Electionline Weekly September-11-2025

Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking

Michigan: A Senate committee moved forward bills to outlaw political petition circulators being paid by the signature as part of a package of election fraud and disinformation deterrents. The goal is to discourage abuses such as circulators lying or forging names to boost their signature counts. “Each election cycle provides new reporting of bad actors using deception and dishonesty as the tools to garner signatures for their cause,” said Senator Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield), chair of the Senate Elections and Ethics Committee. Moss noted Michigan is behind other states that have already enacted protections against political petition fraud. He said an overhaul of what’s allowed and not allowed by paid petition circulators in Michigan is long overdue. Another bill in the package would create penalties for spreading disinformation on where, when or how to vote. The bills were adopted with only the support of Democrats on the committee. Senator Ruth Johnson (R-Groveland Township) – a former Michigan Secretary of State – said she understands the intent of the legislation. The bills now go to the Senate floor. Similar bills cleared the Senate last year, but were never taken up by the House before the session ended in December.

Nevada Ballot Measures: Vote Nevada PAC, a grassroots group of Nevadans, has filed a proposed ballot measure to establish an independent redistricting commission and prohibit mid-cycle redistricting. The group also filed a second proposed ballot question to amend the state’s Voter Bill of Rights to include a provision that could force the two major political parties to open their primaries. Both petitions were filed with the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office on Tuesday, according to members of the political action committee. Both proposals involve amending the Nevada State Constitution, meaning if they qualify for the ballot, they will have to be approved by voters twice in subsequent elections — 2026 and 2028. The independent redistricting commission proposed by Vote Nevada would be composed of a mix of Democrats, Republicans, and non-major-party voters, reflecting active voter registration splits in the state. Currently in Nevada, redistricting is the purview of the Nevada State Legislature. The proposed ballot question would limit redistricting to the 180 days following the release of the U.S. Census, essentially barring mid-cycle redistricting efforts. Vote Nevada filed proposed ballot measures to form an independent redistricting commission — in 2020, 2022, and 2024. All three efforts failed to make it in front of voters, either because opponents successfully challenged it in court or because they failed to gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

New York Ballot Measure: On the New York City ballot this November voters are being asked whether they want to change the timing of future municipal elections to even-numbered years. The measure, known for now as Question 5, would align mayoral elections with the presidential race and reschedule contests for other offices like city council seats, which are up every two years. It was placed on the ballot by the city’s Charter Revision Commission, a 13-member body convened in December by Mayor Eric Adams to brainstorm possible changes. Question 5 is the commission’s only proposal that touches on how the city runs its elections. Ben Weinberg, public policy director of Citizens Union, a New York-based group that has long pushed this reform, says Question 5 isn’t just about increasing the number of voters. “Holding local elections during even-numbered years will elevate local issues,” he told Bolts Magazine. “This is the time where folks are more tuned into electoral politics, the time where most people follow political news.” According to Bolts, even if voters approve Question 5, New York lawmakers would still need to amend the state’s constitution, which currently does not allow cities to hold their local elections on even-numbered years. And since constitutional amendments must pass in two consecutive legislative sessions, and then be ratified in a statewide referendum, that process takes at least two years.

North Carolina Rulemaking: Voters whose names or birth dates don’t match ID numbers in the state registration file won’t automatically have to use provisional ballots after all, under revised instructions the state Board of Elections approved this week. The latest revisions to efforts to collect and validate government IDs come after Democrats on the state Board objected at its last meeting to the requirement that voters whose names or birth dates did not match identifiers in government databases would need to continually use provisional ballots until the mismatches were resolved. Under the plan, county election boards will review records for data errors. Beginning in January, letters will go out twice a year to voters whose ID numbers won’t validate, asking them for help figuring out why.

South Dakota: Legislators finalized rules this week allowing additional grounds for challenging a person’s right to vote in South Dakota. The rules, approved by the Interim Rules Review Committee, are a result of Senate Bill 185, which was signed into law in March. It expanded the justifications for challenging voter rights to include claims that a registered voter has died, is not a legal resident of the state or has voted or registered in another state. Previously, state law allowed challenges based on a person’s identity, a felony conviction or mental incompetency. Those challenges are still allowed. Based on the new rules, challengers must be registered to vote in the same county as the person they’re challenging on residency or out-of-state registration grounds, and must submit the challenge at least 90 days before an election. Challenges based on a person dying ahead of an election, being mentally incompetent or being imprisoned must be submitted by a South Dakota registered voter at least 30 days before an election. A challenge to a voter’s residency must include evidence that the voter is not a South Dakota resident, based on state election law. The challenger must provide, under a sworn oath in front of a notary, one of the following: A driver’s license or ID card issued by another state; A resident hunting, fishing or trapping license issued by another state; A postal change of address indicating the voter moved to another state; State or county property records indicating ownership of a primary residence in another state; Tax documents indicating the voter is a resident of another state; or A residency affidavit or certificate from another state. A challenge to a voter’s out-of-state registration or voting history must include a voter file from an election official in that state documenting the claim.

Legal Updates

Alaska: Ten Alaska residents pleaded not guilty last week to voter misconduct or other charges in cases that have renewed attention on the complex citizenship status of people born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa. Those facing charges — most of them related to one another — were born in American Samoa but live in the isolated Alaska community of Whittier, about 60 miles (96 kilometers) south of Anchorage. The state contends they falsely claimed U.S. citizenship when registering or attempting to vote. An attorney representing the defendants says many of them are citizens. American Samoa is the only U.S. territory where residents are not automatically granted citizenship by being born on American soil, as the 14th Amendment to the Constitution dictates. Instead, they are considered U.S. nationals. American Samoans can serve in the military, obtain U.S. passports and vote in elections in American Samoa. But they cannot hold public office in the U.S. or participate in most U.S. elections. A grand jury this week returned indictments with felony and misdemeanor counts, almost a year after Alaska State Troopers descended on Whittier to deliver court summonses. Matt DiTullio, an assistant public defender representing the 10, told a judge that most of them are U.S. citizens — information he said he has shared with prosecutors. Jenna Gruenstein, an attorney with the state Office of Special Prosecutions, pushed back, saying it was her understanding that the state had asked for evidence to back up DiTullio’s argument but that the state has yet to receive that.

California: Laura Lee Yourex, 62, of Costa Mesa faces five felony charges after she was accused of fraud by registering her dog to vote and illegally casting ballots for the pooch in two elections, authorities said. Yourex allegedly mailed in ballots registered under her dog’s name, Maya Jean Yourex, in the 2021 gubernatorial recall election and the 2022 primary election, according to the Orange County district attorney’s office. The 2021 ballot was accepted, while the 2022 ballot was rejected, prosecutors said. Yourex allegedly bragged about the feat on social media, sharing a picture of Maya toting an “I Voted” sticker and posing with the illegal ballot in January 2022, prosecutors said. In October, Yourex posted a photo of Maya’s dog tag and a vote-by-mail ballot with the caption, “Maya is still getting her ballot,” even though the dog had passed away. She has been charged with one count of registering a nonexistent person to vote, one count of perjury, one count of procuring a false or forged document to be filed and two counts of casting a ballot when not entitled to vote, prosecutors said. If convicted as charged, Yourex faces up to six years in state prison.

Florida: Jessica Sonia Humphreys, 24, of Miami, is charged with 72 counts of petition fraud and 72 counts of perjury. In January of 2023, FDLE agents were made aware of “numerous fraudulent petitions” for the constitutional amendment regarding the use of marijuana. Humphreys, a paid petition gatherer for “Safe and Smart Florida,” submitted the petitions. The Santa Rosa County Supervisor of Elections notified agents that Humphreys submitted other potentially fraudulent petitions using fictitious names. Agents with the FDLE made contact with Humphreys, who admitted she was a “paid petition gatherer for several counties in North Florida, including Escambia and Santa Rosa.” Two arrest warrants, one for Escambia County and the other for Santa Rosa County, were issued for Humphreys in November 2023. She was arrested on Jan. 29, 2024, by the Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Office on 34 counts of petition fraud and 34 counts of perjury. After posting bail, she did not appear at her scheduled court hearing. During a traffic stop on Aug. 15, 2025, the Coral Springs Police Department later arrested Humphreys on 38 counts of petition fraud and 38 counts of perjury.

Georgia: U.S. District Judge J. P. Boulee has rejected a challenge to absentee ballot restrictions implemented under a controversial measure passed in 2021, delivering a blow to one of the last ongoing lawsuits against the sweeping election law. The law, passed as Senate Bill 202, included new provisions that prevented voter registration organizations from distributing pre-filled absentee ballot applications to voters or blank applications to any resident who had already requested an absentee ballot — as happened in 2020. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the restrictions infringed upon their First Amendment rights. In a 50-page decision issued by Boulee upheld the law’s absentee ballot application provisions, ruling that the use of pre-filled absentee ballot applications increased confusion among voters and that the secretary of state’s office had demonstrated “interrelated compelling governmental interests” in curtailing their use. “The prefilled absentee-ballot applications sparked confusion and concern about voter fraud, especially when the prefilled information was incorrect,” he wrote in his decision. “Voters complained or were confused about duplicate applications as well.”

New York: According to Courthouse News Service, the New York Court of Appeals appeared hesitant to block a state law that would move certain elections from odd- to even-numbered years in an effort to boost voter turnout. Attorneys for Republican-led challengers of the law, which include several New York counties and voters, spent nearly two hours trying to convince a skeptical court that the law was improperly passed and would unduly burden their clients. “We are alleging that those voters will face longer lines, they will face more confusion, and they will face a harder time getting their fellow citizens interested,” plaintiffs’ attorney Misha Tseytlin argued. As it stands, local elections in New York take place in odd-numbered years, while statewide and national ones are reserved for even-numbered years. But the law, passed by the New York state legislature and signed by Governor Kathy Hochul at the end of 2023, would consolidate local races to even-numbered years, with the other elections starting this year. The court’s seven-judge panel seemed puzzled by Tseytlin’s arguments. “Your allegation is that in an even-year election, voters who would have otherwise voted in an odd-year election will just not bother to vote because it’s an even-year election?” asked Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals Anthony Cannataro. “We don’t make that allegation,” Tseytlin shot back. “The allegation we make is that the voters who don’t care about the local elections to begin with wouldn’t bother coming out to the local elections; a lot of them are going to drop off.” “I hear some skepticism from the bench,” Tseytlin added. Much of that skepticism came from Judge of the Court of Appeals Jenny Rivera, who was hesitant as to whether the court could address these issues at all since they’re contrary to the conclusions drawn by the state Legislature when it passed the law. Rivera questioned whether the judicial panel could “make a different decision from the state legislators.” Tseytlin insisted that all First and 14th Amendment cases give courts the option to “second-guess” a legislative body. Assistant Solicitor General Sarah Rosenbluth, who argued for the even-year election law on behalf of the state, shot down Tseytlin’s concerns as meritless hypotheticals.

Former New York City candidate for mayor Jim Walden filed a lawsuit this week against the city’s board of elections for refusing to pull his name from the ballot despite suspending his campaign. Walden, once a longshot independent candidate, dropped out of the race last week. Walden claims the city elections board refused to pull his name from the ballot, even though he withdrew from the mayor’s race before the certification deadline. “Calling the application ‘late,’ respondents cited no authority for this determination,” Walden argues. Walden, a private attorney, filed the complaint himself in the New York Supreme Court. He’s seeking emergency relief to pull his name off the ballot as soon as possible to “avoid voter confusion.”
North Carolina: U.S. District Judge Richard Myers approved a plan to settle a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department that demanded North Carolina election officials accumulate identification numbers lacking on the records of more than 100,000 registered voters. Myers signed the proposed consent agreement filed a few days ago by lawyers for the department’s Civil Rights Division and the State Board of Elections. They said would it ensure the state’s compliance with federal law and avoid an expensive trial. The May 27 lawsuit accused the state board of violating the Help America Vote Act by failing to ensure registration records were accurate for federal elections. The state board already initiated a “Registration Repair Project” in mid-July, asking that 103,000 registered voters supply missing numerical identifiers or state that they don’t have one. There are close to 7.6 million registered voters in North Carolina, where statewide elections are often closely contested.

Pennsylvania: Miya Pack, 39, of Philadelphia, committed voter fraud after she voted in New Jersey and her home state of Pennsylvania, federal prosecutors said. Pack was charged with one count of voter fraud, according to a statement released Monday from the U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pack had been registered to vote in Bergen County since 2004 and in Philadelphia County since 2016, the office said. On or about Oct. 26, 2024, she voted in person at an early voting location in Teaneck for president in the 2024 general election, investigators said. On Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024, Pack went to a polling place in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and cast another ballot for president, federal prosecutors said. She faces a maximum possible sentence of five years in prison and a fine of between $10,000 and $250,000, the office said.

South Carolina: Gov. Henry McMaster said his office has filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit and temporary restraining order involving the State’s Election Commission (SEC) and a South Carolina voter, Dr. Anne Crook. The lawsuit was filed by Crook, a Calhoun County resident, in response to a formal request from the U.S. Department of Justice (DO.J) for detailed voter information. In August, the DOJ asked the South Carolina Election Commission to provide a full data voter list, including the last four digits of each voter’s Social Security number and full driver’s license numbers. The DOJ initially set a deadline of August 21st for the SEC, but the commission was granted several extensions. Crook argues that complying with the DOJ’s request would violate state privacy laws. However, McMaster said the complaint overlooks key federal statutes that authorize such data requests.

Texas: The Republican Party of Texas filed a lawsuit against Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson in a bid to restrict participation in the GOP’s primary elections to only voters registered with the party. The lawsuit, filed in federal district court, claims Texas’ open primaries violate the Republican Party’s First Amendment associational rights to choose party leaders. The GOP said in its suit that it would prefer the Legislature to pass a law allowing only registered party members to vote in primary elections, but that it could not wait for lawmakers to act. “[G]iven the steps necessary to transition to a fully closed primary in an orderly fashion, the Party cannot continue to wait and risk further political inaction and delay that could lead to open primaries (or even a bridge election) in 2028 as well,” the lawsuit read. The Secretary of State’s office is reviewing the suit, but that preparations for the primary election on March 3 were already “well underway” based on current state law, a spokesperson said in a statement to the Texas Tribune. “As always, the Secretary of State’s Office is committed to fair, orderly and legal elections,” a spokesperson for the secretary’s office said.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker