The Independent View: Electionline Weekly October-30-2025

Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking

Shasta County, California Ballot Measure: An election ballot measure proposed by five Shasta County residents to change voting rules has gotten enough verified signatures and will be placed on the ballot. The proposed measure calls for elections to take place only on Election Day with limited absentee voting, to have lottery-selected volunteers hand count all ballots at the precincts, to require people to present voter identification in order to vote and calls for the creation of a new voter roll. Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis said Friday, Oct. 24 that enough signatures were found to be valid through a statistical sampling method to place the item before voters. When the proposed measure will be on the ballot is up to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, said Curtis. He said the earliest the new measure could be included on the Shasta County ballot would be the June 2, 2026 statewide primary. The board could approve calling a special election on the question to be held before then. Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour had said the changes in the proposed ballot measure would violate the state and federal constitutions and other state and federal legislation. In March, the county reiterated with a statement saying such a proposal “raised concerns that the measure conflicts with state and federal laws, including the California Constitution, the California Elections Code, the Help America Vote Act, and the National Voter Registration Act.”

Louisiana: Lawmakers convened this week for a special session to adjust the state’s 2026 election calendar. Republicans want to account for a pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a case that could reshape Louisiana’s six congressional districts ahead of next year’s midterm elections. The front-running proposals from the Republican-run legislature – House Bill 1 and identical Senate Bill 1 – push next year’s primary schedule back by roughly one month. The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee advanced the Senate Bill 1 to the floor in an 5-3 party-line vote. The start of the three-day qualifying period for the election gets shifted from Jan. 14 to Feb. 11 in the bills Sen. Caleb Kleinpeter, R-Port Allen, and Rep. Beau Beaullieu, R-New Iberia, have co-authored. Both lead their respective chamber’s legislative committees that handle election proposals. Procedural efforts from Democrats in both chambers failed to keep the bills from being moved to their committees. The panel also approved Senate Bill 2, which moves the election date for five constitutional amendments from the April 18 ballot to May 16. The date changes lawmakers approved in a 73-29 vote move next year’s primary election schedule back roughly one month. Instead of an April 18 party primary for Louisiana’s congressional races and some municipal elections, the new date would be May 16. Primary runoffs would be moved from May 30 to June 2. The qualifying period for the election would be adjusted from Jan. 14-16 to Feb. 11-13. A separate measure lawmakers approved moves five state constitutional amendments and local propositions on the March ballot to the new April date. The Secretary of State would need the legislature to provide a new congressional district map by Jan. 13 in order for her office to hold the qualifying period a month later.

Annapolis, Maryland: The Annapolis City Council will not consider switching to ranked choice voting in its final meeting ahead of November’s city elections, adding to a list of controversial items tabled in the last few weeks of the mayor and council term. The ranked choice voting plan, introduced by Ward 1 Alderman Harry Huntley, would have switched the city’s local election system as of the 2029 primaries for city alderman and mayor. Huntley confirmed to the Capital Gazette that he would be tabling the agenda item during October 27th’s City Council meeting. He said he wanted to give more opportunity for the city’s Board of Supervisors of Elections and the city’s Rules and Government Committee to provide input on the legislation. “Unfortunately, it was too ambitious to try to significantly change our elections while our election staff and volunteers—not to mention the council—were all busy with running elections. We have been working for many months on getting the details of this right, and the clock is just going to run out,” Huntley wrote in his newsletter. Huntley said he plans to reintroduce a more streamlined version of the legislation early in the next council term if reelected, a position that was lauded by a proponent group. The bill drew vocal support and opposition at a recent meeting, where most attendees argued that the change would give voters more choice in city elections, but a smaller contingent of critics said it could be confusing to some voters.

Michigan: Sen. Sam Singh (D-East Lansing), the Senate majority floor leader, plans to introduce legislation within two weeks to move Michigan’s August primary to May, with some May races potentially shifting to February. The changes would take effect in 2027, Singh said, potentially eliminating concerns Republicans in the House expressed about disrupting the 2026 election cycle. Because many campaigns are “up and running,” Singh told Votebeat in an interview last week, making changes in the middle of a cycle “was a significant concern.” If the proposal becomes law, the general-election period would effectively be stretched out by three months each year. Meanwhile, clerks around the state would see a big shift in their election calendar — but it’s not the one they want. Clerks say they want just two elections a year: one in May or June and one in November. The Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks’ official stance is that Michigan doesn’t need three elections each year. Keeping all three, regardless of the timing, is expensive for local governments, said Michael Siegrist, the Canton Township clerk and first vice president of the local clerks association.

Nearly two dozen House Republicans have signed on to a resolution calling for Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to share the state’s complete voter rolls with the Trump administration, without redactions of potentially sensitive identifying information. The GOP-backed resolution, which was debated at a hearing in the House Election Integrity Committee, calls for the secretary of state to share an unredacted copy of Michigan’s computerized statewide voter registration list, also known as the qualified voter file, with federal officials. “It is inconceivable, in fact unconscionable, that the chief election officer in Michigan refuses to comply with our nation’s top law enforcement official,” Rep. Joe Fox, a Republican from Fremont and the sponsor of the resolution, said at the hearing. “Who does she think she is?” When questioned by Rep. Stephen Wooden, D-Grand Rapids, Fox appeared unaware that the state had already submitted a redacted voter roll to the Justice Department, saying he was “maybe one of the most confused.” After Wooden provided the date that the file was submitted, Fox said he’d look into it. The committee approved the resolution 6-3 along party lines.

New Hampshire: The Senate upheld Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s veto of a bill that would have expanded the prohibition on electioneering by public employees. In vetoing Senate Bill 213, Ayotte said she would be interested in working on strengthening the anti-electioneering law, but pointed to an unrelated section in the bill focused on absentee voting that clashes with a different bill signed into law this year. The Senate unanimously voted to sustain the veto. SB 213 would have built upon the current ban on electioneering by laying out specific activities that public employees cannot do, as well as those that they can. Current law defines electioneering as a public employee acting “in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office” while in the performance of their official duties, but it does not specify those activities. The bill states that the prohibition on electioneering includes a public employee distributing or displaying campaign materials, making public statements for or against a candidate, organizing surveys, forums, or events that are political, and using their authority to influence or interfere with a voter’s decision. “I am vetoing this legislation as it conflicts with other bills I have recently signed into law regarding absentee ballots,” Ayotte wrote in her veto message Aug. 1. “Additionally, I intend to work with the bill sponsors on the issue of electioneering to ensure that public employees can engage in public discourse without misusing their official positions for political purposes.” SB 213 is the only Senate bill vetoed by Ayotte this year. Under the state constitution, all vetoed bills return first to the legislative chamber in which they originated, and if that chamber votes by a two-thirds majority to overturn the veto, the other chamber also takes it up for a vote.

Oklahoma: Lawmakers are studying ways to reduce the long waits early voters experienced during the last presidential election. According to the Oklahoma Voice, at least three county election boards – Oklahoma, Tulsa and Cleveland – plan to open additional locations, the legislative panel was told. Sen. Mary Boren, D-Norman, oversaw an interim study on the issue. Interim studies often help lawmakers craft legislation for the upcoming session. Boren said knew of two instances during the 2024 presidential election in which some Cleveland County voters were told early voting had closed when time still remained to cast ballots. County election officials did the best with the hand they were dealt, State Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax said. Ziriax said he doesn’t want people to wait in long lines, but it comes down to resources, time, money, people and locations. While some of the resources can come from the Legislature, a lot has to come from the county government, he said.

Oklahoma Ballot Measure: Supporters of an effort to open the state’s primary voting system began gathering ballot measure signatures this week. They have until Jan. 28 to collect 172,993 signatures to get State Question 836 on the ballot. Supporters are aiming to get the measure on the November 2026 ballot, said A.J. Griffin, a former Republican state senator who is volunteering. If approved by voters, all candidates for an office would appear on a single primary ballot. Every voter, regardless of party registration, could participate. The top two finishers, regardless of partisan affiliation, would advance to the general election. Critics have said the measure forces political parties to unwillingly associate with political candidates in violation of the First Amendment. Oklahoma law allows recognized political parties the option to open their primaries to independent voters. Currently, Democrats have opened their primaries to independent voters, but Republicans and Libertarians have not. A new law, created by Senate Bill 1027, which puts additional restrictions on the initiative petition process, does not apply to State Question 836 following a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Oregon Ballot Measure: According to Jefferson Public Radio, Oregonians could once again be voting on whether or not to open up the state’s primary system. Two new initiatives recently filed would let voters consider whether to amend the state law and the state’s constitution and open primaries to all voters. Initiative 55 would amend the state constitution to get rid of partisan primaries. A separate proposal, Initiative 56, would change the primary process to a ranking-style system with all candidates listed on a single ballot, with the top two candidates advancing to the general election. The same three people are backing both initiatives and are calling the two the “Voters Fairness Act.” To qualify for the November 2026 ballot, petitioners will need to collect 156,000 signatures to amend the constitution to enact a top two primary system and 117,000 to change the state law to open up party primaries. Former Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski is one of the chief petitioners, along with former state Rep. Cheri Helt, R-Bend, and Andrew Kaza, who is the co-chair of the state Independent Party of Oregon. “When this is on the ballot, half of the people in the state will be neither Democrats or Republican registered. And I think that the party should have to make an appeal to those independents as to why they think their candidate is the best one,” Kulongoski said.

Texas Ballot Measure: One state constitutional amendment on the upcoming Texas ballot would clarify that a voter must be a U.S. citizen. According to Votebeat, the amendment wouldn’t have much practical effect, as it essentially restates what’s already in state law. But it would “make it crystal clear under the state constitution that if you’re not a U.S. citizen you’re not allowed to vote in Texas,” Gov. Greg Abbott said. An effort to require all Texas to show proof of citizenship to register to vote failed to pass in the legislature this year. Constitutional amendments are the only state measures voters in Texas will see on their ballot this year. They will appear at the top of the ballot and above any local races or measures. It was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 37 and written by Sen. Brian Birdwell, a Republican from North Texas. The Legislature approved its addition to the ballot during the regular session. It says, “the constitutional amendment clarifying that a voter must be a United States citizen.” It would amend Article 6 of the Texas Constitution, which lists groups that aren’t allowed to vote in Texas. Article 6 currently prohibits voting by people under 18 years old; anyone who has been deemed incompetent by a court; and anyone who has been convicted of a felony. The proposed amendment would add to that list “persons who are not citizens of the United States.”

Grand County, Utah: The county Commission narrowly voted down a proposal from Clerk-Auditor Gabriel Woytek to separate his combined office into two elected positions — one for clerk and one for auditor — beginning in 2027. The 3–4 vote followed concerns about creating another elected position, increasing government size and cost, and the risk of electing an unqualified auditor, despite Woytek’s assurances that the change would improve efficiency at little or no added expense. Woytek, who has served as clerk-auditor since 2022, said the growing size and complexity of county government has made the dual role difficult to manage. He said the separation would help strengthen oversight and make both offices more effective. In a written response to The Times-Independent, Woytek said many clerk-auditors across Utah face similar pressures balancing financial oversight and elections, and that despite the commission’s decision, he remains committed to the work. If approved, the offices would have separated in January 2027, following the 2026 election cycle. Woytek said he intended to run for clerk, leaving the auditor seat open. The change, he argued, would let each office focus on its core duties — elections and record-keeping for the clerk, and budgeting and financial oversight for the auditor — while keeping both accountable to voters.

Legal Updates This Week

Arizona: The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that preemptive lawsuits against public records requesters are not the way to solve questions about whether documents are legally public records. The case originated in 2022, after Audit USA requested several primary election records from Santa Cruz County, including its cast vote record, the electronic documentation of each ballot cast in an election and all the votes on those ballots. Maricopa, Pima and Santa Cruz counties had previously released their cast vote records — which contain huge amounts of data that would be difficult for laypeople to parse — to election data analysts. But the counties later ended that practice after a huge increase in requests for the cast vote record following unfounded claims of voter fraud in 2020 and 2022, saying that releasing the cast vote record violated voter privacy laws. While the record includes every vote cast on every ballot in the election, it does not identify individual voters or how they voted. Santa Cruz County’s lawsuit, filed weeks after the county agreed to provide the cast vote record to Audit USA, attempted to force the courts to decide on the county’s behalf whether the cast vote record was legally a public record. The lack of clarity in the law has been a source of debate for years, but in July a Maricopa County judge ruled that public records laws do not require counties to release the cast vote record. That decision was appealed in September but is still awaiting a hearing. Judge Peter Eckerstrom said that if the courts allowed government entities to sue people or groups simply because they requested public records, that could have a chilling effect on requesters who don’t have the means to defend themselves in court. In the unanimous Oct. 20 decision, Eckerstrom wrote that lawsuits like the one brought by Santa Cruz County must focus on “specific adverse claims, based upon present rather than future or speculative facts.”

Arkansas: As expected, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has appealed a judge’s decision that mandates Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders to set an earlier date for the Senate District 26 special election, following a successful lawsuit by Franklin County resident Colt Shelby. Shelby, who lives in the Cecil community, sued the governor and secretary of state to ensure an election date is set before lawmakers return to Little Rock for the fiscal session. The Franklin County clerk told 40/29 News that her office can accommodate any election day as long as they have at least 60 days to prepare, but the governor is currently appealing the latest court ruling.

Illinois: DuPage County Judge Bryan Chapman this week denied the county clerk’s request for a temporary restraining order to force the payment of the two bills, totaling more than $230,000. In his ruling, Chapman said granting the TRO would require him to rule on the underlying case that DuPage County Clerk Jean Kaczmarek brought against the county. In that case, Kaczmarek argues the county cannot prevent her from procuring services or equipment needed to run her office. “TROs are not designed to address the merits in the underlying case,” Chapman said. Chapman’s ruling comes two months after a decision directing the county clerk’s office to comply with the county’s accounting procedures on budget line-item transfers for bill payments. The two bills in question prompted the DuPage County state’s attorney’s office to request a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation to determine if the clerk’s office violated the state’s competitive bidding laws and if any criminal charges, including official misconduct, are warranted. The Illinois attorney general’s office was appointed to investigate, but has not yet released a ruling.

Missouri: The Missouri Association of Realtors is asking a Cole County judge to order a rewrite of the ballot summary for a GOP-backed proposal that would make it nearly impossible for constitutional amendments to pass through the initiative petition process. The lawsuit, which was filed October 23, accuses Missouri lawmakers of trying to trick voters by writing an intentionally deceptive summary that includes so-called “ballot candy” — three provisions vowing to enact things that are already part of state law, such as a ban on foreign campaign contributions. The first three bullet points of the summary make no mention of the proposal’s main purpose, which is to require constitutional amendments put on the ballot by voters to obtain both a simple majority statewide and a majority in all eight congressional districts to pass. Currently, constitutional amendments only require a simple majority statewide. “The General Assembly elected to include these provisions in bullet points one, two, and three to conceal the central purpose,” the lawsuit states, “which is to limit citizens’ ability to approve citizen-led initiative petitions to amend the constitution.”

New Hampshire: Nick Moorhead, 55 of Northfield, pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing political signs in Northfield has lost his right to vote in New Hampshire.The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office Moorhead took political signs from the yard of a home ahead of the November 2024 election. Moorhead was ordered to pay a $310 penalty, and under the state constitution, his right to vote in New Hampshire is terminated unless it is restored by the state Supreme Court. The Election Law Unit led the investigation into the missing political signs, along with the Northfield Police Department.

New Jersey: The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit late last week in Burlington County seeking chain-of-custody logs for ballots and video recordings of ballot drop boxes from the June primary election. The complaint focuses on an Open Public Records Act request for video footage of a Moorestown ballot drop box for a 10-day period in June. It also seeks chain-of-custody logs and ballot storage container opening logs. The RNC says the Burlington County Board of Elections delayed providing the documents and denied having video footage of the Moorestown ballot drop box, according to the complaint. “The RNC’s party members, and any member of the public, have the right to know the information contained on the chain of custody logs,” the complaint states. “No known state interest outweighs the right of the RNC to obtain this basic-level due diligence information.” “The timing of this complaint seems intended to garner headlines and impact voter participation rather than improve election transparency,” Dave Levinsky, spokesperson for Burlington County, said in a statement. “As the pleadings show, this complaint relates to an OPRA request from the primary election and completely ignores the independent special counsel’s review and report and the significant measures Burlington County election offices have taken to ensure election integrity and unfettered, equal access for all voters.”

Oklahoma: Victoria Vincenza Dill, 31, has been indicted by the Oklahoma Multi-County Grand Jury. She’s accused of casting multiple ballots in the November 2024 general election. According to the Oklahoma State Election Board, Vincenza Dill allegedly voted in person in Oklahoma County while also submitting an absentee ballot in Payne County on the same day. “The integrity of our elections is fundamental to ensuring every vote counts,” said Attorney General Gentner Drummond. “Every illegal vote cancels out a legitimate voter’s voice and undermines public confidence in our elections. My office will continue to investigate voter fraud and hold accountable those who violate Oklahoma’s election laws.” If convicted, Dill faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $50,000. ]

Pennsylvania: Ten people are charged with election-related crimes as a result of a year-long investigation by the state attorney general and a related investigation in Monroe County, the officials involved announced October 24 according to WITF. The charges stem from a voter registration drive leading up to the 2024 election, in which a state coordinator offered illegal financial incentives to canvassers who then fabricated voter information to meet quotas. “We are confident that the motive behind these crimes was personal financial gain, and not a conspiracy or organized effort to tip any election for any one candidate or party,” Attorney General Dave Sunday said in a press release. The attorney general’s office, as well as commissioners for Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe and York counties, said last year that inaccurate or deceptive voter registration forms were not accepted, and therefore did not lead to falsified voter registrations or votes cast. All of the criminal charges announced Friday relate back to a single canvassing firm called Field+Media Corps, according to the state’s criminal complaint and Monroe County District Attorney.

South Carolina: Police arrested South Carolina’s recently fired elections director, Howard Knapp, on embezzlement and misconduct-in-office charges related to his use of state-provided vehicles over eight months starting in 2023. Knapp, 40, was booked into the Richland County jail in the early morning hours Friday, according to jail records. Police also arrested Knapp’s former deputy, Paige Salonich. Knapp faces 11 charges total. They include eight counts of using his official position or office for financial gain — one for each month he’s accused of using state vehicles for personal travel and a public credit card to fuel up. He’s also charged with embezzlement of public funds valued at less than $10,000 (for the fuel), misconduct in office, and accessory to a felony after the fact, according to Richland County court records. Salonich, 41, faces a single wiretapping charge. The accessory and wiretapping charges involve a recording device left in a closed-door meeting of the election agency’s governing board. According to arrest warrants provided by State Law Enforcement Division, Knapp is accused of driving — or letting his wife drive — a pair of state-owned vehicles for personal use between June 2023 and January 2024 and using a state credit card to purchase fuel for those off-duty trips to the tune of about $5,480.

Virginia: U.S. District Judge John Gibney ruled in favor of a pair of disenfranchised voters who argued Virginia’s felony voting law violates a 150-year-old federal statute. Gibney ruled from the bench to grant summary judgment. He also certified a class that includes all Virginians who are currently or will be disqualified from voting due to convictions for crimes that were not considered felonies at common law in 1870. “We’re very optimistic about the judge’s comments at the end of the hearing,” attorney Brittany Amadi, partner at Wilmer Cutler, representing the plaintiffs, said in an interview. “Our plaintiffs have been waiting for some, some of them years and years to get their voting rights back, and so we’re very excited about the opportunity for those plaintiffs to restore their rights.” The plaintiffs, Tati King and Toni Johnson, who the state disenfranchised after drug- and child-neglect-related felonies, claim that Virginia’s felony disenfranchisement scheme violates the Virginia Readmission Act of 1870, which restored federal representation for the Confederate commonwealth after the Civil War. The 1870 law prohibited Virginia from amending the constitution to increase voting disenfranchisement, which was a political tool Southern states used during Reconstruction to strangle the nascent voting power of the formerly enslaved. The plaintiffs argued that under the act, the state can only disenfranchise those convicted of crimes considered to be common law felonies in 1870, including murder, arson, sodomy, robbery and larceny. Professor Carissa Byrne Hessick of the University of North Carolina School of Law identified 1,096 modern Virginia statutory felonies that were not felonies at common law in 1870 in her expert report, including offenses related to drug possession and distribution. Gibney said that although he believed the constitution’s changes violated the act, he wants further briefing on how best to issue an injunction. “It looks to me the statute is pretty wrong,” the Barack Obama appointee said. “But someone needs to provide guidance to those in the field.” Gibney said he was concerned about how local registrars would determine who to reenfranchise. Gibney asked both parties to compile a list of felonies that no longer require disenfranchisement.