Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Arizona Rulemaking: Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has submitted the new rulebook for the 2026 election to Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes for their review and approval, defying GOP lawmakers who say they will sue over rules they say violate state law. The Election Procedures Manual, which must be revised and approved every two years, has undergone changes after previous Republican lawsuits challenged provisions in it. Some of those changes included deleted examples of what constitutes voter intimidation and deleting a paragraph saying that the secretary of state could finalize the state’s election results without a particular county’s results if the officials missed the state deadline. “Every voter, in every corner of Arizona, should have the same fair and secure election process,” Fontes said in a statement about the submission. “The EPM makes that possible.” The manual also aims to try to alleviate ballot printing errors that have plagued election officials in recent years. Both Hobbs and Mayes must sign off on the EPM by December for it to take effect. The Secretary of State’s Office in a press release Wednesday said that 79 stakeholders submitted nearly 800 comments on the EPM. Some of the public comments include conspiracy theories and a large number of them appear to be copy and pasted from a document created by conservative activist group EZAZ. “This manual reflects bipartisan input, public transparency, and a deep commitment to the rule of law,” Fontes said. “It helps ensure that every Arizonan’s vote is counted accurately and fairly — no matter their zip code.”
Florida: A bill (HB 73) that would establish a centralized database to track the voting-rights status of individuals with felony convictions has once again been filed in the Florida House of Representatives. Rep. Felicia Robinson, D-Miami Gardens, has sponsored similar legislation over the past several sessions. None have received a committee hearing (Broward County Democrat Tina Polsky has filed similar legislation in the Senate in previous years). Robinson’s legislation calls for the Florida Commission on Offender Review to develop and maintain a database of information for those with felony convictions including: The remaining length of any term of supervision. The remaining amount of any restitution owed to a victim as ordered by a court as part of his or her sentence. The remaining amount due of any fines and fees initially ordered by a court as part of his or her sentence or as a condition of any form of supervision. If the measure were to become law, the Department of State, the Department of Corrections, the clerks of the circuit courts, the county comptrollers, and the Board of Executive Clemency would provide the information listed above to the commission. That body would be required to provide the governor, president of the Senate, and speaker of the House a comprehensive plan by July 1, 2027, that would: List government entities and methods by which the commission would collect, centralize, analyze, and secure the information required to be included in the database. Describe any infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, software, hardware, and information technology services, that may be necessary to create and maintain the database. List the anticipated number of additional employees to develop and maintain the database. Estimate the cost of the database. Cite any legal authority necessary for the commission to develop and maintain the database.
Guam: A public hearing was held September 26 on Bill 190-38 by Sen. Telo Taitague which proposes to adopt the updated Guam election manual. Guam Election Commission executive director Maria Pangelinan was the lone person to testify. She said the election manual, originally created in 2015, has been reviewed and updated to strengthen and clarify the administration of the electoral process. “The proposed legislation ensures that GEC has ample time to implement these updates in its training materials as it prepares for the 2026 elections,” Pangelinan said. The election commission members met in April and proposed several changes to provisions in the more than 70-page manual. They were sent to the governor’s office and the Office of the Attorney General, and subsequently approved. Pangelinan testified about the proposed amendments, most of which were technical in nature, such as extending various deadlines. For example, the GEC sought to change the last day to register to vote from 15 days to 10 days before an election to give prospective voters an extra five days, and would also make it consistent with the election code.
Michigan: A proposed bill from House Republicans would make Michigan’s school board candidates declare a party affiliation, a change that’s drawing criticism from local election officials and school board members. Under state law, school board positions are explicitly nonpartisan. House Bill 4588, introduced by Rep. Jason Woolford, would tweak the law to require candidates for local school boards to declare a party affiliation. That requirement could force the races to have primary elections in August, in addition to the November general election when school board seats are typically voted on, officials said. Michigan clerks warn that the bill could create a range of problems for local election offices, including longer ballots, voter confusion, and thousands of extra dollars in expenses. For one thing, it would require changing the layout of primary ballots to include school board candidates in the partisan section, which could be confusing for voters and expensive to implement, Hillsdale County Clerk Abe Dane told Votebeat.
Legal Updates
U.S. Department of Justice: The U.S. Department of Justice announced September 25 it is suing six states — California, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania — that have refused to turn over detailed voter roll data demanded by federal attorneys earlier this year. The Justice Department has reached out to more than half the states in recent months for voter lists, and has indicated it plans to contact all of them. Some of the requests vary in detail, but in general they ask for voter information on millions of Americans, including personal data such as driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. Some states have released only publicly available data or invited DOJ attorneys to make public records requests. Others have refused outright. Indiana last week became the first known state to have provided sensitive personal data. The lawsuits have been filed in the federal districts of the respective states. They argue that the federal government is privy to the data under two federal laws, the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), that were passed “to ensure that states have proper and effective voter registration and voter list maintenance programs,” the Justice Department said in a news release. “Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” said U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in a statement announcing the lawsuits. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure — states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.” This is in addition to suits it had already filed against Maine and Oregon.
U.S. Supreme Court: On December 7, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Moore v. Harper, a landmark case examining whether state legislatures have exclusive power to set rules regarding federal elections. If the Court adopts a ruling favorable to this argument, also known as the Independent State Legislature Theory (ISLT), local governments will face significant obstacles in fulfilling our responsibility to administer free and fair elections. NACo has joined with the National League of Cities, International Municipal Lawyers Association, International County/City Managers Association and U.S. Conference of Mayors to file an amicus brief urging the Court to protect local control over elections by rejecting the ISLT. The local government associations’ amicus brief argues that the adoption of the ISLT would jeopardize our ability to carry out these processes smoothly and efficiently, which could ultimately threaten the constitutional right of U.S. citizens to vote. For instance, the ISLT is likely to lead state legislators to set different rules for federal elections and state elections (which are governed by state constitutions), creating a confusing, burdensome and costly two-tier election system. Under the ISLT, state legislatures may erode or overrule local control of voting systems and polling locations, resulting in disorganized elections and potentially fostering distrust in the electoral process. Furthermore, the ISLT would almost certainly limit the ability of state and local elections officials to respond in real-time to emergencies and natural disasters.
Federal Lawsuits: A class action federal lawsuit filed this week argues the Trump administration’s actions that aggregated personal data on hundreds of millions of Americans from various federal agencies violated federal privacy laws and the U.S. Constitution, put sensitive data at risk of security breaches, and could lead to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The suit argues that the Department of Homeland Security, along with the Department of Government Efficiency team, is “working rapidly to create precisely the type of ‘national data banks’ the American people and Congress have consistently resisted, and the Privacy Act was designed to prevent.” The suit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and five unnamed U.S. citizens.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan ruled late last week that MyPillow founder Mike Lindell defamed the election technology company Smartmatic with false statements that its voting machines helped rig the 2020 presidential election. Bryan deferred until future proceedings the question of whether Lindell — one of the country’s most prominent propagators of false claims that the 2020 election was a fraud — acted with the “actual malice” that Smartmatic still needs to prove to collect any damages. The judge said there are “genuine fact disputes” as to whether Lindell’s statements were made “with knowledge that they were false or made with reckless disregard to their falsity.” He noted that the defense says Lindell has an “unwavering belief” that his statements were truthful. The statements cited by the judge arose from Lindell’s criticism of the results of the 2020 election in Los Angeles County. The judge ruled there were 51 specific times when Lindell falsely claimed — in documentaries he produced and through various media and personal appearances — that Smartmatic interfered with the results. “The Court concludes that, based on the record presented, no reasonable trier of fact could find that any of the statements at issue are true,” Bryan wrote.
Rudy Giuliani has reached a settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in its $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit over his baseless 2020 election-rigging claims. The two sides said in a filing in federal court in Washington, D.C., on September 26 that they have agreed to permanently dismiss the suit against the former New York City mayor and former personal lawyer to President Trump. The brief filing doesn’t cite the settlement terms. Spokespeople for Giuliani and the Colorado-based Dominion said that the terms are confidential and declined to comment further. “The Parties have agreed to a confidential settlement to this matter,” a Dominion spokesperson told CBS News in a statement. Dominion sued Giuliani in 2021 for $1.3 billion in damages after he led Mr. Trump’s efforts to cast doubt on the 2020 election results.
Arkansas: Chief Judge Timothy Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas delayed ruling this week in a case challenging new state laws that plaintiffs argue violate the First Amendment and hinder their ability to collect signatures for citizen-initiated ballot measures. The original suit was brought by ballot committee Save AR Democracy and the League of Women Voters of Arkansas, which is in the process of gathering signatures for a 2026 ballot initiative. League President Bonnie Miller and Benton County chapter President Danielle Quesnell are also plaintiffs. Two other ballot question groups, Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids, joined as intervenor-plaintiffs in July. Arkansas Secretary of State Cole Jester and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin are defendants. The plaintiffs say the laws are intended to stifle direct democracy, a process by which Arkansans can propose new laws or constitutional amendments and place them on the ballot for a statewide vote. They asked Brooks to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against six of the laws they are challenging while the lawsuit is ongoing. Brooks’ delay means the 2025 laws, now in effect, will continue to apply.
Colorado: Virginia Chau, a lawyer who worked part-time as a polling center supervisor during elections in Denver who says she lost her job after speaking to comedian Jon Stewart about her concerns for the safety of poll workers has settled a lawsuit alleging the city violated her First Amendment rights for $65,000, her lawyer said. Chau spoke in 2022 about threats made against election workers and the lack of training for them during a panel discussion on the short-lived streaming show “The Problem with Jon Stewart” in 2022. Denver paid Chau $65,000 under the settlement agreement, her lawyer, David Lane, said. A copy of the Sept. 2 deal said Denver denied any wrongdoing against Chau. Representatives for the city attorney’s office and the clerk and recorder’s office, which runs elections, did not immediately respond to emails and telephone calls requesting comment. Chau alleged she was removed as a supervisor because of her comments on the show and told she could be a voting hotline representative instead because no one from the public would recognize her in that job. She considered it a demotion and did not accept the new assignment. Chau earned about $10,000 a year working on elections, doing the job mostly because, as an immigrant, she felt privileged to live in a democracy, Lane said. He said the loss of her job was devastating. Chau’s lawsuit said she had a right to speak about a matter of public importance as a private citizen under the First Amendment. According to court documents, Denver said Chau was speaking as a government employee about her job and that it did not violate her free speech rights. The city denied she was terminated or demoted, just reassigned.
New Hampshire: Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice sued New Hampshire Secretary of State Dave Scanlan to compel him to turn over the state’s voter registration file, which contains every voter’s name, address, voting history, and party affiliation. State officials have not yet responded to the lawsuit. But Neal Kurk and three other New Hampshire residents are seeking to insert themselves into the lawsuit, arguing they have an interest in its outcome as registered voters concerned about their privacy. In a court motion filed September 30, Kurk, Portsmouth Attorney Christopher Cole, former Democratic state representative Bob Perry, and liberal activist Louise Spencer have asked to intervene in the litigation, which would allow the group to file its own motions asking the judge to strike down the lawsuit. “DOJ’s demands not only run roughshod over federalism principles and New Hampshire law — they spurn Proposed Intervenors’ privacy rights,” the motion, brought by Steven Dutton of McLane Middleton, attorney Paul Twomey, and the Elias Law Group reads. Late September 30, U.S Magistrate Judge Andrea Johnston granted a request by the federal government to pause the lawsuit until the end of the federal government shutdown; the case is expected to eventually resume.
Pennsylvania: County election officials are required to accurately report when voters’ mail-in ballots have been set aside because of disqualifying errors and allow their votes to be counted on provisional ballots, Pennsylvania’s highest court ruled. The state Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision upholds lower court rulings that Washington County election officials violated voters’ rights by misleading them about the status of their mail-in ballots. This prevented voters from challenging the board’s decision to disqualify 259 vote-by-mail ballots or casting provisional ballots as a backup to ensure their votes were counted, the courts said. “We must interpret the Election Code and its statutory procedures in a way that ‘favors the fundamental right to vote and enfranchises, rather than disenfranchises, the electorate,’” Justice Kevin Dougherty wrote for the majority, quoting the court’s 2020 decision resolving issues surrounding the then-new vote-by-mail law. “Reading the Code as allowing county boards to withhold readily available information from voters does not serve that goal,” Dougherty wrote.
South Carolina: Circuit Court Judge Daniel Coble refused to temporarily block the South Carolina Election Commission from sharing information with the Department of Justice. Coble’s ruling doesn’t mean the transfer is imminent. State and federal officials are still working out the details for security safeguards and how the data will be transmitted, according to the agency. In his conclusion, Coble noted he has “grave concerns about federal overreach and encroachment over this State’s sovereignty.” However, he wrote, that’s not the issue at hand. He laid out several reasons for denying the motion to temporarily block the release of data. First, he said, Calhoun County voter Anne Crook has failed to prove she’ll suffer harm without an injunction. Her motion sought to block any exchange of data until there’s a memorandum of understanding between the election agency and U.S. Department of Justice. “Federal law likely preempts state law in this area,” Coble wrote in his conclusion. “The State at this point has interpreted the law as requiring compliance.” He postponed deciding on Gov. Henry McMaster’s request to dismiss the case.
Texas: Judge Megan Fahey is expected to decide whether to grant a temporary injunction against Tarrant County’s new commissioner precincts next week. It’s part of a lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters of Tarrant County and the League of United Latin American Citizens Fort Worth Council 4568. The lawsuit alleges the county’s mid-decade redistricting is unconstitutional, naming Tarrant County, the commissioners court and County Judge Tim O’Hare as defendants. Fahey heard arguments and testimony in the 348th District Court in the request for an injunction filed by the two groups. The request comes as the two organizations work with the Texas Voting Rights Coalition in an attempt to stop the voting maps, which opponents have described as racist and a power grab. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the map is not legally valid because it focuses on population and partisanship without consideration for other state constitutional requirements for redistricting.
Wisconsin: The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on September 25 on the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s exemption from the transparency requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. In January 2024, the Public Interest Legal Foundation nonprofit requested Wisconsin’s voter registration list with voters’ birth years. Wisconsin Election Commission administrator, Meagan Wolfe, directed the group to the public records portal in February, where the list costs $5 per 1,000 voters, capped at $12,500. The foundation called the fee unreasonable and accused Wolfe of violating federal election law requiring states to provide voter rolls at a reasonable cost upon request, although Wisconsin has a contentious exception. The nonprofit sued Wolfe in April 2024 under the National Voter Registration Act; however, the Western District of Wisconsin federal court sided with election officials. The group appealed, and last week, a Seventh Circuit panel, including Judges Diane Sykes, Frank Easterbrook and Michael Brennan, weighed the scope and constitutionality of Wisconsin’s exemption from the law’s transparency requirements. States that allowed election day voter registration when the act became law or didn’t require registration at all are exempted from the Act’s transparency requirements. Assistant Wisconsin Attorney General Brian Keenan argued that applying the same transparency rules to those states would be impractical, since their voter rolls are constantly changing. Attorney Andrew Braniff, representing the United States Civil Rights Division, agreed with Keenan and added that it doesn’t make sense to apply other parts of the voter registration act, like the halt on inactive voter purging 90 days before an election, because they can simply re-register when they arrive at the polling place. “The NVRA is in itself a jigsaw,” Braniff said. “All the pieces fit together, and the pieces simply don’t work if you apply them to states that have same day registration processes.” The nonprofit does not dispute Wisconsin’s exempt status. Instead, it claims that the act’s exemption is facially unconstitutional because it does not apply the same requirements to every single state. It asks the court to sever the exception completely or force the federal government to provide justification for the unequal regulation.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment