Thursday, October 22, 2020

USPS Ordered to Restore High-Speed Machines for Election Mail


A Federal Judge Ordered the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to Restore High-Speed Mail-Sorting Machines at any Facilities that are Unable to Process First Class Election Mail Quickly Enough, a Major concern for States as the Postal Agency continues to Struggle with Service Performance.

The Order, late Thursday Oct. 22nd, by U.S. District Judge, Emmet Sullivan, in Washington is a Win for a Group of States that Successfully Sued USPS and Trump to Halt a Series of Operational Changes that Hobbled the Postal Service just before an Expected Surge in use of Mail-in-Ballots during the Pandemic.

At Struggling Facilities, “available processing equipment will be restored to service to ensure that USPS can comply with its prior policy of delivering election mail in accordance with First Class delivery standards,” the Judge said.

The Order was intended to Clarify a Sept. 27th Injunction Targeting the Operational Changes Instituted by Postmaster General, Louis DeJoy, a Major Trump Donor who took the Helm at USPS earlier this year. USPS had asked the Judge to Clarify the Scope of the Order, arguing that the Massive Sorting Machines DeJoy Ordered taken Apart over the Summer couldn’t be put Together again.

Sullivan acknowledged the USPS concern that Reassembling All such machines “may not be possible,” but Ordered it done anyway at any Facility that can’t keep up with Delivery Election Mail, such as Mail Ballots, as First Class Mail.

In a Pennsylvania Case, a Judge on Wednesday Denied the State’s Request to Appoint an Independent Monitor to Ensure the USPS followed through on its Court-Ordered Commitments.

DeJoy’s Changes included: Bans on Employee Overtime and Late Delivery Trips that Helped ensured Delivery of Millions of Pieces of Mail, as well as a Policy to Disassemble Hundreds of Mail-Sorting Machines, a Change that Particularly Hit High Density Urban areas that lean Democratic.

One Federal Judge said it was “easy to conclude” that the Changes were Intended to Disrupt and Challenge the Legitimacy of the Nov. 3rd Election.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


Judge Throws Out Trump Campaign Lawsuit Against NJ’s Election Plans


A Federal Judge, on Thursday Oct. 22th, Tossed the Trump Campaign’s Lawsuit against New Jersey’s Primarily Mail-In Election, Ruling that Most of its Arguments were Speculative and that the Campaign Failed to Show how it‘s being Harmed.

The Lawsuit, filed in August by the Trump Campaign, the Republican State Committee, and Republican National Committee, was Basically Moot anyway.

The Plaintiffs did Not seek an Injunction to keep New Jersey from Changing the way it was Conducting its Election. County Clerks began Mailing Out Ballots Weeks ago and about 2 Million have been Cast so far.

“Plaintiffs have alleged nothing more than the possibility of future injury to their members,” U.S. District Court Judge, Michael Shipp wrote in his Ruling.

Citing the Coronavirus Pandemic, Gov. Phil Murphy, through Executive Order, required that New Jersey’s 2020 Election be Conducted mainly through Mail-in-Ballot. Voters can still Vote-in-Person on Election Day by Provisional Ballot.

The Trump Campaign Sued in August, largely on the Grounds that Murphy Bypassed the State Legislature through the Executive Order. So the Democrat-led Legislature Passed a Bill that Murphy Signed, effectively Writing the Executive Order into Law and allowing County Boards of Elections to Count Votes beginning 10 days before Election Day.

The Trump Campaign then Amended its Lawsuit with New Arguments, including Challenging the Early Vote Counts and a Provision that Allows Elections Officials to Accept Mail-in-Ballots without Postmarks for up to 48 hours after the Polls Close.

Since the Election is well under way in New Jersey, Shipp’s Decision is more of a Symbolic Blow to the Trump Campaign and Republicans, who have argued that Universal Mail-In-Elections create the Opportunity for Voter Fraud. While there was a Case of Alleged Voter Fraud in Paterson’s May Municipal Election, there is little Evidence it is a Widespread Problem.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


Can Presidential Candidates Give Left-Over Campaign Funds to Political Party?


Thanks to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News for this post.

U.S. District Court, in McCutcheon v FEC, U.S. District Court, D.C., 1:20cv-2485, Refuses Shaun McCutcheon’s Request, for Injunctive Relief against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), on Whether Presidential Candidates can give their Left-Over Campaign Funds to a Political Party.

On October 19th, U.S. District Court Judge, John D. Bates, Refused to Order the FEC to decide whether a Presidential Candidate who seeks the Nomination of their Party, but who doesn’t get that Nomination, can then Transfer Unspent Campaign Funds to a Political Party in Excess of the Normal Limits on Contributions to Political Parties.

The Lawsuit had been filed by Shaun McCutcheon, who had briefly sought the Libertarian Presidential Nomination earlier this year.

When he didn’t get the Presidential Nomination, he asked the FEC if he could transfer $50,000 to the Libertarian Party.

The FEC did Not issue an Opinion, even though McCutcheon pointed out that Michael Bloomberg had given $18,000,000 to the Democratic Party after Losing the Race for the 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination.

The FEC needs Four Votes, from the Six Members, to Issue an Opinion, but for most of this year, it hasn’t had a Quorum.

Judge Bates said that the Issue of whether such Donations are Legal, is Not Settled.

The Opinion says, “it is far from clear where the FEC – or a court deciding the question on the merits – would come down.”

He also wrote, “The Court’s preliminary injunction analysis need not and will not reach a dispositive conclusion on the ultimate legality of the proposed transfers.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


CA Voter Rolls Need Clean Up


California Election Officials sent Ballots to All Active Registered Voters for the November 3rd Election.

But in a Press Release Distributed, Monday Oct. 19th, Election Integrity Project California (EIPCa), a Self-Described Nonpartisan Watchdog Organization, criticized 440,000 "questionable" Mailed Ballots.

The Organization sent a Letter to the California Secretary of State, writing that 416,633 Californians who were Registered to Vote on or before Nov. 4th, 2008, have Not Voted or Updated their Registrations since that Date.

Federal Election Law says they should have been Removed from the Rolls by 2017.

Because of this, EIPCa wrote, "those voters likely moved or died." Voters in California are marked as "inactive" if they move within the State and do Not Re-Register to Vote.

However, there is No State Law that Eliminates Voters from the Active List because they have Not Voted. But Federal Law says they could be Removed, and I think should be Removed.

EIPCa wrote that it Cross-Referenced 3,342 Registered Voters with Names on the State's Death Index Record. The Organization also Claims 19,717 Voters appeared to have Registered Twice on the Rolls.

EIPCa sent out a Press Release in May that 458,000 Ballots would be sent to Active Status Voters who had Died or Moved and Election Experts Questioned how they got that Figure.

EIPCa has pointed out some clear Instances where Ballots have been sent to People who have Relocated or Died, however the 440,000 number may be Inflated.

Regardless, California says it has Safeguards against Potential Voter Fraud, including Signature Matching and a Barcode connected to the Voter's Address and Information.

But were is the Financial Cost of the Mailing being addressed?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


Support for NY Offshore Wind Farm


There’s an important Deadline coming up for the New York South Fork Wind Farm.

Offshore Wind power is poised to be a Critical part of New York’s Clean Energy Economy, starting with the South Fork Wind Farm (SFWF), a Wind Project off the Coast of Long Island that would Power 70,000 Homes.

The SFWF, coupled with Two other already Approved Wind Projects, will help achieve New York's Goal of:

- 70% Renewable Energy by 2030.

- Slash Pollution.

- Create Good Paying Green Jobs: It is Estimated that SFWF and the Two other Wind Projects would Create more than 1,600 New Jobs.

- Help with New York Economic Recovery: Generate $3.2 Billion in Private Investment.

SFWF is facing a Crucial Step in its Approval Process as the PSC is set to Vote on whether to advance It.

The Comment Period Ends on October 30th.

Send a Message to the NYS Public Service Commission (PSC) to Support the Project Today!

Feel Free to use this Sample Comment and Join the 85% of New Yorkers who Support Offshore Wind Power and the 70% of Local Residents that Support the Project.

Dear Secretary,

I write regarding Matter/Case Details: 18-02212/18-T-0604, Application of Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for the Construction of Approximately 3.5 Miles of Submarine Export Cable.

I support the South Fork Wind Farm (SFWF). Offshore wind power is poised to be a critical part of New York’s clean energy economy through the SFWF and other projects.

The SFWF, coupled with two other wind projects with State contracts being developed, will help achieve our goal of 70% renewable energy by 2030, slash pollution, create good-paying green jobs, and help with our economic recovery. It is estimated that these three would create more than 1,600 new jobs and generate $3.2 billion in private investment.

The SFWF is a key example of clean energy development. The economic downturn caused by COVID threatened one of New York’s key growth industries - clean energy. In March and April, more than 20,000 New Yorkers who worked in the clean energy sector lost their jobs, with those trends continuing in subsequent months. Offshore wind projects like SFWF are crucial to helping revitalize the renewable energy industry.

There is a strong and growing level of support for SFWF. According to polling by Global Strategy Group, 71% statewide and 70% in Suffolk support SFW Farm after hearing informed choices.

For these reasons, I ask that you advance this critical project.

Click HERE to Submit Comments to the PSC to say that you Support South Fork.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


Trump Issues Order for some Career Federal Employees to Lose Their Civil Service Protections


Career Federal Employees whose work involves making Policy would No Longer be hired under Competitive Procedures and would Lose their Civil Service Protections from being Fired as well as Eligibility to be Represented by a Union, under an Executive Order that Trump issued Wednesday Oct. 21st.

The Order would shift those Employees from what is called the “competitive service”, covering the Bulk of the 2.1 Million Executive Branch Employees, into the “excepted service,” which in General applies to Political Appointees below the Level requiring Senate Confirmation.

“This is the most profound undermining of the civil service in our lifetimes,” American Federation of Government Employees President, Everett Kelley, said in a Statement. “The president has doubled down on his effort to politicize and corrupt the professional service. This executive order strips due process rights and protections from perhaps hundreds of thousands of federal employees and will enable political appointees and other officials to hire and fire these workers at will,” he said.

Trump said his Order will “give agencies greater ability and discretion to assess critical qualities in applicants to fill these positions, such as work ethic, judgment, and ability to meet the particular needs of the agency.”

Among Career Employees, the “excepted service” mainly applies to Positions in which it is Not practical to use Competitive Processes in Hiring, such as Administrative Law Judges and Attorneys. Employees of some Entire Agencies, such as Intelligence Egencies, also are in the Excepted Service.

Agencies are Not Required to Post Excepted Service Vacancies on the Central USAJobs.gov Recruiting Site, although some do, and need Not use Rating Systems required when Hiring for Competitive Service Jobs. Also, there is No Formal Preference for Veterans. Unless they are Veterans, Excepted Service Employees do Not gain Appeal Rights until after Two years of Employment, rather than the Standard One year.

The Order tells Agencies to Conduct an Initial Review within Three Months, and a Full Review within Seven Months, of their Positions “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition.”

Agencies then are to Ask the Office of Personnel Management to Move those Positions into a Newly Created Category of the Excepted Service, although a List of “prohibited personnel practices” such as Discrimination and Nepotism, would continue to Apply to them.

While Not defining which Occupations would be Affected, such Duties would include: Development or Advocacy of Policy; Involvement with Writing Regulations and Guidance; Work in an Agency Component that Primarily focuses on Policy; Supervision of Attorneys; Work in the Agency’s Executive Secretariat; Conducting Negotiations with Employee Unions; or Work that Includes “substantial discretion to determine the manner in which the agency exercises functions committed to the agency by law.”

The Order cites “the need to provide agency heads with additional flexibility to assess prospective appointees without the limitations imposed by competitive service selection procedures. Placing these positions in the excepted service will mitigate undue limitations on their selection.”

It also says that “Career employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy making, and policy-advocating positions wield significant influence over Government operations and effectiveness. Agencies need the flexibility to expeditiously remove poorly performing employees from these positions without facing extensive delays or litigation.”

The Order follows the recent Issuance of Rules telling Agencies to provide Only the Minimal Accommodations required by Law to assist Underperforming Employees before Disciplining them and to make the Maximum use of their Discretion in choosing Discipline either for Poor Performance or Misconduct.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


Electionline Weekly October-22-2020


Legislative Updates

Federal Legislation: This week the president signed legislation making it a federal crime to attempt to hack federal voting systems. The Defending the Integrity of Voting Systems Act was unanimously approved by the House last month, over a year after the Senate also unanimously passed the legislation. Trump signed the legislation on Tuesday, just two weeks before the election. The new law empowers the Department of Justice to pursue charges against anyone who attempts to hack a voting system under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, commonly used by the agency to pursue charges against malicious hackers. The bill’s original introduction was the result of a 2018 report compiled by the DOJ’s Cyber Digital Task Force, which evaluated ways the federal government could improve its response to cyber threats. The bipartisan bill was introduced by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last year.

Louisiana: A House committee advanced a compromise bill Tuesday, Oct. 20th that would re-work how lawmakers adopt rules for elections held during states of emergency. Under current law, the legislature and governor must each approve the Secretary of State’s plan, which may include expanded mail-in voting or an extended early voting period to accommodate the emergency. But there are no opportunities to amend the idea without starting the entire process over, meaning a ‘no’ vote from any stakeholder kills the idea and delays its replacement. Under the new proposal, lawmakers would adopt election rules in a manner more like how they pass bills. The Secretary of State would present the idea to a joint governmental affairs committee, which would advance the plan to the full body for a vote. The governor could sign or veto the idea, and the legislature could override a potential veto. But perhaps most important, lawmakers would give the Secretary of State more flexibility to change the proposal as it advances through the process. The bill creates a strict timeline for accomplishing the task. The bill now moves to the full House for debate. It would have to return to the Senate for approval of the committee’s re-write before the governor signs off.

Michigan: Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed bills that would have made it a felony to knowingly try to apply for multiple absentee ballots or to fill out an application for others without their consent. The Democratic governor said voter fraud — such as trying to vote more than once — already is a crime, and the Republican-sponsored legislation would “muddy the waters” and “likely confuse voters” about what conduct is criminal. “Any suggestion that the filing of a second absentee ballot application is criminal behavior creates needless confusion and fearmongering around the absentee voting process,” Whitmer wrote in her veto letter. “It is bad for voters and bad for our elections.” The main bill was passed by the GOP-controlled House and Senate on bipartisan 77-26 and 32-6 votes, with some Democrats opposed.

New Jersey: The Assembly State and Local Government Committee approved a bill that would allow New Jerseyans to cast ballots in-person for two weeks ahead of election day. The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Andrew Zwicker (D-South Brunswick), would allow two weeks early in-person voting for the state’s May non-partisan municipal elections and November general elections. Under the bill, counties would operate between three and seven — based on county population — early voting centers and would be required to obtain electronic poll books needed to administer an early voting system

The Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism and Historic Preservation Committee approved along party lines S-2923, which would prevent police from providing general protection of polling locations, serving as election challengers unless they are on the ballot or standing within 100 feet of a polling place unless they are voting. Police could respond to a disturbance or other specific issue that occurs at a polling place if their assistance is requested.

Texas: Galveston County Judge Mark Henry issued an executive order stating that elections workers who require Galveston County voters to wear a mask will be fined up to $1000. Henry said that order ensures that all eligible Galveston County voters will be granted the right to vote, regardless if they are wearing a mask/face covering or not. Under the county judge’s order, if any election worker attempts to require a mask/face covering or denies an eligible voter the opportunity to vote at a polling location in Galveston County, the Galveston County Sheriff’s Office will be issuing a $1,000 fine to that election worker.

Legal Updates

Alaska: The Alaska Center Education Fund, Alaska Public Interest Research Group and a Sitka resident filed suit seeking to give absentee voters in Alaska a chance to fix mail-in ballot errors that would prevent their votes from being counted. While voters are able to fix ballot mistakes in some municipal elections, Alaska law doesn’t provide for a similar process. State law currently requires that voters be notified their ballots were rejected within 60 days of the election results being certified. This year, the target date for certifying the results is Nov. 25, so voters wouldn’t be notified until late January. The lawsuit seeks to require the Division of Elections to notify voters their ballots were rejected because of a lack of signature or identifying information before the votes are certified, and to give them a chance to correct it. The filing also notes that there will be an unprecedented number of absentee ballots this year, and that inexperienced voters are more likely to have their ballots rejected because they made an error.

Arizona: A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not move back the deadline for mail ballots from the Navajo Nation. Citing slow mail service and long distances between polling places, several voters from the Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit in August arguing that their ballots should still be tallied if received after 7 p.m. on Election Day but postmarked by that date. The panel said hile the lawsuit “is replete with general allegations concerning the various hardships the Navajo Nation members who live on the reservation generally face with respect to mail voting,” the voters had not shown how the current deadline will harm their ability to vote in this election. The court also said there did not seem to be any way to extend the deadline on mail ballots for voters from the Navajo Nation but not for other voters casting ballots in the same counties.

Brad Luebke, 39 of Goodyear, has been sentenced to six months of probation and fined $400 for a 2018 incident at a polling place. He went into the polling site at Desert Spring Community Church on Nov. 6th, 2018, with a holstered BB gun and a cellphone camera on a specialized mount and a microphone. It was a clear violation of the 75-foot rule, which bans those items that close to a polling site. Luebke was told to get rid of the restricted items, but he refused, so police were called. When they showed up, he was found outside the church and taken into custody.

California: California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sought a court order this week to force state Republicans to turn over information about the party’s use of private ballot drop boxes in a handful of counties. The complaint filed in Sacramento County Superior Court alleges several examples of the drop boxes being promoted as either “authorized” or “official.” It says the GOP effort “caused confusion among voters, prompted complaints from county elections officials alarmed about their use, and raised serious concerns about whether the appropriate chain of custody was being observed for ballots deposited” in the boxes. “Here in California, we’re doing everything in our power to protect the integrity of our elections,” Becerra said in a written statement. “As part of that and pursuant to our statutory authority, we issued subpoenas and interrogatories to determine the extent to which the deployment of unauthorized ballot drop boxes may have impacted Californians.” State GOP officials said last week that the labels were the work of “overzealous” local volunteers and that they were quickly replaced. And they have insisted that without those erroneous signs, there is nothing else about their effort to cause concern.

Florida: Judge Linda Allen said Supervisor of Elections Julie Marcus is following the law by asking voters if the address on their driver’s license is current. The decision came during an emergency hearing requested by Marcus’s challenger in next month’s election who said the question violates state law. Allen acknowledged Dan Helm’s sincerity in seeking relief but denied his request to block poll workers from asking the question. She also said the Supervisor’s office should review its policy in the future. “It is something that deserves further consideration by the Supervisor of Elections,” Allen said. At question was a Florida statute regarding how poll workers confirm a voter’s address. Helm read the statute. “When an elector presents his or her picture identificati on to the clerk or inspector and the elector’s address on the picture identification matches the elector’s address in the supervisor’s records, the elector may not be asked to provide additional information or to recite his or her home address.” Pinellas County poll worker training materials directs poll workers to ask voters if the address on their identification is current. Helm said that violates the law.

Georgia: The Georgia Supreme Court has cleared the way for Jesse Houle to become commissioner from Athens-Clarke County’s District 6. In a two-man race, Houle lost to incumbent Jerry NeSmith in nonpartisan elections in June. NeSmith, 71, won with 1,866 votes to 1,405 for Houle. NeSmith died just days before the election, however, and under Georgia law, votes for NeSmith were declared void, leaving Houle the winner of the seat. A bipartisan group of voters challenged the law in Athens-Clarke County Superior Court, saying it effectively disenfranchised District 6 voters. A Superior Court judge upheld the law, ruling against the plaintiffs and their claims that their rights to equal protection and to vote had been denied. In sum, the Superior Court did not err by determining that the appellants’ challenge to the action of the Board of Elections was without merit,” Justice Charlie Bethel wrote. “The application of those statutes by the Board in this case violated no rights of the appellants recognized under the First or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section I, Paragraph II of the Georgia Constitution.”

Illinois: Circuit Judge Raylene Grischow has ruled local units of government are exempt from a law the General Assembly passed this year declaring the Nov. 3 general election as a state holiday and requiring all government offices to be closed that day, unless they are used as polling places or for other election-related services. The Illinois Municipal League, a nonprofit advocacy group that represents local governments, filed suit in July seeking a declaratory judgment stating that the law did not apply to its members. Grischow ruled that if the law were applied to local governments, it would amount to an impermissible unfunded mandate. “Where the Legislature fails to make necessary appropriations allowing reimbursement of expenses, local governments are not required to implement such mandates,” Grischow wrote.

Michigan: The Michigan Court of Appeals a lower court ruling that said late-arriving ballots must be counted, as long as they are postmarked the day before Election Day. The Republican-controlled Legislature had appealed the September ruling by Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens that said ballots postmarked before Election Day could arrive as much as 14 days late and still be counted. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of the House and Senate in the case involving the union-backed Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans. The ruling also reversed Stephens on the question of who may lawfully possess another voter’s ballot to give assistance. Stephens said that with a voter’s consent, anyone can help deliver an absentee ballot from 5 p.m. on the Friday before the election until polls close. Under normal state law, only immediate family members or a local clerk, until 5 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day, can help.

Minnesota: U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis ruled that the City of Minneapolis can accept $2.3 million in grant funds from the Center for Tech and Civic Life. The Minnesota Voters Alliance and four Minneapolis residents had asked the courts to block the city from accepting the money, arguing that a combination of state and federal laws would prohibit those types of private donations. The alliance accused the center of focusing its help on places with “progressive voting patterns.” Davis wrote that the alliance lacked standing and the voters involved in the suit failed to show that the city’s acceptance of the grant money would interfere with their ability to vote. “As Minneapolis voters, they are beneficiaries of the City’s use of the grant money to make voting safer and more efficient,” Davis wrote. “An attenuated argument that Plaintiffs will be unhappy with the election results if their fellow Minneapolis residents can also safely vote during a pandemic does not show that Plaintiffs’ own voting rights have been impaired or denied.”

The Minnesota chapters of the League of Women Voters and the Council on American-Islamic Relations have filed suit against Tennessee-based Atlas Aegis and it’s effort to recruit and deploy an armed and paid militia to Minnesota polling places. In the complaint, plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel to prevent the company and chairman Anthony Caudle from doing so. The groups argue recruiting militias to observe polling places is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. “Defendants’ objective is to further intimidate people with certain political beliefs from accessing polling locations through the presence of armed, highly trained, and elite security personnel,” the lawsuit states. “Defendants’ threat is terrifyingly credible given the concrete steps they have already taken to recruit those armed personnel, particularly considering the context of broader intimidation efforts targeting voters and activists in Minnesota and elsewhere in the United States.”

New Hampshire: New Hampshire’s attorney general has stepped into yet another attempt to limit student voting in the Granite State. The New Hampshire Republican Party had sought to prohibit students from voting in New Hampshire if they were studying elsewhere due to the pandemic. Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Chong Yen, who leads the state’s Election Law Unit, wrote in a letter issued Oct. 21 that voting eligibility “hinges on the facts relevant to that particular individual,” and “broad guidance may not capture every possible permutation.” But Chong Yen said three things are clear: Someone doesn’t give up their ability to vote in New Hampshire due to a “temporary absence;” someone can’t vote in New Hampshire if they’ve never established a “physical presence” here to begin with; and students are allowed to vote in New Hampshire even if they’re originally from another state. “As the New Hampshire Supreme Court has recently confirmed, it reflects longstanding domicile law that a student living in New Hampshire and attending an institution of learning may lawfully claim domicile in the town or ward in which the student lives if the student’s claim of domicile meets the requirements of [New Hampshire’s voting eligibility law],” Chong Yen wrote

New Jersey: A three-judge panel of a New Jersey appeals courts rejected a losing Republican U.S. Senate candidate’s bid to invalidate the primary results and stop the state’s mail-in ballot program for the general election. Hirsh Singh petitioned the court after he lost the primary to Rik Mehta in July by about 9,000 votes out of approximately 300,000 ballots cast, claiming he would have won if the mail-in ballot procedures put in place for the primary were nullified. Singh also sought to invalidate the state’s mail-in ballot procedures for the November general election. In the court’s ruling Wednesday, the three-judge panel rejected Singh’s claims, upholding the primary results and the state’s mail-in ballot program. They wrote that Singh can still petition a lower court to consider his claims of irregularities in the counting of mail-in ballots in some locations. The court wrote, “disrupting that process now would inevitably cause widespread upheaval and potential voter disenfranchisement. Similarly, an order nullifying the primary election at this juncture and invalidating nominees on the general election ballot would produce comparable harm.”

North Carolina: The North Carolina court of appeals issued a temporary stay to a lower court’s acceptance of a settlement that changed North Carolina’s absentee voting rules. An agreement was reached over the weekend that the State Board of Elections will go back to its old way of dealing with absentee ballots mailed in without a witness signature: The voter will have to fill out a new ballot and get a signature for his or her vote to count. County boards of elections will now have to spoil potentially thousands of ballots without witness signatures and contact the voters to provide them an opportunity to submit another properly completed ballot.

In a 12-3 vote, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rule that mailed-in ballots postmarked by 5 p.m. Nov. 3 — Election Day — should be accepted by the N.C. Board of Elections until Nov. 12. “All ballots must still be mailed on or before Election Day,” according to the ruling. “The change is simply an extension from three to nine days after Election Day for a timely ballot to be received and counted. That is all. “North Carolina voters deserve clarity on whether they must rely on an overburdened Post Office to deliver their ballots within three days after Election Day,” the ruling continued. “The need for clarity has become even more urgent in the last week, as in-person early voting started in North Carolina on October 15 and will end on October 31.”

Ohio: The Ohio Supreme Court will consider whether Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose was justified in refusing to appoint a Democratic Party official to a county elections board seat, citing a voter fraud accusation from four years ago. The Ashtabula County Democratic Party filed its complaint with the Supreme Court late last week, asking justices to decide whether LaRose “abused his discretion” in refusing to appoint county Democratic party Chairman Eli Kalil to the vacant board seat. The court set a Friday deadline for the filing of motions in the complaint. The court has not said when it would rule.

Pennsylvania: A judge ruled a three-day pop-up voting event will be allowed this weekend at Subaru Park in Chester. “It’s a location where people can feel safe. It’s outdoors, lots of space, it’s open on a Sunday,” said William Martin, the Delaware County solicitor. “It’s the county’s objective that we want to expand the franchise so that the people who have registered to vote have the greatest possible opportunity to vote,” Martin said. Republicans had sued to keep the site closed.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined without comment to take up case that could have limited when Pennsylvania can count absentee ballots. The lower court ruled that officials may accept ballots up to three days after days after the election as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas — said they would have agreed to the stay request. But Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three most liberal members to reject the request. In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would “be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day” unless there was strong evidence to the contrary.

U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew W. Brann denied a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would have blocked the use of about $13 million by Philadelphia and Centre and Delaware counties. They had applied for and been awarded the funds by the Center for Tech and Civil Life (CTCL) that has given grants to 15 other Pennsylvania counties that were not parties to the lawsuit. The Pennsylvania Vote Alliance, eight conservative GOP members of the state House and five individuals sued, claiming the grants targeted entities with progressive voting records. The City of Philadelphia, Centre and Delaware counties have used the money in a nonpartisan way to facilitate the upcoming election and not to increase voter turnout, Brann found. “The implication that increased voter turnout is inherently beneficial to progressive candidates is dubious at best,” he wrote. The voter alliance has failed to articulate precisely which of its interests have been infringed, Brann wrote.

Tennessee: A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split Thursday in denying the preliminary injunction, which sought to let voters fix signature issues before mail ballot rejections. For the majority, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons wrote there’s no evidence Tennessee’s signature verification procedures will infringe anyone’s constitutional rights. She noted extremely few voters face signature-related rejections, saying voters can cast another absentee ballot or vote provisionally, time permitting. Judge Karen Nelson Moore’s dissent claimed “yet another chapter in the concentrated effort to restrict the vote.” She said allowing signature fixes would prevent “the possibility of confused voters clogging up polling places” after they already tried voting.

This week, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that first-time voters may vote absentee if they are eligible. State law requires that all first-time voters, no matter how/where they register, must vote in person. The state was sued by advocates and a lower court sided with the advocates. The state appealed to the federal appellate court which also sided with the plaintiffs. “Considering that both plaintiffs and defendants have widely publicized the district court’s order in this case and that voting is well underway in Tennessee, a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction at this point would substantially injure the plaintiffs and is not in the public’s best interest,” Judge Julia Smith Gibbons wrote in the Oct. 19 majority opinion for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. “Granting a stay now, with the November 3, 2020 General Election less than a month away, risks introducing confusion into Tennessee’s electoral process. Defendants have not convinced us that there is any sound reason to do so,” Circuit Judge Karen Moore wrote in a concurring opinion. “Put simply, Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal is too little, too late.”

Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle dismissed a challenge by voting rights advocates to expand mail balloting to all voters in light of concerns over the spread of COVID-19. Hobbs Lyle said she no longer has the authority to rule on the case, and even if she did, by the time it could go to trial it would be moot, with the election just weeks away. “Even in the time of a worldwide pandemic emergency, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the Legislature’s routine excuse-only absentee voting policy, enacted for normal times, nevertheless controls how persons exercise the right to vote during a pandemic, and stated, ‘These policy choices will be judged by history and by the citizens of Tennessee. We, however, properly may not and will not judge the relative merits of them, regardless of our own views,'” she wrote in Tuesday order.

Texas: District Judge Tim Sulak ruled that Texas counties can have multiple drop-off locations for hand delivery of absentee ballots, overriding Gov. Greg Abbott’s recent directive limiting counties to one drop-off location. But it remains unclear if state District Judge Tim Sulak’s decision will lead to the reopening of ballot drop-off locations that were shut down in Harris and Travis counties after Abbott’s order. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, on behalf of Abbott and Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs, immediately filed an appeal that paused Sulak’s decision until the state’s 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin reviews it. Sulak’s ruling is the latest turn in a handful of lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging Abbott’s Oct. 1 order, which shut down multiple ballot drop-off locations in Harris and Travis counties.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that if they decide the signature on the ballot can’t be verified, Texas election officials may continue rejecting mail-in ballots without notifying voters until after the election that their ballot wasn’t counted The appeals court halted a lower court’s injunction, which had not gone into effect, that would have required the Texas secretary of state to either advise local election officials that mail-in ballots may not be rejected using the existing signature-comparison process, or require them to set up a notification system giving voters a chance to challenge a rejection while their vote still counts. Requiring such a process would compromise the integrity of the mail-in ballots “as Texas officials are preparing for a dramatic increase of mail-in voting, driven by a global pandemic,” reads the Monday opinion issued by Judge Jerry E. Smith.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker