Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Annapolis, Maryland: Legislation before the City Council would see Annapolis implement ranked choice voting by 2029, meaning voters would be allowed to rank candidates — up to as many as are running in any particular race — in order of their preference. “It makes our elections kinder and fairer,” said Alderman Harry Huntley, who introduced the ranked-choice voting bill in July. “It gives voters more voice and more choice. And it gives independents, which is our fastest-growing group of voters — it brings them into our political process.” In Maryland, Takoma Park has used ranked-choice voting since 2007. According to Whittaker, other municipalities in the state — including Hyattsville, Greenbelt, Rockville and Frederick — are considering the practice.
Legal Updates
Arizona: An Arizona Appeals Court rejected an attempt by the state Republican Party and conservative groups to restrict the ways county election officials can verify signatures on early ballots. The Arizona Republican Party, Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, and a Yavapai County voter filed a lawsuit in 2023 challenging state election rules, including the ways county recorders can verify a voter’s signature on their early ballot. The plaintiffs specifically challenged rules allowing election workers to compare the signature on an early ballot to signatures on any other election-related document, including early ballot envelopes from prior elections. They argued state law only allows recorders to use a person’s original voter registration for signature verification. “Certain of these materials, and particularly early ballot envelopes submitted in prior elections, however, are not “registration records,” and hence are not a lawful comparative reference for conducting signature validation,” according to the original lawsuit. In a 2024 ruling, Judge John Napper wrote that an updated version of the Secretary of State’s Election Procedures Manual allows for the use of old ballot envelopes for signature verification. And he found the Arizona Legislature chose to accept that allowance as it updated the state’s election laws. On August 27, an Arizona Court of Appeals panel upheld the lower court ruling. The judges found the Arizona Republican Party and other plaintiffs did not have standing to sue in the first place, according to an opinion authored by Judge Jeffrey Sklar. Sklar wrote that the plaintiffs disagree with the way the Secretary of State Adrian Fontes interpreted the state law governing signature verification, not that Fontes failed to fulfill duties the secretary of state is required to perform. “This amounts to issue advocacy, which as we have explained, cannot confer standing,” Sklar wrote. An attorney for the plaintiffs said they have not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Connecticut: Alfred Castillo, 53 of Bridgeport, has received additional charges in connection with the misuse of absentee ballots during the September 2023 Bridgeport Democratic Primary election. Castillo was charged via an arrest warrant August 29. He was arrested and charged with four counts of possession of ballots and envelopes restricted, four counts of failure to sign as assister on an absentee ballot, and two counts of misrepresenting eligibility requirements for voting by absentee ballot. Castillo was released on a promise to appear in Bridgeport Superior Court on September 2, 2025. Castillo has previously been charged in this incident. In March of 2025, 5 people, including Castillo, were accused of misusing absentee ballots or misrepresenting voter eligibility during the 2023 Bridgeport democratic mayoral primary. Castillo was also charged with the misuse of absentee ballots in June of 2019 in the 2019 Democratic primary in Bridgeport.
Georgia: A Fulton County judge has put a pause on an order that would have fined the county $10,000 a day for failing to appoint two Republican members to its elections board. The ruling comes one day after the judge initially imposed the steep penalty, which sparked concern from county officials. Fulton County Commission Chairman Robb Pitts said the delay is “great news for the taxpayers of Fulton County.” The case stems from a dispute over appointments to the county’s Board of Registration and Elections. Republicans have argued their nominees have been blocked from taking their seats, while county leaders say the appointments must follow procedural rules.
Indiana: The Indiana Citizen filed suit against Indiana’s secretary of state and attorney general, seeking a list of more than 585,000 registered Hoosier voters sent to the federal government to verify citizenship status. The offices have refused to provide it. The Citizen is a nonprofit news outlet operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc. Reporter Marilyn Odendahl requested the list in October 2024, after Secretary of State Diego Morales and Attorney General Todd Rokita issued news releases about the request. According to the lawsuit, Rokita’s office denied the records request in December last year on behalf of both offices. Odendahl then filed a complaint with then-Indiana Public Access Counselor Luke Britt, who ruled in February that the “denial was improper based on the law as plainly written.” In March, the statewide officeholders sent a letter disagreeing with the ruling, but offered to allow the Citizen “limited public access” consisting of in-person inspection and the ability to make only “a handwritten transcription” of the records. The Citizen objected to the rules but tried to schedule a time to review the list in July. Rokita and Morales asked new Public Access Counselor Jennifer Ruby to reconsider the complaint and withdrew their offer. There has been no further contact between the parties, according to the lawsuit.
Michigan: Frank Prezzato, 68, of St. Clair Shores pleaded guilty this week to a felony charge that he voted twice during last year’s August primary election. Prezzato voted using his absentee ballot and then showed up at his polling place and voted there as well. A news release from Attorney General Dana Nessel said Prezzato “acknowledged that he acted recklessly.” As part of a plea agreement, he will serve six months of delayed probation. After that, the charges can be dismissed with prejudice — closing the case permanently — if Prezzato meets the conditions of his probation. His formal sentencing is set for the end of October. “Voting twice undermines our democratic process,” Nessel said. “My office will continue to prosecute those who violate our voting laws to ensure Michigan voters have confidence in the integrity of our elections.”
Minnesota: An Itasca County voter fraud case may head to a jury trial in October after a judge rejected the defendant’s guilty plea August 25, which would have required her to write a 10-page paper on the importance of voting. Danielle Miller, 51, of rural Nashwauk was charged in October 2024 with three felony counts of absentee voter fraud after allegedly attempting to vote for Donald Trump on behalf of her deceased mother. Miller initially pleaded not guilty to all three counts in May before petitioning to enter a guilty plea on August 21. But at her plea hearing on Monday, Miller failed to accurately state the factual basis for her plea, leading the judge to reject it. Minnesota statute requires defendants to state the factual basis before the judge can accept a guilty plea to ensure the defendant knows what they are pleading guilty to. Itasca County Attorney Jacob Fauchald said Miller told the judge she was intoxicated and that someone else mailed in the absentee ballots. He said this is not what the investigation suggests. In a subsequent court filing, Miller’s attorney Justin Braulick said she intends to use the defense of voluntary intoxication. That doesn’t absolve a defendant of the crime, but it can be considered a factor of the defendant’s state of mind or intent.
New York: Former Bronx District leader and employee of the New York City Board of Elections, Nicole Torres, received a sentence of two years in prison for extortion and mail fraud. Having previously pled guilty, Torres faced judgment on September 2nd for her schemes that involved shaking down Bronx residents and falsifying election records. U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, called out Torres for abusing her power and declared the city’s stance on purging corruption, “By shaking down Bronx residents and falsifying election records, she undermined trust in the very system New Yorkers depend on to make their voices heard.” During her criminal tenure spanning from at least 2019 to August 2024, Torres schemed her way to approximately $40,970, as the prosecution detailed. She demanded and accepted payments for allocating individuals as poll workers, often taking in $150 through various forms of payment, directing some to her or a local Bronx organization. Torres altered money orders and checks intended for the organization to deposit into her bank account.
North Carolina: North Carolina and the federal government have reached an agreement over its handling of voter roll records before the 2024 election. In a proposed consent order filed this week, the parties agreed to end the case with North Carolina required to produce reports on efforts to fix missing voter information and hand over updated voter roll records to the federal government “upon request.” The federal government sued in May, alleging the state violated the Help America Vote Act by using a voter registration form that didn’t require a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. Federal lawyers said the state added restraints without confirming identifying information and requested that a full list of corrected records be turned over once the rolls are updated. In the proposed agreement — still subject to a federal judge’s approval — North Carolina would be required to use a voter registration form that complies with the Help America Vote Act, update its federal voter list, and contact voters with missing information to update their records. Voters with gaps in their records would still remain registered, but would have to cast provisional ballots if their information isn’t corrected before an election. The agreement aims “to ensure that the remedy complies fully with federal law, minimizes any inconvenience to voters, and ensures that each affected voter’s ballot will be counted for federal offices if the voter is otherwise eligible to vote.
North Dakota: The Spirit Lake Nation, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and three tribal citizens have formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court this week to review an appeals court decision that found they cannot sue the state of North Dakota for alleged voter discrimination. The tribes say that the decision, if allowed to go into effect, would not only limit their representation in the North Dakota Legislature but be a detriment to racial equality across all seven states in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Private groups in these states would no longer be able to challenge state or local governments for alleged racially discriminatory voting practices. The tribes’ lawsuit, filed in 2022, accuses a legislative district map adopted by North Dakota lawmakers in 2021 of unlawfully diluting the power of Native American voters. While U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte in a 2023 ruling agreed with the tribes and in early 2024 put an alternate map in place, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his decision in May. The appellate court concluded that the tribes do not have standing to bring the case because a law they used to bring it, known as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, can only be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice. Section 2 makes it illegal to limit someone’s voting rights on the basis of race.
Pennsylvania: Dawn Graham, former Clearfield County director of elections is suing the county for wrongful termination. Graham alleges in a federal lawsuit that she was released from her role as Director of Elections and Voter Registration for excessive absenteeism, which she said was caused by a medical condition. The lawsuit also alleges that the county did not offer her information about disability options, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), until after she exhausted all her personal time off in April of 2024. Her complaint said she was granted FMLA in May but reportedly needed more time off to care for her mother, who was suffering from medical issues. Graham alleges that her conditions and requests for accommodations are protected by FMLA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She also alleges claims of discrimination, hostile work environment and failure to accommodate in her suit. When reached for comment, Commissioner Dave Glass said the county couldn’t comment on the advice of counsel. Graham is asking for lost wages including bonuses and promotions that she would have gained since being terminated in January.
South Carolina: The South Carolina Election Commission has been temporarily blocked from sharing statewide voter data with the Department of Justice. On September 2, Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein granted a temporary restraining order, preventing the State Election Commission from releasing South Carolina’s voter registration list—including data on over 3.3 million people. The order follows a lawsuit filed on August 28 by Calhoun County resident Anne Crook, who sued the Election Commission to prevent the release of the data on privacy grounds. She claimed that providing it would violate her right to privacy under the South Carolina Constitution. The Department of Justice (DOJ) originally issued the state a deadline of August 21 to comply, which the state asked to extend. The DOJ has given the state a new deadline of September 5 to release the records. The temporary restraining order will block the release of data until a hearing at 10 a.m. Wednesday, September 10 at the Aiken County Courthouse.
South Dakota: Federal District Court Judge Camela Theeler has ruled that a new law that moved the deadline for initiated measures or amendments to qualify for the ballot in South Dakota violated the U.S. Constitution. Lawmakers moved the deadline for filing ballot measure petitions from the first Tuesday in May to the first Tuesday in February in election years with passage of House Bill 1184. Dakotans for Health group argued that the new deadline shortened the amount of time it takes for the backers of ballot measures to obtain the signatures they need to qualify a measure for the ballot, infringing on its free speech rights. Among the group’s complaints was that the shortened timeframe for collecting signatures concentrated that window during South Dakota’s winter, when petition gatherers are outside during sometimes harsh weather conditions. “We are asking the court to protect the right of South Dakotans to engage in direct democracy by issuing an injunction to stop the enforcement of HB 1184,” Dakotans for Health co-found Rick Weiland said at the time of challenging the law. “If this law is allowed to stand, it will severely restrict our ability to gather the signatures needed to bring important issues before voters. The people of South Dakota deserve better.” Faced with a nine-month deadline under HB 1184, Theeler agreed that it was still too restrictive. She also agreed that Dakotans for Health, which has sponsored several ballot measures, had standing to bring the challenge, finding the group faced “concrete, particularized and actual injury from the filing deadlines created by HB 1184.” Nor was Theeler convinced that extending the deadline for petitions by three months would allow enough time to resolve a conflict over the legitimacy of those petitions. “However,” she wrote in her ruling, “even if this court were to agree that the state has a regulatory interest allowing citizens more time to litigate petition challenges prior to an election, the state has not shown that a nine-month filing deadline satisfies that interest. The nine-month deadline simply allows for three more months of litigation that may or may not result in a final resolution before an election. The state acknowledges as much.” Theeler ordered Secretary of State Monae Johnson not to enforce the provisions of HB 1184, effectively keeping the deadlines for ballot measures in place at the first Tuesday of May. The state has not indicated if it will appeal.
Virginia: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia judge Patricia Tolliver Giles rejected defendants’ attempts to dismiss a voting rights case that first surfaced last summer when Gov. Glenn Youngkin ordered a purge of voter rolls that the U.S. Department of Justice, Democratic Virginia lawmakers and civil rights advocates said it was too close to Election Day. Giles is allowing the case to proceed and move into the next phase of legal scrutiny. Filed by the Virginia Coalition for Immigrants’ Rights (VACIR), Virginia’s chapter of the League of Women Voters, and African Communities Together, the groups assert that Youngkin’s administration violated the federal National Voter Registration Act by removing people from voter rolls within 90 days of last November’s elections. The federal law entails a 90-day “quiet period” that both former President Joe Biden’s administration and the Virginia groups’ suits alleged Youngkin violated. Youngkin had issued an executive order on Aug. 7, 2024 — exactly 90 days before the 2024 elections — before touting it on Fox News that same day.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment