Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
California: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed legislation into law that would prohibit localities from enacting their own voter ID requirements. The legislation is a direct response to a controversial ballot measure approved this year by voters in Huntington Beach requiring people to show photo identification at the polls. It will take effect on Jan. 1. In response, Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark told LAist that Newsom’s ban doesn’t apply to Huntington Beach, because it is a charter city, which means it has its own version of a constitution. “The state cannot pass any laws that strip us of our constitutional rights, so that law does not apply to us or affect our new election laws,” she wrote in a text message.
Newsom vetoed a Senate bill that would have automatically registered millions of eligible voters who had opted out of signing up when conducting business at the Department of Motor Vehicles. “While the goal of streamlining voter registration is commendable, this bill raises several concerns,” Newsom stated in his veto message on Senate Bill 299. “It would place the DMV in the role of determining voter eligibility, a function more suitable for elections officials.” The governor noted the implementation of such a system would not respect residents’ decision to decline to register, which he described as “a matter of personal prerogative.” Newsom also said that developing the new system would require “costly and complex changes” to the current Motor Voter system that he said were estimated in the tens of millions of dollars. These expenditures, he said, would come at a time when he and legislators already have had to cut costs to balance the budget.
Erie County, Pennsylvania: The Erie County board of elections is considering a resolution that would impact how the canvassing process happens on Election Day. The Erie County Board of Elections is considering a resolution that would impact how the canvassing process is observed on Election Day. “Earlier in the spring, we met with the Department of Homeland Security and they made a number of recommendations,” said Erie County Clerk Karen Chillcott. “We’ve taken a lot of them under advisement, and a lot of the changes that you see in the department are a result of that assessment. In one in particular, they said that no one should be coming through our doorways.” The Erie County Board of Elections is considering a resolution that would require people to watch the canvassing process from the hallway of the courthouse. The election office has already made several changes. “In the hallway, we’ve installed three windows with open access,” said Chillcott. “People can view right inside the canvassing and pre-canvassing area of the office. Inside here, we’ve installed a security door with badge-access only. We’ve also put a customer service window.” The election board is also considering using the Erie County Council caucus room as an overflow area, complete with a live stream of election workers as the canvass mail-in ballots. “I think it’s very important that our election process is transparent,” said Chillcott. “We want people to have confidence in their vote. We want them to know that we take the election very seriously and there is election integrity here in our office.” The Erie County Board of Elections is expected to vote on the resolution on October 10.
Morgantown, West Virginia: Morgantown voters will not get an opportunity to vote on whether or not to change the date of the city’s elections. The charter change, which would’ve placed a proposal to eliminate the city’s standalone election to be aligned with the county, was voted down in a 3-4 vote with Morgantown Mayor M. Joe Abu-Ghannam. Deputy Mayor Jenny Selin and Councilors Bill Kawecki and Louise Michael voting against the proposal. “As a major city in the state, it’s something that we can do and that we have been doing, and I would like to continue having such elections,” said Morgantown Deputy Mayor Jenny Selin ahead of her ‘no’ vote. The charter change focused on the city election was the most contentiously debated proposal that was discussed by the members of the council. If it was passed, the proposal would’ve been placed before voters as part of the city’s upcoming election in April 2025, with the city elections being hosted as normal in April 2025 and 2027 before joining the county ballot starting in May 2028 if a simple majority vote was achieved. Councilor Brian Butcher, who voted in favor of the charter change along with Councilors Dave Harshbarger and Danielle Trumble, expressed a need to support some measures to improve municipal election voting numbers that have not peaked over 15 percent in over a half decade. “I think we’re pretty dismayed by the kind of participation that we’re getting right now and the absenteeism that we kind of have on boards and commissions,” said Butcher ahead of his ‘yes’ vote. “Maybe being on a May primary would allow us to have more of a prominence,” he said.
Legal Updates
Federal Litigation: A federal appeals court in Washington, DC allowed a prediction market to offer election betting, denying a government watchdog’s request to halt a ruling that made way for legal political gambling in the United States. Kalshi, an online platform where users can bet on the outcomes of future events, relaunched its congressional control contracts a few hours after the ruling, letting Americans bet on which party will control the House and Senate in 2025. It is unclear whether the New York-based startup will launch more election markets. A panel of three judges unanimously ruled this week that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which had argued that the wagers were illegal and could harm the integrity of elections, failed to demonstrate how it or the public “will be irreparably harmed while its appeal is heard.” “In short, the concerns voiced by the Commission are understandable given the uncertain effects that Congressional Control Contracts will have on our elections, which are the very linchpin of our democracy,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. “But whether the statutory text allows the Commission to bar such event contracts is debatable, and the Commission has not substantiated that risks to election integrity are likely to materialize if Kalshi is allowed to operate its exchange during the pendency of this appeal.” The ruling allows the agency to make another bid to pause the ruling while the appeal plays out “should more concrete evidence of irreparable harm develop.”
Smartmatic has settled its defamation lawsuit against Newsmax over false allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election before the start of trial. The September 26 settlement occurred during the jury selection process. A four-week trial was scheduled to begin in Delaware on September 30. Neither side made details of the settlement public. Smartmatic emailed a statement to NPR saying it is “very pleased to have secured the completion of the case against Newsmax.” The statement said Smartmatic is now shifting gears to focus on its related suits against Fox News and Fox Corp. Much like Dominion’s case against Fox, Smartmatic’s case against Newsmax centered on false statements made on dozens of television segments in late 2020 in which hosts, producers and guests linked the voting machine company to vote-switching conspiracy theories. Smartmatic operated only in Los Angeles County during the 2020 elections. No fraud was alleged there. Given California’s strong Democratic tilt, no influence could have affected the broader outcome. The network’s guests and hosts embraced allegations that Smartmatic software flipped votes during the election that year. In legal filings, Newsmax denied that it engaged in any defamatory action toward Smartmatic.
Alabama: The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Alabama and its secretary of state on September 27, arguing that an effort to remove voters from state rolls was taking place too close to the Nov. 5 general election in violation of federal law. Secretary of State Wes Allen on Aug. 13 announced a crackdown on what his office called “noncitizen voters,” saying that more than 3,500 people who were registered to vote had been issued noncitizen identification numbers by the Department of Homeland Security. His office did not specify when those voters had received the ID numbers. The Justice Department said Friday that the voter roll purge announcement took place 84 days before the Nov. 5 election and therefore violated the National Voter Registration Act. “As Election Day approaches, it is critical that Alabama redress voter confusion resulting from its list maintenance mailings sent in violation of federal law,” the Justice Department said in a news release announcing the lawsuit. “Officials across the country should take heed of the National Voter Registration Act’s clear and unequivocal restrictions on systematic list maintenance efforts that fall within 90 days of an election.” Allen’s office declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing the pending litigation, but the secretary of state said in a statement that it’s his “Constitutional duty to ensure that only Americans vote in our elections.”
Arizona: U.S. District Judge Michael Liburdi has blocked Secretary of State Adrian Fontes from using a new provision of the election procedures manual that would have let him certify election results in the state if a county refuses to sign off on its own results. Liburdi said that under the rule all votes in a given county could be excluded if its officials fail to certify the results. The provision, the judge said, would give Fontes “nearly carte blanche authority to disenfranchise the ballots of potentially millions of Arizona voters.” Liburdi, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Donald Trump in 2019, said the provision would impose a severe burden on voters who may comply with voting requirements yet could be excluded based on the actions of public officials. The provision was challenged by the America First Policy Institute; another group, American Encore. which describes itself as a defender of freedom and promoter of free markets; and an Apache County voter. Lawyers representing Fontes defended the provision, arguing that the state’s interests in protecting Arizonans’ votes outweighs the speculative claims of harm by those who filed the lawsuit. In a statement, Fontes’ office said, “We are still reviewing the decision to determine our next step.”
Arkansas: Circuit Court Judge Chris Thyer ordered local election officials to conduct early voting at one of three contested West Memphis locations, according to an order filed Monday. “We’re thrilled,” said Attorney Jennifer Standerfer, who represented two east Arkansas voters who sued over the lack of an early voting site in Crittenden County’s most populous city. “…We wanted one early voting location in West Memphis — the election commission wasn’t going to give us any.” Thyer’s order, filed Monday morning, nevertheless cited confusion caused by different statutes covering day-of polling sites and early voting sites. In a court hearing last week, Frank Barton, the chair of the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners, testified that he did not intend to hold early voting in West Memphis. Standerfer filed the suit against Barton and election commissioners Anita Bell and James Pulliaum on Sept. 19. On behalf of West Memphis voters Shirley Brown and Lavonda Taylor, Standerfer argued local election officials were abusing their power by refusing to prepare early voting sites, despite having designated locations. Thyer’s ruling sided with both parties. Repeating similar pleas from a hearing last week, he also asked both sides to appeal his ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court for clarity on statutory construction. “This court certainly appreciates the deep water it has been thrown into and only hopes one or both of these parties appeal this decision so that this court and future litigants may know what this enigmatic statute [about early voting polling sites] means,” Thyer wrote.
Shasta County, California: An appeals court judge dismissed the case involving a lawsuit over Shasta County election results. Laura Hobbs unsuccessfully sued Shasta County’s Registrar of Voters and the other candidate in the race for District Two Supervisor Allen Long, saying she lost because of irregularities in the March primary election. The third district court of appeal granted the motion to dismiss the appeal before even hearing arguments.
Georgia: A Republican-led group is challenging Georgia’s new requirement that poll workers count the total number of ballots by hand, saying it’s another example of the State Election Board overstepping its legal authority. Eternal Vigilance Action amended its existing lawsuit on Wednesday to also challenge that rule adopted Friday by the board. The group, founded and led by former state Rep. Scot Turner, a Republican, was already suing the board over rules that it earlier adopted on certifying votes, a step that finalizes results. One of those rules provides for an undefined “reasonable inquiry” before county election officials certify while another allows county election officials “to examine all election related documentation created during the conduct of elections.” Turner’s lawsuit is scheduled for an Oct. 4 hearing before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox. Eternal Vigilance Action is asking Cox to overturn the rules, or at least put them on hold until after November’s presidential election.
Democrats want a judge to block the Georgia State Election Board’s newly passed requirement for counties to hand-count ballots cast on Election Day, arguing that the eleventh-hour move is unlawful and that it could cause “chaos” in the battleground state. “In sum, the Hand Count Rule is contrary to the Election Code, exceeds the Board’s rulemaking authority” and “violates foundational limits on agencies that are intended to avoid precisely the scenario here—an unelected body unilaterally making significant changes to the law without notice or explanation,” the suit says. “To protect the sanctity of the state’s laws and to prevent election night chaos, this Court should declare that the Hand Count Rule exceeds SEB’s statutory authority and enjoin that rule from going into effect,” it adds. During a bench trial in the case on Tuesday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney said the “reasonable inquiry” rule “on its face is vague and needs clarification.” At several other points during the trial, McBurney also raised concerns about the election board changing election rules so close to this year’s contest, saying that “new rules seem to pop up every 20 minutes.” “And the election is getting closer, not further away,” the judge said, pushing back on an argument from Republicans that intervened in the case to defend the new rules that his hands are tied by a judicial principle established in a 2006 Supreme Court case, Purcell v. Gonzalez.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox has dismissed a lawsuit that said the State Election Board violated state law when it approved new rules at a hastily called meeting in July, but he left the door open for the suit to be refiled. Three Republican members of the board met to approve two election rules at the meeting despite warnings from the attorney general’s office that it might not comply with the law. One rule allows more partisan poll monitors to observe ballot counting, while the other requires counties to post daily ballot tallies on their websites. American Oversight filed a lawsuit that sought to nullify the rules and fine the three election board members. The board members said they did nothing wrong. But the board voted again to approve the rules at a subsequent meeting. Cox dismissed the lawsuit. Though American Oversight sued the board and its members, the judge found the lawsuit should have named the state of Georgia as the defendant. It’s unclear whether American Oversight will refile the lawsuit with the state as the defendant.
The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled against bids by Independent presidential candidate Cornel West and Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate Claudia De la Cruz to count on ballots for the state’s November election. West and De la Cruz are not qualified to run for president in Georgia, the court ruled unanimously, marking a win for Democrats, who sought to keep the left-wing candidates off the ballot. A lawyer for Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger told justices during arguments September 24 that it was too late to change ballots, but if the court ruled against the candidates, Raffensperger’s office would place notices at polling places and within absentee ballot envelopes that votes for either candidate will not be counted. With this decision, Georgians will choose between Republican Donald Trump, Democrat Kamala Harris, Libertarian Chase Oliver and Green Party candidate Jill Stein on Nov. 5.
Michigan: Holton Township in western Michigan has agreed to a $20,000 settlement in a lawsuit by Ashleigh Smith who was turned away from her polling place in 2022 despite registering online to vote, her attorneys said Monday. Smith made many trips to her polling place in Muskegon County but was told that her address wasn’t turning up in an electronic roster of voters and that she wouldn’t be given a ballot on Nov. 8, 2022. By the evening, Holton Township Clerk Jill Colwell-Coburn told Smith “she was sorry but that there was nothing more she could do,” the lawsuit alleged. Smith said she had a voter registration receipt and a sticker to put on her driver’s license to show her new address. Smith’s attorneys said she could have been given a provisional ballot, which would have given local officials a few days to try to clear up the problem. “No voter should ever be treated like Ms. Smith,” attorney Mark Brewer said. A message seeking comment from an attorney for the township and clerk wasn’t immediately returned Monday. They “acted in good faith and with a reasonable belief that their actions were in compliance with all applicable statutory and common law,” lawyer Bogomir Rajsic III said in a March court filing.
Montana: Native Americans living on the Fort Peck Reservation filed a lawsuit against state and county officials Monday saying they don’t have enough places to vote in person. The six members of the Fort Peck Reservation want satellite voting offices in their communities for late registration and to vote before Election Day without making long drives to a county courthouse. The plaintiffs in the Montana lawsuit reside in two small communities near the Canada border on the Fort Peck Reservation, home to the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. Plaintiffs’ attorney Cher Old Elk grew up in one of those communities, Frazer, Montana, where more than a third of people live below the poverty line and the per capita income is about $12,000, according to census data. It’s a 60-mile round trip from Frazer to the election office at the courthouse in Glasgow. Old Elk says that can force prospective voters into difficult choices. “It’s not just the gas money; it’s actually having a vehicle that runs,” she said. “Is it food on my table, or is it the gas money to find a vehicle, to find a ride, to go to Glasgow to vote?” The lawsuit asks a state judge for an order forcing Valley and Roosevelt counties and Republican Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen to create satellite election offices in Frazer and Poplar, Montana. The offices would be open during the same hours and on the same days as the county courthouses.
Nevada: The ACLU of Nevada has filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit they say is seeking to remove more than 11,000 voters from Washoe County’s voter rolls ahead of the 2024 election. The ACLU argues the action requested in the lawsuit would violate state and federal law that prohibits conducting systematic voter roll maintenance within 90 days of an election, which they say are part of a broader effort to disenfranchise voters nationwide. In an email, the Citizens Outreach Foundation, who filed the lawsuit, says they have requested that the Washoe County Registrar send out confirmation letters to voters and say that voters will not be removed unless they fail to return that letter. They are now urging the court to reject the attempt made by the Citizen Outreach Foundation. “This isn’t just about Washoe County. We’re seeing similar voter purge attempts across the country, targeting voters with flawed data and reckless methods. It’s a coordinated national plan with the same goal: to make it harder for people to vote. We’re standing up against this nationwide attack on voting rights and ensuring every eligible voter can cast their ballot,” said ACLU of Nevada executive director Athar Haseebullah.
New Hampshire: A coalition of voting rights groups backed by the ACLU of New Hampshire are seeking to block a new voter ID law in the state, alleging the documentation needed to register to vote poses an unconstitutional burden to prospective voters. The suit also alleges that the new law could disenfranchise registered voters whose qualifications are challenged at the polls by partisan election watchers. A spokesperson for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office said they were still reviewing the complaint, and will “respond as appropriate.” The law, known as HB1569, does not go into effect until after this November’s elections. It will require all people registering to vote for the first time in New Hampshire to show a passport, birth certificate or naturalization papers at the polls to prove their citizenship, making New Hampshire one of the strictest states in the country for voter registration. The new law replaces the existing system that allows people to swear they are qualified to vote by signing a legally binding affidavit, if they didn’t have certain documents in hand when registering. The new measure also does away with any exemptions for registered voters who fail to bring an identification to the polls on Election Day. “The elimination of the affidavit option for New Hampshire registrants would have serious and irremediable impacts on qualified would-be New Hampshire voters seeking to participate in democratic elections,” the ACLU argues in its court filing. “Accordingly, the law poses an improper and unconstitutional burden on the right to vote unsupported by any legitimate or relevant state interest.” Lawyers for the plaintiffs also allege that the elimination of all affidavits could leave voters whose qualifications are challenged at the polls by partisan election observers with no way to cast a ballot.
Joshua Urovitch, 56, and Lisa Urovitch, 54 of Ashland, Massachusetts were indicted on wrongful voting charges. The Urovitchs were indicted on three felony counts each, accused of casting ballots in Concord, NH, during the November 2020 general election and the November 2022 midterm general election and school board election. When they cast ballots, they allegedly lived and were domiciled in Ashland, MA, Michael Garrity, the communications director for the NH AG’s Office, said. According to city assessing records, Lisa Urovitch owns property on Pine Street, a single-family home, and lists the “owner address” as Arrowhead Circle in Ashland, Massachusetts. According to the Concord City Clerk’s Office, she is registered as a Democrat, and he is registered as “undeclared.” Joshua Urovitch and Lisa Urovitch will be arraigned in Merrimack County Superior Court on Oct. 7.
New Mexico: A lawsuit against Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver and other officials alleges four people with past felony convictions have struggled to vote despite a state law passed in 2023 allowing them to do so. The suit, filed September 26 in state District Court, says the plaintiffs have been unable to register to vote ahead of the Nov. 5 election because of “unnecessary burdens and hurdles” caused by what they say are violations of the state Voting Rights Act. The law restored voting rights to people with felony convictions who are not currently behind bars. The lawsuit says the state’s system flags people with felony convictions as ineligible to vote, and Toulouse Oliver has “told county clerks to deny voter registrations from people with past felony convictions if they are flagged as having ever been convicted of a felony unless they appear in person to prove they are not currently in prison,” according to a post on the website of the Campaign Legal Center, the organization representing the plaintiffs. “The Secretary of State, Corrections Department, and county clerks have had over one year since the [act] went into effect to ensure that every eligible New Mexican can exercise their freedom to vote, but still have not done so,” the post says. “Now, on the eve of a major federal election, New Mexico voters are paying the price.” The Voting Rights Act, signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham in March 2023, sought to ensure the voting rights of convicted felons the day they get out of prison, irrespective of parole or probation status, and instituted an automatic voter registration system through the Motor Vehicle Division. Previously, people with prior felony convictions couldn’t vote until they were off probation or parole.
North Carolina: A three-judge panel of the intermediate-level Court of Appeals blocked students and employees at the University of North Carolina from providing a digital identification produced by the school when voting to comply with a new photo ID mandate. The decision reverses at least temporarily last month’s decision by the State Board of Elections that the mobile ID generated by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill met security and photo requirements in the law and could be used. The Republican National Committee and state Republican Party sued to overturn the decision by the Democratic-majority board earlier this month, saying the law only allows physical ID cards to be approved. Superior Court Judge Keith Gregory last week denied a temporary restraining order to halt its use. The Republicans appealed.
Ohio: Two Ohioans and the state Democratic party are challenging a newly devised policy for returning absentee ballots. They argue Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s directive requiring people to fill out an attestation when returning someone else’s ballot amounts to making “new requirements and voting restrictions out of whole cloth.” At the end of July, a federal judge ruled that Ohio’s narrow list of family members legally allowed to return an absentee ballot on behalf of a relative would have to go — at least for disabled voters. Federal law guarantees people with disabilities can get help from anyone they want as long as it’s not their employer or union rep. The court ruled disabled Ohioans, and only disabled Ohioans, must be allowed to select an assistant of their choice. Despite that narrow ruling, LaRose urged state lawmakers to think about getting rid of drop boxes altogether. “I strongly encourage you to consider codifying any additional safeguards that might be necessary due to attempts to erode the integrity of our elections,” he wrote in an Aug. 29 letter, “including possibly banning drop boxes as a result of this court decision which makes it harder to guard against ballot harvesting.” In the meantime, he issued a directive requiring anyone returning a ballot for someone else to — whether they’re assisting a disabled voter or a family member — sign an attestation verifying that they are complying with state law. That directive is what is now being challenged.
Pennsylvania: The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether requiring voters to date their mail ballot return envelopes violates federal law. The group filed its petition September 27 on behalf of the Pennsylvania branch of the NAACP. It follows a separate request from voting rights groups this week to Pennsylvania’s highest court for an expedited ruling on the date requirement. “The right to vote is one of the most important in this country,” said Janette Wallace, general counsel of the NAACP. “Ballots should not be rejected because of irrelevant errors. We will continue to fight so that voters’ voices may be heard. That’s why we’re taking this to the Supreme Court.” The case is one of several challenging the rules around mail ballot voting in Pennsylvania, and centers on whether the state’s requirement that voters handwrite a date on their mail ballot return envelope violates the materiality provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That provision says a person cannot be denied the right to vote because of “an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote.”
Three Luzerne County residents sued to overturn a local official’s announcement that she will prevent all four of its drop boxes from being deployed for use by those voting by mail and absentee ballot in the Nov. 5 election. The lawsuit argues county manager Romilda Crocamo lacks authority for statements made last month that the county would not use drop boxes “because of purported safety and security concerns.” Drop boxes are used to hand over completed ballots by those who don’t want to put mail-in ballots through the mail. The voters who sued said the Luzerne County Board of Elections and Registration plans to deploy four drop boxes, as it has in other recent elections. The board in February voted down a proposal to eliminate all drop boxes, their lawsuit states. The lawsuit accuses Crocamo of violating state election law and it claims her policy will “lead to irreparable harm to the voting rights” in Luzerne. The plaintiffs want a county judge to stop Crocamo from implementing her decision.
Texas: U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez has ruled that part of a Texas law that enacted new voting restrictions violated the U.S. Constitution by being too vague and restricting free speech. The ruling immediately halted the state’s ability to investigate alleged cases of vote harvesting, such as the investigation into the League of United Latin American Citizens by Attorney General Ken Paxton. Before the ruling, a person who knowingly provided or offered vote harvesting services in exchange for compensation was committing a third-degree felony. This meant that organizers of voter outreach organizations and even volunteers could spend up to ten years in prison and fined up to $10,000 for giving or offering these services. Paxton vowed to appeal the ruling. Before the law, organizations like OCA-Greater Houston, an advocacy organization for people of Asian and Pacific Island descent, would host in-person election events and allow attendees to bring their mail-in ballots in order to receive help like language assistance.
Utah: Following a ruling from the state Supreme Court, voters will not decide this November on a constitutional amendment asking them to cede power over ballot measures to lawmakers. The five-justice panel grilled attorneys for the Legislature earlier Wednesday before siding with opponents of the amendment who argued it would have been presented to voters in a misleading manner. Republican legislative leaders, who penned the ballot question, had asked the high court to overturn a district judge’s ruling and put Amendment D back before the public. The amendment would have given lawmakers constitutional authority to rewrite voter-approved ballot measures or repeal them entirely. Lawmakers also could have applied their new power to initiatives from past election cycles. But the summary that voters would have seen on their ballots only asked if the state constitution should be changed to “strengthen the initiative process” and to clarify the roles of legislators and voters. “The description does not submit the amendment to voters ‘with such clarity as to enable the voters to express their will,’” the high court wrote in its opinion.
Wisconsin: State Rep. Janel Brandjten (R-Menomonee Falls), one of the Wisconsin Legislature’s most prominent election deniers, has sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) to force the state out of ERIC. Brandjten filed the lawsuit last month in Waukesha County Circuit Court. Election conspiracy theorists have regularly targeted ERIC in recent years, and a number of Republican-controlled states have dropped out of the compact, despite its role in assisting state election officials in keeping voter rolls updated. Election deniers in Wisconsin and across the country have frequently complained that the voter rolls don’t get updated enough and leave the election system open to fraud. Brandtjen brought the lawsuit despite voting in 2016 for a bill that required the state to enter into an agreement with ERIC. She is being represented by Kevin Scott, who worked as an attorney for former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman during his ill-fated review of the 2020 election. Scott represented Gableman in court during Gableman’s attempt to jail the mayors of Green Bay and Madison. The case has been assigned to the circuit court of Judge Brad Schimel, the former Republican Attorney General under Gov. Scott Walker who is now running a campaign for a seat on the state Supreme Court.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a seven-page opinion, ruled that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “failed to demonstrate” that a Dane County judge had erred when denying Kennedy’s petition for a court to remove him from the ballot. Kennedy, running under a third-party banner, filed nomination papers in early August to be included among presidential candidates on the Wisconsin ballot. Kennedy subsequently dropped out of the race, endorsing former President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee. Shortly before the Wisconsin Elections Commission met Aug. 27 to certify candidates, Kennedy wrote the commission seeking to withdraw as a candidate. The commission voted 5-1 to deny his request. Commission Chair Ann Jacobs cited a state law that candidates who file nomination papers and qualify to run cannot withdraw and must remain on the ballot, unless they die. Kennedy sued in Dane County Circuit Court, asking the judge to review the commission’s decision but also seeking a temporary injunction that would order the commission to remove his name from the ballot. Judge Stephen Ehlke denied Kennedy’s requests, ruling that state law does not allow a candidate to withdraw from the presidential race after filing nomination papers. After Kennedy’s lawyer appealed the state Supreme Court approved the elections commission’s request to bypass the appeals court. According to the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, appellate briefs Kennedy’s lawyers filed in the case were inadequate for the court to review his claims of harm or of his potential for success. “Consequently, because there is no basis in this appeal on which we could determine that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion, we must affirm the circuit court’s order denying Kennedy’s motion for a temporary injunction,” the opinion states.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment