Electionline Weekly July-18-2024

Legislation and Rulemaking Updates

Arkansas Rulemaking: A permanent rule requiring “wet signatures” on Arkansas voter registration forms except at select state agencies was approved by the State Board of Election Commissioners this week. Following the rule’s approval, which had no voiced dissent, the board also voted to submit it to the Arkansas Legislative Council’s rule committee for consideration at its August meeting .If approved, the rule prohibiting electronic signatures would take effect Sept. 1. An emergency rule is already in place but has been challenged in court. Chris Madison, director of the board, briefed commissioners on comments the agency received related to the rule prior to their vote. He said 200 online comments were received during a 30-day period, and 16 people spoke against the rule during a public hearing last week. Madison described the concerns from those in opposition as categories: “in favor of online voter registration systems, wet signatures outdated, e-signatures allowed by law, low voter registration, turnout rates, access to voter registration, access to printing facilities, conduction for officials and the generally that the rule is disenfranchising voters.” Commissioner Belinda Harris-Ritter swiftly moved to approve the proposed rule as previously written after reading from Amendment 51 of the Arkansas Constitution, which addresses voter registration. She said the state constitution barred the body from allowing electronic signatures or online registration.

Georgia Rulemaking: On Tuesday July 9, the Georgia’s State Election Board gave initial approval to an amended rule that would give local officials more authority to dispute election results if there is a discrepancy in vote totals tallied and the number of votes cast at precincts. The proposed rule, approved by a 3-1 vote during last week’s state board meeting, would require local election officials to count ballots at the precinct level on election night and investigate any discrepancies prior to certifying the election. Three Republican board members supported a measure they believe will help reduce the likelihood of inaccurate ballot totals requiring correction long after an election is over. The changes to election rules could be in place for this November’s general election if the proposed amendments are finalized next month. The rule also states that election board members should be able to examine all election records prior to a certification vote if there is a discrepancy in the voting data. The Board then called an emergency meeting on Friday, July 12 the three GOP members of the Georgia State Election Board convened an emergency meeting to press forward with the new election rules in a rush to have new procedures in place for the November election. The emergency meeting sparked accusations of state open meetings law violations. Board Member Janelle King defended the timing of the meeting against claims it violated the Georgia Open Meetings Act, saying that she sought the legal advice of the board’s attorney who agreed it was a continuation of a meeting that began on July 9, which only requires 24 hours public notice to resume. Two of the rules approved by the Election Board in the possibly illegal meeting last week appear to have been suggested by the Georgia Republican Party according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Documents obtained by The AJC show Georgia GOP Chairman Josh McKoon sent the text of the rules to board member Rick Jeffares several days before the meeting. McKoon also shared talking points summarizing why the rules should be adopted. Jeffares and two other Republican board members later approved one of the rules McKoon suggested and approved a scaled-back version of the other. “I’m just trying to do the right things,” board member King told the AJC. “The rules we’re putting in place will help all Georgians.”

New Hampshire: New Hampshire public and private high schools will soon be required to give voting information to students, under a law signed by Gov. Chris Sununu this month. House Bill 1014 requires that civics instruction “include information on the laws governing election and voting” in New Hampshire. That information would supplement what is currently required to be taught in schools for history and civics, including the structures of the New Hampshire Constitution and U.S. Constitution, and the role and function of government. Currently, the State Board of Education is required to distribute copies of the state constitution and state voting laws to middle schools and high schools for civics instruction. But HB 1014 would directly mandate that schools use that information to bolster “the role, opportunities, and responsibilities of a citizen to engage in civic activity.” The bill comes as part of an effort by some to increase participation in elections among young people. Voting rights advocates have noted that only 15 percent of 18-year-olds in the state were registered to vote in the 2022 midterm elections.

On its way to Sununu’s desk is HB 1569, a bill that would repeal the option for first-time voter affidavits, which provide exceptions and leniency for proving identity at the polls. If signed into law, the bill sponsored by Rep. Bob Lynn, a Republican from Windham, poses what he believes is a reasonable ask: that people come prepared and ready to prove their citizenship, domicile, identity and age when registering to vote. “If you want to vote, you have to take some responsibility,” Lynn said. “You have to find out what the requirements are to vote and make a plan, so to speak, to make sure that you comply with those requirements.” Voting rights advocates say the bill is too restrictive and will disproportionately impact people from vulnerable populations. Under current New Hampshire law, people who aren’t yet registered to vote can cast their ballot on election day without proving their eligibility. They can sign an affidavit listing their information; then, the secretary of state’s office will follow up with a letter in the mail to verify that information. New Hampshire has same-day registration, so people can still sign up to vote on election day, but under this law they won’t be allowed to do so without proper documentation. If Sununu does sign the bill, it could cause some administrative confusion for the upcoming elections. Because there’s a 60-day period after the governor’s signature before it becomes law, it would go into effect after the Sep. 10 primary but before the general election in November. That would mean the primary would operate under the current rules – with affidavits – but the general would be governed under the new rule; hypothetically, some people who vote by affidavit in the primary may not be permitted to vote in the general unless they got their documents in order.

Wisconsin Rulemaking:"I Voted" drawing with American eagle and USA flag. The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) on July 11 approved a memo that will be sent to municipal clerks around the state providing advice for the use of absentee ballot drop boxes now that they’re once again allowed. The state Supreme Court, now under a liberal majority, ruled in a 4-3 decision that a 2022 decision by the Court declaring drop boxes illegal was “unsound in principle.” The court’s decision found that Wisconsin’s election statutes give municipal clerks discretion to determine how they want to receive completed absentee ballots. The majority opinion, written by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, states that clerks are not forced to use drop boxes, only that they can if they choose to do so. The WEC weighed how to assist clerks who choose to use the boxes and how to keep them secure. Much of the six-member body’s discussion focused on how clerks should secure the boxes and how to tailor the memo in a way that provides meaningful logistical advice to both the City of Milwaukee, which will operate 15 drop boxes across the city and a tiny rural community with one drop box outside of the town hall. Additionally, the commission has previously been criticized by Republicans and pushed back on by the court system for providing guidance to clerks that in essence served as “unpromulgated rules” — meaning the guidance should have been formalized through the official administrative rulemaking process. In a discussion about how drop boxes should be secured, the commission debated if it should recommend that boxes be secured to the ground or “affixed” to a building. The commission also considered how clerks should communicate with voters about the use of drop boxes on Election Day. By law, absentee ballots are allowed to be returned until polls close at 8 p.m. on Election Day. The commission decided on instructing clerks to lock their drop boxes after they’re no longer available for use; as well as providing signs near the drop boxes and including inserts with the absentee ballot materials when they’re mailed explaining when ballots will last be picked up from the boxes. After recommending changes the commissioners approved the guidance unanimously.

Legal Updates

Alabama: The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rejection of a challenge to South Carolina’s congressional map will not impact Alabama’s ongoing redistricting battles for now. The three-judge panel overseeing the legal battle in Allen v. Milligan, which led to the creation of two congressional districts in Alabama with majority or near-majority Black populations, last week rejected a motion from the Alabama Secretary of State to dismiss the case. The state filed the motion prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of NAACP, which upheld a congressional map challenged in part on grounds of racial discrimination, Alabama officials moved to use the ruling as a supplemental authority. Attorneys representing the Milligan plaintiffs attempted to have Alexander excluded, writing that it was “not a good faith attempt.” The three-judge panel allowed the case to be used, but denied the state’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs in Alabama’s Milligan case alleged that the Alabama Legislature in 2021 unconstitutionally packed Black voters into a single congressional district, limiting their ability to select their preferred leaders. Deuel Ross, the deputy director of litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and an attorney representing the Milligan plaintiffs, said Friday that the Alexander case was different from Alabama because it was based on a racial gerrymander for a majority white district; wasn’t a Voting Rights Act claim; and didn’t have the same facts or allegations at issue. “From our perspective, doesn’t have any bearing on it, which is why we filed the motion to strike,” he said. ”The only thing the court said with respect to it and the motion to dismiss was that the Legislature is entitled to a presumption of good faith.”

Arizona: Kari Lake is asking the Arizona Supreme Court to overturn prior court rulings rejecting her various claims that the election was improperly run in Maricopa County. Her attorneys said the justices should give her the chance to present what she claims is “new evidence” about the extent of the failure of tabulators used on Election Day two years ago. The state Court of Appeals just rejected those claims less than a month ago. Those claims cover everything from an alleged failure to conduct legally required “logic and accuracy” testing on tabulating machines to allegations the county had advance notice that those tabulators at vote centers would reject ballots on Election Day. That, in turn, goes to her arguments that would-be voters, frustrated by long lines, left without casting ballots. And Lake contends that a majority of those discouraged voters were Republicans, and would have voted for her. In its ruling, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that there are legal procedures to resurrect a case — even after a judge has made a ruling. And that can be based on whether evidence was not available at the time. But the appellate judges said the claims that Lake was making just didn’t fit any of the requirements. Lake is also attempting to resurrect arguments that there is no way Maricopa County properly verified the signatures on all of the early ballots it had received. But even the trial judge ruled, and the appellate court agreed, that her arguments about how long it took to verify the average signature are legally irrelevant.

Cochise County disenfranchised some voters during a May 2023 election to levy a tax for a jail district, a three-judge panel ruled as it overturned the case’s previous dismissal. The ruling by the Arizona Court of Appeals panel comes after Cochise County Superior Court Judge David Thorn dismissed the case arguing the county disenfranchised 11,000 voters on the inactive list by failing to send them ballots. The lawsuit was brought by four Cochise County residents: Daniel LaChance, Henry Stephen Conroy, Yvonne Mayer and Robert McCormick. Thorn ruled the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Arizona’s election contest statutes and dismissed the case. But the appellate court on June 25 ruled the plaintiffs were correct in their assertion that thousands of residents were disenfranchised. The court supported Thorn’s dismissal of other claims. “This appeal … requires us to determine whether voters on a state-mandated ‘inactive voter list’ were entitled to receive ballots in the district’s all-mail election. We conclude that they were,” wrote Judge Jeffrey Sklar in his opinion. Judges Christopher Staring and Christopher O’Neil concurred. The panel ruled the group is entitled to move forward with its claim, and said the remaining issue of whether the disenfranchised votes were sufficient to change the outcome of the election is for the Superior Court to determine.

A group hoping to do away with partisan primaries alleges lawmakers are intentionally misleading voters about their ballot measure. They’re taking the issue to court. Make Elections Fair AZ wants to institute open primaries, allowing constituents of all political affiliations to vote on the candidate of their choice. But the group contends the “impartial analysis” lawmakers approved to describe their measure on July 8 is inaccurate. As written, the description details the effect the initiative would have out of order. It begins with the fact that the initiative could allow for using voter rankings to pick winners, something Republicans vocally oppose. Lawmakers passed the draft language without discussing it among themselves, though an attorney for Make Elections Fair AZ addressed the panel and asked them to restructure the language. Make Elections Fair AZ requests that the court issues an injunction prohibiting the Secretary of State’s Office from including the lawmaker’s analyses of their ballot measure on a publicity pamphlet, which will be sent to voters later this year.

California: Orange County Superior Court Judge Kimberly Knill ruled that a Santa Ana ballot measure asking voters to decide whether to allow noncitizens to vote in municipal elections will need to be rewritten before ballots are printed in August. Knill made clear that this case is not about whether noncitizens should be able to vote in municipal elections, a right she said has been established by case law in certain circumstances in city elections. Rather, the case is about whether specific language city officials used to draft the ballot measure is prejudicial and could sway the results of the election. The ballot measure had been set to ask voters: “Shall the city of Santa Ana city charter be amended to allow, by the November 2028 general municipal election, noncitizen city residents, including those who are taxpayers and parents, to vote in all city of Santa Ana municipal elections?” The phrase “including those who are taxpayers and parents” needs to be removed, Knill ordered. In a lawsuit filed in May with the county’s Superior Court, James V. Lacy, a local attorney and conservative pundit, along with the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative legal nonprofit, the California Public Policy Foundation, a think tank, and Pasquale Talarico, a Santa Ana resident, argued the wording “including those who are taxpayers and parents” could be misleading to voters. Knill agreed with them and said she will promptly issue an order for the OC Registrar of Voters to remove that controversial clause from the measure before ballots are printed in August.

Colorado: U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews threw out a voting rights challenge to Colorado Springs’ municipal election schedule, brought by four civic groups seeking to force the city to move its April elections to November to reduce turnout disparities among voters of color. The parties submitted hundreds of pages of evidence disputing whether April elections in odd-numbered years should be considered a discriminatory practice under the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs argued participation from Black and Hispanic voters was only on par with White residents in November elections in even-numbered years, while the city maintained the lawsuit sought to establish a “national election day” for municipalities that federal law does not require. Crews did not analyze any of those arguments. In a July 9 order, he concluded the organizations suing the city had no basis to bring their claim — going so far as to suggest the plaintiffs attempted to manufacture standing solely for the lawsuit. “The City has held its municipal elections in April as early as 1873. The Plaintiff organizations were founded multiple decades (and sometimes over 100 years) later, meaning the City conducted April elections for numerous years before these organizations existed, and it has continued to hold April elections well after,” Crews wrote. “This chronology demonstrates the abstract nature of Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries, which seem to be supported only by their decision to now oppose the timing of the April elections in federal court, and to do so without any voters as plaintiffs and without suing on behalf of their individual members.”

Florida: Nearly two years after Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and other state officials drew widespread attention by announcing voter-fraud charges against convicted felons; two South Florida appeals courts overturned rulings that dismissed charges against a pair of defendants. Divided panels of the 3rd District Court of Appeal and the 4th District Court of Appeal upheld the statewide prosecutor’s authority to pursue the 2022 cases against Ronald Miller and Terry Hubbard and sent the cases back to circuit court. Circuit judges in Miami-Dade and Broward counties had dismissed the cases because they said the alleged crimes each occurred in one judicial circuit and that the statewide prosecutor only has jurisdiction in cases involving multiple circuits. The appeals courts took somewhat-different approaches this week: The 3rd District panel rejected the argument that the statewide prosecutor didn’t have authority to prosecute Miller. The 4th District panel cited a 2023 change in state law that allowed the statewide prosecutor to handle such cases and said that change should apply retroactively to Hubbard’s prosecution. The panels split 2-1 in both cases. Florida voters in 2018 approved a constitutional amendment aimed at restoring the rights of convicted felons who have completed terms of their sentences. The amendment did not apply to people with convictions for murder or sex offenses. In announcing the voter-fraud arrests in August 2022, the state indicated it had targeted felons with murder or sex-offense convictions.

Georgia: Conservative Republican activist Beth Majeroni has sued the Chatham County Board of Elections, its chairman, and two Chatham County police officers, alleging that her free-speech rights were violated when she was forcibly removed from a board meeting last year. Majeroni, a retired pharmacy executive and Skidaway Island resident, filed the 14-count complaint in federal court in Savannah last week. The case could challenge the county’s parameters to limit public comments at official meetings and the role police officers play in keeping order at such gatherings. She alleges that her removal from the July 10, 2023, elections board meeting was “retaliation” for her efforts to uncover what she suspected as voting irregularities in the May 2022 primary elections, in which she served as a poll watcher. The complaint says that the board’s chairman, Thomas Mahoney III, a Savannah-area lawyer, singled out Majeroni for retribution because she had succeeded in getting a county grand jury to address her frustrated pursuit of election-related records from the board and its supervisor, Billy Wooten, under Georgia’s Open Records Act. Mahoney and the two officers who carried the 68-year-old Majeroni hands-and-feet from the hearing room, Andrew Nizwantowski and Robert Santoro, are blamed in the 29-page court filing of “actual malice” and “intent to cause Majeroni harm and injury,” despite the “unequivocal knowledge” that she had not “engaged in any unlawful — or even disrespectful — conduct.”

The Georgia Court of Appeals said that it will hear oral arguments Dec. 5 on the appeal seeking to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting the election interference case against former President Donald Trump and others. The scheduled date puts much of the case on hold until a month after the 2024 presidential election. When the appeals court agreed to hear the case in early June, it initially set oral arguments for Oct. 4, but changed the date due to a scheduling conflict. Under Georgia’s Constitution, the judges assigned to the case — Judges Todd Markle, Trenton Brown and Benjamin Land, all appointees of Republican governors — must rule on the matter within two terms of the court, which would be by mid-March 2025. After the panel issues a decision, the losing side could ask the Georgia Supreme Court to consider an appeal. In early June, the appeals court issued an order halting lower-court proceedings involving Trump and eight of his co-defendants also pursuing the appeal pending its outcome. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case, said he wanted to continue moving ahead on matters involving the other remaining six defendants not taking part in the appeal for the sake of efficiency.

Michigan: The Republican National Committee and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign have sued Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, claiming she overstepped her authority by arranging for Veteran’s Affairs medical centers and Small Business Administration offices to act as voter registration agencies. Under the National Voter Registration Act, offices designated as voter registration agencies must provide members of the public with information about and assistance with registering to vote. Last year, Whitmer enacted what her office called “the first wholesale update of Michigan’s list of voter registration agencies under the National Voter Registration Act…in nearly 30 years.” But the lawsuit, filed June 15 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, said that “Under Michigan law, the authority to make such designations is held solely by the Legislature.” It is seeking to have those designations declared invalid. Bobby Leddy, a spokesman for Whitmer, said her office is reviewing the complaint. The lawsuit also names Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Small Business Administration and other state and federal officials as defendants.

Hillsdale County Judge Megan Stiverson called off a preliminary examination scheduled for July 11 to allow a former township clerk and lawyer, facing felony charges over an alleged voter data breach, to fight the allegations in a higher court. Stiverson announced her decision, Richard Cunningham, the prosecutor in the cases for the Michigan Attorney General’s office, could be heard telling others in the courtroom that he was “shocked.” Two days earlier, Stiverson rejected a motion to immediately dismiss the charges from Dan Hartman, the attorney who’s representing former Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott and Stefanie Lambert, a lawyer involved in efforts to advance unproven election fraud claims in multiple battleground states. In her ruling, Stiverson specifically said the preliminary examination to decide whether the charges should proceed to trial would go forward “as scheduled” Thursday. However, at the start of the hearing, Hartman revealed that he wanted to challenge Stiverson’s Tuesday order in Hillsdale County Circuit Court. “I understand that this is incredibly inconvenient to the prosecution and the defense and frankly, to the court,” Stiverson said. “However, it is an important case and erring on the side of caution, I will grant your request to adjourn the case to give you the opportunity to appeal my decision.”

Mississippi: The Mississippi State Board of Election Commissioners is asking the Mississippi U.S. Court for the Southern District for more time to hold special elections after a ruling that Mississippi’s 2022 redistricting diluted Black voting power and violates the U.S. Voting Rights Act. They argue they simply cannot hold those elections before 2025, as currently demanded by the court. Specifically, the court is asking the state to create three Black majority districts and hold special elections to vote in two new members of the Mississippi Senate and one in the Mississippi House of Representatives by 2025. In response, the state election commission, consisting of Republicans Gov. Tate Reeves, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson and Attorney General Lynn Fitch said the state should give the Legislature a chance to redistrict the state during the 2025 legislative session and then hold special elections. “Defendants respectfully maintain that the only sound way for the Mississippi Legislature to be afforded its well-established first opportunity to redraw districts is to give it a reasonable amount of time following the commencement of the 2025 Regular Legislative Session (on January 7, 2025) and that any elections for affected districts should follow promptly after that,” the response reads. “Given fundamental limitations on a court’s equitable authority (particularly this close to an election) and other relevant considerations (practical, political, logistical, and legal) no more expeditious remedy is available.”

Montana: Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Mike Menahan has ordered that the secretary of state can’t automatically reject signatures of “inactive” voters who signed petitions to place Constitutional initiatives on the ballot. One initiative would make it a constitutional right in Montana to make one’s own decisions about pregnancy, including abortion, and two others would change the way elections are won in the state. At a hearing this week, lawyer Martha Sheehy said the secretary of state’s decision to change which signatures count on a petition was “particularly galling” for Montanans for Election Reform, a group proposing to “increase meaningful voter access and participation.” But a lawyer for the secretary of state argued the situation wasn’t an emergency for that group or for Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights. Lawyer Thane Johnson said the number of “inactive” signatures was minimal, and the initiatives were headed for the ballot anyway. Menahan, however, said his focus wasn’t on whether the initiatives from those two groups would qualify for the ballot. Rather, he said, Montanans have a fundamental right to participate in their government, and that includes signing a petition for a Constitutional initiative. “As a judge, my duty is to uphold that right and give life to it and preserve it,” Menahan said. He said he believed the groups had made the case Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen shouldn’t toss “inactive” signatures in the middle of counting based on a new interpretation. He said doing so changed a standard that had been in place nearly three decades — and without notice. “The troubling component here is that the process was underway,” Menahan said. Although Menahan requested a temporary return to the status quo, he also said he didn’t want to harm the process and would be “as minimally involved as possible.” He requested lawyers representing proponents for the initiatives and the state draft an order that ironed out the details; they did, and he electronically signed it.

Nebraska: Two days before a new state law restores voting rights to Nebraska felons who have served their sentence, Attorney General Mike Hilgers weighed arguing the Legislature unconstitutionally infringed on the executive branch’s exclusive authority to restore civil rights. Hilgers issued a formal opinion saying only the Nebraska Pardons Board — not the Legislature — has the authority to restore a person’s voting rights under the Nebraska Constitution’s separation of powers. The three-member Pardons Board, made up of the governor, the state’s attorney general and the secretary of state — has the power to grant clemency to convicted felons, setting aside all or part of their criminal sentences. At issue are Legislative Bill 20, which eliminates a two-year waiting period to restore felon voting rights, and LB 53 from 2005, which established the two-year waiting period. Hilgers argues that any legislative effort to address restoring a person’s civil rights is an executive branch role. “Under Nebraska Supreme Court precedent, removing any legal consequence of a crime is an act of mercy or grace,” Hilgers wrote. “That mercy and grace … is what we call a pardon. … Therefore, giving a reprieve from any one, or all, of the legal consequences is an exercise of the pardon power.” AG opinions do not carry the force of law. New state laws are in effect until a court acts. However, Secretary of State Bob Evnen halted any new registrations by felons who would have been eligible to vote under the new law or its predecessor.

Nevada: Chief U.S. District Judge Miranda Du dismissed a lawsuit by the Republican National Committee and Donald Trump’s campaign claiming the state’s deadline for mail-in ballots, four days after Election Day, is unconstitutional. Du, a Barack Obama appointee, agreed with Nevada state and county officials that the Republicans had failed to show they are disadvantaged by the deadline and, as such, that they lacked standing to sue. “The causal link between counting mail ballots received after Election Day in Nevada and organizational plaintiffs’ alleged electoral injuries is too speculative to support standing,” Du wrote. Republicans argued Democrats are more likely to vote by mail and to vote later, and because of this, they are more likely to cast mail ballots that are received after Election Day. “Even if the first two points have been adequately pled — which is not altogether clear — it does not necessarily follow that mail ballots arriving after Election Day will skew Democratic,” Du wrote in rejecting this line of argument. “And even if later-arriving mail ballots have favored Democrats past elections, it is far from guaranteed that Nevada voters will behave similarly this November.”

Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar and Attorney General Aaron Ford are asking the state Supreme Court to step into a fray over a vote earlier this week by Washoe County commissioners not to certify recount results in two local races. Aguilar and Ford filed a petition with the court July 10, seeking confirmation of the commissioners’ legal obligations when it comes to canvassing and certifying election results. They also want the court to require the full commission to certify the recounts from last month’s primary no later than Aug. 22, when the statewide canvass must be complete to ensure the contents of general election ballots are finalized in accordance with Nevada law. Aguilar in a statement acknowledged that the circumstances in Nevada’s second most populous county could set “a dangerous precedent.” “It is unacceptable that any public officer would undermine the confidence of their voters,” he said. The three Republican members on the five-member Washoe County board voted July 9 to reject the results of recounts in one race for a commission seat and another for a local school board seat. The move instantly spurred questions about what would happen next. Aguilar and Ford followed the next day with a nearly 60-page petition. While not an emergency request, they noted in the filing that the court should act swiftly as “the legal and broader policy impacts of Respondents’ decision not to canvass election results are severe.”

Pennsylvania: A labor-backed group has dropped a lawsuit against the Lancaster County Board of Elections that sought to challenge the county’s practice of rejecting mail-in ballots on which individuals failed to write a complete date on a required voter declaration. The group, the Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans, filed a notice in county court on Wednesday about withdrawing the suit. The alliance is a state affiliate of a nonprofit organization backed by the AFL-CIO. The filing said new guidance from the Pennsylvania Department of State, issued on July 1, made the case moot. That guidance directed counties to print new mail-in ballot envelopes with the full four-digit year printed at the end of the line voters use to date their signature. Instead of signing the mail-in ballot envelope and providing the day’s date with a month, day and last two digits of the year, now the envelope is to have “2024” already written in. In Pennsylvania, counties have the final authority in administering elections. They must follow the state’s election code but do not necessarily have to follow guidance issued by state officials.

South Dakota: Jessica Pollema from South Dakota Canvassing Group and John Kunnari, an unsuccessful House candidate, are asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to order several state and county officials to do their jobs better regarding the 2024 elections. State court administrator Greg Sattizahn confirmed that the application was filed. “It is currently being reviewed by Supreme Court staff,” he said. Pollema and Kunnari seek the action against South Dakota Secretary of State Monae Johnson, Minnehaha County Auditor Leah Anderson, Minnehaha County State’s Attorney Daniel Haggar and one of his deputies, Eric Bogue, and the five members of the Minnehaha County Commission in their roles as the county’s canvassing board. In the 38-page application, Pollema and Kunnari raise a wide variety of allegations extending across past elections and ask the Supreme Court to order that the officials “take steps, both short term and long term, to ensure the apparent errors made during the 2024 primary election does not recur and to bring the state into compliance with voter registration laws.” Among the many issues raised in their application, Pollema and Kunnari dispute that result. They claim 132 ballots were cast in the House District 11 primary by people whose voter registrations show them as residents of the legislative district but have never lived there.

Texas: U.S. Attorney Jaime Esparza for the Western District of Texas announced a settlement agreement with Bell County to ensure accessible polling places for voters with disabilities. The agreement resolves the investigation into Bell County’s compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability by state or local governments in any of their programs or services. The United States surveyed 13 of the county’s polling places used during the 2023 Uniform Election and found architectural or equipment barriers that rendered the facilities inaccessible to voters with disabilities. Issues included a lack of van accessible parking, excessively sloped ramps, and a lack of knee and toe clearance at accessible voting machines. Under the settlement agreement, Bell County will engage an accessibility expert and use an evaluation form for each current and prospective polling place based on ADA architectural standards. The county is required to either relocate voting to new, accessible facilities or use temporary measures such as portable ramps, traffic cones, signs, wedges, and door stops to ensure accessibility on Election Day. Additionally, Bell County will train its poll workers and other election staff on ADA requirements and how to use temporary measures to ensure each polling place is accessible during elections.

Wisconsin: Absentee ballots in Wisconsin will still count even if witnesses do not provide their full address on the ballot envelope, according to a ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Under state law, absentee voters are required to have someone witness them fill out their ballot and sign their absentee ballot envelope while providing their address. The statute that requires the witness signature and address does not define what address means in that context. Dane County Circuit Judge Ryan Nilsestuen ruled in January in two cases brought by liberals that clerks can still count ballots if the witness leaves off their municipality or zip code or simply writes “same” or “ditto” if they live at the same address as the voter. Republican legislators had asked the appellate court to find that state law actually does require the address to at least include the street number, street name and municipality. However the 4th Circuit ruled that the included address must be “a place where the witness may be communicated with” from the municipal clerk specifically, who is responsible for mailing absentee ballots to voters and counting them once returned. Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, a former Democratic legislator, wrote in the decision that if the Legislature wanted the witness address to include more components, it could have specifically mandated it. The ruling could allow more absentee ballots to be accepted as valid in this year’s elections. In 2020, absentee voting became much more popular in a state in which elections are frequently decided by tiny margins.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker