Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Orange County, California: This week, the Orange County Board of Supervisors directed staff to cross-reference voter rolls with pet registration data in the county in order to make sure there are no four-legged voters with names like Fido, Fifi, Spot, Sparky or Lucky casting ballots in the next special election in November. “How do we check that dogs and cats or whatever are not on our (voter) rolls?” Supervisor Dan Wagner asked during a meeting. The measure, introduced by Wagner and Supervisor Janet Nguyen, came after a Costa Mesa woman was charged early this month with five felony counts after allegedly registering her dog to vote. According to The Los Angeles Times, supervisors directed the Orange County Registrar of Voters to review thousands of voter records to ensure that no other pets have been registered to vote in the county and this week, directed the agency to expand that review to thousands of more pet registrations to ensure no other four-legged pets are casting votes. The registrar recently checked pet registrations in all unincorporated communities in the county against voter records, and was directed Tuesday to try to expand that review to pet registrations in all incorporated cities within the county. Bob Page, registrar of voters for the county, said the agency this month has cross-referenced nearly 8,000 pet registration records in unincorporated areas in the county at the direction of the board, and has found no indication of pets getting registered to vote in that review. The Registrar of Voters is also requesting the same data from cities that contract with the county for animals services to get access to that data, Page said, and will review those pet records against the county voter rolls.
Hamilton County, Indiana: The Hamilton County Election Board failed to get a unanimous vote it needed to move the county to a countywide Vote Center model. On September 18, Republican appointee Ray Adler cast the deciding vote against the measure, keeping the county in a traditional precinct-based voting system. County Clerk Kathy Kreag Williams and Democratic appointee Greg Purvis voted in favor of the measure. According to WRTV, the decision comes after the Election Board in Allen County approved a similar proposal earlier in the week. “I just think we should let Allen County go through it and see what problems they have,” Adler, the Republican appointee who voted down the measure, said in the release. “We’re changing voting for hundreds of thousands of people and I want to make sure it’s not an experiment.” According to the release sent from Hamilton County, the Vote Center model requires approval from all three governing bodies: County Commissioners, County Council and the Election Board. In Hamilton County, both the commissioners and the seven members of the council voted unanimously in favor of the measure. Public sentiment in a countywide survey suggested that 60% of the respondents were in favor of the measure, while 10% were indifferent, the release said. 68 of Indiana’s 92 counties have already adopted the Vote Center Model.
Missouri Ballot Measure: State Republicans recently advanced a constitutional amendment that would effectively kill the initiative process. The proposal, which will now go before voters for a statewide referendum in 2026, would drastically raise the threshold for a citizen-led initiative to pass. While all measures in the state currently require a majority vote statewide, the GOP proposal would require citizen-led initiatives to also win majorities in each of the state’s eight congressional districts. Constitutional amendments placed on the ballot by legislators would be exempt from the new hurdle, and would still only require a statewide majority to pass. Under the proposed new rule for citizen-led ballot measures, all five popular initiatives that Missouri voters have approved since 2020 would have failed instead, a Bolts analysis found. Mallory Rusch, executive director of Empower Missouri says the new rules, which would be unique in the country, would spell the end of citizen petitions. “A lot of activists say that, if we want to do something via initiative, this might be our last year,” she said.
Wisconsin: Wisconsin’s controversial practice of randomly removing ballots to resolve discrepancies between the number of ballots and the number of voters would be prohibited under new draft legislation that requires meticulous audits in every county. Wisconsin’s law allowing drawdowns is almost as old as the state, and it appears to be used most often in recounts. Other states have had similar laws, but most have repealed them. Drawdowns occur when records show more ballots cast than the number of voters who cast ballots. These discrepancies usually stem from minor recordkeeping errors or process mistakes. Multiple Wisconsin clerks have told Votebeat that they loathe the practice, and national election experts have been flabbergasted that it exists. A legislative study committee in 2005 questioned the practice’s constitutionality without resolving the issue. The bill also requires risk-limiting audits, a kind of post-election review designed to give statistical confidence that votes are accurately tallied. A pilot program would begin in 2026, with full implementation in 2027.
Dane County, Wisconsin: The Dane County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution allowing any REAL ID to be used for voter identification, regardless of the state where it was issued. Supervisors who proposed the resolution say it will remove unnecessary barriers to the ballot for eligible voters. Supervisors Colin Barushok, Jay Brower, and Henry Fries were the resolution’s lead authors.
Legal Updates
Georgia: Nicholas Wimbish, 26, of Milledgeville, was sentenced Sept. 18 to 20 months in prison followed by one year of supervised release. He was also fined $2,000 by U.S. District Judge Marc Treadwell. Wimbish pleaded guilty earlier this year to one count of conveying false information and making hoaxes. According to court records, Wimbish was working at the Jones County Elections Office in Gray on Oct. 16, 2024, when he argued with a voter. Hours later, he researched the voter online and drafted a letter posing as that person. The letter threatened to bomb the polling site, target Wimbish and other poll workers, and contained graphic threats of violence. Wimbish mailed the letter to the county elections superintendent the next day. It arrived on Oct. 22, 2024. The letter included details intended to make it appear the voter was the author, accusing Wimbish of trying to influence ballots and calling him a “woke liberal fraudster.” It also warned poll workers to “look over their shoulder” and ended with a handwritten note that read, “PS boom toy in early vote place, cigar burning, be safe.” Wimbish later admitted he knew “boom toy” referred to an explosive device. “Ensuring the security of our polling places is essential. Americans must be able to express their political choices at the ballot box without fear of violence or harm,” U.S. Attorney William R. “Will” Keyes said in a statement. “These threats undermine the core values of our nation, and we will vigorously pursue justice in such matters.”
Louisiana: The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief this week in Louisiana’s ongoing redistricting case, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should significantly weaken the power of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to block racial gerrymanders. Though not unexpected, the brief carries major symbolic weight. For decades, the Justice Department has been at the forefront of efforts to use Section 2 of the VRA to protect minority voting rights, most frequently in the redistricting process. Under President Donald Trump, it now argues for a radically narrowed interpretation of Section 2, which could make it all but useless in stopping racially motivated gerrymanders. In the case challenging Louisiana’s congressional map, the DOJ submitted an amicus brief calling the state’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district “unconstitutional,” and describing current protections as little more than “electoral race-based affirmative action.” Solicitor General D. John Sauer asserted that intentionally drawing a second Black-majority district violates the Constitution. But the DOJ went further, arguing that the Voting Rights Act itself cannot justify race-conscious redistricting. “Section 2 does not supply a compelling interest to draw such districts because the statute would be unconstitutional if it required such race-based districting,” the filing declares.
Nebraska: Common Cause Nebraska has sued to block Nebraska’s secretary of state from sharing voter registration data with the U.S. Department of Justice. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop Secretary of State Bob Evnen from providing data to the DOJ. Federal officials have asked states for names, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers, saying they want the information to ensure accurate voter registration rolls. Common Cause asked a Lancaster County District Court to find that the DOJ request violates Nebraska law protecting data privacy. It aims to prohibit the Secretary of State from providing the voter data to the DOJ or to limit the types of data shared. The Justice Department sent a letter to Nebraska’s secretary of state Sept. 8 with a Sept. 22 deadline to provide the data. The Secretary of State’s Office told the Examiner it hasn’t provided the data to the DOJ because of the lawsuit.
Wisconsin: Some of the 193 Madison voters whose ballots mistakenly didn’t get counted in the 2024 presidential election filed a lawsuit last week seeking class-action status, arguing that the city unconstitutionally deprived them of their right to vote. According to Votebeat, the lawsuit stands out because it seeks monetary damages for alleged violations of voting rights — a remedy that has become increasingly rare. According to election experts, that type of claim is unlikely to succeed. “These voters deserved better,” Scott Thompson, an attorney for the plaintiffs with the firm Law Forward, said in a statement. ”In Wisconsin, we value the right to vote, and there will be consequences when that right is denied.” The named plaintiffs are some of the 193 voters whose ballots didn’t get counted in the 2024 election. They’re suing the city of Madison, the city’s clerk office, former Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl, and current Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick, seeking monetary damages for the city’s failure to count the voters’ ballots. The complaint doesn’t specify the amount, but in a claim filed in March, the group representing the plaintiffs requested $34 million, or $175,000 for each disenfranchised voter. Madison’s interim City Clerk and City Attorney Mike Haas declined to comment on the lawsuit. This lawsuit aims to emphasize the importance of properly counting all ballots, and set a monetary penalty for denying a person their vote.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment