Ballot Measure, Legislation & Rulemaking Updates
Federal Legislation: Democrats in the House have introduced voting rights legislation aimed at making it easier for voters to cast ballots, including same-day registration. Democratic leaders said the Voter Empowerment Act of 2024 will draw attention to the increasing number of states adopting laws they say restrict voting rights. Democrats and voting rights activists had warned that some states would enact such laws after a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision eliminated a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. “People were not sure that what we were saying held water. Now they know what we’ve been saying is very real,’’ South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, a Democrat, said Monday in an exclusive interview with USA TODAY before he reintroduced the bill. “This is a good time for people to focus on this legislation. I’m not crazy by any means. I know full well the bill is not going to pass in the House. But it should be on the mind of everybody as to who is suppressing the vote. All these people who say they believe in democracy, who say they believe in the democratic form of government need to be called out.” In addition to requiring states to allow same-day registration for federal elections, the legislation would also allow online registration and automatic registration of people whose information comes from another state or a federal agency. It would ban officials from removing voters from registration lists because mail sent to them had been returned. It would also reauthorize the federal Election Assistance Commission which, among other things, serves as an information clearinghouse for election officials.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) is joining Rep. Chris Deluzio (D–Pennsylvania) in introducing the Freedom from Intimidation in Elections Act, which they said aims to protect voters and election workers from threats and intimidation at polling places. The proposed federal legislation would limit people’s ability to bring visible firearms to locations where voting occurs or where election workers do their jobs. Twelve states, including California — as well as Washington, D.C. — already prohibit firearms at polling places, and nine additional states have limited restrictions on guns that apply to these sites. “Today we’re saying something simple: In no place in America should a fear of violence prevent somebody from being able to cast their vote,” Padilla said during a press conference on Capitol Hill. “And no election worker should have to fear for their safety or for their life in helping us administer the fundamental process of democracy that we call elections.”
California: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has signed AB3184. Under AB 3184, counties are required to wait 28 days before certifying their election results. Lawmakers behind the bill say the extra time will give voters more time to correct mismatching or missing signatures on the ballot making sure their vote is accepted. According to the bill’s author, in the state’s last general election nearly half of rejected vote-by-mail ballots in California were for either a missing or non-matching signature, however in Butte County, Denlay said it’s not really an issue, adding that they’ve been able to certify results as soon as possible, by Thanksgiving or by 17 days after the election. “All counties could do as early as 17 days or as late as 30 so there used to be some flexibility involved when the results were done, they were done…,” Denlay said. “I think that local offices the first week of December, it would be beneficial for them to know the results as soon as possible, maybe if there needs to be a recount for a local office where those races tend to be really close, we’re gonna have to wait to get those results. Not all local elections officials are happy about the new law. “We’re basically going to be sitting on our hands for the last 11 days waiting to put our stamp on it,” Keaton Denlay,Butte County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters said.
Newsom also signed the PEACE Act, which makes California the first state in the nation to state explicitly that openly carrying a gun in or near a polling place constitutes illegal harassment. Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the Voting Rights Program for the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice, said the measure is important. “It represents some really commonsense principles. All voters, all election workers, should be able to participate and run our democracy free from intimidation. And visible guns around our elections are intimidating,” he said.
Newsom vetoed a bill that would have helped people receive voting materials in their first language. Voting advocates said the bill, if passed, would have dismantled language barriers that many communities face, expanding language requirements outlined by federal and state law. Access to translated ballots has come a long way since the National Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. That law said there should be translations at the polls, but it only applied to Spanish, Asian, Native American and Native Alaskan languages. California has since built on the national law to include more languages. In San Diego, voter materials come in 10 languages. But for six of those languages, the translated voting materials aren’t on the actual ballots. Instead, they are on reference ballots, also called facsimile ballots. The bill aimed to replace the facsimile ballots with voteable ballots for languages required by the state. Abdi said that could have made a huge difference for the communities she works with. But election officials expressed concerns, including the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials. “We’ll likely double the amount of languages we would have to be able to provide,” Jesse Salinas, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said. “And one of the true challenges that we would have is translation.” Salinas said technology, vendors and funding couldn’t meet the bill’s new requirements. For example, he said, they calculated that in Los Angeles it would cost more than $25 million.
Georgia Rulemaking: In a 3-2 decision the Georgia State Board of Elections voted to require a hand count of all ballots after polls close on election night, a new requirement that could delay results of the presidential race. The rule requires a count of the number of ballots cast, not a count of which candidate received more votes. Vote totals are reported separately. It’s unknown how long the count would take, especially in large precincts with many voters. Some counties already hand count the number of ballots, but it’s not a requirement. State Election Board member Janelle King acknowledged that counting ballots would take more time. “I don’t want to set a precedent where we’re OK with speed over accuracy,” said King, a Republican appointee to the board. “I can guarantee you as a voter that I would rather wait another hour to ensure the count is accurate. What we’re doing is creating more stability in our election process.” County election directors universally opposed the eleventh-hour counting mandate, saying it would undermine voter confidence in the election results. They said results will come in more slowly, ballot box seals would be broken and manual counts could be inaccurate.
Montclair, New Jersey: The Montclair Town Council passed a symbolic resolution in favor of ranked choice voting in municipal and school board elections at their meeting this week. The resolution supports a proposed state law, S-1622/A-4042, which would allow towns and cities in New Jersey to make ranked choice voting available for local elections if they choose to do so. Montclair’s resolution also “supports the commitment of state resources to increase awareness of ranked choice voting and public education as to the ranked choice voting process.” Third Ward Councilman Rahum Williams provided the only “no” vote. Voter Choice NJ praised the Montclair town council for taking a stand for ranked choice voting, noting that other towns that have show support with resolutions include Hoboken, Jersey City, Red Bank, Princeton, Maplewood and South Orange.
Legal Updates
Alabama: U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor blocked a portion of Alabama’s law criminalizing some forms of ballot assistance, saying it burdened blind, disabled and illiterate voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Proctor wrote that the law violated Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, added to the 1965 law in 1982 that allows blind, illiterate or disabled people to accept assistance “by a person of the voter’s choice.” “The court easily concludes, after reviewing its language, that SB 1 unduly burdens the rights of Section 208 voters to make a choice about who may assist them in obtaining and returning an absentee ballot,” wrote the judge, appointed by former President George W. Bush. Proctor allowed the rest of the law to go into effect. The law, sponsored by Sen. Garlan Gudger, R-Cullman and signed by Gov. Kay Ivey this spring, makes it a Class C felony (punishable up to 10 years in prison) for a person to knowingly receive payment for “distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining or delivering” an absentee ballot application. A Class B felony (punishable up to 20 years in prison) would be if a person knowingly pays or provides a gift to a “third party to distribute, order, request, collect, prefill, complete, obtain or deliver.” Gov. Kay Ivey signed the bill in March. Republican supporters said they were trying to stop “ballot harvesting.” Democratic opponents said it impedes voting among disabled voters in rural areas. The Alabama Attorney General has said that he will appeal.
Arizona: The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on September 20 that the 98,000 Arizona voters whose eligibility has been in limbo because of a system error that was discovered earlier this month will be allowed to vote a full ballot in November. These voters had been erroneously marked in the state’s system as having provided documented proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, when in reality, it is unclear whether they did so. Arizona requires such documentation in order to vote in state and local elections. Voters who are unable to provide it are added to a separate roll of “federal only” voters, and can cast ballots only in presidential and congressional races. The error had been occurring for roughly two decades before Maricopa County election officials flagged the problem earlier this month. The affected voters are all longtime residents of the state, and many have been on the rolls for years. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, and Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, a Republican, asked the Arizona Supreme Court on Sept. 17 to determine whether the voters affected by the glitch should be permitted to vote a full ballot in this year’s election, or one with only federal races. The Arizona Supreme Court moved quickly. Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer wrote that, because it was unclear whether the voters had provided proof of citizenship in the past, counties could not legally remove them from the voter rolls. The court was especially reluctant to do so, she wrote, because of how close it is to Election Day. “We are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests,” Timmer wrote. “Doing so is not authorized by state law and would violate principles of due process.”
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz said that a ballot proposition to end partisan primaries in Arizona will have votes cast for it counted after all. The ruling is the latest development in the ongoing saga around Proposition 140, which would amend the Arizona Constitution to create an open primary system in elections, though it won’t be the final word. Partisan opponents of the ballot measure will appeal the matter to the state Supreme Court, which last month took the unprecedented step of allowing the challenge to Prop. 140’s place on the ballot to continue past the deadline for ballots to be printed. The proposal, known as the Make Arizona Elections Fair Act, would allow all registered voters to choose from all the candidates in the primary, regardless of their party affiliation, and the top vote-getters would advance to the general election, even if they don’t represent different parties. Moskowitz declined to consider the evidence of the duplicate signatures, citing a lack of time to evaluate them prior to the ballot-printing deadline. But the day before that deadline, the Arizona Supreme Court ordered him to reopen the case and determine whether there were enough duplicate signatures to disqualify Prop. 140. The Arizona Supreme Court in that same ruling said that, if the trial court determines that Make Elections Fair did not collect enough signatures, Moskowitz should order elections officials not to count the votes for Prop. 140. In his ruling, Moskowitz agreed with Make Elections Fair, whose attorneys argued that an injunction against counting votes for Prop. 140 would be “moot,” considering the challenge is going well past the ballot printing deadline of Aug. 23. Previous rulings cited by the proponents showed that, despite there being no statutory requirement to resolve challenges before the deadline, many courts have erred on making sure to promptly decide cases due to that deadline.
Arkansas: A lawsuit filed last week claims Crittenden County election officials have failed to prepare early voting in West Memphis despite having established polling sites. Filed Sept. 19 in circuit court on behalf of two West Memphis residents who intend to vote early, Shirley Brown and Lavonda Taylor, the lawsuit alleges the three members of the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners are not seeking poll workers, preparing election materials and conducting other duties to facilitate early voting. The petition claims election commissioners have determined there should be no early voting in West Memphis, despite two sites the plaintiffs argue should be active: One at First Baptist Church because it served as a polling site two years ago and one at the Seventh Street Church of Christ because the county clerk designated it as such. West Memphis is Crittenden County’s largest city with approximately 23,000 residents, about 48% of the county’s total population. Without a polling site, West Memphis residents would have to travel about five miles to the county’s only guaranteed early voting site in Marion.Circuit Judge Chris Thyer heard testimony in Craighead County on Monday because of scheduling conflicts in Crittenden County. A second hearing is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon in Marion. The case is being heard at an expedited pace because of its potential impact on the Nov. 5 election. The lawsuit seeks early voting access at the two churches in West Memphis, which county election officials would organize. The petition also asks the judge to “declare that the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners’ determination that no early voting will be held in West Memphis is unlawful.” Crittenden County Circuit Court Judge Chris Thyer, in closing statements to attorneys on both sides of a case arguing whether election officials should be required to offer early voting in West Memphis, asked that one or both of the lawyers submit an appeal and take the case to the state’s highest court. “Take this thing up so the Supreme Court can tell us what these statutes mean, because Lord knows I can’t tell exactly what they mean,” Thyer said.
Florida: The Florida Supreme Court will consider whether a statewide prosecutor can pursue charges against an individual arrested by Gov. Ron DeSantis’ election police force. Following a split opinion at the appellate court level, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to take up an appeal. A court order deemed the question of whether a statewide prosecutor can prosecute voter fraud cases if a ballot is cast in a statewide election is a matter of “great public importance.” In 2022, an election police force arrested 20 individuals under investigation by a new Office of Election Crimes. The arrests drew criticism as many individuals claimed to believe their right to vote had been restored after voters approved a constitutional amendment automatically allowing ex-felons to register after the completion of their sentences and once any financial obligations with the state were met.
Georgia: The Georgia State Conference of the NAACP and the Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda filed suit in federal court, arguing that a law passed earlier this year by lawmakers unfairly discriminates against homeless people and voters registered at nonresidential addresses. State Senate Ethics Committee Max Burns, a Republican from Sylvania, said he’s confident Senate Bill 189, which partly took effect in July, will hold up in court. “The legal challenges to SB 189 were anticipated. It was crafted with the intent to withstand any such challenges, and we are confident that the state’s position will prevail, ensuring SB 189 remains the law of the land,” Burns, who sponsored the law, said in a statement. Part of the law lets people file legal challenges to the eligibility of voters registered at nonresidential addresses. County election boards decide whether to reject the challenge or uphold it. Supporters of the law argue many people are incorrectly registered at business addresses or even in empty lots instead of where they live. That means someone may be voting in the wrong precinct and the wrong local government and state legislative elections.
State Sen. Nabilah Islam Parkes of Duluth; Randal Mangham, a former state representative now running for the Senate; and Cathy Woolard, a former chair of the Fulton County Board of Elections filed a lawsuit to force Gov. Brian Kemp to order a hearing on allegations that three Republican members of the State Election Board violated the law. The lawsuit claims the three “rogue” SEB members have pushed through a series of controversial changes in election rules that will let local election officials delay or refuse to certify election results. The Democrats say that could sow chaos and uncertainty following the Nov. 5 elections and let former President Donald Trump capture Georgia’s 16 electoral votes, even if Vice President Kamala Harris has won more of the state’s popular vote. The lawsuit filed Wednesday came two days after those same board members voted to instruct SEB Executive Director Mike Coan to investigate allegations that local election boards in eight mostly Democrat-led counties, including Athens-Clarke and Chatham, are thwarting citizen activists’ challenges of thousands of voter registrations, and one day after civil rights groups filed a suit challenging a new state law making it easier to mount such challenges.
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia has settled with the Cobb County Board of Elections to improve accessibility at polling sites. The agreement follows an eight-year review, from 2016 to 2024, which identified physical barriers at many voting locations that made it difficult for people with disabilities to vote in person. Officials did not release the settlement amount, but as part of the agreement, Cobb County has agreed to make temporary improvements to ensure polling sites are accessible by the November 2024 general election. According to a release, the Board of Elections will also conduct a thorough review of all current polling locations to ensure they comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Additionally, the Board of Elections will work to ensure that any future polling places are fully ADA-compliant. “Voting is a fundamental right and a key part of our democracy. Every person, including those with disabilities, should have an equal opportunity to vote in person on Election Day,” U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan emphasized. Cobb County has committed to training poll workers to assist voters with disabilities and use temporary measures to improve access on Election Day.
Mississippi: A panel of federal judges heard arguments this week in a case that could upend the rules for counting a sliver of mail ballots in Mississippi just weeks before Election Day, with possible ramifications for all states. At issue is a Mississippi law that allows mail ballots to be counted if they arrive up to five days after Election Day and are postmarked by Election Day or earlier. Seventeen other states and Washington, D.C., have laws allowing postmarked mail ballots to be counted if they arrive after Election Day, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures. Mississippi is a reliably Republican state that will not sway the presidential election. But the challenge to its law could ultimately make its way to the Supreme Court for a decision that affects the options available to all states. Such a ruling would have significant implications for the presidential race, as well as some closely fought congressional contests. The RNC brought its lawsuit over the Mississippi law in January, arguing elections must be completed by Election Day because Congress has set a specific day for the election. A district court upheld Mississippi’s law in July, finding that Congress has not regulated mail ballots and has left states with “the authority and the constitutional charge to establish their lawful time, place, and manner boundaries.” The RNC, joined by the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The three judges who heard arguments Tuesday — all appointed by former president Donald Trump — asked probing questions about the history of voting laws and the definitions of “Election Day” and “casting” ballots.
Nevada: A conservative organization filed a lawsuit in Carson City against two Nevada counties that it alleges failed to process the organization’s challenges of registered voters believed to have moved from the counties. Citizen Outreach Foundation, a libertarian-leaning grassroots organization based in Las Vegas, filed lawsuits against Carson City and Storey County clerks and is asking the court to instruct them to process challenges of suspected ineligible voters. “This was a last resort action we’ve worked hard to avoid,” Chuck Muth, president of the Citizen Outreach Foundation, said in a statement. “We’ve done everything by the book and according to the law, but the Clerks got caught between a rock and a hard place.” The lawsuit filed September 20 is the start of what the organization expects will be multiple lawsuits filed this week in other counties — including Clark and Washoe. The secretary of state’s office declined to comment but pointed to a Sept. 11 press release in which Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar explained counties’ list maintenance efforts, which resulted in clerks canceling registrations of nearly 140,000 inactive voters during the maintenance period. “County election officials have worked hard to update and clean the voter rolls, a process that is ongoing and crucial to Nevada’s safe and secure elections,” Aguilar said in the release.
New York: A jury has acquitted three Rensselaer County officials accused of committing ballot fraud during the 2021 election cycle. The U.S. Attorney’s Office says Richard Crist, James Gordon and Leslie Wallace were acquitted Wednesday on all charges after a 13-day trial. The three were indicted last year, accused of conspiring to violate the rights of Rensselaer County voters. Prosecutors alleged that during local elections, the defendants “conspired to use their official positions, and actual and apparent authority over Rensselaer County employees, to obtain absentee ballots in voters’ names through fraud and intimidation.” Gordon was also found not guilty of witness tampering while Wallace was found not guilty of making false statements.
North Carolina: Wake County Superior Judge Keith Gregory denied the North Carolina Republican Party’s request for a temporary restraining order aimed at blocking UNC-Chapel Hill students from using a school-issued digital photo ID for voting. Students and employees at UNC-Chapel Hill use the school’s One Card to pay for meals, obtain school supplies and for campus-building access. Increasingly, the university is moving away from issuing its One Card in physical form and getting students to store the photo-bearing ID in digital form on their phones. Accordingly, the university asked the North Carolina State Board of Elections to approve the mobile One Card as a form of voter photo ID. Last month, the elections board’s Democratic majority — over the objections of its two Republican members — concluded the digital ID satisfied the statutory criteria for valid photo ID. Then, last week, the North Carolina GOP, along with the National Republican Committee, sued, claiming the elections board violated the state’s voter ID law, which lists several types of cards, such as a North Carolina Driver’s License, among the acceptable forms of ID. Gregory sided with the elections board and said he wasn’t going to get in the way of duly registered voters presenting valid IDs to cast their ballots. Gregory said that if an appellate court wants to overrule him, then so be it. But to him, it is clear that if a person is not registered to vote in North Carolina, then they can’t vote, even with a mobile One Card.
Pennsylvania: The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center are trying again to get the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to conclusively decide whether voters need to date their mail ballot return envelope in order for their vote to be counted, likely the last chance to settle the question before the November election. After the court rebuffed the plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds in a decision earlier this month, plaintiffs asked the high court to exercise its authority to bypass the lower courts to directly address pressing legal matters. Because the court previously did not rule on the merits of the case, the organizations, suing on behalf of a coalition of voting rights groups, are again arguing that the dating requirement violates the state constitution. “The refusal to count timely mail ballots submitted by eligible voters because of an inconsequential error violates the fundamental right to vote recognized in the Free and Equal Elections clause,” the suit says. “The imminent threat of mass disenfranchisement warrants this Court’s exercise of its King’s Bench authority.” According to Votebeat, it is unclear if the court will use its discretionary power to take up the case, but at least three of the court’s seven judges indicated they were open to such a move.
In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Commonwealth Court agreed with a lower court judge that Washington County erred when it adopted a policy to reject mail ballots without telling voters and had a duty to inform them of their errors. “The current policy emasculates the Election Code’s guarantees by depriving voters … the opportunity to contest their disqualification or to avail themselves of the statutory failsafe of casting a provisional ballot,” Judge Michael Wojcik wrote for the majority. The decision applies to Washington County and does not set a statewide legal precedent, but county attorneys are likely to take note of the court’s opinion when advising their boards of elections about how to handle mail ballots with errors. The decision can be appealed to the state Supreme Court, where a ruling would have statewide effect. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center on behalf of voting rights groups and voters whose ballots were rejected under the policy.
The Republican Party is asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to find it illegal for county boards of elections to alert voters to defective mail-in ballots and give them the chance to correct errors. Voters’ rights groups called the petition filed Wednesday by the Republican National Committee and state Republican Party “a brazen voter suppression lawsuit.” “This effort is a very dangerous attempt to needlessly disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible voters in the upcoming election,” Witold “Vic” Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said September 19. But the petitioners wholly disagreed. “The idea that widely supported election integrity safeguards somehow constitute ‘voter suppression’ is a far-left conspiracy theory.” said Gates McGavick, senior advisor to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley. The GOP filed the petition against Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt and all 67 county boards of elections. It asks the high court to exercise its King’s Bench authority and take the case immediately, bypassing lower courts. Doing so, the Republicans said, would ensure clarity and uniformity across the battleground state just 47 days before Pennsylvanians are expected to play an outsize role in the presidential election. The Republicans allege that the way mail-in ballots are handled in Pennsylvania is “causing confusion for electors and threaten(s) to unleash disuniformity, uncertainty, chaos and an erosion of public confidence in the imminent 2024 general election.”
The Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a lawsuit on September 20 against election officials in Montgomery County accusing the county of starting their election process without fully testing voting equipment. Per state law, each Pennsylvania county is required to conduct logic and accuracy testing before every election begins. That includes ensuring that all the election and voting equipment function as they should and can accurately count votes, as they’re supposed to be marked. Pennsylvania law requires every county board to certify to the secretary of state when logic and accuracy testing has been completed, at least 15 days before the election. According to the lawsuit, the RNC claims that, as of Sept. 13, Montgomery County officials hadn’t yet certified their logic and accuracy testing of the county’s voting machines. On Sept. 16, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt (D) finalized the names that will appear on the November general election ballot, officially certifying the ballot and effectively kicking the election process into motion. And on Sept. 17, Montgomery County election officials began mailing out ballots. But the RNC claims that Montgomery County’s logic and accuracy testing wasn’t completed by that time, violating state law. In a motion for a preliminary injunction, the RNC is asking a district court to halt Montgomery County from sending out any ballots until logic and accuracy testing is complete. They’re also asking the court to order the county to separate and hand count all ballots that were sent out before testing.
Philip C. Pulley of Huntingdon Valley pleaded guilty to falsely registering to vote, double voting and election fraud. He faces a maximum of five years in prison, three years of supervised release, a $10,000 to $250,000 fine and a $100 special assessment. Federal prosecutors said Pulley registered to vote in Broward County, Florida, in 2018 while he was already registered in Montgomery County. Then, in 2020, Pulley used a false Philadelphia address and Social Security number to register to vote in Philadelphia County while he was still registered in Montgomery and Broward. Federal prosecutors said that in 2020, Pulley requested a mail-in ballot in Philadelphia and voted in Montgomery and Broward. Pulley also pleaded guilty to voting in Montgomery and Philadelphia counties in the 2022 general election.
Utah: The Utah Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling stating that certain election materials can not be obtained via government records requests. In an opinion published September 19, the court sided with a district court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit filed against Utah, Juab, and Millard Counties, as well as figures such as Lt. Governor Deidre Henderson. The case began in December 2021 when two Utahns submitted Government Records Access and Management Act requests to the three counties asking for “Cast Vote Records,” “Project Backup Databases,” “Ballot Images,” and “Tabulator Tapes.” In their GRAMA requests, they stated their intentions to share the documents publicly to the media, local officials and “several advocacy organizations.” The counties denied the requests, either directly, or by simply not responding, which is considered a denial under GRAMA. The ones that issued a denial stated the requested records were either sealed or not public. After the counties didn’t respond to subsequent appeals, the two Utahns filed a joint complaint, seeking a review of the denials and a preliminary injunction to “prevent destruction of the documents during the pendency of litigation.” The crux of their argument was that since Utah law did not restricts the documents by name, they were presumed to be public and therefore subject to GRAMA requests. The Lieutenant Governor’s office then filed a motion to intervene citing the Lieutenant Governor’s role as the “chief election officer of the State of Utah.” In the ruling, Judge Ryan Tenney outlined how ballots are processed in accordance with the Election Code. Ballots are tallied by election judges, a process that is open to the public at counting centers and may be observed by a voter who registers as a “watcher.” Votes are then canvassed, where they’ve been made official at county and state levels. This process is also held in public.
Virginia: A panel of judges in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs in a case challenging Virginia’s disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions. After a federal district judge allowed the challenge to move forward earlier this year, alleging that Virginia has been out of compliance with a Reconstruction-era federal law, the 4th Circuit had a hearing on the state’s attempt to toss the case. Deputy Solicitor General Kevin Gallagher, in defense of the state, said the “unique” and old federal statute “is not something that people are trying to enforce.” Defendants include Gov. Glenn Youngkin, the Secretary of the Commonwealth — who was Kay Coles James when the suit was first filed — and several election officials. Tuesday’s hearing was part of their interlocutory appeal limited to whether Virginia is entitled to sovereign immunity — basically, whether or not the state and its agents can be found to have done wrong or not. An interlocutory appeal is a type of appeal that can be filed while a case is active and before a final judgment. Neither the interlocutory appeal nor the Readmission Act case have been ruled on yet. And though the appeal was the point of Tuesday’s meeting, discussion veered into the Readmission case. “Our claim is that essentially, Virginia made a promise when it was brought back into the United States Congress. It’s now time to keep that promise and to abide by the Virginia Readmission Act,” said ACLU attorney Vishal Agraharkar in a call with The Mercury on Monday. Meanwhile, the defendants’ filing argues that Congress lacks the power to prohibit states from disenfranchising people with felony convictions under the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and that states could choose to permanently disenfranchise people with felonies of all types, not just those in common law.
Wisconsin: The U.S. Department of Justice sued two Wisconsin towns for allegedly not having accessible voting equipment in the April election, seeking additional action against one of the towns as it appeared poised not to use that equipment in the November election, either. The Justice Department’s action came after officials in two Rusk County towns, Thornapple and Lawrence, voiced distrust of electronic voting equipment and later decided to ban the machines. The department additionally sued the state, which is subject to the requirements of a federal law requiring voting equipment that’s accessible to voters with disabilities in every polling place. “By failing to offer accessible voting systems, Thornapple and Lawrence shirked their responsibilities under the Help America Vote Act to provide equal access to the ballot for all voters,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement. Officials in Lawrence, a town of 300, reached an agreement with the Justice Department, pledging to provide accessible voting equipment in future elections. But Thornapple, whom the Justice Department additionally accuses of not using voting machines in the August election, either, reached no such agreement with the department. As a result, the department requested an additional court order from a federal court in western Wisconsin to require Thornapple to have accessible voting equipment in the upcoming election, which is less than seven weeks away.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment