Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Federal Legislation: The House passed a bill to implement voter identification requirements before the midterm elections, attaching it to unrelated legislation that would also limit the ability of members of Congress to trade stocks. The Voter ID Act, which was included inside the Stop Insider Trading Act, faces a likely doomed future in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to pass. Still, the House approved it largely along party lines on July 22, with a 232-198 vote. Republicans are already accusing Democrats of voting against what they called common-sense provisions that Americans support. Thirteen Democrats voted for the bill. Most Democrats, meanwhile, opposed it, with critics such as Rep. Joe Morelle, D-New York, arguing Republicans conjured a legislative “trick” that would “eviscerate” mail-in voting.
The House Intelligence Committee approved fiscal 2027 intelligence authorization legislation this week that also includes provisions on election security and that are meant to boost intelligence community (IC) usage of artificial intelligence for cyber and other purposes. An amendment from the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, would require the intelligence community to publish an unclassified assessment of foreign intelligence threats to the 2026 midterms. Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado’s amendment would partially withhold funding for the ODNI until Congress gets overdue reports it had required on the 2024 and 2026 elections. And Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania’s amendment would “protect analysts from retribution by IC leadership for working on intelligence products related to foreign influence in US elections,” according to a news release.
California Ballot Measure: Voters are being asked whether they want to change the rules for recalling California state leaders. Proposition 5 would limit recall ballots to just one yes-or-no question: Should an elected official be recalled from office? Currently, recall ballots also have a second section where voters are asked to choose a successor if the recall passes. Prop 5 would eliminate that second section. If the recall passes, a new leader is chosen later in a separate process. Under Prop 5, recalls are treated as a standard vacancy with succession rules spelled out in the State Constitution. If a Governor is ousted, depending on the timing, either the lieutenant governor takes over for the remainder of the term or there’s a special election. For the other statewide offices, the governor appoints a successor until the next regularly scheduled election. Recalled members of the state legislature are replaced in special elections. Former State Senator Josh Newman wrote Prop 5, arguing that while the recall tool was originally intended to allow voters to remove unfit or corrupt officials, it’s become a political weapon to try to seize power. “The presence of that second question in today’s politics creates a set of incentives that makes it more likely that we’ll have recalls that have nothing to do with integrity, and more to do with politics,” he explained. Constitutional law experts, including the Dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, have argued California’s recall process violates the principle of “one person, one vote”, where every voter has equal influence. They say the current recall process is flawed because the first section, the yes-or-no question that decides the recall, is a majority vote. However, in the second section, if the recall passes the candidate with the most votes wins. They don’t need a majority. The target of a recall can receive more votes than any other candidate on the ballot, but still be removed from office.
Backers of a ballot initiative that would change California’s voter ID rules are accusing Attorney General Rob Bonta of “rigging” the election after the attorney general’s office changed the measure’s title. Californians will vote this November on Proposition 39, which would require people to prove their citizenship when registering to vote. It would also require voters to bring an ID to the polls when voting or to provide the last four digits of a government ID — like a Social Security number — when submitting mail ballots. When supporters began gathering signatures last year, Bonta’s office issued an initial title and summary for the initiative, language that said it “establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements.” This month, just a few months before the elections, that language was updated and now says it “prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.” Asm. Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, called the the change a “blatant attempt to rig the November election” by changing the title to one he called “biased” and “dishonest.” Bonta’s office defended the decision, noting that the office is required to issue a title and summary after a measure qualifies for the ballot and citing a section of the state elections code that says the language “may differ from the legislative, circulating, or other title and summary of the measure.”
Colorado Ballot Measure: In Colorado, signatures were submitted to the secretary of state’s office on July 16 for a ballot initiative related to voter identification requirements for mail-in voting. The initiative — known as Initiative 362 — would add a new section to Article VII of the Colorado Constitution to require voters to provide both their signature and an identification number, such as: the last four digits of their Social Security number; a Colorado REAL ID number; a Colorado REAL ID driver’s license number; or the last four digits of another Colorado identification number meeting federal REAL ID requirements. Additionally, Initiative 362 would require election officials to compare the information submitted by voters to the statewide voter registration database, and if there is any discrepancy in the information: the voter must be notified; the voter may correct the discrepancy by providing a copy of their identification; and the ballot cannot be counted until the discrepancy is corrected. As of 2026, Colorado requires voters to sign their mail ballot envelope, but does not require additional identification. Initiative 362 was filed on April 3 as an initiated constitutional amendment. The secretary of state’s office has until September 2 to review the signatures to determine if the petition contains at least 124,238 valid signatures, thereby meeting the minimum requirement to be placed on the ballot for November 3.
Michigan: State Senator Jonathan Lindsey (R-Coldwater) introduced Senate Bill 1054 to roll back the state’s universal, no-questions-asked absentee voting policy and reinstate excuse-required restrictions. Under the proposed legislation, the standard allowing any registered voter to request a mail-in ballot would be replaced by specific qualifying categories. Eligible reasons to vote absentee would be restricted to physical disability, religious obligations, active duty in the military, working as an election inspector, or being 60 years of age or older. The bill has been officially referred to the Senate Committee on Elections and Ethics for further legislative consideration. Lindsey defended the measure as a “commonsense reform” aimed at improving election security and rebuilding voter confidence. He argued that universal mail-in voting invites errors and potential fraud, while asserting that Michigan’s newly implemented nine days of early in-person voting greatly minimizes the general need for absentee ballots. The proposal comes amid record-high turnout for mail-in voting in the state, with the Michigan Secretary of State’s office reporting that nearly two million voters requested absentee ballots ahead of the upcoming primary.
Michigan Ballot Measure: The Oakland County Board of Commissioners voted 11-6 to oppose the Americans for Citizen Voting ballot initiative, a proposal to enact strict voter ID rules in Michigan. The initiative has been criticized by opponents as voter suppression, who argue that the actual impact would prevent a significant number of U.S. citizens — such as those who do not have passports — from casting their ballots. Last week’s vote makes Oakland County the fifth county in the state to formally oppose the proposal, joining the boards of commissioners of Washtenaw County, Wayne County, Ingham County and Kalamazoo County. An additional nine city or township councils have also formally opposed the proposal. The proposal would establish new voter roll verifications, compelling the secretary of state to regularly review voter rolls and remove noncitizens if they are found. It would also establish a new requirement for voters to possess a photo ID before casting a vote. Michigan election law already requires voters to show a photo driver’s license or a photo state identification card at their election precinct, or in the absence of one, sign a legal affidavit. The same is true for obtaining an absentee ballot.
Lincoln, Nebraska Ballot Measure: he “Good Government Lincoln” group on July 20 submitted signatures to the Lincoln city clerk’s office. Once the Lancaster County Election Commission verifies the signatures collected, the three proposed amendments to the city charter will be added to the November ballot. The petitions for new amendments all deal with restructuring Lincoln’s elections. The group, led by former state tax commissioner and state Sen. Tony Fulton, is hoping to expand voting to certain residents outside of Lincoln for certain elections. Those targeted residents live in Lincoln’s “extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction,” which is the three-mile area surrounding the city. The group is also seeking two four-year term limits for Lincoln City Council members and to realign the timing of city elections with statewide elections. That alignment of elections would begin in 2028. To have the necessary amount of signatures, a charter amendment petition requires 5% of registered voters in the previous governor’s race – roughly 5,000.
North Carolina Rulemaking: The North Carolina State Board of Elections approved on July 20 a measure to disqualify certain absentee ballots ahead of the 2026 midterms. Members voted 3-2 along party lines. The measure allows county elections board staff to take further action on ballots with “irregularities.” Examples include not properly sealing a ballot or using the wrong type of envelope. Staff should contact voters, but without appropriate action, the ballots may be tossed. Republicans say the change would enhance election security. Democratic critics say it would disenfranchise legitimate voters, and could be applied arbitrarily with political motives. North Carolina’s Rules Review Commission, made up of Republican appointees, needs to approve the change before it takes effect. Last week, the elections board voted in favor of a rule to make it easier to throw out voters’ ballots if they don’t show photo identification. Under the measure, an elections board could toss a ballot by majority vote if they think a voter is lying about their lack of photo ID. Current rules require bipartisan agreement. “I think it’s confusing,” Democratic board member Siobhan Millen said. “We’re going to lose perfectly sound ballots due to over-fussiness.” “I don’t think it’s fussy. I don’t think it’s picky. I don’t think it’s hard,” responded Republican board member Angela Hawkins. Hawkins says voters confused by the container return envelope used in absentee voting may contact their local elections board for clarification.
Legal Updates
Federal Litigation: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump administration a temporary win on July 17 in its attempt to increase federal oversight of elections. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals put on hold a lower court ruling, which had blocked the U.S. Postal Service from attempting to restrict mail-in voting. However, the Trump administration does not yet have a green light to move forward with the proposed rule. A separate judge in Massachusetts blocked the policy last month, and that injunction still stands. The cases center on a proposed rule from the U.S. Postal Service that sought to compel states to create lists of approved voters, as well as impose stricter regulations on mail-in ballots. The NAACP, which brought the lawsuit, had previously sued the Postal Service in 2020, seeking to challenge delays in delivering mail-in ballots heading into that year’s presidential election. The two sides settled in 2021, with the Postal Service agreeing to “prioritiz[e] . . . the timely delivery of Election Mail” for every national election through 2028. In the ruling, the appeals court said the Trump administration is likely to succeed because the lawsuit is premature — since the rule itself is not yet finalized — and not covered by a 2021 settlement between the NAACP and Postal Service. The appeals court also said the Trump administration demonstrated they would be irreparably harmed if the Postal Service can’t finalize and implement the rule in time for the midterms. “In this context, ‘there can be no do over’ once the election occurs,” the ruling said. While the Trump administration cannot yet move forward with the new rule, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling signals that the Trump administration may be able convince other appeals courts to let them implement the policy while the lawsuits move through the courts — potentially past the November elections.
Arizona: Neil DeSanti, a perennial Republican candidate, was indicted earlier this month for falsely registering to vote and illegally voting, both felonies, because he never had his right to vote restored after pleading guilty to multiple felonies in 2010. DeSanti currently serves as a Republican precinct committeeman in his north Phoenix legislative district, a post that is restricted to legally registered voters. Although Maricopa County Superior Court Commissioner Christina Henderson restored DeSanti’s rights in relation to a 2004 drunk driving case, in which he pleaded guilty to felony endangerment, she denied his identical request in a case where DeSanti pleaded guilty to felony possession of burglary tools after he and his cousin were caught stealing a metal ramp from a commercial yard near downtown Phoenix. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office urged the court to deny DeSanti’s request to have his rights restored. Henderson wrote that she denied the petition because that crime had a victim and occurred while he was on release in the drunk driving case. A grand jury empaneled by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office indicted DeSanti on four felony counts of false voter registration — one for the first time he registered in 2012 and three for registration updates in 2018, 2020 and 2021 — and two felony counts of illegal voting, related to the ballots he cast in November 2024 and November 2025. The indictment was handed down on July 13.
Connecticut: U.S. District Court Judge Kari A. Dooley upheld the refusal of Connecticut officials to provide voter information that the Trump administration demanded from the state. Dooley dismissed a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit that sought to compel Connecticut to turn over its complete, unredacted statewide voter registration list. The adverse ruling represented another legal setback in the Trump administration’s quest for detailed information from states about the nation’s voters. “This lawsuit was an illegal attempt to disenfranchise Connecticut voters and today, the court shut it down. The Constitution is clear: the President does not control our elections and has no right to manipulate Connecticut voter rolls. Connecticut follows federal law and takes its obligations under federal law very seriously. We will not be bullied into handing over sensitive voter information just because Trump demands it,” Attorney General Tong said in a statement. Dooley concluded in a 12-page ruling that Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas does not have to comply with the federal government’s demand because the demanded voter records are not covered under the section of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 that the Trump administration invoked.
Florida
: John Panicci, a Palm Beach County man accused of taking an encrypted USB key from the supervisor of elections office appeared in court July 17 for a plea deal hearing, but the case did not result in a resolution. Panicci is accused of taking an encrypted USB access key from a voter registration training terminal at the Palm Beach County supervisor of elections office in March. Election officials said the USB key was used to access a training database that contained only fake names, addresses and voter ID numbers, with no real voter information. Panicci is charged with unlawful use of an electronic device following an investigation into the alleged theft. Panicci is accused of taking an encrypted USB access key from a voter registration training terminal at the Palm Beach County supervisor of elections office in March. Election officials said the USB key was used to access a training database that contained only fake names, addresses and voter ID numbers, with no real voter information. Panicci is charged with unlawful use of an electronic device following an investigation into the alleged theft. During the hearing attorneys for both the prosecution and defense approached the bench for a private, off-the-record discussion with the judge. After the off-the-record bench conference, the judge rejected the plea and the case was set for depositions and a status hearing. The judge scheduled a status check for Aug. 28, and the case remains active.
Michael H. Drucker
