Legislative Updates
Alabama: The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee approved a bill to place additional restrictions on absentee voting, which supporters called ‘ballot harvesting,’ after a public hearing and a confusing lead-up to the vote. SB 1, sponsored by Sen. Garlan Gudger, R-Cullman, passed the committee on a 7-3 party line vote. The bill, substituted prior to the vote, would make it illegal to “knowingly” provide an absentee ballot that is pre-filled with any voter information and would require applicants to submit their own applications. The legislation would provide an exception for voters who receive emergency treatment by a licensed physician within five days before an election. The legislation would make it a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a third party to “knowingly” receive payment or a gift for distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining or delivering an absentee ballot application. A person who “knowingly” pays or provides a gift to a third party to distribute, order, request, collect, prefill, complete, obtain or deliver a voter’s absentee ballot application would be guilty of a Class B felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. A voter who needs assistance due to blindness, disability or inability to read “may be given assistance by an individual of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.” Military stationed overseas would not be impacted by the legislation.
Alaska: The House of Representatives has voted along bipartisan lines to shorten the time needed to remove someone from the state’s voting registry. The move is part of an effort to deflate the state’s voter rolls, which currently contain many more people than are eligible to vote in the state, an artifact of the state’s transient population and the fact that it’s much easier to add someone to the rolls than it is to remove them. If signed into law, House Bill 129 would allow the state to remove someone from its rolls in six years instead of eight. Alaska’s existing eight-year timeline is one of the longest in the country, according to records kept by the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the new six-year timeline is longer than the four-year minimum in federal law. In addition, the bill would put into law best practices for maintaining the list and require the Alaska Division of Elections to promptly notify voters if their information is released in a data breach. One such breach took place in 2020, but elections officials didn’t notify the public until after the election.
Arizona: The Arizona House of Representatives passed a bill today that would ban the use of voting centers and require precinct voting across the state. HB2547 would tie areas of 1,000 voters to a certain voting location, instead of being able to vote at any voting center in their county. At a hearing, House Republicans like Rep. Rachel Jones (R-17) spoke in favor of the bill and said precinct voting helps preserve election integrity and reduces wait times. “It’s actually more convenient because they are right there, whether it’s at their neighborhood, school or church, they can go before work or after work,” Jones said. 12 Arizona counties currently use voting centers, including the two with the highest populations. Pima County started using them in the 2022 election, while Maricopa County has been using them since 2016. Democrats in opposition like Rep. Laura Terech (D-4) said densely populated areas would struggle to find the number of poll workers the bill would require. With 2.7 million registered voters in Maricopa County, the bill would mandate 2,700 voting locations and require 16,000 poll workers to staff them. Pima County would require at least 625 precincts.
A bill sponsored by state Sen. John Kavanagh sets a minimal bar of a 25% turnout in local elections that aren’t held in conjunction with a statewide or federal election. If less than 25% of the electorate votes, the results are declared void and the election gets repeated on a date when a statewide or federal office is on the ballot. Kavanagh said he’s not targeting any particular offender or type of election. He cited as an example — presumably theoretical — a sanitation district that’s proposing a fee increase. “It’s the principle of the thing,” Kavanagh said. “Elections with fewer people are simply undemocratic.”
Florida: A bill that would criminalize intimidating election workers is advancing in the Senate — with requests that it be amended to add equal protections for poll observers some say are in part responsible for the harassment. The measure (SB 562) would make it illegal to harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce an election worker with the intent to impede or interfere with their official duties or to retaliate against them for doing so. First-time offenders would face a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and $1,000 in fines. “This bill is a safeguard of the integrity of the election process by deterring and penalizing harassment against those individuals involved in its administration,” said its sponsor, St. Petersburg Democratic Sen. Darryl Rouson. “The most critical component of our republic is the right to vote. We protect voters. Certainly, we should protect those who administer the elections process.” Rouson’s peers on the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee agreed this week, voting unanimously to send his bill to the second of three panels it must pass through before reaching the Senate floor.
Georgia: The Georgia Senate voted along party lines this week to abandon the use of bar codes on ballots. Instead, ballots would be counted from the printed text or filled-in ovals next to candidate names.= Republicans supporting the bill said it would improve election security and reduce the risk of hacks or tampering that could flip votes. There’s no indication that Georgia’s voting machines have been breached during an election. It’s unlikely that the change could be made in time for this year’s presidential election. “The biggest challenge that a voter has is knowing that their vote was correctly recorded,” said Sen. Max Burns, a Republican from Sylvania. “Let’s eliminate QR codes. Let’s make sure that electors can read the ballot and be clear about how they voted.” Democrats critical of the proposal said it would be expensive and impractical to implement before this November’s presidential election. Under Senate Bill 189, ballot scanners would count votes directly from the ballot text or a machine mark, such as a computer-printed oval filled in with voters’ choices. The text or bubbles would become the official vote rather than the QR code. The cost of technology changes needed to count ballots from the text starts at $15 million — and possibly much more — for thousands of new ballot printers and election computers across the state. So far, lawmakers haven’t appropriated money in the state budget for replacement election equipment. The legislation cleared the Senate on a 31-22 vote, with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed. The bill now advances to the state House.
Indiana: A bill slated as “election security” advanced from the House to the Senate this week. House Bill 1264, authored by Rep. Tim Wesco, R-Osceola, would require new voters and in-person registrants to provide photo identification and proof of residency when registering to vote in person at registration agencies. The bill would also allow the state to “crosscheck” voters’ addresses from the Statewide Voter Registration System with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ list of temporary credentials. “Election security is and always should be a top priority in our state,” said Wesco, chair of the House Elections and Apportionment Committee. “Verifying voting records will ensure that every vote cast is legitimate and makes sure our elections are held to a high standard.” Wesco said his bill would also provide the state with the ability to identify noncitizens who are registered incorrectly.
Kansas: The Legislature is focusing on issues of election integrity for the third year straight after unfounded allegations of widespread fraud circulated after the 2020 presidential election.So far, seven bills that would limit advanced voting, increase verification processes and ban ranked-choice voting have been heard in either the House Committee on Elections or the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs. House Bill 2512, however, would end early in-person voting on the Sunday before an election. Clay Barker, general counsel for the Kansas secretary of state, remained neutral on the bill and said it was mostly a resource debate on what counties can accommodate on a weekend. Some smaller communities with fewer staff may welcome the shorter timeframe as they prepare for the election, said Harvey County Clerk Rick Piepho, who added that it’s a popular time to vote. “About 10% of our total in-person voters vote in that four-hour period on Monday,” Piepho said, referring only to early-in person votes in his county. Further restrictions were proposed for counties sending advanced ballots to voters in Senate Bill 366. Under the bill, voters would have to request an application for an advanced ballot and counties would be prohibited from pre-writing portions of it, such as the name and address of the voter. Legislators backing the bill said counties can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars mailing prefiled applications to voters, while supportive citizens claimed mail-in voting is more susceptible to fraud.
Maryland: The House Judiciary Committee reviewed proposals this week focused on public safety and protecting elected officials. The bills are part of Gov. Wes Moore’s (D) legislative agenda comes in response to increased threats and attacks, around the nation, on government officials as well as a shortage of law enforcement officers. Eric Luedtke, the governor’s chief legislative officer, testified on House Bill 585 (Protecting Election Officials Act) that would create a new misdemeanor charge in state election law for threats against election officials or someone in their immediate family. According to the legislation, election officials include state and local administrators of elections, members of state and local boards of elections, employees of state and local boards of elections and election judges. Immediate family members include a spouse, children and parents. As defined in the bill, a threat can be made orally, by electronic communication or in any written form whether or not it’s signed “with a fictitious name or any other mark.” In the bill, harm includes serious injury or serious emotional distress. The charge would be a misdemeanor and a person found guilty could be sentenced up to three years, be fined up to $2,500, or both. Under current law, a person who interferes or hinders an election official who is performing official duties could be found guilty of a misdemeanor. The punishment could be a fine from $50 to $1,000, a sentence of up to a year in jail, or both. The state Office of the Attorney General wrote a letter of support but requested that the definition of election official be amended to include “counsel to a local board of elections or counsel to the State Board.”
Ohio: Some state lawmakers are working on a bill that would effectively ban ranked-choice voting in Ohio, a method of voting that isn’t used anywhere in Ohio at this time. Senate Bill 137, if passed in its current form, says any municipality that approves the use of ranked choice voting would lose its share of the local government fund from the state. State Senator Theresa Gavarone from (R – Bowling Green), one of the sponsors of Senate Bill 137, along with Democrat William DeMora, told WTOL’s sister station WBNS in Columbus that it comes down to time and money. “It takes longer, it can takes several weeks to come up with a result, and with each tabulation increases costs to our boards of elections. So it undoes a lot of the good we’ve been trying in Ohio, so we want to ban it,” said Gavarone.
South Dakota: Native Americans should be able to use their tribal identification cards to register to vote in state and county elections, the South Dakota Senate has decided. Senators voted 29-3 this week for the proposal from Democratic Sen. Shawn Bordeaux. SB119 now heads to the House of Representatives for further consideration. Democratic Rep. Linda Duba is the lead House sponsor.
Primary voters would pick their party’s nominees for attorney general and secretary of state under a bill that cleared a state House committee. House Bill 1198 is the third attempt in recent years – and the second in 2024 – to take candidate selection for some offices out of the hands of party conventions. Rep. Tyler Tordsen, R-Sioux Falls, presented his latest proposal during a House State Affairs Committee hearing less than a month after his resolution with similar aims failed in the same room. Currently, legislative, federal and gubernatorial candidates are selected by primary voters in South Dakota. The state is one of three that still chooses its candidates for the remaining constitutional offices – lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, commissioner of school and public lands, and public utilities commissioners – at a convention of party delegates. Tordsen’s initial effort to change that would have placed a constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot asking voters to switch some nominations to a primary system. That proposal, House Joint Resolution 5001, failed 8-5 during the second week of the legislative session.
Utah: A bill introduced in the Legislature seeks to strip the Lt. Governor of oversight of the state’s election system, creating an independent state elections director. House Bill 490, sponsored by Rep. Ryan Wilcox, R-Ogden, would create a separate state elections office with a director hired by the Governor, Lt. Governor, Senate President, House Speaker, Auditor, Treasurer and Attorney General. Wilcox insisted his bill was not being run for nefarious reasons. He dismissed claims of election fraud in Utah. “What it does not do it does not support a premise that there is some kind of fraudulent activity happening in our elections,” he said of his legislation. But Wilcox said he was responding to consistent claims of election improprieties and pointed to anger in other states. Wilcox announced on Feb. 7 that he was dropping the bill.
Virginia: Members of the General Assembly are considering legislation aimed at protecting election workers from threats and harassment. Election workers across Virginia increasingly face harassment and intimidation. That’s the reason why Senator Adam Ebbin, a Democrat from Alexandria, introduced a bill to protect them. “The reasoning for this bill is that there’s been violent and relentless threats against election officials and poll workers as a trend in recent years,” Ebbin says. Republican Senator Mark Obenshain of Rockingham County worries that the new felony charges might be too broad. Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell says intimidating election workers is unacceptable. Ebbin’s bill is expected to be considered by the Senate Finance Committee this week.
Wisconsin: As a legal battle over witness addresses on absentee ballots heads towards the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Republican lawmakers say they’re hoping to settle the debate over the definition of “address” before the court does. A bill authored by Wisconsin Reps. Donna Rozar, R-Marshfield; Scott Krug, R-Nekoosa; and Sen. Cory Tomczyk, R-Mosinee, would specify that a witness’s address must contain the person’s name, house number, street name, municipality, state and ZIP code. It would also bar clerks from filling in missing address information regardless if they can identify where that person lives. If a clerk — or anyone other than the voter — corrects the address, they could face fines of up to $500 and up to 30 days in jail, under the legislation. Current law states that a witness must print their name and address on the absentee ballot envelope, known as a witness certificate, but doesn’t spell out what constitutes an address. Krug said the bill is a response to lawsuits on absentee witness signatures working their way through state courts.
Legal Updates
Arizona: Republican leaders of the Legislature are asking a judge to block provisions of the manual that guides election administration. The leaders allege Secretary of State Adrian Fontes exceeded his authority to create procedures and strayed into creating policy when his office issued the Elections Procedures Manual at the end of last year. The manual provides guidance to county elections officials on all aspects of running an election, from voter registration to the canvassing of election results. House Speaker Ben Toma, R-Glendale, and Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, outlined in their complaint five specific provisions of the manual that they argue clash with state law. They charge Fontes has selectively pulled guidance from court rulings, “which will inevitably lead to confusion among election officials.” “Secretary Fontes is prepared to defend the EPM that was created to provide uniformity and clarity for elections officials, so they can administer free and fair elections for the people of Arizona,” communications director Aaron Thacker said in a statement.
Colorado: The U.S. Supreme Court granted Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s request for a 10-minute sliver of time for an attorney representing her office to speak during oral arguments. The justices also will hear from lawyers for Trump and the Colorado voters who challenged his eligibility during the Feb. 8 hearing. The state’s highest court found in a 4-3 ruling in December that Trump was disqualified from becoming president again because of his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot violated the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But a stay is in place because of the appeal, allowing the Republican frontrunner to appear on Colorado’s March 5 presidential primary ballot. In Griswold’s request, filed late last week, she asked the court for time “to allow her to address the unique state-law and state-level election-administration issues presented in this matter.” She requested 15 minutes but was granted 10 in Friday’s order. Jack Todd, a spokesman for the Secretary of State’s Office, said Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson would represent Griswold during arguments. The Supreme Court’s order says argument time will be limited to 80 minutes. Of the remainder, 40 minutes will go to Trump’s team and 30 minutes will go to the lawyer for the Colorado voters who filed the ballot challenge.
The Tenth Circuit declined to halt the trial of Tina Peters, a former clerk and recorder for Mesa County, Colorado, who faces criminal charges related to leaking voting machine passwords in 2021. Prosecutors say in April and May 2021 Peters allowed unauthorized individuals to access voting equipment during a sensitive security update and leaked voting machine passwords to the social media site Telegram. The 68-year-old Peters faces three felony counts of attempting to influence a public servant; four felony counts related to impersonation and identity theft; and a misdemeanor count each of official misconduct, violating her duties and failing to comply with the secretary of state’s requirements. Peters pleaded not guilty last September. In public speeches, she has expressed concerns about the integrity of the voting machines in Mesa County, particularly after voters declined to elect several conservative candidates during the 2021 Grand Junction municipal election.
Georgia: Last week, a 17-day trial questioning the security of Georgia’s Dominion voting machines ended with claims that tampering would cause chaos countered by assurances that this year’s presidential election will be safe. The case over whether voting touchscreens are vulnerable is now in the hands of U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg, who didn’t immediately rule on whether the election equipment creates an unconstitutional danger to voting rights. Five hours of closing arguments focused on the potential for subverting the voting system Georgia bought for $107 million in 2019. “The train that is coming at us is the November 2024 election. The question is: Are we going to be ready?” said Robert McGuire, an attorney for the Coalition for Good Governance, an election advocacy group and a plaintiff in the case. “What makes this decision a hard one is the political moment.” Attorneys for Georgia election officials said the case failed to show any actual violation of voting rights because voting machines haven’t been hacked or altered during an election. The possibility of election hacking doesn’t justify changing the voting system used by 94% of Georgia voters who cast ballots either during early voting or on election day in the 2022 midterms, lawyers representing the state said. About 6% of voters used absentee ballots filled out by hand. “This is the most battle-tested and stress-tested election system in the country, without a doubt,” said Carey Miller, an attorney for the state. “The outlandish nature of the claims have taken on a life of their own.”
Fair Fight Action filed notice that it would ask the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the lower court’s ruling. Democratic lawyer Mark Elias said his firm would handle the appeal without charging Fair Fight. U.S. District Judge Steve Jones ruled last month that Texas-based nonprofit True the Vote did not violate the Voting Rights Act when it announced it was challenging the eligibility of more than 360,000 Georgia voters just before a 2021 runoff election for two pivotal U.S. Senate seats. Fair Fight, a voting rights group founded by former Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, had sued True the Vote and several individuals, alleging that their actions violated a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that prohibits voter intimidation. Although Jones ruled that True the Vote didn’t intimidate or attempt to intimidate any particular voter, he expressed concerns about the group’s methods. Jones wrote that its list of voters to be challenged “utterly lacked reliability” and “verges on recklessness.”
Maine: The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has sided with a conservative nonprofit, finding that Maine’s restrictions on the release of identifying information from its voter rolls violates federal law. The Public Interest Legal Foundation is challenging restrictions that the state imposed on the release of data from its voter file, which includes the names, addresses, voter status and other information on all Maine voters. For years, the state restricted the release of that information to only political campaigns. Three years ago, lawmakers added an exception that would allow the data to be shared with other groups, in order to ensure the state is compliant with federal voting laws. But the law said that no information could be shared publicly that would identify specific voters. Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has said those measures are intended to protect voter privacy, but the foundation challenged those restrictions. And late last week, an appeals court sided with the group and affirmed an earlier ruling. In its decision, the court said the state law is pre-empted by the National Voter Registration Act, and that releasing information to the public is “necessary” if groups are ever going to “identify, address, and fix irregularities in states’ voter rolls” through federal law. The court also notes that there are other federal statutes that address privacy concerns, and that the “proper redaction of certain personal information in the Voter File can further assuage the potential privacy risks implicated by the public release of the Voter File.”
Maryland: The Supreme Court of Maryland has referred the matter of establishing an early voting center in Hancock to mediation with a court-appointed judge. The court further ruled that it must be notified by Feb. 20 whether an agreement has been reached, according to the opinion issued by Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader. The court heard oral arguments Monday in Derek Harvey, et al v. Jared DeMarinis, et al. Harvey is a Washington County Commissioner; DeMarinis is the state administrator of elections. The suit was filed after the Maryland State Board of Elections rejected the Hancock Town Hall as the second of three early voting centers proposed by the Washington County Board of Elections and approved by the county commissioners. After an Anne Arundel Circuit Court judge upheld the state board’s decision, Harvey appealed that ruling to the state’s Supreme Court.
Mississippi: Republicans are challenging extended mail ballot deadlines in Mississippi, however a similar lawsuit filed in North Dakota has been dismissed. It is a legal maneuver that could have widespread implications for mail voting ahead of this year’s presidential election. The Mississippi lawsuit was filed last week. The North Dakota lawsuit was filed last year. Democratic and voting rights groups are concerned about the potential impact if a judge rules that deadlines for receiving mailed ballots that stretch past Election Day violate federal law. “This effort risks disenfranchising Mississippi voters, but we don’t want that to also be precedent for other states,” Abhi Rahman, communications director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in response to the most recent lawsuit.
Nebraska: Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Rossiter Jr. has approved an agreement between two Indian tribes and Thurston County that gives Native American voters the majority in five of seven county board of supervisors districts. Rossiter called the agreement “fair, reasonable and adequate” in a Jan. 26 order that provides for the settlement of a lawsuit in which the Winnebago and Omaha tribes and several individuals said the county and the board of supervisors had violated the Voting Rights Act with its previous district map in 2022. “The settlement reasonably resolves difficult voting rights issues in a manner that is fair to all parties,” Rossiter said in his ruling. The settlement includes a new district map, which the Thurston County Board of Supervisors has approved for implementation in this year’s election. The map will be in place until after the next census in 2030, when population shifts could require the redrawing of districts.
New Jersey: Former Atlantic City council president and Democratic operative Craig Callaway was arrested by federal authorities last week alleging he masterminded a mail-ballot fraud scheme in the runup to the 2022 election. U.S. Attorneys accused Callaway and other unnamed subordinates of paying Atlantic City residents between $30 and $50 to act as authorized messengers and request mail-in ballots for voters whom they had never met. Prosecutors allege that those ballots were later cast without the actual voters’ knowledge. The charges appear to stem from work Callaway did for Rep. Jeff Van Drew’s 2022 reelection campaign. There’s no indication Van Drew (R-02) knew about the alleged scheme. “Holding free and fair elections is a bedrock principle of our democracy,” U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger said in a statement. “As alleged in the complaint, the defendant attempted to deprive New Jersey residents of a fair election by fraudulently procuring and casting ballots. Today’s charges reflect our office’s commitment to hold to account those who try to undermine the electoral process.” Prosecutors did not seek to detain Callaway before trial, though he must provide a $50,000 appearance bond, forgo international travel, and avoid contact with others involved in the case as conditions of his release.
New York: Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba upheld a new law giving New Yorkers the option to vote by mail instead of in person, dismissing a Republican lawsuit that claimed it violated the state constitution. The ruling by Ryba was a victory for Democratic lawmakers, who passed the mail-in voting bill over Republican opposition last June. They argued it strengthens democracy by giving busy voters another way to cast ballots and increasing their participation in elections as a result. New York became the 36th state in the U.S. to allow or require voters to mail their ballots. The law effectively made permanent a voting option New York offered for three years during the pandemic, when any voter could request absentee ballots without the usual restrictions on who could obtain one. Ryba denied New York’s constitution mandates in-person voting or prevents the legislature from allowing mail-in ballots. She said it simply allowed special accommodations for those who can’t make it to the polls. She wrote in her ruling: “The mere fact that the framers specifically authorized the Legislature to establish a different voting method for a specific category of voters does not necessarily signify their intent to restrict the Legislature’s power to establish alternative voting methods for other voters.”
North Dakota: U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the acceptance of mail-in ballots after Election Day brought by a county election official and backed by a legal group aligned with former President Donald Trump. Traynor said Burleigh County Auditor Mark Splonskowski lacks standing to bring the case, and failed to show he was harmed by the law or that his constitutional rights will be violated. The auditor alleged state and federal law conflict as to the counting of mail ballots received after Election Day. “According to Splonskowski, following his understanding of federal law will inevitably result in criminal prosecution under North Dakota law because he will have to forego his duty to follow North Dakota election law,” Traynor wrote, adding later, “This is deeply concerning to the Court that an elected official openly advocates for violating the law he was elected to enforce because he has independently concluded it contradicts federal law.” The judge also said the reasoning in Splonskowski’s lawsuit, if successful, “could be utilized against” overseas and military voters’ rights to vote.
Ohio: Attorney General Dave Yost told the Ohio Supreme Court that rushing a lawsuit filed against him by a coalition of civil rights organizations seeking to place a package of voter protections on the November ballot is unjustified. In a court filing, Yost said the July 3 cutoff for the “Ohio Voters Bill of Rights” to make the fall ballot is a false deadline. Ballot campaigns are often mounted in presidential election years in order to take advantage of high turnouts or to motivate certain voter groups. “Indeed, Relators’ petition is in its infancy and they offer no support for their blanket assertion that their petition will survive the constitutional hurdles in time for the 2024 general election,” he wrote, adding that the group can always try for some future election cycle. The coalition, which includes the A. Philip Randolph Institute, NAACP and others, told the court that needing to sue the attorney general shouldn’t “unduly delay” access to the ballot for the voters on whose behalf they filed the lawsuit. At issue in the coalition’s lawsuit is a Jan. 25 finding by Yost that the proposed constitutional amendment’s title was “highly misleading and misrepresentative” of its contents. He issued the decision even while acknowledging that his office had previously certified identical language, including a Nursing Facility Patients’ Bill of Rights in 2021 and another Ohio Voters Bill of Rights in 2014. In his rejection letter, Yost cited “recent authority from the Ohio Supreme Court” giving him the ability to review petition headings, authority challenged in the lawsuit. The coalition wants the court to order Yost to certify their petition language.
Pennsylvania: Project Veritas and conservative activist James O’Keefe have settled a lawsuit in Pennsylvania over false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election that were initially made by a postal worker who backed former President Trump. A lawyer who represented Erie postmaster Robert Weisenbach, who filed the lawsuit, confirmed to NBC News that it had been settled on undisclosed terms. Weisenbach — who voted for Trump in 2020 election — said accusations of voter fraud lodged by postal worker Richard Hopkins and spread by O’Keefe and Project Veritas forced him to flee his home after his address was posted online, The Associated Press reported. Hopkins, a supporter of former President Trump, gained Republican attention over allegations that officials tampered with mail-in ballots in the swing state that President Biden won in 2020. In a statement posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Project Veritas said Hopkins has “since come to learn that he was wrong,” and that Weisenbach and the U.S. Postal Service did not engage in election fraud. The organization said it is not aware of any other evidence of fraud in the Erie Post Office during the 2020 election.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment