Electionline Weekly November-2-2023

Legislative Updates

New Jersey: A bill to allow fully electronic voting for blind voters passed the New Jersey Assembly earlier this year by a wide margin, but it still hasn’t received even a hearing in the state Senate. Advocates are hopeful it may pass in the Legislature’s end-of-year session. the state Assembly voted 69-3 in February to allow ballots to be returned electronically by voters with applicable disabilities. A companion bill, S-3302, was introduced in the state Senate a year ago but has seen no movement since then. Disability Rights New Jersey has been lobbying for the change and found a receptive ear in Assembly Majority Leader Louis Greenwald, a South Jersey Democrat. “I was saddened to learn that New Jersey’s vote by mail system stops halfway in providing an accessible mail-in ballot to voters with visual and dexterity impairments, since it requires them to print and sign their ballot,” Greenwald said in a statement. “I felt I had to do something about this issue. The bill passed with strong bipartisan support in the Assembly, and I’m thrilled to have the governor’s support on it. Ensuring that every New Jerseyan, regardless of disability, has the ability to vote privately and independently, whether in person or by mail, is common-sense and the right thing to do.” State Sen. Fred Madden, a sponsor of the Senate version, said the bill is a “priority” that he’ll work to get approved “during the lame duck period before the end of the year.”

Ohio: Sen. Niraj Antani (R-Miamisburg), proposed a bill this week that would ban the use of ballot boxes at boards of election throughout the state. Drop boxes were formally legalized in Ohio in a 2022 election reform law that, among other things, regulated that there could only be one dropbox per county that must be under 24/7 surveillance. Antani, a second-term state senator who represents the bulk of Dayton in the 6th Senate District, said in a press release that the formal legalization of drop boxes was a “disastrous policy.” “I strongly opposed drop boxes then, as I do now, and so I’m seeking to undo this. Drop boxes will lead to severely illegal ballot harvesting, it makes our elections less secure and it leaves lots and lots of ballots in an unsecured receptacle that could be tampered with,” Antani said in an interview with the Dayton Daily News. “I think this will fill our elections with election integrity and so it’s something we have to do.” Montgomery County Board of Elections Director Jeff Rezabek disagreed with Antani’s claims. “We have not seen any of that in Montgomery County and I’m generally not aware that it’s an issue throughout the state of Ohio,” Rezabek said, noting that Ohioans are freely able to request drop box surveillance recordings, which are public record.

Wisconsin: Assaulting a Wisconsin election official could get you 18 months in prison under a bipartisan bill circulated that would also prohibit the public from accessing clerks’ phone numbers or addresses through records requests. The proposal, which comes as local clerks across the country report increased harassment since the 2020 presidential election, would also provide election officials who report fraud or irregularities with whistleblower protections. It would also raise the penalty for sharing election officials’ addresses or phone numbers on social media with the intent of harassing, intimidating or threatening them. “Individuals operating in the capacity of an election official should feel safe while conducting their duties in the State of Wisconsin,” bill authors Reps. Joy Goeben, R-Hobart; Donna Rozar, R-Marshfield; and Sylvia Ortiz-Velez, D-Milwaukee, said in a memo to legislators seeking cosponsors for the bill. Under the bill, physically attacking election officials would be raised from a misdemeanor to a Class I felony, subjecting offenders to up to 18 months in prison and two years of extended supervision. The penalty for publicizing election officials’ phone numbers, addresses or other personally identifiable information would be raised from a fine to a misdemeanor if the person knows releasing that information would lead to officials receiving threats or physical harm. The bill would also prohibit employment discrimination against local officials who lawfully report activity that they believe constitutes election fraud or some other irregularity.

This week, lawmakers discussed a bill that would allow clerks to start processing absentee ballots a day before Election Day, though the measure contains other provisions Democrats oppose. Election officials would not start counting the votes early under the “Monday processing” bill, but perform certain tasks like ensuring the voter is not ineligible due to a felony conviction and checking that the envelope contains information like a witness signature. Clerks also want to run ballots through voting equipment early, though an amendment to the bill would eliminate that option. Clerks noted that running ballots through the machines doesn’t mean the votes are counted early, just that tallies can be compiled more quickly after 8 p.m. on election night if ballots have already been fed into the tabulators, which sometimes experienced jams. Legislators from both sides of the aisle agree that the bill could reduce voter confusion that results from large amounts of ballots being processed late and added to the returns, sometimes changing which candidate is in the lead compared with earlier partial tallies. It’s not yet clear whether the bill will reach the finish line in its current form. Evers supports the idea of Monday processing, saying it “would help a lot.” No Democrats are currently signed onto the proposal. They have criticized the bill for containing other provisions beyond the Monday processing piece, including a requirement that the Wisconsin Elections Commission verify voters’ citizenship status with state Department of Transportation records.

Wyoming: The Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee unanimously passed proposed legislation that would add a lower-level charge for election intimidation. Current law only classifies voter intimidation as a felony. The proposed bill would create a misdemeanor offense for election intimidation against an election official or an elector. Voter intimidation is now only a felony charge in Wyoming, which some have argued discourages county attorneys from prosecuting the violation. The bill also narrows what’s considered felony voter intimidation to only include performed or attempted acts of intimidation. Previously, threats of intimidation were also included under the felony umbrella. Aggravated election intimidation could include inducing or attempting to induce fear in an election official or elector by use of force, violence, harm or loss. Soliciting the contribution of money, other items of value or election assistance to the campaign of any candidate, candidate’s committee, political action committee or sponsors of a ballot proposition by use of threats of physical violence are also acts that would qualify for prosecution of this felony. If found guilty of aggravated election intimidation, a person could receive up to five years in prison and up to $10,000 in fines. The misdemeanor charge for election intimidation contains almost identical language but would be limited to events where only verbal threats were made. This charge would carry a sentence of up to six months in jail and $1,000 in fines.

Secretary of State Chuck Gray suggested the committee draft legislation to create a 30-day durational residency requirement in an effort to further secure Wyoming’s elections. Sen. Eric Barlow, R-Gillette, proposed an amendment to allow people who have lived in Wyoming for less than 30 days to vote for president and vice president in the state to “take any ambiguity out.” Barlow’s amendment was approved by a vote of 6-5. The committee then approved the bill draft for consideration during the upcoming budget session by a vote of 11-2.

Legal Updates

Connecticut: Superior Court Judge William Clark has ordered a new Democratic mayoral primary in Bridgeport to be held after the Nov. 7 general election is completed. The decision comes after surveillance videos showed a woman stuffing what appeared to be absentee ballots into an outdoor ballot box days before the original primary. Clark determined the allegations of possible malfeasance warrant throwing out the results of the Sept. 12 primary, which incumbent Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim won by 251 votes out of 8,173 cast. Absentee ballots secured his margin of victory. “The volume of ballots so mishandled is such that it calls the result of the primary election into serious doubt and leaves the court unable to determine the legitimate result of the primary,” Clark wrote in his ruling, adding that the videos “are shocking to the court and should be shocking to all the parties.” The new primary date has not been set yet. Under Connecticut law, voters using a collection box must drop off their completed ballots themselves, or designate certain family members, police, local election officials or a caregiver to do it for them. Lawyers for city officials questioned the accuracy and relevance of the plaintiff’s review of the video and argued in a joint legal brief that the video does not prove any illegality. They also noted repeatedly that “not one voter” testified about their ballot being mishandled. The State Elections Enforcement Commission is currently investigating the allegations of ballot-stuffing, as well as other complaints of possible election improprieties surrounding the same primary.

Georgia: U.S. District Judge Steve Jones ruled that some of Georgia’s congressional, state Senate and state House districts were drawn in a racially discriminatory manner and ordered state lawmakers to draw an additional Black-majority congressional district. Jones, in a 516-page order, also said the state must draw two new Black-majority districts in Georgia’s 56-member state Senate and five new Black-majority districts in its 180-member state House. Jones ordered Georgia’s Republican-controlled General Assembly and GOP governor to take action before Dec. 8, saying he wouldn’t permit 2024 elections to go forward under the current maps. That would require a special session, as lawmakers aren’t scheduled to meet again until January. If the state fails to enact remedial plans by his deadline that provide Black voters the opportunity to elect their favored candidates, Jones said the court will draw or adopt its own maps. “After conducting a thorough and sifting review of the evidence in this case, the Court finds that the State of Georgia violated the Voting Rights Act when it enacted its congressional and legislative maps,” Jones wrote. “The Court commends Georgia for the great strides that it has made to increase the political opportunities of Black voters in the 58 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Despite these great gains, the Court determines that in certain areas of the State, the political process is not equally open to Black voters.” The judge sought to dispel concerns about the Dec. 8 deadline he set for the new maps, writing that he is “confident that the General Assembly can accomplish its task” by then.

A civil bench trial began last week to determine whether True the Vote violated the federal Voting Rights Act by intimidating voters in Georgia. Fair Fight filed suit nearly three years ago claiming True the Vote unlawfully “launched a massive, multifaceted campaign” of voter intimidation and suppression in an attempt to disqualify voters in Georgia based on questionable addresses. True the Vote challenged more than 360,000 voters’ eligibility in the state. To aid its efforts, True the Vote recruited volunteers to serve as “citizen watchdogs” and monitor voters as they returned their ballots and offered a $1 million reward fund to “incentivize” individuals to report instances of “election malfeasance.” “The obvious effect of this million-dollar bounty will be to encourage Defendants’ supporters to generate even more baseless accusations of voter fraud — an effort that is likely to subject Georgia voters, and particularly Georgians of color, to harassment, particularly if they appeared on Defendants’ erroneous and unsubstantiated lists of purportedly ineligible voters,” Fair Fight wrote in its original complaint. County election boards ultimately rejected the vast majority of the challenges, which relied on spreadsheets that listed voters who had submitted change-of-address forms with the U.S. Postal Service. But challenges caused harm to who wanted their mail forwarded, but remained Georgia voters with full voting rights, including members of the military, students and relocated workers, Fair Fight attorney Uzoma Nkwonta told the court.

Mississippi: Hinds County District 4 Supervisor Vern Gavin’s election dispute was heard in court this week. Judge Barry Ford ruled in favor of Wanda Evers, dismissing Gavin’s claims of a poorly run, unfair election. Gavin alleged poll workers of violating Mississippi Election Code during the August 28 Democratic runoff against Evers. Gavin also claimed that Evers did not meet residency requirements. “I am grateful that the judge saw my defense, and he ruled on what was right and not on what was wrong,” said Evers. In the meantime, Gavin is weighing his options. “I would like to express my appreciation for the Judge’s time, and his consideration of our case. I will get back with my legal team, and we will make a further determination as to where we go next,” he said.

Missouri: Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft wrote ballot titles for six proposals to restore abortion rights that were “replete with politically partisan language,” a Missouri appeals court unanimously ruled Tuesday. In an expedited decision issued a day after hearing arguments, a three-judge panel of the Western District Court of Appeals upheld, with only minor revisions, the revised ballot titles written by Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem. Ashcroft issued a statement that he would appeal the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court, a process likely to take several weeks. The ongoing court battle narrows the time for gathering signatures to put the proposal on the 2024 ballot. Backers must secure more than 170,000 signatures from registered voters by early May. A key error in Ashcroft’s ballot titles, states the opinion signed by Judge Thomas Chapman, was its single-minded focus on how it would impact the legality of abortion. The proposed constitutional amendments, he wrote, cover all aspects of reproductive health care. “The absence of any reference to a right to reproductive health care beyond abortion in the summary statements is misleading,” Chapman wrote. There was little to be saved from Ashcroft’s summaries, he wrote. “The secretary’s summary statements do not fairly describe the purposes and probable effects of the initiatives,” he wrote. “The secretary’s summary statements are replete with politically partisan language.”

Montana: The Montana Republican Party and the Republican National Committee have asked to intervene in a federal lawsuit filed earlier this month that seeks to block a law passed by the Republican-led legislature this year surrounding additional voting requirements. The two groups say their interests in electing Republicans to state and federal offices could be negatively affected if a judge sides with the Montana Public Interest Research Group and the Montana Federation of Public Employees and blocks changes to the law implemented this year under House Bill 892. Montana law prior to the 2023 session stated that “no person may vote more than once at an election.” The Republican supermajority passed, and Gov. Greg Gianforte signed, Missoula Republican Rep. Lyn Hellegaard’s bill, which adds qualifications to the existing language. Legislators said the purpose of the bill was to clarify double voting in state law. But the two organizations that sued argued in their complaint the law “goes much further, creating vague, overbroad new restrictions that implicate other facets of the franchise.” The law also includes penalties for violations of up to 18 months in prison and fines up to $5,000, which the original lawsuit says are “ridiculous” and could lead to jail time and large fines for people who do not follow what they say are convoluted and unnecessary additions to the voter registration process. MontPIRG and MFPE said the law could subject its members to those penalties and hamper their efforts to get their members registered to vote.

North Carolina: North Carolina laws requiring citizens to reside in the state and within a precinct at least 30 days before an election date to be eligible to vote are unlawful and must be blocked, a union-affiliated retiree group said in a federal lawsuit this week. Lawyers for the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans write that the 30-day residency mandate violates the U.S. Constitution and Voting Rights Act and totally denies newcomers to the state the right to vote for no compelling reason. People who currently comply with that residency window can participate in same-day registration at early voting sites up to the Saturday before the election. The lawsuit, if successful, could allow more people to cast ballots in the 2024 elections in the ninth-largest state, which has over 7 million registered voters and is often marked by very close results in races for president and other statewide offices. Lawyers who helped file the lawsuit on Monday on behalf of the alliance against State Board of Elections members and its executive director have represented Democratic interests previously. North Carolina’s constitution sets a one-year state residency requirement to vote in state elections, but that provision was held unconstitutional decades ago and isn’t enforced. A 30-day precinct requirement is still carried out, however, and state law says lying about one’s residency on a registration form is a low-grade felony. The U.S. Voting Rights Act does allow states to set registration deadlines up to 30 days before a presidential election. But the law says no U.S. citizen can be denied the right to vote for president and vice president simply because the person can’t comply with a “durational residency requirement,” the lawsuit says. The state constitution does give legislators the ability to ease residency requirements for presidential elections, but there is no such law currently on the books. “And the U.S. Constitution prohibits such requirements in all elections,” the lawsuit reads, citing the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Wisconsin: Dane County Judge Ann Peacock has ruled that a vote by the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Senate to fire Meagan Wolfe, the state’s nonpartisan elections official, had no legal effect, and lawmakers are barred from ousting her while a lawsuit plays out. Wolfe will continue serving as head of the Wisconsin Elections Commission pending a decision on whether elections commissioners are legally required to appoint someone for the Senate to confirm, Peacock said. Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul sued to challenge that vote, and in court filings earlier this month, Republican legislative leaders changed course and claimed their vote to fire Wolfe was merely “symbolic” and had no legal effect. They also asked Peacock to order the elections commission to appoint an administrator for the Senate to vote on. The fight over who will run the battleground state’s elections agency has caused instability ahead of the 2024 presidential race for Wisconsin’s more than 1,800 local clerks who actually run elections. Peacock said her order on Friday would maintain the status quo. “I agree with WEC that the public expects stability in its elections system and this injunction will provide stability pending the Court’s final decision,” she wrote.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker