Electionline Weekly July-11-2024

Legislative Updates

Federal Legislation :The House of Representatives passed a bill this week that would require individuals registering to vote to provide proof of citizenship to participate in federal elections. The legislation, passed 221-198, would also require states to check their voter rolls for registered noncitizens. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE, is intended to prevent noncitizens from voting. That act is already illegal, since under current U.S. law, only citizens can vote in federal elections, but the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 prohibits states from confirming citizenship status. The SAVE Act, introduced by GOP Rep. Chip Roy of Texas in May, would require most individuals to have a passport to register to vote. Only about 48% of U.S. citizens have a passport, according to State Department data. Driver’s license and tribal ID cards typically do not prove a person’s citizenship and couldn’t be used to register under the SAVE Act. Voting rights advocates have expressed concern over the SAVE Act, saying it contains many falsehoods and conspiracy theories that perpetuate extreme views. The Biden administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy against the legislation, saying there is no cause for concern about noncitizen voting and that it would only hinder the voting rights of eligible Americans.

Michigan: Lawmakers approved reforms June 26 to how the state handles petitions for ballot initiatives. The slate of six bills — House Bills 5571–5576 — which passed through the House Elections Committee earlier this month — were recommended by the bipartisan Board of State Canvassers after it convened a workgroup of bipartisan election lawyers and experts to examine the current petition process. State Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou (D-East Lansing) sponsored one of the bills in the package and said the legislation would secure the petition process in Michigan. “Active civic engagement in our elections is a sign of a strong and healthy democracy,” she told her House colleagues. “All citizens deserve to make their voice heard. The petition process offers an opportunity for voters to organize and get important issues on the ballot. However, there are some bad actors that misuse this process by falsifying signatures.”Tsernoglou said the legislation will help prevent that by allowing the bipartisan Board of State Canvassers to codify the use of statistical random sampling to determine the validity of signatures. She said it would also allow canvassers to disqualify obviously fraudulent signatures and refer them to the attorney general for investigation. “Election integrity is not a partisan issue. Our bipartisan Board of State Canvassers brought these issues to our attention and we addressed them with the bills before us today,” she said.Other changes made by the legislation include no longer requiring canvassers to check signatures against the state’s qualified voter file before disqualifying them nor having to forward a petition to a city township or clerk if it is unable to verify a signature on a petition. However, the board could still require local clerks to help determine the validity of signatures by checking them against registration records including the qualified voter file. Additionally, the timeline for local boards of canvassers to carry out their duties would be lengthened, which Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton), a former township clerk, supported.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) has signed Senate Bill 603 into law. Sponsored by state Sen. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit), the bill will allow recounts of precincts that have a mismatch between the number of ballots and the ballots issued to voters recorded in a polling place’s log or the ballots that were tabulated. It also updates the filing fee for recounts to better account for the costs involved and clarifies that county canvassers don’t have the authority to investigate voter fraud, leaving the authority to law enforcement.Whitmer also signed Senate Bill 604, sponsored by state Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield). It changes the sentencing guidelines for certain Michigan election law violations, specifically making it a five-year felony to interfere with a recount or activities relating to a recount.

New Hampshire: Gov. Chris Sununu (R) has signed House Bill 1264 into law. Under the legislation cities and towns will be required to provide accessible voting machines for all elections after January 2025. The bill states that every municipality must “ensure that each polling place has at least one accessible voting system” during every election. And it creates a pilot program requiring the Secretary of State’s Office to share those machines with towns and cities in spring 2025. “Now those of us with vision and print disabilities will be able to vote independently and keep our votes private like everyone else,” said Jean Shriner, an activist, in a statement reacting to the signing Friday. “For me, as a blind person, it’s empowering and exciting.” Currently, the Secretary of State’s Office provides accessible voting machines to cities and towns only during federal elections – as required by federal law. That includes the September state primaries, the November general elections, and the presidential primaries. But the state does not provide the machines to cities and towns for other elections, such as town meetings. And only two New Hampshire municipalities – Concord and Exeter – currently own such machines for those elections. Both municipalities purchased the machines only after residents threatened to bring legal action against them using the Americans with Disabilities Act.

North Carolina: Voters will be asked to approve at least one constitutional amendment when they go to the polls this fall — to reaffirm the state’s citizen-only voting rules — after state lawmakers approved the proposal with broad bipartisan support June 27. The voting rights proposal wouldn’t change any rules in practice. The state constitution already says only citizens may vote, and the proposed amendment would say the same thing but with slightly different language. Supporters point to a handful of cities in other states that are letting non-citizen residents vote in local elections like for city council. That wouldn’t be possible in North Carolina, but supporters of the amendment say it’s needed regardless to send a message opposing that idea in general. Two other elections related proposed constitutional amendments failed to pass in the rushed final days of the legislative session: Literacy test repeal: Like many states, North Carolina enacted literacy test rules after Reconstruction, during the period now known as the Jim Crow era. They were abused for generations to stop Black people and other minorities from voting. The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed literacy tests, as part of the Civil Rights Movement, but North Carolina voters chose in the 1970 elections to keep the rules anyway. The suggestion to ask voters in 2024 to repeal them passed the House unanimously Thursday, but was rejected by the Senate. Voter ID: The amendment would’ve added voter ID rules for mail-in voters to the state constitution. That’s already required by state law, but putting it in the constitution would make it harder for judges or a future legislature to undo. It passed the Senate but failed to receive a vote in the House.

In the final days of the legislative session, Rep. George Cleveland (R-Onslow) urged his colleagues to greenlight legislation that would require the State Board of Elections to establish a new system for investigating and correcting data provided by “election integrity” organizations to assist in maintenance of the state’s voter registration lists. Cleveland told members of the House Rules Committee that the state board was reluctant to rely on groups that could be discriminatory, but House Bill 1071 would require it to examine data brought forth by election integrity organizations and provide quarterly reports to the General Assembly organized by county on corrections made to the voter rolls. Patrick Gannon, spokesman for the state Board of Elections, said in an email that the State Board staff is concerned that this bill could run afoul of federal law, which requires voter list maintenance efforts to be conducted in a uniform and nondiscriminatory way. “HB 1071 appears to require the State Board to remove voters from the rolls based on lists supplied by any third party that claims to be an election integrity organization,” wrote Gannon. “Additionally, there is no definition for what sort of private organization qualifies as an “election integrity organization.” It would be difficult for the State Board to determine whether any such private organization is gathering lists of voters to remove in a uniform and nondiscriminatory way.” The Board of Elections also notes the new bill provides no new funding to expand its voter list maintenance program.

Ohio: The Senate has approved a bill that would remove elections workers’ home addresses from public records, a change the bipartisan bill’s sponsors say is a reaction to rising threats these workers receive. Senate Bill 173 — sponsored by Sens. Bill DeMora, a Columbus Democrat, and Theresa Gavarone, a Bowling Green Republican — now heads to the Ohio House, which would need to approve it before it would go to Gov. Mike DeWine for his signature for it to become law. Lawmakers broke for the summer after a marathon session on June 26 and aren’t expected back until the fall, leaving little likelihood that the law will be in effect before the November presidential election. Senators approved the bill in a 30-1 vote. It would add elections workers to a list of public officials whose personal addresses don’t appear in government records, including voter registration rolls and property records. Among those who already are on this list are police, firefighters, judges, prosecutors and some medical and social-service workers. The exemption would apply to Board of Elections members, county elections directors and full-time board of elections workers. It also would apply personally to Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who has not taken a position on the bill, and his successors, as well as many staff in the Secretary of State’s Office.

Two potentially consequential election measures got their first hearing last week in the House, but it’s not clear the problems those measures seek to address are truly problems in the first place. The first proposal would require watermarks on ballots, a move that would cost millions and one that even the sponsor acknowledges no other state employs. The second establishes weekly screening of voter rolls. Any voter whose information doesn’t match up — say, from a recent move — would have to cast a provisional ballot. State Rep. Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, compared watermarking ballots to similar security measures used for currency.Gross’ proposal however doesn’t follow the currency model with a single, uniform watermark on every ballot. Instead, her bill calls for a “unique, randomly assigned identifying image, pattern, or alphanumeric code.” The watermark in this rendering would be more like the bill’s serial number than any other security feature.State Reps. Scott Wiggam, R-Wayne County, and Beth Lear, R-Galena, want to see county boards checking their voter rolls for discrepancies on a weekly basis. Among the problems they want flagged — mismatched driver’s license numbers, social security numbers, addresses or birthdates. Under the bill, if any one of those discrepancies went unaddressed, the voter would be forced to cast a provisional ballot come election day.

Oklahoma: Following a recent sheriff’s race in Carter County that ended in a tie and force county election board to choose a winner by drawing lots, Rep. Tammy Townley, R-Ardmore, called Oklahoma’s tiebreaking rules archaic and said she intends to file a bill to give county election boards multiple options to settle a tie. Lawmakers can begin filing legislation for the next legislative session in mid-November. “I’ve heard from many of my constituents in Carter County who are frustrated with the way this race has to be decided because of an outdated statute,” Townley said in a written statement last week. “I started working to draft the bill the same day I learned there could be a drawing.” In the instance of a tied June primary election, Townley said the state could opt to place the candidates on the August runoff ballot.

Pennsylvania: In a bipartisan effort to avert a potential crisis in certifying November’s election results, the Pennsylvania House passed a bill this week that would cement the timelines for resolving post-election legal battles and prevent delays in finalizing the state’s electoral votes. A federal law passed in 2022, the Electoral Count Reform Act, set a strict deadline for states to certify slates of presidential electors: Dec. 11. But Pennsylvania doesn’t have its own set of deadlines to meet that target, which could set the state up for a potential conflict with the federal law. “This gap poses a significant risk of missing the federally mandated deadlines for certifying presidential election results,” said Rep. Benjamin Sanchez (D-Montgomery), the bill’s prime sponsor. “Our goal with HB 2473 is to mitigate this risk and guarantee Pennsylvania’s voice is heard and respected when Congress counts the state’s electors.” If a voter, candidate, or party wants to challenge a decision of a county board of elections — such as a county’s decision whether to count certain ballots — the bill would require that courts resolve that appeal within seven days. In the event of contested presidential election results, if a party in a case wants to challenge a lower court’s decision, they have one day to appeal to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must resolve the dispute no later than seven days before the presidential electors meet to cast their votes. This year, the court’s deadline would be Dec. 10, the day before the federal deadline for states to certify their slates of electors under the Electoral Count Reform Act. The bill also places requirements on the Department of State. The secretary of the commonwealth would be required to certify the state’s election results by the fifth Tuesday after the election, which also falls on Dec. 10. It would also require the secretary to notify legislative leaders if they are going to miss the federal deadline to certify the election.

Rhode Island: A number of elections-related pieces of legislation met varying fates this year.Those receiving approval included bills on audits, vote by mail and ballot measures. Lawmakers this year agreed to state elections board-generated proposals to open mail drop boxes earlier and tack on three more days for local boards of canvassers to accept mail ballot applications. Saving local election workers time and hassle is also the intent behind another new, Secretary of State-backed law that removes the requirement for voters to affiliate, or change affiliations, before participating in a party primary. The secretary of state’s backing also helped secure passage for another bill that will apply to upcoming elections, specifically, the ballot questions, which now must be written in “plain language” at an 8th-grade reading level. Also receiving approval was a bill that changed the word state to statewide in an audit law. Not getting approval this year were bills on same day voter registration and ranked choice voting.

Legal Updates

U.S. Supreme Court: A ruling by the Supreme Court that found the president of the United States has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts would potentially legalize much of the election subversion work carried out by President Donald Trump in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, election and civic groups warned. In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority ruled that presidents must be able to operate the executive branch “without undue caution” of potential criminal liability when carrying out “official acts” and that Trump is immune from criminal prosecution related to many of his actions to stay in power, including his attempt to pressure the Justice Department to aid in subverting the election. The court’s ruling draws a distinction between “official” and “unofficial” acts, noting that unofficial acts are not covered by presidential immunity. The Supreme Court asked a lower court to resolve the question of whether Trump’s other alleged actions to keep hold of the White House, such as drumming up slates of fake electors, also fall within the bounds of his official powers — a process that means the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith is unlikely to be resolved before this fall’s election. Election experts said the ruling provides unprecedented authority to the executive to deem nearly all of its actions “official acts” and thus evade prosecution, conceivably capturing most of the actions Trump and his allies took when attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, called the definition and breadth of immunity granted by the Supreme Court for official presidential acts “incredibly broad, and in my mind, deeply disturbing.” “I think putting aside this particular prosecution, for any unscrupulous individual seated in the Oval Office who might lose an election, the way I read this opinion is it could be a roadmap for those seeking to stay in power,” Becker told reporters shortly after the opinion was released.

Alaska: A trial concluded last week in a case that could determine whether Alaskans get to vote later this year on keeping the state’s ranked choice voting and nonpartisan primary system. The voting system was narrowly adopted by Alaskans in a 2020 ballot initiative and first used in 2022. Shortly after, a group of conservative Alaskans launched a new ballot initiative to repeal the voting method and return to closed primaries and traditional pick-one general elections. Since then, the organizers of the repeal effort have been plagued by allegations of violating Alaska’s law concerning campaign ethics and signature collection. Supporters of Alaska’s ranked choice voting and nonpartisan primaries filed suit earlier this year alleging that the repeal initiative organizers had violated state laws by leaving signature booklets unattended, leaving them open to fraud. The lawsuit targeted the Alaska Division of Elections for certifying the ballot question despite questions about the initiative organizers’ conduct. The initiative organizers themselves joined the lawsuit as intervenors, arguing that even if there were some concerns about some unattended ballots, they were not enough to throw out the ballot petition entirely. During the six-day trial before Superior Court Judge Christina Rankin, witnesses testified about possible suspicious or questionable behavior by signature gatherers.The plaintiffs argued that 11,000 signatures should be thrown out. If the judge rules in their favor, the initiative would not meet the minimum statewide requirement nor the geographic distribution threshold.

Arizona: Days before early voting begins, GOP legislative leaders and national Republicans are asking a federal appeals court to allow laws that would block an estimated 35,000 Arizona voters from casting ballots this year. The emergency motion to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seeks approval to let portions of two laws, passed in 2022, take effect. Those laws were blocked in May by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton. Those provisions: Require documentary proof of citizenship for people who register to vote and indicate they only want to vote in federal, not state, elections; Bar these federal-only voters from voting by mail; and Remove a backstop for voters who register to vote in state elections but who do not provide proof of citizenship. While a federal judge’s ruling in the broader case on this matter is already on appeal before the 9th Circuit, the lawmakers and RNC are seeking emergency action given the upcoming elections. Arizona’s primary is July 30 and early voting begins Wednesday. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes argued in a response that making last-minute changes to election procedures that would create chaos among voters and the wider public. “Such confusion and chaos on the cusp of an election will undoubtedly cause voters to harbor doubts about our election procedures, our election officials and our elections themselves,” he stated in a declaration objecting to the emergency stay.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the leaders of the AZGOP and a conservative dark money group demanding the state purge at least 500,000 voters from its rolls, saying the suit is not based on reliable data. In the suit, Scot Mussi, the head of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Gina Swoboda claim that the state’s voter rolls are overpopulated by people who have either died or moved out of state, in violation of the federal National Voter Registration Act. The pair, who is joined by Steve Gaynor, a Republican who unsuccessfully ran for secretary of state in 2018, also say that the state has failed to develop a maintenance program to remove ineligible voters from the roll. But the data used in the suit is inconsistent and unreliable, Assistant Attorney General Kara Karlson wrote in a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Fontes. The Republicans claim there are “at least 500,000 registered voters” in the state who should be removed from voter rolls, and that “other reliable data sources” show “between 1,060,000 and 1,270,000 unaccounted for voters on the state rolls.” Those numbers, according to Karlson, are “so disparate that it can only mean one thing: Plaintiffs are guessing.” Additionally, the motion to dismiss claims that the state is complying with federal and state election laws, which the suit says are being flouted. In August 2023, Fontes’ office reviewed the data provided by Swoboda and compared it to state policies, finding that voter rolls were in compliance with the National Voter Registration Act. Another motion to dismiss the case has been filed by the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino, two voter advocacy groups who are seeking to intervene as defendants in the case. Those groups also claim that the suit does not have legal standing and relies on cherry-picked data. No date has been set for a hearing in the case.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney dismissed a claim by Abe Hamadeh that his constitutional rights were violated in the 2022 race for attorney general that he lost as nothing more than a too-late election challenge In an extensive ruling, Blaney said it may be that Hamadeh has valid claims about problems with the election. These include problems with printers at Maricopa County voting centers that resulted in long lines that Hamadeh argues resulted in some voters simply walking away. More to the point, Hamadeh and his legal allies at AZ Voters Rights said these dissuaded voters were more likely to have been Republicans. And that, he said, could have changed the results of the race he officially lost to Mayes by 280 votes. All that, he charged, violated his rights of equal protection and due process. And that, said attorney Ryan Heath, provides legal grounds to set aside the certified results and order Maricopa County to re-do the election. But all that, said Blaney, is legally irrelevant. “This case is actually an untimely election contest,” the judge said, no matter how it’s dressed up as a violation of constitutional rights.

Arizona’s election guidebook stifles free-speech rights and could nullify the votes of entire counties, a new lawsuit alleges. The complaint from two conservative-leaning nonprofits is the fourth legal challenge to the Elections Procedures Manual, a policy-thick document created by the Arizona Secretary of State’s office in collaboration with the 15 county elections officials. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court on July 8, objects to two provisions of the manual on constitutional grounds: A vote nullification provision states that if a county board of supervisors refuses to certify election results by the state’s deadline to canvass results, that county’s votes will not be counted. It is a reaction to the recalcitrance of the Cochise County Board of Supervisors, where in 2022 two of the three supervisors balked at certification. Ultimately, they were ordered by a court to do their duty. A provision that would bar threatening or harrassing behavior directed at voters. The lawsuit argues the provision is overly broad and could impede First Amendment free speech rights. American Encore and the America First Policy Institute filed the lawsuit. The groups are asking a federal judge to issue an injunction to block the two provisions in the manual and to direct Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to rework those parts. The complaint names Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, as well as Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes.

Walter Ringfield Jr., the man accused of stealing a security key from the Maricopa County Elections Department, pleaded not guilty this week. Ringfield is accused of taking the security key while working as a temporary election worker at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center. Last week, Ringfield was indicted by a state grand jury on one count of computer tampering stemming from the incident. That charge is classified as a Class 2 felony, because it deals with computer systems that are considered critical infrastructure.

Arkansas: Progressive groups have decided to not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a lower court’s ruling that private groups can’t sue under a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act. The Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Arkansas State Conference NAACP, which challenged Arkansas’ new state House districts under the law, did not file a petition by Friday’s deadline asking the high court to review the ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. John Williams, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said the decision to not seek review did not signal agreement with the court ruling that the groups believe is “radically wrong.” The ACLU represents the groups in the case. Williams said they didn’t seek review because they believe there’s still a mechanism for private groups to sue under another section of federal civil rights law. “Because that still exists, there was no need to bring this up before the Supreme Court,” Williams said. The groups’ decision avoids a fight before the high court over a ruling that civil rights groups say erodes the law aimed at prohibiting racial discrimination in voting. The groups have argued last year’s ruling upends decades of precedent and would remove a key tool for voters to stand up for their rights.

Delaware: In a unanimous vote, the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that Delawareans will retain the right to early voting and permanent voting in all primary, general, and special elections. In February, a Superior Court judge issued a surprise ruling that struck down early voting and the state’s 14-year-old permanent absentee law. The permanent absentee law passed the General Assembly unanimously, however, Attorney General Jennings immediately moved to appeal the ruling. In a 5-0 court ruling, the Court found that then-Rep. Gerald Hocker, the plaintiff in the Superior Court case, and co-plaintiff Michael Mennella, lacked standing to bring the case. “Enough of these thinly-veiled partisan attempts to suppress votes — especially of our most vulnerable citizens,” said Attorney General Jennings. “Whether you voted for me or not, this is your most fundamental right, and I promised never to stop fighting for it. I’m grateful to the Court for its ruling and for agreeing to hear this case on an expedited basis so that Delawareans know their rights going into the September and November elections.” In the last election, 56,000 Delawareans used early voting, and roughly 21,000, including veterans, the disabled, and caregivers, used permanent absentee ballots.

Hawaii: After finding that some of their claims are not yet ripe, a federal court has partially dismissed a right-wing group’s attempt to gain access to Hawaii’s voter rolls. On June 28, a federal judge granted in part and denied in part the state’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) seeking to invalidate Hawaii laws that protect voter information. PILF will have until Oct. 28 to fix deficiencies with its lawsuit, otherwise it will be dismissed for good. PILF brought a challenge to Hawaii’s voter roll laws that require counties to maintain an electronic voter registration system with the name and district or precinct designation of every registered voter. The laws also require counties to keep any other information taken from a voter’s registration confidential. PILF’s lawsuit also argues that the state’s policy of only providing registration data for election or government purposes violates the NVRA which requires statewide voter rolls to be accessible to the general public.The judge granted the state’s request in part, writing that PILF brought the case too early because they made an informal request to the state’s chief elections officer, but did not actually fill out a county application for voter data. Due to this, the court concluded that PILF did not suffer an injury, which would be required for PILF to have standing and allow the case to proceed.

Kentucky: Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (KFTC) has filed a lawsuit against election officials alleging the state’s process for removing voters from rolls violates federally protected voting rights. KFTC filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams and the State Board of Elections, which includes Republican and Democratic members. The complaint alleges that Kentucky’s election law, which was changed in response to the coronavirus pandemic and became permanent in 2021, violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. KFTC says the federal act requires registered voters who have moved to receive notice in writing to confirm their address and have time to respond before they are removed from voter rolls. Kentucky’s law “flagrantly violates these requirements,” KFTC argues, by not giving voters notice before removal. Adams issued a statement saying he plans to defend the law in court. The 2021 changes, known as House Bill 574, were signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear. Adams said that undoing the law during a presidential election year would “sow chaos and doubt.” “Kentucky’s elections are a national success story,” Adams said. “Three years ago, Kentucky enacted a bipartisan law to prevent voting in more than one state in a presidential election. Now that a presidential election is underway, a fringe left-wing activist group is trying to undo that law and sow chaos and doubt in our elections. We believe voters should vote in only one state, and we expect to prevail in court.” In addition to the removal process, the 2021 state law also has provisions for no-excuse in-person early voting and updates to regulations for absentee ballots.

Louisiana: Hundreds, if not thousands, of people with disabilities across Louisiana will be hurt by new voting laws recently approved by Governor Jeff Landry (R), a nonprofit says in a lawsuit filed this week. Disability Rights Louisiana, an advocacy group that provides legal and other support to disabled citizens, say in a complaint filed in federal court that the new voting laws will disenfranchise disabled Louisianans and warns that the new laws will “threaten criminal liability for those who seek to assist them with voting.” An estimated one in three people in Louisiana have a disability that might prevent them from going in person to the polls, the group says in its complaint. This amounts to more than 1.1 million people statewide. New restrictions will criminalize vital parts of the election process and will prevent people from voting, Disability Rights Louisiana says. The group is seeking an injunction to stop the new laws before they go into effect. Two laws are slated to take effect Aug. 1 of this year, and two others are set to go into effect on July 1, 2025. Disability Rights Louisiana says that many people who have a disability tend to rely on absentee voting due to mobility issues and limited transportation. Additionally, many disabled people, especially the elderly, live in residential institutions and can only vote by absentee ballot.

Michigan: Macomb County Circuit Judge Edward Servitto has ruled in favor of 16 community clerks and the Michigan Secretary of State in a Freedom of Act Information lawsuit regarding the request for “voter history extract files” from electronic pollbooks. Servitto ruled SOS Jocelyn Benson and the local clerks properly responded to the FOIA request by Michael Butz, a county resident, by providing what it could but could not provide the information requested without also revealing private voter information and property information about the software. The information sought was from the November 2022 and May 2023 elections. “There is no evidence that each city and township defendant could produce the requested records in the formats requested by Plaintiff without disclosing exempt information or the software design of the EPBs (electronic poll books),” Servitto said. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessell, who defended Benson and the clerks, applauded the ruling in a news release. “I am grateful that the Court reaffirmed Secretary Benson’s authority to safeguard Michigan election records and to provide public data without compromising private, sensitive information,” Nessel said in the release. “My office will always protect election security against those who have a blatant disregard for voter privacy.”

Election officials are urging the state’s highest court to overturn a decision in favor of an election worker who was charged with committing fraud in the 2022 primary election. A previous ruling had found James Holkeboer, a Kent County election inspector, violated state election law when he inserted a personal USB flash drive into an electronic poll book with the intent to download the names of voters. In April, the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed the original charges after concluding that none of the original files that Holkeboer had copied were damaged or destroyed in any way. “The act of copying a list of voters without affecting the integrity of the document or election is not, at least at present, prohibited,” stated the appeal’s court opinion. Now, a bipartisan group of 28 state election officials are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to review the decision. “What if someone inserted a thumb drive, and it has a virus on it? And then suddenly, no other voters can be registered or can be marked as voting in the precinct,” said Lansing Clerk Chris Swope, who has joined other clerks in filing an amicus brief.

Andrew Nickels, 38, of Caramel, Indiana was sentenced this week to 14 months in prison for threatening an election worker in Michigan in the days following the 2020 presidential election, the U.S. Department of Justice reports. Nickels called a clerk in Michigan on Nov. 10, 2020, and left a voicemail that included death threats against the worker and the worker’s family. Nickels pleaded guilty on Feb. 27 to one count of making a threatening interstate communication. The FBI Detroit Field Office investigated the case.

Minnesota: A state oversight board reprimanded a judge who last year declared unconstitutional a new state law restoring voting rights for people convicted of felonies. The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards publicly reprimanded Mille Lacs County District Judge Matthew Quinn for making an unprompted ruling on the law’s constitutionality. The law, which took effect last year, says people with felony convictions regain the right to vote after they have completed any prison term. Quinn ruled the law was unconstitutional in a pair of orders in which he sentenced two offenders to probation, but warned them they were not eligible to vote or to register to vote — even though the law says they were. It was an unusual step because nobody involved in those cases ever asked him to rule on the constitutionality of the law. The Minnesota Court of Appeals found Quinn had no authority to rule on the law and undid his efforts to strip voting rights away from several people. The Judicial Standards Board found that Quinn broke a number of ethical rules by not acting in accordance with the law.

Mississippi: A federal court has ordered that Mississippi’s legislative districts must be redrawn in several areas because Black voting power has been diluted. The United States Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled in favor of the state conference of the NAACP over the Mississippi Election Commission, affirming an argument that the state has violated section 2 of the U.S. Voting Rights Act after the state redistricted the legislative boundaries in 2022. “The court rightly held that the Mississippi Legislature used the redistricting process to dilute the power of Black voters,” Mississippi ACLU Executive Director Jarvis Dortch said. “Those legislative districts denied Black Mississippians an equal voice in state government.” Those violations amounted to a loss of Black voting strength, and the court has now directed the state to create a new Black-majority Senate district in areas around DeSoto County and around Hattiesburg. The court also demands a new Black-majority House district in Chickasaw and Monroe counties. The ruling states it is the wish of the court that the state does this before the 2025 legislative session, which begins in January.

U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola in Gulfport heard arguments this week and appeared undecided over whether he should strike down a Mississippi election law that allows election officials to process mail-in absentee ballots up to five days after an election. The state Libertarian Party, the state and national Republican parties and a county election commissioner are the plaintiffs in the suit. They contend the state law runs afoul of federal election statutes because only Congress should set federal election schedules. Secretary of State Michael Watson’s office, who oversees the agency that administers elections, is the defendant in the suit. His office argues the state law does not conflict with federal regulations and that the political parties have not shown that it diminishes their chances of winning an election.

Montana: Thousands of signatures for constitutional initiatives are in legal limbo after the secretary of state last week abruptly changed the standard for determining which voters are eligible to sign a ballot petition. The move to not permit signatures from voters listed as “inactive” comes as county election administrators around Montana are vetting stacks of signed petitions submitted by the sponsors of three distinct proposals that could appear on the November ballot: CI-126 and CI-127, which deal with statewide election reform, and CI-128, which would enshrine abortion rights in the Montana Constitution. The groups behind those proposals, Montanans for Election Reform and Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights (MSRR), challenged the change this week in a lawsuit against Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen filed in a state district court in Helena. “To exercise their right to propose a constitutional amendment, plaintiffs are required to submit 60,359 verified signatures. But by effectively forcing county election administrators to reject signatures from voters marked ‘inactive,’ the Secretary has impeded Plaintiffs’ ability to reach that threshold, threatening their right to place CI-126, CI-127, and CI-128 on the ballot in November, causing injury and harm,” attorneys for the plaintiff groups wrote in the filing. “For these reasons, the inactive voter guidance violates Montanans’ right to propose constitutional amendments by initiative.” In their complaint, the groups asked the court to bar Jacobsen from enforcing the new interpretation and direct her office to immediately restore the signatures already rejected from inactive voters.

Oklahoma: A former Oklahoma County Election Board alternate is suing the Oklahoma State Election Board after it alleged she made false claims. Jenni White was fired from her alternate position on the Oklahoma County Election Board in February after questioning the absentee ballot counting process. Former member Cheryl Williams was also removed. In a suit filed June 19, White is seeking damages in a jury trial. Mark Hammons, Sr., an attorney specializing in employment law, is representing White. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District. Defendants are State Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax and members Heather Mahieu Cline, Tim Mauldin and Mignon Lambley. White said she decided to sue because a board member should not be able to “smear the reputation” of another member because “they don’t like being challenged.” The board accused White of failure to perform duties prescribed by law; dissemination of false information about Oklahoma’s election system and procedures; failure to immediately remove false information from the public domain; lack of respectfulness and professionalism; and behavior unbecoming of an Oklahoma election official, according to Jan. 31 meeting minutes.

Pennsylvania: Washington County’s Board of Elections allegedly mishandled mail-in ballots during the April primary and withheld information from 259 voters, leaving them unable to correct the errors before Election Day, according to a lawsuit filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and local advocacy groups. “The board’s decision to conceal the true status of returned mail ballots with minor but disqualifying errors resulted in needless disenfranchisement,” ACLU-PA legal director Witold Walczak said. “No government official or agency should knowingly disenfranchise its voters.” The ballots, which were from both Republican and Democratic voters, were not counted in the April primary, according to the lawsuit. Several of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are voters who say their ballots were rejected for errors on the ballot’s outer “declaration” envelope, such as for writing an “incomplete date,” or failing to sign and date the envelope in the correct place. Had county officials correctly coded the rejected mail-in ballots into the state’s SURE ballot tracking database, the suit alleges, the voters would have been notified their ballots had been rejected, and could have voted by provisional ballot. Instead, the suit alleges, Washington County elections officials “determined which mail-in ballots would not be counted, and then implemented a systematic process to keep that information from voters and the public, in many cases affirmatively misleading voters into thinking that their mail-in ballots would be counted.”

Tennessee: Tennessee won’t have to implement any changes to how people with felony convictions can register to vote ahead of this year’s state and federal elections after three judges on the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction. U.S. District Judge William Campbell ruled in June that Tennessee officials violated federal voting law by requiring formerly incarcerated felons to provide additional proof to have their voting rights restored. The Sixth Circuit’s decision, issued on June 28, temporarily blocks Campbell’s ruling, saying it required changes to the election too close to August state primary elections. The court also indicated that the state is likely to succeed in its appeal as the judges questioned whether the Tennessee NAACP had the proper standing to file the suit in the first place. The NAACP filed a lawsuit against state officials in 2020, challenging the extensive requirements for people with felony convictions to regain the right to vote after being released from prison. Tennessee law strips a convicted felon of their voting rights, but a formerly incarcerated individual can petition to have those rights restored through a complicated process that requires them to show proof they paid all their court fines and fees.

Utah: Colby Jenkins filed a lawsuit against Washington County Clerk-Auditor Ryan Sullivan, claiming his campaign was not given a copy of the uncured ballot list as required by Utah Code. The lawsuit states that in Utah, every ballot returned by mail or via a ballot drop box must be checked to ensure the signature on the envelope matches the signature in the voter registration records. If a poll worker determines the signature is not “reasonably consistent,” the law requires the poll worker reject the ballot, contact the voter to tell them their signature is being questioned, and let them know how they can “cure” their ballot so it can be counted.Despite applauding Jenkins’ campaign for raising the issue, a judge in Utah’s Fifth District Court in St. George rejected the Republican candidate’s request to force the Washington County clerk to release the “uncured” list. Judge Jay Winward Washington County Clerk Ryan Sullivan interpreted and applied Utah election law correctly — and agreed that it’s at the clerk’s discretion whether to release the list of uncured ballots. Sullivan last week said he declined to release the list as a matter of voter privacy. “That’s how I interpret it,” the judge said at the conclusion of Monday’s hearing at the Fifth District Courthouse in St. George. “It’s very clear to me that this is how it’s supposed to occur.” However, Winward also praised Jenkins’ attorneys for their arguments, adding he was “grateful” that the campaign brought the issue to court. He said it highlighted a potential opportunity for the Utah Legislature to clarify or strengthen Utah law in circumstances of extremely tight elections.

Virginia: Peter Alexander, who lost the Republican nomination for the Ward IV council seat in Lynchburg to Chris Faraldi by just 33 votes, has filed a lawsuit to invalidate the results. In the suit, Alexander alleges that 125 absentee ballots were received by the Lynchburg registrar’s office, but that records don’t show they were counted. It cites records from the Virginia Department of Elections, which are attached to the suit and detail the status of every ballot cast. The votes in this batch had a status of “marked,” meaning that they had been received in a timely manner, but that status was never updated to confirm whether those ballots were processed and counted.William Hurd, attorney for Alexander, said there’s a “disturbing irregularity” in the ballot records. “That could be an error in recordkeeping. It could be a failure to actually process the ballots,” Hurd said. “But looking at the records themselves, the ballots, what the records say … the ballots were not processed.” The registrar’s office issued a statement saying “we remain confident that every lawful vote was counted in the June 18, 2024 primary election held by each party. We respect and welcome the review process and we stand ready to assist the Lynchburg Circuit Court in its adjudication.”

Wisconsin: Voters in Wisconsin once again have the option to return absentee ballots via drop box, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has ruled. The 4-3 decision reverses a near-total ban on ballot drop boxes, which was handed down by the state’s high court two years before. A majority of justices agreed earlier this year to hear a challenge from the progressive group Priorities USA, seeking to overturn the drop box prohibition. The decision makes it easier for Wisconsinites to vote, by reinstating a “convenient and reliable option,” said attorney David Fox, who argued the case on behalf of Priorities USA. “If you put the ballot in the mail, you don’t know when it’ll get delivered, and voters worry about whether it will get delivered in time and whether it will be counted,” said Fox of the Elias Law Group. “But, if you put it in a drop box by the deadline, you know that it’s going straight to election officials and it will be counted.” Conservatives on the court opposed taking up the case, citing the legal principle that compels courts to honor precedent.

Republican legislators appealed a ruling that allows disabled people to download absentee ballots at home in November’s presidential election. Disability Rights Wisconsin the League of Women Voters and four disabled voters sued in April demanding disabled people be allowed to download absentee ballots at home and return them to local clerks via email this fall. Currently in Wisconsin anyone can cast a paper absentee ballot but they must return them in-person to local election clerks or mail them back. Anyone could request an absentee ballot electronically until 2011, when then-Gov. Scott Walker signed a Republican-authored bill that allowed only military and overseas voters to use that method. Those voters still must mail their ballots back just like in-state absentee voters. The plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit that many people with disabilities can’t cast paper ballots without assistance, compromising their right to cast a secret ballot, and struggle to return ballots through the mail or in-person. The lawsuit seeks a ruling allowing disabled people to download absentee ballots, cast them at home using assistive devices and return them to clerks via email in the Aug. 13 primary and the November presidential election. Dane County Circuit Judge Everett Mitchell granted a temporary injunction on Tuesday that allows clerks to send voters who self-certify that they can’t read or mark a paper ballot without help ballots electronically in the November election. They will still have to return the ballots in-person or by mail, however. GOP legislators filed notice of appeal June 28 in the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Waukesha, which leans heavily Republican. The lawmakers indicated that they plan to argue that Mitchell improperly granted the injunction because the plaintiffs are unlikely to win the lawsuit and failed to show they’d suffer irreparable harm without the order. They also plan to argue that Mitchell wrongly disrupted the status quo just months before the election.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker