Electionline Weekly July-17-2025

Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking

District of Columbia: In November 2024 voters approved Initiative 83, which would bring ranked-choice voting and semi-open primaries to D.C. by as early as 2026. Since then, though, the pending question was whether the council would actually allocate the money to implement the initiative. Chairman Phil Mendelson voted against funding the initiative, siding with segments in the city’s Democratic Party that have opposed any changes to how residents vote. But on July 14 a majority of councilmembers sided with a push from At-Large Councilmember Christina Henderson and Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau to fund the part of the initiative dealing with ranked-choice voting. “It is the will of the voters,” Nadeau said. “We can advance something that will make a difference very soon in how we elect leaders in the city.” For his part, At-Large Councilmember Robert White said he wanted to support the will of the voters, and that ranked-choice voting can offer voters more and better choices. But he also asked that his colleagues keep in mind how ranked-choice voting plays out among different racial and economic groups, urging that a deep data dive happen after the first few election cycles. “I don’t think we should feel comfortable ignoring an equity issue,” he said. Ranked-choice voting is moving forward. It will now be left to the D.C. Board of Elections to implement it ahead of next June’s primary election, including rolling out a public education campaign for voters. “I believe we can move forward and work out the kinks,” Henderson said.

Georgia: A special House committee focused on elections held its first meeting at the state Capitol this week, as state lawmakers gathered to solicit testimony from elections officials and activists on how to improve Georgia elections. The committee, tagged as a “blue ribbon” panel, aims to evaluate Georgia’s current election policies and provide recommendations for new election laws ahead of Georgia’s 2026 legislative session. It is chaired by state Rep. Tim Fleming, a Covington Republican, who recently became the first candidate to launch a bid for secretary of state. In his opening remarks, Fleming emphasized the need to restore public confidence in Georgia’s elections. “The legitimacy of our government — local, state and federal — rests squarely on the public’s trust in the electoral process,” he said. “That trust must be earned and maintained through transparency, consistency and integrity at every level, from the precincts in our neighborhoods to the local election superintendent’s offices and counties, to the Secretary of State’s office here in Atlanta.” During its six scheduled meetings, the committee plans to evaluate the role that the secretary of state’s office and the State Election Board play in overseeing elections across the state, Fleming added.

Bedford, Massachusetts Ballot Measure: Bedford voters will consider a different voting method for local elections at a Special Town Meeting on Monday, Nov. 3. If approved by voters, the town will submit a home rule petition to implement ranked choice voting in local elections. A home rule petition is a formal request to the state legislature for authority to enact a law or regulation that is not already granted by general state law. Town Manager Matt Hanson said the process of drafting, authorizing, filing, and waiting for approval from the state legislature can take anywhere from six months to a year. Ranked choice voting was added to the STM warrant at the request of residents Madeleine Kando and Ethan Strominger, who volunteer with Bedford Ranked Choice Voting. The pair attended the June 30 Select Board meeting to inquire about adding such an article to the STM meeting warrant. The Select Board ultimately voted 3-1-1 to include an article on the Nov. 3 STM warrant asking residents if they would like to switch to a ranked choice voting method for local elections.

Legal Updates

Alabama: Federal judges will weigh a request to bring Alabama back under the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act after ruling the state intentionally diluted the voting strength of Black residents when drawing congressional lines. Black voters and civil rights organizations, who successfully challenged Alabama’s congressional map, are asking a three-judge panel to require any new congressional maps drawn by state lawmakers to go through federal review before being implemented. The Alabama attorney general and the U.S. Department of Justice oppose the request. The three-judge panel in 2023 ordered the use of a new congressional map in Alabama. The judges selected the new map after saying they were “deeply troubled” that state lawmakers had ignored their directive to draw a second majority-Black district or something close to it. Plaintiffs said Alabama’s actions and the defiance of the court order mirror the state’s actions in the 1960s. “Alabama sought to ignore, evade, and strategically frustrate attempts to remedy racial discrimination,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing. The request would require new congressional maps drawn through the 2030 Census cycle to undergo federal review by the court before being used. Plaintiffs argue that Alabama’s actions should trigger the so-called “bail-in” section of the Voting Rights Act that enables courts to retain jurisdiction and exercise preclearance power. “Preclearance flips the burden on the State to prove its innocence. That power is extraordinary,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office wrote in a court filing opposing the request. The Justice Department is backing Alabama in asking the judges to reject the request. “Preclearance is permissible only when jurisdictions have engaged in pervasive, flagrant, widespread, and rampant discrimination,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in the filing signed by the acting chief of the voting section. Alabama’s actions did not rise to that level, they argued. Judges set a July 29 hearing on the request.

Arizona: The Republican National Committee and Arizona Republican Party are challenging the voting eligibility of some U.S. citizens who have always lived abroad, in what they’re calling a broader strategy ahead of next year’s midterms to clean up voter rolls and improve voter confidence. The GOP terms the voters they are targeting as “never residents” because they are U.S. citizens but haven’t lived in the United States. Most frequently, they are children of U.S. citizens who have been in the military, or lived overseas for other reasons. Three-quarters of states have laws on the books allowing such citizens to vote by absentee or mail ballot in the same state where their parents or other relatives last lived or are registered. Arizona is one of these states, and allows such expatriates to vote in federal, state, and local elections. According to Votebeat, the lawsuit, filed June 30, claims that, because the state’s overseas and military voters are more Democratic than the voter roll as a whole, the law gives Democrats an unfair advantage. It asks the court to declare the law illegal and stop Arizona from registering any more voters who have never lived in the U.S.

According to Votebeat, Cochise County wants an insurer to cover $300,000 in legal bills for a county supervisor charged with trying to delay certification of the 2022 midterm election results. A lawyer representing the county sent a letter July 11 to the Arizona Counties Insurance Pool, explaining that the county had received a demand from Supervisor Thomas Crosby, a Republican, that the county cover his legal costs in the case, which Crosby’s lawyer described as “a wrongful criminal prosecution.” By asking the government insurance pool to cover the costs on behalf of the county, the two other county supervisors, Republicans Frank Antenori and Kathleen Gomez, are signaling support for Crosby’s fight against the charges for his alleged actions, which occurred years before they took office. An outside lawyer representing the county, Michael J. Rusing of the firm Rusing Lopez & Lizardi, wrote that it would be “appropriate” for the pool to cover the claim for Crosby’s legal bills.

According to Courthouse News Service, a Ninth Circuit panel appears split on two provisions of Arizona’s elections procedures manual enjoined by a federal judge after conservative groups challenged them over potential voter suppression. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes last year updated the 2023 manual, published at the end of every odd year, to address two growing concerns. The first section challenged in federal court, known as the “canvass provision,” requires the secretary of state to throw out the votes of a county that refuses to canvass its votes by its deadline if the secretary has exhausted all other remedies. The second addition, called the speech provision, expands the list of what constitutes voter intimidation in Arizona, including “aggressive behavior, such as raising one’s voice or taunting a voter or poll worker,” and “using threatening, insulting, or offensive language to a voter or poll worker.” A federal judge enjoined both provisions before the 2024 general election. Defendants Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes appealed the order, arguing in Pasadena this week that the plaintiffs showed no likelihood of harm. “The theory of injury is extraordinarily speculative,” Joshua Bendor told the panel, representing the attorney general’s office. He argued that the situation in Cochise County, in which two Republican supervisors tried to delay the canvass to instead platform election conspiracy theories, proved that voters have nothing to worry about because the secretary was able to enforce the canvass before reaching the point of voter disenfranchisement.

Colorado: Sally Maxedon will serve 100 hours of community service for her role in a scheme to steal mail-in ballots in Mesa County ahead of last November’s election. Maxedon, 60, conspired with former postal worker Vicki Stuart to steal more than a dozen ballots from would-be voters before they could be delivered. Stuart was sentenced to 5 years in prison for her role in the case. Twenty-first Judicial District Attorney Dan Rubinstein said the discrepancies in the two plea agreements had to do with the difference in the role that each woman played, noting that the prosecution of Stuart was due in large part to cooperation from Maxedon. “Ms. Stuart was capable and, in fact, did follow through on doing all of this all alone and enlisted Ms. Maxedon’s help in doing part of it. But Ms. Maxedon could never have done any of this without Ms. Stuart,” Rubinstein said. “It was Ms. Stuart, as the mail carrier, who had access to the ballots, who specifically selected the names of the people, and that she seemed to be targeting people that she thought might be illegal or might possibly vote differently than she wanted the votes.”

A Denver-based conservative radio host settled defamation claims this week filed by a former Dominion Voting Systems employee dragged into the center of 2020 election fraud conspiracies. “Plaintiff Eric Coomer, Ph.D., defendant Salem Media of Colorado Inc. and defendant Randy Corporon have fully and finally settled the disputes among them concerning plaintiff’s claims against the defendants, with each party to pay his or its own attorney’s fees, costs and expenses,” the parties’ attorneys wrote in a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice filed June 8. On July 15, Second Judicial District Judge Heidi Kutcher approved the request with a single page stating “action taken.”

Florida: Federal District Judge Judge Mark Walker has temporarily blocked part of a Florida law that made new rules for how citizens can change the state constitution. The groups working to get proposed amendments on the ballot say that means their work can move forward—at least for now. Walker’s ruling pauses part of a law banning people who aren’t U.S. or Florida residents from gathering petitions. In his ruling, Walker determined that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their challenges against the parts of the law he put on hold. The rest of the new law went into effect on July 1st. The state has maintained that the law is needed after they say the 2024 election season saw instances of fraud by petition gatherers. Walker rejected that argument, but let several parts of the new law stand. Those include a 90-day moratorium on supervisors of election processing the petitions and a rule that requires people who collect more than 25 petitions to register with the state.

Georgia: The Democratic and Republican parties in DeKalb County have nominated individuals to serve on the DeKalb Elections Board. A judge has rejected one of the Republican nominees. DeKalb Superior Court Chief Judge Shondeana Morris accepted GOP nominee Gail Lee, but rejected Bill Henderson’s nomination. Travis Bowden was then nominated and accepted. DeKalb County Republican Party Chairman Kendra Foltz Biegalski said she was pleased that Lee and Bowden were appointed. “Their dedication to fair and transparent elections strengthens our commitment to voter integrity,” she said. “We believe Bill Henderson’s technical expertise makes him an excellent candidate for future BRE roles and we hope future nominations allow more than 36 hours to ensure a thorough selection process.” The judge approved the nominations June 30. The board members will serve on the board from 2025-27. In a letter to DeKalb Elections Executive Director Keisha Smith dated June 26, Morris said she received more than 200 pieces of correspondence regarding the Republican nominees. She also reviewed some of Henderson’s public statements on his views of the elections board and election matters. “Having considered all those things, I do not believe that appointing Mr. Henderson to the Board would further the goals of ensuring that elections are credible and trustworthy in the eyes of the public,” Morris said.

Illinois: The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners had previously argued that the state’s election code barred its employees from forming a union. But the law shouldn’t be read that way, administrative law Judge Anna Hamburg-Gal found in an order this week that paves the way for official recognition of the union. City elections workers, including clerks, polling place investigators and equipment specialists, first sought union representation with the Service Employees International Union Local 73 nearly a year ago, saying they were frustrated by “stagnant” wages that didn’t keep pace with the cost of living in Chicago. But the board of election pushed back on the proposed bargaining unit of 80 to 90 workers. Attorneys for the board argued that because election workers are prohibited from engaging in “political activity” by the state’s election code, they should therefore be barred from joining SEIU. In legal filings, hired counsel for the board of election noted that SEIU 73 is politically active, lobbies legislatively and makes endorsements and financial contributions to political candidates. But in her order, Hamburg-Gal found that the state’s election code “need not be read as prohibiting unionization by (board of election) employees.” “An employee’s participation in a union does not necessarily equate to engagement in political activity,” she wrote. “Although the petitioner here engages in political activity, most of the Employer’s arguments would lose their force if the employees had sought representation by a newly formed labor organization that had committed not to become engaged in the political process.” The board of election has two weeks to appeal the order.

Maine: Maine’s highest court has OK’d the language of a voter identification referendum question that highlights other substantial changes the reform would make to state voting laws. Alex Titcomb, campaign manager for the ballot question committee “Voter ID for ME,” and four other registered voters challenged the wording for a citizen initiative to change various election laws, including the implementation of a photo ID requirement for voting. They argued that the language did not meet the statutory requirements of being understandable and not misleading to a reasonable voter, but the courts disagreed. The Dinner Table PAC launched the campaign in April 2024 as an effort to require voters to show photo identification at the polls. However, the official five-page petition submitted to the state in January seeks to change additional aspects of Maine election law, such as absentee voting. Secretary of State Shenna Bellows called the petition “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” when it was first submitted to the state. When Bellows released the wording for the question that will appear on the November ballot, it encompassed the changes beyond photo ID requirements. 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?” The Superior Court affirmed the question’s wording, finding that it is understandable and not misleading. Titcomb appealed the decision, arguing that the language used confusing terms and singled out the effect on seniors and people with disabilities. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court then reviewed the case and upheld the Superior Court’s judgement. In its decision, issued July 11, the court noted that the language accurately reflected the proposed legislation and used terms that would be clear to an informed voter. While the court also acknowledged that the question was longer than usual, it said that is necessary to convey the various changes proposed.

Michigan: According to the Michigan Advance, attorney Stefanie Lambert Junttila made a successful plea to an Oakland County Circuit judge to adjourn her trial, which had been set to start Monday, arguing testimony in another case contradicted information that led to her indictment in 2023. Lambert Junttila stands accused of attempting to access and tamper with voting tabulators following the 2020 election, in which former President Joe Biden defeated now President Donald Trump. According to documents filed by Special Prosecutor DJ Hilson, Lambert Junttila was “frequently” present in Oakland County hotel rooms and residences where individuals performed “testing” and/or experiments on the machines. While Lambert Junttila was initially set to go to trial in October 2024, the case has been repeatedly pushed back, with Judge Jeffery S. Matis telling the court room July 11 this case is the oldest on his docket. Alongside her case in Oakland County, Lambert Junttila faces charges in Hillsdale County, where it’s alleged that she and former Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott permitted an unauthorized computer examiner to access voter data concerning the 2020 election, which included non-public information.

The Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee had standing to sue Flint officials for failing to appoint enough GOP inspectors during the 2022 election, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled on July 14. In an order issued for MIGOP v. Donahue, the high court reversed the previous decision of the Court of Appeals and kicked the case back to the Genesee County Circuit Court. Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh dissented but did not explain her reasoning for why she would deny leave to appeal. That left the court’s lone conservative, Justice Brian Zahra, to join the liberal majority of Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Elizabeth Welch, Justice Kyra Harris Bolden and Justice Kimberly Thomas in remanding the case. The case centers around Republican contention that Flint violated state election law because it did not appoint “as nearly as possible” the same amount of election inspectors from each major party in the 2022 primary and general election. The Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the two political parties lacked standing to bring their claims against Flint City Clerk Davina Donahue, former Flint City Attorney William Kim and Flint City Assessor Stacie Kaake.

Missouri: The Jackson County Election Board (JCEB) and Kansas City Election Board (KCEB) are suing Jackson County Executive Frank White Jr. and Mary Jo Spino, clerk of the Jackson County Legislature. The lawsuit accuses White and Spino of trying to hold a special election – for the recall of White – on a date that does not comply with state or federal election laws. “The sole purpose of this legal action is to ensure that any recall election complies with Missouri and federal election laws, which establish critical timelines and procedural requirements designed to protect voters’ rights,” the lawsuit reads. The election boards say in the lawsuit that they are “obligated to ensure that all elections under their supervision meet legal requirements, protect military voters’ rights, and provide proper notice to all eligible voters.” On Tuesday, July 8, Jackson County Counselor Bryan Covinsky said White had the authority to veto the recall ordinance – even though it’s about him. As of late Tuesday afternoon, White still hasn’t signed or vetoed the recall election ordinance; therefore, Spino hasn’t certified the election for the JCEB and the KCEB to continue their normal election procedures. The lawsuit was filed to stop White and Spino from holding a recall election on Aug. 26, 2025.

New Jersey: Superior Court Judge Kelly Conlon partially approved a recount request filed by an Assembly candidate in Bergen County who finished less than half a point behind his closest opponent — but the candidate’s request to inspect ballots was denied. Demarest Councilman David Jiang, a Democrat, finished third in a four-person race last month for two spots on the November ballot in the 39th Legislative District, which covers a northern swath of Bergen County. Jiang ran 137 votes behind former Woodcliff Lake Councilwoman Donna Abene. Conlon approved Jiang’s request to rerun machine vote totals but denied his push to hand review all ballots, meaning the review will be limited to in-person machine votes cast on or before election day. Mail ballots will be processed through tallying machines but won’t be subject to a hand review, said Michael Ash, who represented Jiang. “This recount … is vital in order to ensure that the voters of District 39 have properly had their votes counted, their votes exercised, and making sure that the right individual was elected to the seat,” Ash said during arguments this week. He told the New Jersey Monitor the decision marked “a good day for the checks on Democratic processes.”

North Dakota: The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Spirit Lake Nation and a group of tribal citizens asked the U.S. Supreme Court to keep North Dakota’s district map in place while it considers whether to review a voting discrimination lawsuit against the state. The plaintiffs filed suit against North Dakota over a 2021 redistricting map they say diluted the power of Indigenous voters in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in 2023 concluded the map is discriminatory and ordered the state to adopt different district lines, but the 8th Circuit reversed his decision in May. The appellate court’s ruling found that private citizens have no means of filing lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. The 8th Circuit indicated it would send the case back to Welte and direct him to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are getting ready to ask the Supreme Court to review the lawsuit. On July 15, they requested that the court allow Welte’s map to stay in place until a final decision in the case is reached. The plaintiffs said in court filings they could suffer lasting harm if the 2021 map is allowed to go back into effect. On July 16, Justice Brett Kavanaugh granted the tribes temporary reprieve by issuing an administrative stay. The Donald Trump appointee prevented changes to North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting maps while the justices review the emergency appeal from the plaintiffs. Kavanaugh’s administrative pause will prevent the Eighth Circuit’s ruling from going into effect while the tribes’ emergency appeal is considered by the justices. The court requested a response from North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe by July 22.

Oregon: A new lawsuit seeks to break the stranglehold Oregon’s two major political primaries have on legislative and statewide elections. The nonprofit Our Primary Voice and one of its members, Mark Porter, a resident of Clackamas County, filed the lawsuit on June 25 in Marion County Circuit Court against the state and the state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Tobias Read. In the lawsuit, Porter describes a fundamental conflict between the Oregon Constitution and state election laws. The constitution, Porter notes, lays out the requirements for voting: “A citizen is ‘entitled to vote in all elections’ if the citizen meets the three qualifications listed in [Article II, section 2(1) of the constitution]: age, residency, and registration,” the lawsuit says. “The Oregon Constitution does not list any other qualifications for a citizen to be entitled to vote in all elections.” In previous years, various groups have tried various ballot initiatives and measures to open Oregon’s primaries. But neither major party in Oregon has gotten behind the effort. Open-primary ballot measures failed in 2008 and 2014. A 2024 campaign failed to gather the number of signatures required to make the ballot.

Pennsylvania: The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Fulton County’s lawsuit against Dominion Voting Systems. The lawsuit was filed by the Fulton County Board of Elections, current county commissioner Randy Bunch and former county commissioner Stuart Ulsh. In a ruling filed June 23, Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares and circuit judges Tamika Montgomery-Reeves and Theodore McKee upheld a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lower court’s ruling determined that the Board of Elections, Bunch, and Ulsh are not parties to an agreement between the county and Dominion Voting Systems and therefore lack standing to sue. The district court ruled that the county itself, which is a party to the agreement, is not a plaintiff in the suit. The court also ruled that, even if they did have standing, “they had failed to allege that the decertification of the voting system was attributable to Dominion rather than to the County itself.”

Ballot PA Action, a coalition aimed at overturning the state’s closed primary laws, announced this week they have filed a petition asking the state Supreme Court to rule primary election laws in Pennsylvania are unconstitutional. “We’re speaking to the seven justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and we aim to convince them that excluding independent voters from primary elections is not just unfair in some vague, moral sense, but that it violates the Pennsylvania Constitution,” said David Thornburgh, chairman of Ballot PA Action. Pennsylvania, home to approximately 1.4 million people registered as independent, unaffiliated, or members of a third party, is one of at least nine states that doesn’t allow independent voters to participate in primary elections. That means to cast a ballot in a party’s primary, a voter must be registered with that particular political party. “If we are successful, then the current statute will be declared unconstitutional, and therefore it will be non-functional, and that will mean immediately that independents can vote in party primaries,” said Shanin Specter, co-founding Partner, Kline & Specter PC, the legal firm representing the group. “The legislature would be free to fashion other potential schemes with respect to voting, but such a scheme would have to protect the right of Independents to vote in primary elections, and…that’s the core of what we’re seeking,” Specter added.

Washington: Tim Hazelo of Island County is facing up to a year in jail after refusing to wear a mask in an election center. Hazelo was charged with two crimes over a dispute about the county auditor’s mask mandate in the election office while he tried to observe the ballot counting process last fall. The case went to trial last week. It took the jury about 2.5 hours to find Hazelo guilty of unauthorized access to a voting center, which is a felony, and criminal trespass, a gross misdemeanor. Hazelo had also been previously charged with disorderly conduct, but that charge was dismissed. This all stems from an incident on November 4, 2024, at the Island County Elections office, where Hazelo tried to observe the ballot counting process without a mask. Island County Auditor Sheilah Crider testified that she had imposed a mask mandate because nearly half her staff had previously gotten sick with COVID-19, and she couldn’t afford to have that happen again during an election. Crider also testified that they were concerned after dangerous substances like fentanyl had been found in ballots in other counties. In closing arguments, Island County Prosecuting Attorney Greg Banks argued the case isn’t about masks, but about following the rules that are set by the auditor for election observers.

Wisconsin: A three-judge panel on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a Wisconsin town that disavowed electronic voting machines, siding with the U.S. Justice Department’s argument that this would unfairly harm voters with disabilities. In 2023, Thornapple voted to stop using electronic voting machines, in favor of allowing only hand-marked ballots. They did without the machines for two elections in a row, in April and August 2024.The DOJ sued the town in September 2024, arguing that its decision violated the Help America Vote Act, which requires every “voting system” to be accessible for voters with disabilities. Accessible voting machines allow voters with disabilities to hear the options on the ballot and use a touch-sensitive device to mark it. The town argued that it wasn’t subject to the federal law’s accessibility provision because its use of paper ballots didn’t constitute a “voting system.” A district court judge rejected the town’s argument last September, and ordered it to use electronic voting machines for the November presidential election. The town appealed that order, but did use a machine in November. This week, the 7th Circuit panel affirmed the lower-court order, finding that “individuals with disabilities would lack the opportunity to vote privately and independently if they only had access to a paper ballot.” The court based that finding partially on Thornapple Chief Inspector Suzanne Pinnow’s testimony about a blind woman who relied on her daughter’s assistance to fill out a ballot, and a man who had a stroke and who needed Pinnow to guide his hand so he could mark a ballot.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker