Legislative Updates
Alabama: Republican state lawmakers say they want to keep election integrity intact by supporting a bill that criminalizes the act of giving or receiving assistance on absentee voting, including delivering the ballot. However, many grassroots organizations are concerned about how this bill would impact the work they do. This bill nearly became law during last year’s legislative session, but time ran out before it could pass. This year, this is the first thing lawmakers are expected to debate. Senate Bill One makes it a misdemeanor to get or give help with an absentee ballot. If payment is involved, the charges increase to a felony. The only exception is for family and election officials. “We’ve got to protect absentee voting in Alabama because a lot of people utilize it,” said Secretary of State Wes Allen. As a state representative, Allen sponsored a similar version of this bill in 2022. Another version was introduced in 2023. Both failed to pass.
Cochise County, Arizona: In an effort to reduce the wait times at vote centers in the county, the Cochise County Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 to approve the funding request of $50,000 to the elections department to purchase additional voting equipment. The funds will go towards the purchase of 10 new Elections Systems and Software ExpressVote machines. In a December work session, Cochise County Elections Director Tim Mattix said that some vote centers in the 2022 General Election reported wait times greater than 30 minutes. Mattix said that by law and as outlined in the Elections Procedure Manual, the officer in charge of elections must establish and approve a wait time reduction plan to ensure voters don’t have to wait in line to vote for more than 30 minutes.
Florida: Sen. Blaise Ingolia is pushing a bill that would make it more difficult to vote by mail. Currently, people who want to vote by mail in the state of Florida simply register to vote and request a mail-in ballot. However, Senate Bill 1752, would change that system with one word: eligibility. The bill says a qualified absent voter may vote by mail if, on election day and during early in-person voting, the absent voter expects to be: Absent from the county of his or her residence; Unable to appear personally at the early voting site because of illness or physical disability; A resident or patient of a United States Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility; or Absent from his or her legal residence because he or she is confined in jail. It’s a move that Ramon Perez, the executive director of the nonprofit organization Digital Democracy Project, believes would limit access to voting. “Making that a consistent process, having to justify why you need an absentee ballot. I think that makes it harder for people to vote,” he said. SB 1752 would also change the number of times people must request a mail-in ballot. The rules state a request to receive a vote-by-mail ballot covers all elections from the date a request was submitted through the end of the calendar year for the next regularly scheduled general election. This bill would require voters to request a mail-in ballot for each election. “If we’re now going to make it harder to get an absentee ballot, I think that a lot of voters will not realize that and will end up losing out on their opportunity to vote,” Perez said. Senate President Kathleen Passidomo said she’s opposed to the measure. “I have a large number of elderly constituents,” Passidomo, a Naples Republican, told reporters during the first day of the Regular Session. “My parents, who unfortunately recently passed away — they voted by mail. They were dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. They were not able to get in a car and drive to the polling place.”
Illinois: Members of the House Ethics and Elections Committee discussed a proposal this week allowing counties to go primarily to a vote-by-mail system. In a hearing looking at ways to expand access to the polls, they discussed a bill sponsored by state Rep. Carol Ammons, D-Urbana. She sits on the committee. The bill would allow counties to move to the vote-by-mail system. They would choose to send every registered voter a ballot instead of making them request one or go to a polling place. Champaign County Clerk Aaron Ammons, the husband of bill-sponsor Carol Ammons, would also like to see it become the norm. “My experience as a voter and as a county clerk tells me there is no greater voter access than voting from the comforts of your home,” he said. If counties make vote by mail the norm, there would still be polling places and in-person voting. The number would be reduced, however, as fewer people are likely to physically go to the polls.
Kentucky: A bill that would eliminate Kentucky’s recently enacted “no excuse” in-person absentee voting option has been introduced in Frankfort. Senate Bill 61 is sponsored by northern Kentucky Republican John Schickel. It would end the option of all voters being allowed to go to the polls the Thursday through Saturday before a Kentucky election. The bill would keep in place the provision for “excused” absentee voting if a voter certifies they meet certain requirements.
House Bill 44, will allow Kentucky to share data with other states to identify voters who move to other states so they can be removed from Kentucky’s voter rolls. HB 44, sponsored by Rep. John Hodgson, R-Louisville, also seeks to use jury duty information to identify voters who might not be citizens of the U.S.
A perennial bill to move elections from odd-years — including the Kentucky governor’s race — to presidential election years is likely to move on to get a vote in the Senate. The proposed constitutional amendment has made it that far before, but is often held up in the House of Representatives. Senate Bill 10 passed the committee with a favorable recommendation and is likely to receive a vote in the Senate. If SB10 is successful this year and is passed by the voters on the November ballot, elections usually held in off-years — including governor, attorney general, secretary of state and commissioner of agriculture — would be moved to even-numbered, presidential years starting in 2028. In previous years, the proposed constitutional amendment has passed the Senate with the necessary three-fifths majority. But it has usually stalled out in the House, and for the past several attempts it did not even receive a committee hearing. If it were to make it past both chambers, the amendment would land on the ballot in a statewide referendum.
Maine: The Maine House voted 80-60 along party lines against an impeachment resolution targeting Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, the first secretary of state in history to block someone from running for president by invoking the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause. The proposal called for a panel to investigate Bellows’ actions and report back to the 151-member House for an impeachment vote. If the proposal had moved forward, then there would have been a trial in the 35-member Senate, where Democrats also have a majority. Rep. Kevin O’Connell, of Brewer, said Bellows “faithfully discharged her oath of office.” He called her “an honorable person” who should not be removed from office for “simply doing her job.” “You might disagree with her decision, and some folks do. But every government official has an obligation to follow the law and fulfill their oath to the Constitution,” he said.
Lawmakers are considering a bill that would award Maine’s four electoral college votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The proposal is designed to reduce the influence of a handful of key battleground states with more weight in the Electoral College, and ensure that the candidate who gets the most total votes nationwide wins the office. Joining other states in awarding Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote would ensure that votes cast in Maine carry as much weight as those cast in close, swing states that command the most attention from candidates, supporters argue. “This bill will make every vote equal,” said Rep. Arthur Bell, D-Yarmouth, the measure’s sponsor. If enough states agree to do the same, the popular vote winner also would be the Electoral College winner.
Montana: The State Administration and Veterans’ Affairs Committee voted 9-1 in favor of Ballot Issue 13 that, if passed by voters in 2024, would require most Montana elections to be decided by a majority of the vote. The initiative would apply to Montana’s constitutionally defined offices, including the governorship, most executive branch positions, and state and federal legislative seats. The text of the initiative leaves some room for interpretation, directing legislators to prescribe what happens if no one candidate receives a majority of the vote. That could mean a series of run-off elections or a so-called instant run-off, a type of ranked-choice voting system similar to what voters recently adopted in Alaska. Ballot Issue 13 has already received legal approval from Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen. If supporters gather enough signatures — equivalent to 10% of the total number of votes cast for the office of governor in the last general election — the proposal will be listed on the 2024 ballot as CI-127. Montanans for Election Reform is also sponsoring a related initiative that would create a system of open primaries in the state under which the top-four vote-getters in a given race would advance to the general election, regardless of party. That proposal received support from the interim committee late last year but failed to pass Knudsen’s legal review.
New Jersey: Governor Phil Murphy signed the “New Voter Empowerment Act” allowing any registered voter who is 17 years of age by the time of a primary election to vote in that primary if they turn 18 years old on or before the next general election. According to a press release, the signing reaffirms the Governor’s longstanding commitment to expanding democracy, building on previous voting rights expansion measures enacted during the Murphy Administration, including automatic voter registration, in-person early voting, online voter registration, and the restoration of voting rights for individuals on probation or parole, among other reforms. “To strengthen our democracy, we must ensure that all eligible voters can participate in it,” said Murphy. “Across government, we see how the decisions we make today impact future generations. I am proud to sign legislation that expands access to the ballot box while engaging and empowering a new generation of voters.” Current law permits a person who is at least 17 years of age to register to vote if the person will be at least 18 at the time of the election. However, the person is designated in the Statewide Voter Registration System as temporarily ineligible to vote until that person’s 18th birthday. The legislation signed by Governor Murphy today, which will take effect on January 1, 2026, allows that person to vote in a primary election as long as the person turns 18 years of age on or before the next general election.
New York: To mark the first full day of legislative work this session, the New York State Senate once again passed 10 voting rights and election reform bills. This year, Democratic lawmakers are hoping these bills will pass both houses. One bill would allow New York to join an interstate compact to update data on voter registration, DMV drivers licenses, deaths, and US postal Service change of address. Other bills would authorize absentee ballot drop boxes, allow counties to establish portable polling places for early voting, and make voter suppression a misdemeanor. “Expanding early voting, to making absentee ballot voting more accessible, creating the New York voting in elections database, and yes, allowing snacks and drinks for voters,” explained Senate Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins.
South Dakota: A bill that appears to be aimed at full-time travelers who are South Dakota residents will be offered by the secretary of state this year. Senate Bill 17 says that a resident must be within the state “for at least thirty days in the three hundred and sixty-five days immediately prior to submitting the registration form” in order to register to vote. The language would better clarify a 2023 law that requires 30 days of residency before registering to vote, officials from the secretary of state office said. “The current law gives no parameters as to a time period for the 30 days. The amendment defines the period for the 30 days,” Tom Deadrick of the secretary of state’s office said in an email to KELOLAND News. The Legislature in 2023 passed Senate Bill 139 which has a requirement to live in the state for 30 days prior to registering to vote. The state allows full-time travelers to be South Dakota residents if they spend one night in the state. Many list post office boxes at locations around the state as their place of residency as they travel. The locations serve as areas where mail can be sent and then forwarded on to the full-time traveler resident or where the traveler can pick up the mail. When asked if the proposed SB17 legislation would change voting for full-time traveling residents, Deadrick said in an email, “That is a legal question that has many different legal avenues it could go down and is not a question we can answer.”
Legal Updates
Voting Rights Act: NPR’s Hansi Lo Wang has a write-up of the three legal arguments that are being used against the Voting Rights Act. In the piece he notes that in ongoing redistricting lawsuits mainly across the South, Republican state officials have been raising novel arguments that threaten to erode a key set of protections against racial discrimination in the election process. The three arguments include a case in Arkansas where Republican state officials have argued that groups do not have a right to bring suits against the VRA, those are only for individuals. So far, a federal judge and a panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have agreed, pointing out that the text of the Voting Rights Act does not explicitly say there is a private right of action under Section 2. In Alabama, although the Supreme Court rejected Alabama’s attempt to severely limit how race can be used when redrawing voting maps, the state’s Republican officials have signaled they’re gearing up for another challenge against race-based redistricting. Louisiana and Georgia Republicans argue the end of race-based affirmative action means race-based redistricting should also end.
Arkansas: Retired U.S. Army colonel, Conrad Reynolds of Conway, and the non-profit Arkansas Voter Integrity Initiative that he leads filed a complaint asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to certify the sufficiency of the proposed ballot language for a constitutional amendment to require elections in Arkansas to be conducted with paper ballots, and for a constitutional amendment to impose certain limitations on absentee voting. The complaint is filed against Republican Secretary of State John Thurston and the state Board of Election Commissioners, which Thurston chairs. The Restore Election Integrity Arkansas ballot committee has proposed both of the constitutional amendments. Reynolds’ and the Arkansas Voter Integrity Initiative’s complaint seeks the state Supreme Court’s certification of the proposed popular names and ballot titles for the two proposed constitutional amendments. In the complaint, Reynolds and the Arkansas Voter Integrity Initiative ask for the state Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional a 2023 state law that requires the attorney general to consider certifying proposed ballot language for ballot measures, and a 2023 state law that requires petitions for proposed ballot measures to have signatures of registered voters in at least 50 counties rather than at least 15 counties. Act 376 of 2019 shifted the responsibility of certifying a proposed ballot measure’s popular name and ballot title from the attorney general to the state Board of Election Commissioners before Act 194 of 2023 shifted the responsibility back to the attorney general. The complaint claims Arkansas Code Annotated 7-9-126 (e) and 7-9-107 conflict with Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution. The complaint asks the high court to expedite this case on its docket, enjoin the enforcement of the two state laws, and to issue a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction.
Colorado: An election tampering charge filed against Richard Patton, 32, of Pueblo accused of removing an official seal and pulling a USB port from a voting machine during the June 2022 primaries has been dismissed. A Pueblo District Court judge ordered Patton to undergo an outpatient mental competency exam following his arrest, and, in December 2022, the judge ruled that he was not competent to stand trial. The judge ordered Patton to participate in outpatient mental health treatment in hopes of bringing him to trial at a later date. Instead, Patton’s felony election tampering charge was dismissed Jan. 3, although court records do not specify the reason. A gag order was placed on those involved in the criminal proceedings because the case generated significant media attention in the wake of ongoing conspiracy theories about rigged elections, fueled by former President Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 presidential election.
U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang threw out an attempt by former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters to avoid standing trial for criminal charges related to election equipment tampering. Grand jurors indicted Peters, a Republican who unsuccessfully ran for secretary of state in 2022, on multiple counts of attempting to influence a public servant, official misconduct and criminal impersonation. The charges relate to Peters’ alleged actions to grant an unauthorized person access to an upgrade of the county’s voting equipment, resulting in videos and confidential passwords later being posted online. Late last year, Peters filed suit against District Attorney Daniel P. Rubinstein in federal court, claiming his prosecution was intended to “punish her” for exercising her constitutional right to inform “her fellow citizens” of alleged problems with voting equipment in Mesa County. Wang rejected the idea that she could insert herself into Peters’ ongoing state case. “Ms. Peters insists that the Mesa County District Court is an inadequate forum to raise her federal constitutional claims, but has presented no authority that state law prohibits her from doing so,” Wang wrote.
Georgia: A trial got underway in Georgia this week with election integrity activists asking a federal judge to order the state to stop using its current election system, saying it’s vulnerable to attack and has operational issues that could cost voters their right to cast a vote and have it accurately counted. During the trial activists plan to argue that the Dominion Voting Systems touchscreen voting machines are so flawed they are unconstitutional. Election officials insist the system is secure and reliable and say it is up to the state to decide how it conducts elections. The activists say the state should switch to hand-marked paper ballots tallied by scanners and also needs much more robust post-election audits than are currently in place. U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg, who’s overseeing the long-running case, said in an October order that she cannot order the state to use hand-marked paper ballots. But activists say prohibiting the use of the touchscreen machines would effectively force the use of hand-marked paper ballots because that’s the emergency backup provided for in state law.
Michigan: Michigan’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission voted to appeal a federal court ruling that invalidated a series of state legislative districts in metropolitan Detroit. The vote came less than a day before attorneys representing the commission were scheduled to argue in federal court that they are best-suited to take on the redrawing of the 13 legislative districts around Detroit, which a three-judge panel found violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the representation of Black voters in Detroit. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, instead, argued an outside expert should lead the additional redistricting, allowing the commission to weigh in alongside the Detroiters who initially sued the state in 2022 over the commission’s maps. The vote to appeal the ruling passed with eight commissioners in favor with one opposed and two commissioners abstaining.
Nevada: The Nevada Republican Party has dropped a lawsuit against the state to appeal a court decision that would allow the state to hold a presidential primary for Republican voters. On Jan. 5, attorneys for the Republican Party filed documents with the Nevada Supreme Court that stated they are dropping their appeal. In 2021, then-Gov. Steve Sisolak signed a law that mandates Nevada hold a presidential primary with state and county election officials organizing it. At the time, officials said the law was an effort to put Nevada closer to the front of the primary voting states nationwide and that the primary system tends to get higher rates of voter participation. That is scheduled for Feb. 6. State law does not require the Nevada Republican Party to recognize the state’s primary results when putting forth a general election candidate. Primaries have voters submit private ballots in elections run by county and state governments. Meantime, caucuses are planned, financed and run by political parties instead of state election officials. The local party members can nominate candidates to represent their political party and voting is public. If both elections move forward and the Nevada Republican Party chooses to honor the caucus results, the presidential primary results would essentially be disregarded and not count.
New York: Five Hispanic voters in Mount Pleasant filed a lawsuit in Westchester County State Supreme Court accusing the town of maintaining an election system that dilutes the power of their votes and prevents them from electing a candidate of their choice to the town board. The case now becomes the first in what is poised to be a growing number of challenges over potential voting rights violations among voters of color in local elections across the state. It marks the inaugural lawsuit filed under the newly enacted John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York, named after the late Georgia congressman and civil rights champion. The suit seeks to replace Mount Pleasant’s at-large voting system — which lets voters across the town vote for all the candidates in local elections, as there are no districts — with an alternative that would make it more likely for a Hispanic person or other candidate of the community’s choice to be elected to the town board.
North Dakota: U.S. District Court Chief Judge Peter Welte ordered a new joint North Dakota legislative district for two Native American tribes that successfully argued a map created through redistricting in 2021 violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength. Welte’s decision to adopt and implement a new map comes after a flurry of court filings in the lawsuit since his Nov. 17 ruling that the state’s 2021 redistricting map “prevents Native American voters from having an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.” The judge had given North Dakota Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe and the GOP-controlled Legislature until Dec. 22 “to adopt a plan to remedy the violation.” The deadline passed with no new map as Howe and lawmakers sought a delay of the judge’s ruling and more time to respond. Welte said the new map “requires changes to only three districts and is the least intrusive option that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.” The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe brought the lawsuit in early 2022. They alleged the 2021 redistricting map “simultaneously packs Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians members into one house district, and cracks Spirit Lake Tribe members out of any majority Native house district.”
Ohio: Senior U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent ruled this week that changes to Ohio’s voting procedures via legislation, passed during a lame duck session, are “minor” and do not infringe on citizens’ constitutional rights. The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and other nonprofits claimed Republicans in the state legislature passed House Bill 458 under cover of darkness and with little or no public input to drastically change the way the Buckeye State runs its elections. The legislation eliminated the use of utility bills, bank statements or other documents as forms of identification for in-person voting, and also limited the number of absentee voting drop-boxes to one per county. Early, in-person voting on the Monday before Election Day was also eliminated under the bill. The nonprofits claimed these changes would disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters. Nugent found that, under either the Anderson-Burdick undue burden test or a rational basis form of review, the changes had little impact on voters and were constitutional. He cited the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, in which a similar ID law was upheld as constitutional, and pointed out that, “today, at least 18 states, including Ohio, generally require photo-ID for in-person voting.” The elimination of early, in-person voting on the Monday before Election Day similarly failed to tip the scales in the plaintiffs’ favor, according to Nugent. He emphasized that the nonprofits provided no evidence of any individuals who were unable to vote in the May or August 2023 elections as a result of the schedule change, and also pointed out the early voting hours from that Monday were “redistributed” to other days.
Wisconsin: Racine County Circuit Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz ruled Jan. 8 that state law does not allow the use of mobile absentee voting sites, siding with Republicans who had challenged the city of Racine’s use of a voting van that traveled around the city in 2022. Republicans opposed the use of the van, the only one of its kind in Wisconsin, saying its use was against the law, increased the chances of voter fraud and was used to bolster Democratic turnout. Racine officials, the Democratic National Committee and the Milwaukee-based voting advocacy group Black Leaders Organizing for Communities refuted those claims and defended the legality of the van, saying there was no specific prohibition against it. The van was first used in Racine’s municipal elections in 2022. It was purchased with grant money Racine received from the Center for Tech and Civic Life. The van was used only to facilitate early in-person voting during the two weeks prior to an election, Racine City Clerk Tara McMenamin said. She said the vehicle was useful because it was becoming too cumbersome for her staff to set up their equipment in remote polling sites. It traveled across the city to meet voters in their neighborhoods and collect early ballots. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, on behalf of Racine County Republican Party Chairman Ken Brown, filed a complaint the day after the August 2022 primary with the Wisconsin Elections Commission, arguing that the van was against state law. They argued that it was only sent to Democratic areas in the city in an illegal move to bolster turnout.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment