Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska: Borough voters will decide this fall whether the borough should hand-count paper ballots in borough elections. That’s after the borough clerk’s office signed off on a citizen initiative requesting the change. Waynette Coleman helped sponsor the petition, which builds on concerns she and others brought to the borough assembly last year. She says accurate voter roles, secure elections and confidence in the democratic process are important to her. “We the people have a right to vote and carry that vote honestly all the way through in an election, and that’s what we expect,” she told KDLL. Coleman says completely eliminating the use of technology in local elections, including tabulators, is necessary to restore confidence in elections. “That would mean we need to put it back to the precinct level, make it so that everybody that votes, there’s our peers there, there are people who may be hired, there are people that may be working for the state election, that’s fine, or for the local election, that’s fine, but it still would be within our neighborhood, our neighbors, our peers,” she said. Coleman envisions voters feeding ballots into a locked box until polls close. Then, election workers would hand-count ballots and relay the results to the borough. Michele Turner is the Kenai Peninsula Borough clerk. She’s been in touch with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough clerk, about what the changes could mean for the Kenai Peninsula. The Mat-Su Borough has hand-counted paper ballots since 2023. Turner says it’s hard to know how much a pivot to hand-counting would cost the borough, based on what she heard from the other clerk. “She still is yet trying to figure out the differences, other than the initial impact of them not paying for their software provider any longer,” she said. “She did share with me that there was additional costs for personnel with her staff as well, and needing more election workers.”
California: California Democrats say voters will decide if they want to set aside the state’s independent citizens redistricting commission through 2030 in favor of new maps that favor their party. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 would put the issue before voters on Nov. 4. Senate Bill 280 makes timelines and procedures, as well as allocates money for it. Assembly Bill 604 is the vehicle for the new maps. The constitutional amendment and SB 280 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday. Assembly Bill 604 passed Senate Appropriations the same day. All three bills now head to their respective house floors for an anticipated Thursday vote. Governor Gavin Newsom will likely sign the bills, as he’s championed the special election. The bills must pass by Friday for the election to occur in November.
Michigan: Legislation to close a loophole that allows the secretary of state to avoid punishment for campaign finance violations is advancing in the House with bipartisan support. The bill that unanimously advanced Tuesday, Aug. 19, by the House Election Integrity Committee would grant the attorney general the authority to punish the secretary of state in the event of a violation of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA). The bill now awaits consideration on the House floor. Currently, the secretary of state investigates and resolves all violations of the MCFA. When the secretary of state or someone connected to them is accused of violating the law, the attorney general’s office investigates. However, as Attorney General Dana Nessel pointed out in a recent campaign finance violation case against Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, the attorney general can’t issue punishments under the MCFA. At the time, Nessel’s office said lawmakers may want to consider fixing this issue.
A bill to ban ranked choice voting in the state of Michigan, which was introduced in the House of Representatives last month and rammed through committee on August 19 after just one hearing, was passed in the lower chamber Wednesday with opposition from the chamber’s Democrats. House Bill 4707, sponsored by state Rep. Rachelle Smit (R-Martin), would ban the voting method if signed into law. The measure passed 57-44 with nine members of the House not voting. Each vote affirming the passage of the bill came from a Republican member of the House, while each no vote came from the chamber’s Democrats. Eight Democrats and just one Republican – state Rep. Phill Green of Watertown Township – did not vote on the bill.
Wisconsin Rulemaking: The Wisconsin Elections Commission ordered Madison election officials to follow several specific election procedures to ensure that ballots don’t go missing again in the capital city, rejecting arguments by the interim clerk that the orders may exceed the agency’s legal authority. According to Votebeat, the commission’s 5-1 vote came a month after it withheld a first set of proposed orders amid pushback from Madison and Dane County officials, and asked the city to propose its own remedies. Madison interim Clerk Mike Haas said the specificity of the commission’s original proposed orders “would set a troubling precedent.” The city did submit its proposals, but the commission rejected them as overly broad, and finalized orders that were largely similar to the ones it proposed in July, with some minor revisions, including citations of the legal basis for each order. The orders require Madison officials to create an internal plan detailing which election task is assigned to which employee; print pollbooks no earlier than the Tuesday before each election; develop a detailed record to track absentee ballots; and search through election materials for missing ballots before the city’s election canvassing board meets to finalize results.
Wyoming: Legislators voted to sponsor bills addressing the state’s use of paper ballots and ballot drop boxes during a Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee meeting. The two bills, which would require paper ballots be the default voting method in each county and would prohibit the use of ballot drop boxes, are in alignment with legislation that Secretary of State Chuck Gray backed earlier this year. During the meeting, Gray repeatedly referred to President Trump’s executive order “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” saying these bills are essential to achieving the president’s objectives. The bills also align with Gray’s “election integrity” agenda. Wyoming League of Women Voters President Linda Barton told the committee that they should heavily consider the input of the county clerks, and avoid supporting legislation that takes away local control for the sake of national agendas. “The bills before you today do not meet that standard,” Barton told the committee. “Instead, they erect barriers; impose costly, unfunded mandates; reduce access, and risk undermining public trust in our elections.” The committee also worked on two draft bills, one prohibiting “ballot harvesting” and one addressing voter registration procedures, which will be revisited during their November meeting.
Legal Updates
Federal Litigation: The conservative network Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of defaming Dominion Voting Systems by spreading lies about President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss, according to documents filed this week. The settlement comes after Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million to settle a similar lawsuit in 2023 and Newsmax paid what court papers describe as $40 million to settle a libel lawsuit from a different voting machine manufacturer, Smartmatic, which also was a target of pro-Trump conspiracy theories on the network. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had ruled earlier that Newsmax did indeed defame Denver-based Dominion by airing false information about the company and its equipment. But Davis left it to a jury to eventually decide whether that was done with malice, and, if so, how much Dominion deserved from Newsmax in damages. Newsmax and Dominion reached the settlement before the trial could take place. The settlement was disclosed by Newsmax in a new filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It said the deal was reached August 15.
Arizona: Voters who were caught up in a state error tracking citizenship should keep their full voting rights, according to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. According to Votebeat, her opinion marks a turning point in the debate among officials over how to handle the eligibility of the roughly 200,000 voters, who were erroneously listed in state records as having provided proof of U.S. citizenship even though they hadn’t been asked to. Arizona requires such proof to vote in state and local elections, and counties have been sending notices to voters to try to collect the information. Mayes said county recorders cannot legally suspend these voters’ registrations or make them eligible only for federal elections if they now fail to respond to these notices. “If an Affected Voter responds by providing such evidence, that should dispel doubt,” Mayes wrote. “But if an Affected Voter does not respond, the mere lack of response does not, under current law, authorize the county recorder to cancel the voter’s registration, in whole or in part.” It’s unclear whether county recorders will follow Mayes’ opinion, which is meant to advise officials but does not have the force of law, according to the Attorney General manual, Votebeat reported.
Colorado: The Colorado attorney general’s office has asked for the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition filed by former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, arguing that the federal court does not have jurisdiction in the case. Peters is serving a nine-year prison sentence for her role in a breach of Mesa County’s elections systems during a 2021 software update. She was convicted by a jury in August 2024 on four felony counts related to the security breach, which was part of an effort to demonstrate that the 2020 election was untrustworthy, even though there is no credible evidence to support that position. Peters has appealed the conviction, and while the Colorado Court of Appeals reviews her appeal, her legal team filed a federal habeas corpus petition. The petition, which was filed in the U.S. District Court of Colorado, argues that Peters should be released on bond pending the appeal decision. The filing by the attorney general’s office cites the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris, in which the court recognized “longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings.” According to the filing, if three conditions in the case are met, then the federal court “must abstain from exercising jurisdiction regarding state proceedings.” Those conditions are that the state proceedings are ongoing; the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to present the federal constitutional challenges. The filing argues that those conditions are met, because Peters’ state-level appeal is ongoing, her conviction is criminal, thus an important state interest, and her appeal allows her to present her constitutional challenge. Based on the precedent set in the Younger case, the filing says the federal court does not have jurisdiction in Peters’ habeas corpus petition.
Florida: Lawyers for Secretary of State Cord Byrd and Attorney General James Uthmeier have gone to a federal appeals court after a U.S. district judge rejected part of a 2023 Florida elections law. The state filed a notice that is a first step in asking the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the Aug. 8 ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark Walker. The notice, as is common, did not detail the state’s arguments. But Walker’s ruling said part of the 2023 law that seeks to prevent non-U.S. citizens from collecting voter-registration applications violates equal-protection rights. Under the law, voter-registration groups could face a $50,000 fine for each non-citizen collecting or handling applications. Walker in 2023 issued a preliminary injunction against the non-citizen restriction. In his Aug. 8 ruling, Walker issued a final order and a permanent injunction against enforcing the law against two plaintiffs in the case, the civil rights group UnidosUS and Humberto Orjuela Prieto, who lives in Osceola County and is a legal permanent resident from Colombia.
Indiana: The Brown County Election Board is asking to dismiss a lawsuit by two men barred from running for office as Republicans. In a motion to dismiss, filed this week in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, attorneys representing the election board wrote that they had not voted to prevent county commissioner Tim Clark and attorney Rich Stanley from seeking office as Republicans in future races. “The Plaintiff’s cause of action is incorrectly directed at the Brown County Election Board, which is under no duty to opine to the Plaintiffs, act prior to a timely election filing, or make any early decision regarding eligibility to run for office for the foreseeable future,” the motion to dismiss stated.
Louisiana: District maps for seats in the Louisiana Legislature violate the federal Voting Rights Act, a panel of judges on the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Their decision upholds a lower court ruling that found the boundaries discriminated against Black voters. The panel’s ruling was issued August 14 in the case Nairne v. Landry, in which Black voters sued the state over redistricting plans the legislature adopted in 2022. The new boundaries for Louisiana Senate and House of Representatives districts did not increase the number of majority Black seats. The plaintiffs alleged they were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. The three appellate judges – James Dennis, an appointee of President Bill Clinton; Catharina Haynes, an appointee of President George W. Bush; and Irma Ramirez, an appointee of President Joe Biden – upheld a 2024 ruling from U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick of the Middle District of Louisiana. Dick determined the legislative maps do not give Black voters a fair opportunity to elect their own representatives. Dick’s ruling came after the 2023 elections, when a new class of lawmakers were elected, yielding a Republican supermajority in both chambers. The state appealed Dick’s decision, arguing in part that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and should not be applied to Louisiana. The section prohibits actions and policy that restrict a person’s right to vote based on their race, color or membership in a language minority group. The 5th Circuit judges disagreed with that argument.
Mississippi: U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock has ordered Mississippi to redraw its Supreme Court electoral map, after finding the map dilutes the power of Black voters. Aycock ruled the map, which was enacted in 1987, violates the Voting Rights Act and cannot be used in future elections. The Mississippi branch of the American Civil Liberties Union helped litigate the lawsuit, arguing the map cut Mississippi’s Delta region — a historically Black area — in half. The lawsuit, which was filed on April 25, 2022, argued the map diminished the Black vote in the Central District. Aycock’s ruling notes that only four Black people have served on the Mississippi Supreme Court. All of them held the same seat in the Central District and were first appointed to the position by a sitting governor. Aycock wrote that she will impose a deadline for the Mississippi Legislature to create a new map.
Montana: A new federal lawsuit alleges Chouteau County prevents Native American voters from fully participating in elections for Board of Commissioners, and county officials have been unresponsive to working on a joint solution with the Chippewa Cree Tribe. In the complaint, the Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation and a couple of tribal members are suing the county, the commissioners, and the clerk and recorder alleging the county’s at-large elections are unlawful. The plaintiffs want the U.S. District Court’s Great Falls Division to find Chouteau County’s at-large elections for its three commissioners don’t comply with the Voting Rights Act. They also want the court to implement a redistricting plan that doesn’t dilute the Native American vote. The complaint requests the court order a plan “that provides at least one Native American voting-age majority single-member commissioner district that effectively performs for the Native American candidate of choice.”
New York: A split New York appellate court revived a voting rights organization’s challenge to the New York Board of Elections’ approval of a touch screen voting system, which the organization says doesn’t let voters privately verify their ballots. The trial court said the group didn’t show its members had been harmed, but the appellate court ruled that they were likely to face harm because many counties had already started the process leading to the use of the ExpressVote XL machines.
Virginia: The Fourth Circuit rejected a challenge to Virginia’s singular voting rights restoration process, ruling the system isn’t a licensing scheme subject to scrutiny under a First Amendment doctrine. George Hawkins, convicted as a minor of attempted murder and aggravated malicious wounding in 2010, challenged the system after Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin declined to restore his voting rights in 2023. Hawkins argued that Virginia’s one-of-a-kind system, whereby the governor has unbridled authority to restore felons’ voting rights, violates a constitutional principle prohibiting administrators from exercising unfettered discretion over whether to grant licenses that implicate an individual’s First Amendment rights. A three-judge panel agreed with a lower court’s ruling that the voting restoration process differs from a licensing scheme. “Hawkins’ claim fails because, as both other federal courts of appeal to consider this question have concluded, the discretionary exercise of Virginia’s clemency power does not constitute a licensing system,” U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Wynn said. Wynn relied on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Lostutter v. Kentucky, where the federal court rejected a similar challenge. The Sixth Circuit outlined the differences between pardons and administrative licensing, including that pardons are retrospective and one-time acts rather than ongoing. The key difference, however, is that pardons restore a right once held but lost due to illegal conduct, while licenses regulate how a person exercises a right they already possess.
Wisconsin: Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney will serve as a special prosecutor in a case centered around the mayor’s removal of a Wausau ballot drop box. Last September, ahead of the 2024 general election, Wausau Mayor Doug Diny put on work gloves, donned a hard hat and used a dolly to cart away a drop box outside City Hall, posing for pictures as he did so. Diny, a conservative candidate backed by the Republican Party, ran for office on his opposition to absentee ballot drop boxes. He insisted he did nothing wrong by removing the box, but eventually turned it back over to the clerk, who then had the box re-installed and bolted to the ground. The box was locked and no ballots were inside it when the mayor wheeled it away. Criminal investigators with the Wisconsin Department of Justice took the lead in an investigation into the incident. Marathon County District Attorney Kyle Mayo requested a special prosecutor be appointed to the case to ensure full transparency and impartiality. As special prosecutor, Toney will review the DCI’s investigation, determine whether additional investigation is needed and make any appropriate determinations related to the investigation.
Wyoming: District Judge Misha E. Westby dismissed an attempt to remove Secretary of State Chuck Gray from office on Aug. 11. Retired Laramie attorney Tim Newcomb filed the lawsuit in Albany County’s Second Judicial District in February. Newcomb looked to have Gray removed under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bans state officials from having engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Newcomb’s lawsuit alleged Gray provided “aid and comfort” to Jan. 6 insurrectionists who rioted at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. In her decision to dismiss the case Westby said that Newcomb failed to include facts about Gray’s involvement and also lacked standing to sue. “The Plaintiff is attempting to impeach the Secretary through a declaratory judgement action,” wrote Westby. “The impeachment process does not allow a private citizen to bring such a case, nor does it allow for court involvement other than the Chief Justice presiding over the trial of a governor in the Senate.”
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment