to appeal the court’s reversal, contending that his office “conducted his campaign throughout 2026 to educate voters about the elimination of the previous three-day window.” “[Schwab] argues that the district court’s temporary injunction will confuse voters about the correct deadline and asks this court to enter the fray to clarify that issue,” the Kansas Court of Appeals summarized in its order that denied the appeal. “He also notes that the advance-voting ballots that were mailed to voters earlier this month state that those ballots must be received by Election Day (not within a window of three days after Election Day). He argues that the district court’s temporary injunction will confuse voters about the correct deadline and asks this court to enter the fray to clarify that issue.” The opposition to the secretary of state’s appeal to uphold Senate Bill 4 points to the decision from the Douglas County District Court that the change to eliminate the three-day grace period for mail-in ballots “likely violates the Kansas Constitution protections relating to equal protection of the law, due process and voting,” the court of appeals recalled. “The plaintiffs also note that an emergency stay of the temporary injunction would have the effect of potentially rejecting advance-voting ballots that would otherwise be counted if the injunction remains in effect,” the appeals court said.
Kentucky: District Judge Claria Horn Boom dismissed a case from the U.S. Department of Justice against Kentucky election officials that sought to gain access to voter registration data, including sensitive information such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. Horn Boom cited a recent ruling regarding Michigan voter data from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The DOJ later asked the 6th Circuit to rehear the Michigan case. Under the second Trump administration, the DOJ sued numerous states, including Kentucky, for access to sensitive voter data arguing it was entitled to the information under the the Civil Rights Act of 1960. With the precedent from the appeals court, Boom wrote that Kentucky’s voter registration list “is not a record or paper subject to Title III of the Civil Rights Act.” She was appointed to the bench by Trump during his first term. Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams, a Republican, and members of the Kentucky State Board of Elections were named as defendants in the lawsuit, which was filed in February in the U.S. District Court of Eastern Kentucky. “We have won our case in federal court on protecting voter privacy,” Adams said on X. “Kentucky’s elections are secure, and so is your personal information.”
New Jersey: U.S. District Court Judge Zahid Quraishi dismissed a Trump administration suit seeking New Jersey voters’ addresses, driver’s license numbers, birth dates, partial Social Security numbers, and a host of other private data. Quraishi said a requirement in federal law that mandates election officials turn over some types of records to the federal Election Assistance Commission upon request does not extend to New Jersey’s digital voter registration system. New Jersey’s computerized statewide voter list “is not a record or paper that the state must produce to the United States,” he wrote in a 17-page ruling. Quraishi’s ruling comes about a week after Gov. Mikie Sherrill announced that about 6,600 individuals who marked themselves as noncitizens had been registered to vote between June 2023 and June 2024, and approximately 400 of them went on to cast ballots. The news resulted in a fresh round of voter fraud complaints from Republicans in New Jersey and nationwide. The federal government this week argued to Quraishi that the revelation bolstered its claims in the lawsuit, which it filed back in February. Quraishi acknowledged that argument but dismissed it in a footnote as irrelevant to the case. “Whether DOJ is acting in good faith is not relevant to this court’s analysis and has no bearing on whether plaintiff is entitled to the information it seeks,” he wrote. Quraishi, a Biden appointee, dismissed the case with prejudice, which bars the administration from refiling, though it can still appeal his ruling. “We disagree with the court’s decision and will appeal,” a Department of Justice spokesperson said in an unsigned statement.
North Carolina: Former New Hanover County elections director DeNay Harris is asking a judge to overturn her termination. Harris filed a petition for judicial review July 10 in Wake County Superior Court against the New Hanover County Board of Elections and the state board, arguing her firing was retaliatory and violated her rights under the North Carolina Constitution. She is seeking reinstatement to her old position, back pay and benefits, damages exceeding $25,000, attorneys’ fees and other relief. “The New Hanover County Board of Elections determined that it was preferable to ignore North Carolina law,” the petition reads. “The actions and omissions of the New Hanover County Board of Elections and North Carolina State Board of Elections deprived Ms. Harris of her constitutional rights by terminating her employment.” JHarris was unanimously hired by the county elections board Jan. 13 and started Feb. 3. According to the petition, on March 3 — the day of the primary election — Harris emailed the board about what she described as unauthorized access to ballots and election equipment. The next day, County Manager Chris Coudriet pushed back in an email Harris characterizes as a threat to withhold county resources. The county elections board filed a petition for her removal March 24. State elections Executive Director Sam Hayes terminated Harris on May 20, and the decision became final June 9.
Tennessee: A three-judge federal panel has allowed Tennessee to use a new congressional map that splits apart a majority-Black district in Memphis. The panel declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the new districts, paving the way for them to be used in the Aug. 6 primary elections. Tennessee had revised its congressional districts in May, shortly after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling weakened federal Voting Rights Act protections for minorities. Opponents of Tennessee’s new congressional districts had argued in court that Republican lawmakers who passed the plan were motivated at least partly by racial discrimination, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Republicans have insisted they were motivated only by partisan politics, seeking to win the lone Democratic-held seat among the state’s nine districts. Legislatures are free to draw partisan districts under a 2019 Supreme Court ruling. The federal judges — two Trump appointees and one appointee of former President Barack Obama — wrote in their opinion that the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed because the plaintiffs “lack any direct evidence of racial motivation.” “The road to a reliably 9-0 map runs through Memphis,” the ruling states. “Thus, political motivations readily explain the map’s dilutive effects.”
Wisconsin: Dane County Judge David Conway rejected a request from Democratic voters to allow people to “spoil” and re-cast their absentee ballots for any reason. Under state law, voters can spoil ballots that are damaged or if they believe they made a mistake in filling out the ballot. Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 4-2 to publish guidance stating that the process wasn’t available to people who simply wished to change their vote. The voters argued the guidance should be thrown out to accommodate people who may have already cast a vote in this year’s August primaries before their preferred candidate dropped out. The ballot for the Democratic primary for governor includes two candidates, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez and former Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation CEO Missy Hughes, whose names appear even though both have suspended their campaigns. In a ruling, Conway rejected the injunction request from the voters, finding that “the unambiguous language of the statute does not allow a voter to spoil an absentee ballot after it is returned.”
Michael H. Drucker
