Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Alabama: Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed Senate bill 158 into law this week. The measure strengthens restrictions around noncitizen voting and passed the state legislature with bipartisan support. The bill prohibits the use of foreign national driver licenses as a form of photo identification for voting in the state, an exclusion that did not previously exist.
Arizona: Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) has vetoed a series of elections-related bills. One proposal that would have closed Arizona schools on Election Day and forced them to allow their gymnasiums to be used as polling places. Another bill vetoed by Hobbs would have effectively created a bounty system to reward Arizonans who sued local governments that present election information “in any manner that is not imperial or neutral,” while another would have required the Arizona Department of Transportation to also send voter registration information directly to county recorders instead of solely to the Secretary of State’s Office. Other vetoed election bills include Senate Bill 1036, which would have expanded the existing prohibition on using government resources to influence an election to include presenting information about the election “that is not impartial or neutral.” It also aimed to give every Arizona resident the chance to sue the governmental body — and directly collect the civil penalty of up to $5,000 if a court agreed an election was illegally influenced. And the two voter registration bills — House Bill 2767, directing ADOT to send voter information to counties, and House Bill 2206, barring participation in ERIC — both place “significant” costs on county recorders, the governor wrote in her veto letters.
California: A new bill aims to standardize the ballot cure process. Common mistakes include accidentally filling in the wrong bubble, signing the witness signature box or signing their spouses’ envelope. If there is time, the county will often send a new ballot. Assembly Bill 1072 would require the Secretary of State and county elections officials to come up with clear answers, applicable statewide. Kim Alexander, founder and president of the California Voter Foundation, said the problem causes widespread delays in counting. “In Orange County in the last election, officials had to duplicate over 40,000 ballots,” Alexander pointed out. “There are other reasons why ballots have to be duplicated, but the primary one is that the voter made a mistake filling out their ballot, indicated a different choice, and it has to be remade.”
Colorado: Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed the Colorado Voting Rights Act into law this week, establishing various protections contained in the federal Voting Rights Act at the state level. Senate Bill 25-1, the first bill of the 2025 legislative session, prohibits election practices that limit the participation of people of color and other protected groups, bill sponsors said. It also includes protections for LGBTQ+ voters, expands multilingual ballot access, and requires accommodations for people with disabilities at residential facilities. The state attorney general could enforce voting rights under the Colorado measure, so the state does not need to rely on federal courts to enforce voting protections. The provisions of the bill would apply to all state and municipal elections. Voters whose rights are violated under the act can take action along with civil rights groups. The measure ensures incarcerated voters have the right to vote while in custody and eases access for voters who live on tribal lands in Colorado. Eligible voters in assisted living facilities will also be provided information to make it easier for them to vote. The bill also expands requirements for multilingual ballots to include municipalities in a county already required to provide multilingual ballots under requirements of a 2021 law. Polis also signed House Bill 25-1225, which adds protections against intimidation, threats or coercion to people voting or helping others to vote.
Connecticut: A bill making its way through the General Assembly would streamline the process of voting for those behind bars who haven’t lost their right to vote. House Bill 7229 has advanced out of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. It would allow for the distribution of absentee ballot applications in detention facility common areas. Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas supports the bill, calling it a first step needed to break down barriers to voting for the incarcerated. “Pre-trial detainees make up almost 40% of our entire prison population here in Connecticut,” Thomas said. “As of February, it was 4,200 individuals.”
Florida: An election bill requiring new voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship failed to advance in the just-concluded regular legislative session. The bill would have mandated that all voter registration applications, including any with a change in name, address, or party affiliation, could only be accepted after the Florida Department of State verified that the applicant was a U.S. citizen in one of three ways: The applicant’s voter record indicated that his or her legal status as a U.S. citizen had been verified. The applicant’s legal status as a citizen was matched against records of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles or U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Or the voter showing one of seven identification sources, such as a driver license, a U.S. passport. or a birth certificate. The bill resembled the federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month. According to Florida Phoenix, the bill’s failure drew sighs of relief from both voting-rights and voting-integrity groups, although for different reasons.
Georgia Rulemaking: The State Election Board voted this week to create a committee to weigh proposed election rules before the board takes them under consideration. Board Chairman John Fervier explained during a public meeting that the purpose of the committee will be to allow “all parties to have a voice in upcoming rules.” He said each of the election board’s five members will select two people to sit on the board and that he’d like to see a mix of election officials, citizens, attorneys and even one or two state lawmakers. The election board will then be able to send a proposed rule to the committee to “have them vet it and smooth it out” before it comes to the board for a vote, Fervier said. The board is tasked with creating rules consistent with state law that ensure uniformity in election practices and promote the “fair, legal, and orderly conduct” of elections.
Kansas: A bill passed into law that changes the legal requirements for a person to be charged with impersonating an election official last month. The measure adds a specific intent requirement for prosecuting individuals accused of falsely posing as an election official. Previous law allowed for prosecution for impersonation based on how their actions were perceived, even without proof that they intended to deceive. The crime is still classified as a level 7 nonperson felony. Gov. Laura Kelly allowed the bill to be passed into law without her signature. Kelly said in a statement that she had concerns with the section dealing with impersonation of election officials. “While this bill cleans up some of the ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the crime of impersonating an election official, it is still unclear about what actions are prohibited,” Kelly said. “It uses the term ‘engaging in conduct’ but only provides one specific example, making it still difficult to discern what is allowed and what could lead to criminal charges.” False representation of an election official now requires a person to knowingly act with intent to deceive, including by using phone, email, websites, or official seals or insignia to impersonate the secretary of state, county election officers, or their employees.
Louisiana: Secretary of State Nancy Landry is backing a change that would further restrict political contributions by noncitizens and foreign entities. As part of this year’s legislative session, two companion measures have been introduced to accomplish that goal: One is a proposed constitutional amendment in Senate Bill 109, and the other is a corresponding change to state statute in House Bill 590. “No funds, goods, or services donated by a foreign government, foreign entity, or noncitizen shall be used to advocate for or against any ballot proposition or question, candidate, issue, or political party, either directly or indirectly,” reads the proposed constitutional amendment, which has already passed the Senate and is awaiting consideration by the House. Louisiana law already prohibits foreign entities and noncitizens from contributing to the election of a candidate to political office. However, legal permanent residents are currently allowed to make contributions under Louisiana law, but the proposed legislation would bar them from doing so. Federal law also prohibits foreign entities and noncitizens from contributing to federal, state and local elections, with an exception for legal permanent residents, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Maine Ballot Measure: A proposed ballot measure to require voter ID is most likely headed to voters. As stipulated by the state constitution, the initiative first had to go to the Maine Legislature for consideration, and lawmakers could either enact the bill as written or send it to a statewide vote in November 2025. The Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee voted unanimously against the legislation last week, with one member absent, which essentially sets it on the latter path to the ballot. The committee also rejected a few other bills with similar aims that could have set up competing ballot measures. The Department of the Secretary of State announced the final wording of the referendum question on May 5, which will capture the other aspects of the initiative in addition to the voter identification requirement following requests from the public during a comment period. “The proposed measure has 28 sections, and Maine law requires that the question be presented in a clear, concise, and direct manner,” Bellows said in a statement to Maine Morning Star on Friday. “318 Mainers spoke up to share their thoughts and suggestions on the initial draft of the phrasing of the question. Given that feedback, the final question describes six changes to the voting process proposed by the underlying legislation.” It will read: “Do you want to change Maine election laws to eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limit the number of drop boxes, require voters to show certain photo ID before voting, and make other changes to our elections?” Under law, voters have the right to appeal the final decision on the wording within ten days and Alex Titcomb, campaign manager for the ballot question committee filed a legal petition in Cumberland County Superior Court on Monday, arguing the final ballot language fails to meet the standards of clarity, accuracy and impartiality.
Boston, Massachusetts: The Boston City Council voted to pass a ranked choice voting proposal, which still requires the signature of Mayor Michelle Wu and the approval of the Massachusetts Legislature before Boston voters would decide in a ballot measure. The election system allows voters to list candidates in order of preference with an elimination-style runoff commencing if no candidate receives 50% or more of the vote. “Who wouldn’t want candidates who aren’t ignoring and only just speaking to their base, but are forced to build a broader coalition?” said Boston City Council President Ruthzee Louijeune. “That’s what ranked-choice voting is, and it makes sure that the person who is elected has the majority support of the voters.” Opponents call the system confusing and point to Boston’s past election issues as a reason to keep the current process. Councilors passed the plan during May 14’s meeting and sent it to Beacon Hill in an 8-4 vote.
Montana: Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) has signed Senate Bill 490, which changes the Election Day cutoff for same-day voter registration from 8 p.m. to noon. It also eliminates early registration the Monday before Election Day, shifting the deadline to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Montana’s Supreme Court ruled last year banning same-day voter registration is unconstitutional. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the decision. Zuri Moreno, state legislative director for the advocacy group Forward Montana, said the change especially affects Montanans who drive long distances to vote. “We’ve already heard from the courts that you’re not supposed to mess around with same-day voter registration,” Moreno pointed out. “It just takes away that opportunity for working folks and young folks and rural people across the state.”
Nevada: It’s Assembly Majority Leader Sandra Jauregui’s second attempt to make election sites gun-free zones. Assembly Bill 105 has already passed out of the Assembly Judiciary. It is now being considered by the Assembly Ways and Means. That’s because the Department of Corrections estimated, if passed, the bill would cost them approximately $66,000 a year. Jauregui told the committee that it’s based on two inmates convicted of the crime every year. AB 105 forbids someone from carrying a gun within 100 feet of an election site, with the intent of disrupting the process. The person would be facing a class D felony, if convicted. The defendant would then most likely serve time in a county jail, not state prison. “Typically, Category Ds ends up getting reduced by plea bargain to Category Es,” Assemblyman Steve Yeager, a member of the Ways and Means Committee observed. “Which I think you indicated would be mandatory probation. If in fact someone was given the benefit of a plea bargain where it ended up a Category E felony that would not be someone who would go straight to prison. They would have a chance at probation. And, then only go to prison if their probation was revoked. If you could confirm that please?” Yeager asked the Department of Corrections representative, Don Southworth.
Ohio: The Senate voted 27-5 to advance Senate Bill 63, in most instances barring electing or eliminating candidates through rounds of vote tabulation. It was reintroduced from the last General Assembly by Sens. Theresa Gavarone (R-Bowling Green) and Bill DeMora (D-Columbus). Of the nine Democrats in the chamber, five voted against SB 63. Under it, counties or cities could administer elections with ranked choice voting under home rule, but the state would levy financial penalties on jurisdictions for doing so by prohibiting them from getting Local Government Fund money. While proponents have said ranked choice voting gives voters more say, opponents generally argue it is confusing and cumbersome both for those administering the elections and those voting in them.
Pennsylvania: A sweeping bill to overhaul the commonwealth’s election laws has passed the Pennsylvania House. Its changes would include creating in-person early voting, giving counties more time to process mail ballots, and requiring counties to use mail ballot drop boxes. But it doesn’t include one provision that will likely be important to its prospects: a voter ID requirement, something that Republicans, who control the state Senate, have always seen as crucial to any election law deal. The broad election bill, without voter ID, passed the narrowly divided chamber 102 to 101, with no votes from Republicans. One of the most significant is the introduction of in-person early voting. At least one early voting location would be required per county, with an additional location for every 100,000 voters. These locations would be open starting 11 days before the election and until the Sunday before Election Day. It would allow counties to start preprocessing mail ballots up to seven days before Election Day. Currently, counties cannot begin to process them until the morning of Election Day. The measure also would remove the heavily litigated requirement that voters hand-write the date on the mail ballot return envelope, and would prohibit counties from rejecting mail ballots for being returned without an inner secrecy envelope. If voters forget to sign the return envelope, counties would be required to notify them within 24 hours and provide them with a form, which could be filled out and returned up to six days after the election, to “cure” the error. The bill would also require a minimum of two mail-ballot drop boxes in every county. It is currently up to individual counties to decide whether they will use drop boxes, and many don’t. Counties would also be required to start using electronic poll books, which speed up voter check-in and post-voting checks, in all precincts by 2027.
Texas: The Legislature has approved Senate Bill 985 a bill intended to roll back a 2023 law that required certain counties to drastically increase the number of polling locations — even in areas where buildings were scarce and funding wasn’t available to fully equip them. The bill would modify a 2023 law that made it harder for counties using the countywide voting program — where voters can cast a ballot anywhere in their county on Election Day — to combine small voting precincts with few voters into larger ones. The bill would effectively remove a late amendment to that law that ended up raising the minimum number of polling places that counties had to offer. Counties have struggled to comply with the new requirements. For example, in Harris County, the state’s largest, the county clerk told party leaders that for the 2024 primary, she had to offer more than 100 more polling locations than in 2020 and 2022. Because of that, Republicans and Democrats had to run their primaries jointly and share voting equipment, because there wouldn’t have been enough for all the locations. The bill is now headed to the governor’s desk and set to become law.
Wyoming: Of the 22 election-reform bills for which Wyoming’s secretary of state expressed strong support when meeting with state legislators this week in Lander, a legislative committee chose to take up 10 for study. Lawmakers listed 11 but said they’d combine two of those, for a possible load of 10 bills. That doesn’t guarantee that the legislative Corporations Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee will carry all of them into the 2026 legislative session that starts Feb 9. The bills the committee will study in the coming months contemplate: The use of pen and paper ballots as the default in Wyoming elections; Prohibiting ballot drop boxes; Restricting who can deliver a person’s ballot to the clerk on that person’s behalf; Requiring random hand count audits of election results; Requiring hand counts for recounts; A list of provisions colloquially termed the “poll watcher’s bill of rights.”; Requiring independent candidates to swear that they are not registered as a partisan voter; Clarifying procedures for testing voting machines; Repealing school identification cards as acceptable voter identification; Requiring true photo ID to vote; and Election transparency.
Legal Updates
Alabama: A panel of three federal judges says the Legislature intentionally drew its congressional district map to dilute Black voting strength, which is unconstitutional and violates the Voting Rights Act. The judges also said the state can’t use the map in future elections. The 571-page ruling issued May 8 comes in a lawsuit, Allen v. Milligan, that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court agreed then that Alabama’s 2021 congressional map discriminated against Black voters, in a state where African-Americans make up about a quarter of the population. But the litigation continued, and federal judges held a trial in February. In finding for the Black voters who sued, they wrote, “try as we might, we cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians’ voting strength and evade the unambiguous requirements of court orders standing in the way.” The ruling pointed out Alabama’s history of defying federal court orders, and the judges said they were “deeply disturbed” by the way the state responded in this case. “The Legislature knew what federal law required and purposefully refused to provide it, in a strategic attempt to checkmate the injunction that ordered it.”
Arkansas: The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, Elias Law Group LLP and Shults Law Firm LLP filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging new direct democracy-related laws. The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on behalf of For AR Kids and Protect AR Rights. The original lawsuit was filed last month by the League of Women Voters of Arkansas who alleges eight recently approved laws governing direct democracy violate the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The case is assigned to Judge Timothy Brooks. Arkansans can propose new laws or constitutional amendments and put them to a statewide vote through the direct democracy process. The majority of the laws challenged in the lawsuit regulate the petition-gathering portion of the initiative and referendum process. New requirements include directing signature gatherers, known as canvassers, to sign a “true affidavit,” to request a photo ID from potential signers and inform them that petition fraud is a criminal offense, among other things. According to the court filings, the intervenors want to challenge additional laws, including a 2023 law that requires petitioners to gather signatures from 50 counties instead of 15 counties and Act 602 of 2025, which prohibits ballot titles from being written above an eighth grade reading level. Attorney General Tim Griffin cited the new law for the first time when he rejected a proposed ballot measure from the League of Women Voters last week. In this week’s filings, the plaintiffs argue that intervening in the League of Women Voters lawsuit is more efficient than filing a separate lawsuit, which they said would likely be consolidated with the League’s complaint under federal court rules.
California: On May 7, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a new motion asking the court to step in and block Huntington Beach’s voter ID law from moving forward. It comes after OC Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas ruled Huntington Beach could move forward with requiring an ID local elections so long as the elections did not interfere with state and federal elections. Bonta has repeatedly brought up concerns with the law since it was approved by city voters during the primary election last year, saying the voting system is already secure and the city’s efforts are undermining voter integrity. “Secretary of State Weber and I continue to believe that the Orange County Superior Court got it wrong,” Bonta wrote in a Wednesday statement. “Our elections are already secure, and applicants who register to vote in California are already required to verify their identity during the registration process and at the polls.” Huntington Beach leaders declined to comment for this article, but in the past have vowed they would continue appealing the case if necessary.
Georgia: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit spent an hour this week hearing arguments from attorneys about whether a conservative Texas organization’s mass voting challenges during a 2021 runoff violated the federal Voting Rights Act by intimidating minority voters. Plaintiff Fair Fight Action, founded by Stacey Abrams, argued that U.S. District Court Judge Steve C. Jones erred in ruling last year that True the Vote’s challenge to 365,000 Georgia voters’ eligibility did not constitute intimidation prior to historic Democratic Senate victories in Georgia when Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff prevailed in the Jan. 5, 2021 runoff. At least one of the judges expressed skepticism about the soundness of the lower court ruling. According to Fair Fight Action and others who filed suit, True the Vote’s actions likely violated the Voting Rights Act by using inaccurate voter registration information and voter intimidation tactics such as posting citizen watchdogs to monitor people casting ballots. The federal panel peppered the attorneys with questions while acknowledging the case’s national significance on voting rights protections. Attorney Jake Evans, representing True the Vote, asserted that the intent behind the mass challenges was to protect election integrity. Evans said that the mass challenging of voters’ eligibility prior to the 2021 runoff did not amount to voter intimidation. Fair Fight’s attorney, Uzoma Nkwonta of the Elias Law Group, argued that although Jones acknowledged recklessness in his ruling, the district court erred in not following the generally accepted standard for taking a substantial step towards the course of action that led to the injury.
Iowa: The Iowa Supreme Court has reversed a district court decision that cleared the way for election officials to distribute voter materials in languages other than English. Without directly addressing the merits of Iowa’s law restricting the dissemination of government records in languages other than English, the court found that the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa lacked standing to bring its lawsuit challenging the state’s application of the English Language Reaffirmation Act. The ruling is tied to a 2007 case in which LULAC was not a party. In that case, a group that included then-U.S. Rep. Steve King, four county auditors, three state legislators and U.S. English Only Inc. filed a lawsuit against Iowa’s secretary of state and the Iowa Voter Registration Commission challenging the provision of voter registration forms in languages other than English. The district court dismissed the claims of everyone but the county auditors, ruling only they had the standing to challenge the practice, and in 2008 ruled in favor of the auditors, finding that the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act unambiguously required all official government documents to be in English. While noting that language barriers could “serve as an impediment to voting” and that exceptions outlined in the law “might justify the use of non-English voter registration forms,” the judge noted that the secretary of state had never raised that argument. The district court enjoined the secretary of state and the Iowa Voter Registration Commission “from using languages other than English in the official voter registration forms of this state.” In 2021, LULAC sued Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, the Iowa Voter Registration Commission, and several county auditors, arguing the law, correctly interpreted, allowed for the dissemination of voting materials in languages other than English. The district court ultimately granted LULAC’s requests to dissolve the 2008 injunction. Pate’s office appealed, and in addressing the matter, the Iowa Supreme Court said the primary question it faced was whether LULAC had standing to seek dissolution of the 13-year-old permanent injunction issued in the initial case and to seek a court interpretation of a law that did not cause any injury to LULAC itself. The justices concluded the district court’s 2008 decision “had no effect on LULAC’s rights, status, or legal relations … LULAC asks us to direct Secretary Pate to administer the law as LULAC wishes and to allow county officials to have the discretion to administer the law as LULAC wishes. In effect, LULAC is asking the judiciary to exercise the executive functions of the government at LULAC’s behest. This the court cannot do.”
Louisiana: A coalition of civil and voting rights groups filed a lawsuit this week challenging a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. Senate Bill 436, which took effect Jan. 1, requires voter registration applicants to include proof of U.S. citizenship with their application. The groups bringing the lawsuit call the law “a hackneyed solution in search of a phantom problem” that will “chill voter registration activity and disenfranchise Louisiana’s most vulnerable voters.” In their complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, the plaintiffs claim S.B. 436 creates unfair barriers to register to vote. They argue this burden will disproportionately affect certain groups who are less likely to have access to common forms of citizenship documentation like passports and birth certificates, including Black people, low-income people, college students and the elderly, as well as people who have changed their name like married women. The groups also say the law is unnecessary, as federal law already requires individuals registering to vote to swear under penalty of perjury that they are a U.S. citizen. There is no evidence to suggest noncitizens have voted in Louisiana, the groups argue. They cite Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry’s own statement that just 48 noncitizens have been removed from Louisiana’s voter rolls since 2022 — a tiny fraction of the state’s nearly 3 million registered voters. The rights groups argue S.B. 436 is unconstitutionally vague, as it doesn’t define what qualifies as proof of citizenship for voter registration. They also argue the law violates the First Amendment and that it goes against the National Voter Registration Act, which is a federal law that among other things, requires states to accept a standardized mail-in voter registration form created by the federal Election Assistance Commission.
Maine: Supporters of a voter ID ballot initiative are asking a court to order Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows to re-write how the question is worded. A lawsuit filed this week in Cumberland County Superior Court accuses Bellows of writing a “deliberately confusing” ballot question because she opposes requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls. The lawsuit also accuses Bellows of “obscuring the initiative’s primary aims by stressing everything other than the voter identification requirements.” Bellows, meanwhile, said she followed the law when crafting the wording and pointed out that the proponents of the voter ID initiative didn’t submit comments on a draft version of the question. The title of the ballot question is “An Act to Require an Individual to Present Photographic Identification for the Purpose of Voting.” Yet Alex Titcomb, campaign manager of Voter ID for ME and the lead petitioner in the lawsuit, pointed out that photo ID isn’t mentioned until the very end of a long ballot question. Instead, the question focuses largely on the other proposed changes to Maine’s voting process. “It shows bias that they are trying to bring attention to minor things . . . and then decrease and hide the main change in election law here in Maine — the requirement of a photo voter ID,” Titcomb said. “Having it last, it could influence the outcome because voters, you know, may not get that far into the question before they circle a yes or no.”
New York: Republicans have appealed to the state’s highest court the case involving a new state law that will move many local elections to line up with state and federal elections in even-numbered years after an appeals court ruled against them earlier this week and upheld the law’s constitutionality. Led by Onondaga County Executive Ryan McMahon, challengers to the law petitioned to the state Court of Appeals. At issue is a law passed by the New York state Legislature and signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul in December 2023 that moves several local elections outside of New York City to even-numbered years starting this year, with the exception of some city or village elections, and races for county clerk, sheriff, district attorneys, local judges and others protected in the state Constitution. Republican-led challenges to the law have argued that it conflicts with individual county charters. Twenty New York counties are chartered, meaning they have locally drafted and approved laws outlining the structure and authority of county government, and there have been three separate amendments in the state Constitution allowing for and protecting counties’ abilities to govern through charters. An appeals court dismissed that argument, ruling that the state Constitution gives local governments the right to a “a legislative body elective by the people” and to adopt alternative forms of county government, “but neither of those provisions gives a county exclusive local control over the manner in which local elections will be held or the specific details of each office.”
North Carolina: According to Courthouse News Service, a Fourth Circuit panel appears ready to strike down a Reconstruction-era voting law its opponents say discriminates against Black voters in North Carolina. The voting rights organizations North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC argued Friday at oral arguments in Richmond, Virginia, that the state’s felony voter law was enacted in 1877 to disenfranchise freed Black citizens after the Civil War. The discrimination continues as Black residents remain disproportionately impacted by the law, the groups say. The statute makes it a crime for a convicted felon to cast a ballot before his or her voting rights have been restored. Critically, criminal intent is irrelevant — a person can be convicted even if he or she voted under the mistaken belief they were eligible to do so. The law was struck down last year by U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs, a Barack Obama appointee, who wrote in an opinion that the law was “enacted with discriminatory intent” and “continues to disproportionately impact Black voters.” North Carolina’s district attorneys and the State Board of Elections appealed the decision. The General Assembly amended the law in the fall to add intent as an element of the crime, which state officials argue makes the issue moot in future elections. But the old law was not repealed, raising questions of whether it remained in effect.
North Dakota: The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and Spirit Lake Nation don’t have standing to bring a voting discrimination claim against the state of North Dakota. In a 2-1 decision overturned a 2023 decision by a North Dakota federal judge that found the state’s 2021 redistricting plan unlawfully diluted the tribes’ voting power. The ruling will have implications for North Dakota’s legislative districts. Attorneys representing the tribes say the appellate court’s ruling eliminates voters’ ability to challenge racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act in North Dakota and the six other 8th Circuit states. The appellate court already limited voters’ ability to challenge potential violations of the Voting Rights Act in 2023, when it decided private citizens cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the law, which protects voters against racial discrimination. Only the U.S. attorney general can file such claims, the court ruled. For a time, the question remained open as to whether voters have the right to bring those same allegations under a separate federal civil rights law: Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. This week, a panel of 8th Circuit judges decided the answer is no. The language of the Voting Rights Act does not authorize citizens to file race discrimination claims through Section 1983, Judge Raymond Gruender wrote in the majority opinion. Chief Judge Steven Colloton dissented. He noted that Section 1983 says people may sue for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” “The reference to ‘and laws’ encompasses any law of the United States,” Colloton wrote. His dissent also criticizes the court’s 2023 decision, writing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “expressly forbids ‘a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.’” Since 1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based under Section 2, he wrote.
Texas: Cynthia Stairs, a Dallas County alternate election judge has accused Commissioner John Wiley Price of assault. Stairs filed a police report with Dallas Police days after the alleged incident on May 3 at Friendship West Church polling location, according to a statement by the Dallas County Republican Party chairman. Dallas Police spokesperson Corbin Rubinson said the victim reported that the suspect knocked her phone out of her hands and demanded she leave the location. DPD transferred the report to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office after it was filed May 5 because the sheriff’s office has jurisdiction over polling places. Sheriff spokesperson Doug Sisk said investigators will review the report and decide whether an offense occurred. “From what I understand, it’s an accusation of a physical contact thing,” he said. “So all it’s going to be is, basically, probably boil down to a Class C traffic ticket — Class C assault.” Assault by contact — a misdemeanor different than a felony assault — means a victim was not necessarily injured.
West Virginia: Richard Allen Chapman of Huntington who pled no contest to election fraud has been fined for illegally casting two ballots for U.S. President in the 2020 General Election. Chapman admitted in Wayne County Circuit Court that there was enough evidence to find him guilty of voting twice. “He cast two ballots in the 2020 general election. So one was in person here in Wayne County, and the other, he cast an absentee by mail ballot in Florida,” said Secretary of State Kris Warner. At the time, that offense was a misdemeanor. But in 2022 the West Virginia Legislature made it a felony to vote illegally, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Chapman was ordered to pay a $250 fine.
Wyoming: The Equality State Policy Center has sued the secretary of state and county elections officials, arguing that a new state law imposing ID requirements when registering to vote is unconstitutional. In its federal suit the group claims that House Bill 156, which becomes effective July 1, will impose burdensome and unnecessary hurdles, especially for women, Hispanic, youth and low-income people. “Wyoming has a proud tradition of fair and secure elections, and there is no evidence of non-citizen voting or widespread fraud to justify the harsh new restrictions in HB 156,” said the center’s Executive Director Jenny DeSarro. “This unnecessary law creates significant barriers that will prevent eligible citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote, particularly young voters, women who changed their names when they married, low-income voters, and Hispanic voters. These hardworking Wyomingites must be allowed to exercise their rights and freedoms at the ballot box.” The nonprofit is seeking declaratory judgment that the new law’s ID requirements are unconstitutional, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from its enforcement. The law will require people registering to vote in Wyoming to produce one of the following: a valid state driver’s license or identification card; a valid tribal ID card from a federally recognized tribe; a valid state ID that’s Real ID compliant; a valid U.S. passport, certificate of citizenship or naturalization; a military draft record or selective service registration card; a consular report of birth abroad; or an original or certified copy of a birth certificate. The center says that the law allows county clerks to reject driver’s licenses, state or tribal ID if there’s an indication the holder isn’t a citizen. However, the law offers no instruction on how to make that determination, and no proof of non-citizenship is needed to reject a potential voter.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment