Electionline Weekly November-13-2025

Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking

Alabama: Rep. Adline Clarke (D-Mobile) has filed a bill ahead of the 2026 legislative session that is designed to make voting easier for disabled Alabamians. Clarke said disabled voters are at a disadvantage at the ballot box under current state law. She said House Bill 45 is aimed at bridging that gap. At the bottom of Alabama’s absentee ballot, there is a section that says “only the voter may hand this application to the absentee election manager” or “the voter may also forward this application through the mail.” “That is problematic for a whole lot of people,” said Rep. Clarke. Clarke said people should be able to assist disabled voters without penalty. “People are mailing applications on behalf of disabled persons in good conscience,” she said. “They feel like they should be able to do that, and they should be able to do that, but in the process they should not be breaking the law.” This is the second year Clarke has filed the bill. Alabama’s legislative session for 2026 is scheduled to begin on Jan. 13.

Senator Linda Coleman-Madison (D-Birmingham) has reintroduced a bill to streamline the process for restoring an individual’s voting rights following a felony conviction. Senate Bill 24, filed last week, would require the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles and secretary of state to post “easily accessible” instructions on their websites detailing the process for certain individuals who have lost their right to vote due to a conviction to restore their voting rights. The bill would also require that the websites include a form for individuals to request a certificate of their eligibility to register to vote, which can be submitted electronically to the Board of Pardons and Paroles. SB24 would mandate that the Board of Pardons and Paroles publicly posts the names of individuals who have had their voting rights restored on its website, alongside information on where they were last registered or their last known residence. The board must also notify the secretary of state of the individuals’ names, addresses and when their right to vote was restored.

Alaska Ballot Measure: State elections officials have begun reviewing signatures gathered by people opposed to Alaska’s system of open primary elections and ranked-choice general elections to determine whether a repeal ballot measure will appear before voters in 2026. Alaskans enacted the state’s existing elections system via a ballot measure in 2020, and a repeal measure last year failed by only 737 votes out of 320,985 cast. Proponents of the repeal vowed at that time to renew their effort and began gathering signatures in February to force another vote. Based on state law and the number of people who voted in the 2024 statewide election, repeal supporters needed to collect signatures from at least 34,099 registered voters, including a certain minimum number in at least 30 of the 40 state House districts. This week, supporters of the repeal measure said they were submitting more than 48,000 signatures to the Alaska Division of Elections for review. If the repeal petition is deemed to have enough signatures, it would go before voters in either the 2026 primary or the 2026 general election, depending upon the length of next year’s state legislative session. If voters approve the measure in 2026, all three components of the 2020 ballot measure would be repealed.

Shasta County, California: Shasta County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved adding an election reform initiative to the ballot for the June 2026 primary. The initiative would make voter ID mandatory, and also require in-person, same day voting. After collecting more than 10,000 signatures in support of the measure in the past few months, the ‘Save Shasta Elections’ organization’s identification reform initiative was deemed ‘sufficient’ by the board of supervisors. The initiative would require each voter to provide identification before their vote is counted, including those who mail-in their ballots. “It did pass, it was sufficient. So, it needs to be put on the ballot” Shasta County Clerk & Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis told the board on November 6. While supervisors unanimously approved putting the initiative on the June 2nd, 2026 ballot, ‘Save Shasta Elections’ leader Laura Hobbs initially pitched a special election in February to vote on the matter. Curtis acknowledged that lawsuits against the county could be filed if the measure is passed by voters. Shasta County Counsel Joseph Larmour also has said in previous meeting that the measure conflicts with the California Constitution, California Elections Code and the National Voter Registration Act.

St. Petersburg, Florida: The St. Petersburg City Council will consider an ordinance that would shorten the qualifying period for local candidates and formally align the city’s 2026 election dates with the state’s election calendar. The proposal would establish a one-week qualifying window for municipal candidates, mirroring the period used for state, county and federal elections. The city currently allows a two-week qualifying period beginning 11 weeks before the municipal Primary, along with a separate two-week “pre-qualifying” period. Assistant City Attorney Brett Pettigrew wrote in a memo that the change is intended to give the City Clerk a full week to process candidate paperwork and meet ballot submission deadlines set by the Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections (SOE). If approved, the new schedule would reduce that overall window from three weeks total to two weeks of pre-qualifying followed by a one-week qualifying period. The ordinance also ratifies the dates of St. Petersburg’s 2026 municipal elections, confirming they will be held on the same days as the state Primary and General Elections on Aug. 18, 2026, and Nov. 3, 2026. Voters previously approved a local referendum moving City Council and mayoral elections to even-numbered years, to align with state and federal races. The idea was to encourage greater voter turnout in local elections and reduce election costs by putting races on already existing ballots.

Bedford, Massachusetts: After gaining approval from voters at the Nov. 3 Special Town Meeting, the town will submit a home-rule petition to implement ranked-choice voting in local elections. A home-rule petition is a formal request to the state Legislature for authority to enact a law or regulation that is not already granted by general state law. Ranked-choice voting was added to the STM warrant at the request of residents Madeleine Kando and Ethan Strominger of Bedford Ranked Choice Voting. Following debate, voters authorized the town to submit a home rule petition to the state Legislature by a majority vote. Town Manager Matt Hanson previously said the process of drafting, authorizing, filing, and waiting for approval on a home-rule petition from the state Legislature can take anywhere from six months to a year.

Ohio: Rep. Ron Ferguson (R-Wintersville) has introduced a bill that would require absentee voters to present a copy of their photo identification when returning their voted ballots. Ferguson said House Bill 577 would make mail-in absentee voting more secure. “In Ohio, it’s already the law that when you vote in person, you need to show that photo ID,” Ferguson said in an interview. “This is just to ensure that we do the same thing for mail-in ballots so that we can be assured that the person who is casting that ballot is indeed the person that is supposed to be casting that ballot.” Ferguson said this change would be easy for voters to comply with: “Most of the mail-in process would be the same. We would just be requiring a copy of a photo ID that you would currently use to vote in person.” But Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, said there is no need for this bill. “What we need to do now is to make sure that every eligible Ohioan is voting. We have secure elections in Ohio,” Miller said in an interview. Ferguson said his bill requires that organizations that offer mail-in ballot applications to also offer free photocopies of the photo identification for those voters. HB 577 was introduced Nov. 5 – the day after the election – and has been assigned to a committee, but hasn’t had a hearing yet.

Wisconsin: Despite past bipartisan backing, a Republican state lawmaker says he has to “punt” an initiative to let election clerks process absentee ballots before election day because it doesn’t have enough GOP support. In September, Republicans and Democrats in the state Assembly stood side-by-side and unveiled a series of bills to update Wisconsin’s election laws. One of those initiatives is known as early processing or Monday processing. Requested by clerks, it would let them process absentee ballots the day before an election so that results can be released sooner once the polls close. The Monday process concept has been unable to clear the Legislature for several years. It was last introduced in 2023. But during a November 6 hearing before the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections, state Rep. Scott Krug, R-Rome, said that while he thinks Monday processing is the “most important reform” lawmakers can do to restore confidence in elections, there aren’t enough Republicans in the state Senate behind it. Krug used a football analogy to make his point. “On the Monday process, it’s 4th and short, there’s 10 minutes left in the game. Right now, I’m going to punt,” Krug said. “There will be time to get the ball back later … if we can get some more input from the state Senate, I think we can figure out a way to get it done.”

Wyoming: The Wyoming Legislature’s Joint Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions Committee voted this week to sponsor a bill that would prohibit ballot harvesting and make it a felony to knowingly deliver an absentee ballot on behalf of another person, unless the deliverer is an immediate family member or an authorized caregiver. The bill, 26LSO-0042, was advanced by Committee on an 11–2 vote and will be considered during the upcoming 2026 budget session. The legislation broadly prohibits any person from delivering an absentee ballot to a county clerk unless that person is the qualified elector who cast the ballot, an immediate family member of the elector or an authorized employee of a residential care facility. During deliberations, the committee added an exception to include a “bonafide caregiver” for homebound persons. The most debated provision concerns employees of residential care facilities, such as nursing homes. The bill specifies that employees may deliver absentee ballots on behalf of “not more than five qualified electors residing in the facility per election.” For each ballot delivered, the employee must file an affidavit with the county clerk attesting to their authorization. The proposal also increases violations of the delivery prohibition to a felony offense if committed “knowingly and willfully.” If a county clerk or election official becomes aware of an improper delivery, the ballot “shall not be tabulated” and the clerk is required to “attempt to provide notice to the qualified elector that the elector’s ballot has not been tabulated.”

Legal Updates This Week

U.S. Supreme Court: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed this week to decide whether a state law can allow Mississippi to count ballots received by election officials within five business days after federal Election Day. The justices decided to take on the case after the Fifth Circuit held that federal laws preempt Mississippi’s law. Under its interpretation of federal Election Day statutes, it found federal “election” day to be, “the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials” and that Mississippi law conflicts with those statutes because it allows ballots to be received after Election Day. In his petition for review, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson asks the justices to overturn this ruling. He argues it not only defies statutory text, but that if left to stand “will have destabilizing nationwide ramifications.” Watson claims that because the votes were cast and ballots were submitted by election day, they can still be counted by the state under federal law. Like all other states, Mississippi requires that ballots for federal offices be cast — marked and submitted to election officials — by that day. And like most other states, Mississippi allows mail-in absentee ballots, mailed by Election Day, to be counted if they are received by election officials soon after. With less than 18 months before the next federal election, Watson argues the appeals court’s ruling will invite nationwide litigation against laws in most states, risking election chaos and confusion. “The stakes are high: Ballots cast by — but received after — Election Day can swing close races and change the course of the country. And this case is an excellent vehicle,” Watson wrote. U.S. Circuit Judge James Graves, a Barack Obama appointee, dissented in an opinion joined by four other judges. He maintained that an election is defined as only ballot casting, not ballot receipt, and that this case raises a question of “exceptional importance.” The justices did not say when they will hear arguments in the case.

Also this week, the Supreme Court declined to review the disqualification of an attorney accused of improperly accessing voting machines after the 2020 election as counsel in a defamation case brought by Dominion Voting Systems. Michigan attorney Stefanie Lambert represented Overstock.com founder Patrick Byrne in the defamation suit brought by Dominion, a voting technology company that conspiracists homed in on in the wake of President Trump’s 2020 election loss. She was removed from the case last year after a judge determined she publicly leaked internal records from Dominion in violation of a court order. A lawyer for Byrne contended to the justices that Lambert’s apparent expertise in “election fraud” has made her a threat to Dominion, prompting the company’s bid to disqualify her from representing him in the case, even as she represents him in other litigation.

Arizona: Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney rejected Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap’s request to halt an audit of the county’s voter registration system and election technology. Blaney wrote that he was initially concerned voters’ personal information would be at risk, but was “credibly informed” that the county and vendor had a comprehensive nondisclosure agreement and the vendor’s personnel had undergone background checks. Blaney also found “that the Recorder has not established that the Board’s actions with regard to the assessment violate any Arizona statute.” According to Votebeat, the emergency hearing over the audit of the voter registration system was one part of a larger legal fight between Heap and the county Board of Supervisors over how election duties and authority should be divided between them. Heap asked Blaney to issue an immediate order to halt the review of the county’s voter registration system by a vendor, the Intersect Group, and suspend its contract. Heap’s chief information officer, Bryan Colby, in court documents said he was concerned that the vendor would have “unfettered access to sensitive election systems.” Blaney wrote in his ruling that he was particularly concerned about giving the Intersect Group access to voter data typically kept confidential through a separate program for domestic violence victims, police officers, and judges, but he “was credibly informed” in the hearing that the vendor would not have access to that.

Arkansas: The Arkansas Supreme Court denied Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ request to stay two lower court orders requiring her to set earlier special election dates for two legislative vacancies Wednesday evening. The court also rejected a request by Attorney General Tim Griffin’s office to consolidate the two cases. The identical orders, which did not explain the justices’ reasoning, granted the state’s motions for expedited consideration of its appeals of the orders handed down by two Pulaski County Circuit judges last month. Associate Justice Rhonda Wood would have granted the request for a faster briefing schedule, according to the order. Associate Justice Barbara Webb did not participate. “I am disappointed by the rulings and will continue to vigorously defend the Governor and Secretary of State,” Attorney General Tim Griffin said via a spokesperson. Griffin’s office is representing Sanders and Secretary of State Cole Jester in both lawsuits. Sanders set special elections for the Senate District 26 and House District 70 seats earlier this year. However, her decision to set the special elections for June 2026 — after the Legislature’s fiscal session in April — immediately generated bipartisan criticism and lawsuits from SD 26 and HD 70 voters, as well as the Democratic Party of Arkansas, who said it would deprive them of representation for important legislative deliberations on issues like education and prison funding. Under Arkansas law, the governor is required to schedule a special election date to fill a vacancy within 150 days unless she found it was “impracticable or unduly burdensome” to do so. Further, if the election couldn’t be held within 150 days, it had to be held on the earliest practicable date after that statutory deadline.

Georgia: The State Election Board voted to approve a settlement agreement in a lawsuit brought by American Oversight which alleged the board obstructed access to public records. In a lawsuit filed last year in Fulton County, American Oversight claimed the board had “systematically obstructed public records requests” for information about voter eligibility challenges, communications with outside organizations and voter citizenship verification. All the board members had used private Gmail accounts to conduct official business but have since switched over to official government emails. The settlement agreement obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said the board will instruct all staff to conduct business and communication on their official email accounts and not through personal email accounts, texts or other messaging platforms. It also said board members must forward official business communications received through personal messaging channels to their official government emails. Once the settlement is finalized, the board is required to pay $50,000 in state funds to American Oversight for attorneys’ fees, according to the agreement. American Oversight Executive Director Chioma Chukwu said in a statement: “Today’s settlement makes clear that election officials are not above the law — they must comply with state transparency requirements, and if they don’t, they will be held accountable.”

Mississippi: The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether Mississippi can uphold a COVID-era state law that allowed for ballots to be received and counted up to five days after an election. A decision from the high court is expected to have broad implications as Mississippi is among over a dozen states with similar laws. Justices agreed to hear the Mississippi case after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear a previous ruling from a three-judge panel, maintaining the panel’s decision that Mississippi cannot count ballots that arrive after Election Day. The court sided with the plaintiffs – Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, the Mississippi Libertarian Party and two private individuals – in affirming the prior decision, with ten judges voting to deny a rehearing and five voting in favor. Attorneys for the state representing Secretary of State Michael Watson (R) and local election officials then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the lower court ruling and allow the state law to remain in place. The matter began after the plaintiffs sued Harrison County election officials, along with Secretary Watson, in their official capacities, seeking an injunction against the 2020 mail-in ballot law based on the Election Law Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause gives Congress the authority to set the time for choosing the election of the president, senators, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives. U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. initially dismissed the lawsuit, writing that the Mississippi law “is consistent with federal law and does not conflict with the Elections Clause, the Electors’ Clause, or the election-day statutes.” However, the three-judge panel at the Fifth Circuit overturned Judge Guirola’s ruling, noting that while states are empowered by Congress to conduct federal elections, federal laws preempt state regulation of elections.

Texas: Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut them down. Paxton announced that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that the group had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.” In the suit, Jolt’s lawyers argue Paxton’s efforts to shut them down are retaliation. The attorney general’s office has also in recent years targeted other organizations aiding Latinos and migrants, such as the effort to investigate and shut down El Paso-based Annunciation House. “Jolt is simply the latest target of his unlawful campaign to undermine and silence civil rights groups in Texas,” said Mimi Marziani, a lawyer representing the nonprofit. Last year, the organization successfully sued to stop the state’s investigation into their voter registration efforts.

Smith County Judge Taylor Heaton has determined to overturn the election for the City of Hawkins Alderman Seat 5, leaving the seat to be vacant until 2026. Two contestants, Norma Oglesby and Jacque Burns both ran for the position. Following the May 3 election, Burns was first declared to be the winner, having 77 total votes over Oglesby’s total of 65. Heaton found that evidence shown in court revealed “significant discrepancies” between the number of votes counted and the number of votes with valid signatures, according to documents obtained by KLTV. The document states Heaton agreed with evidence Oglesby submitted arguing election workers “forgot to get people to sign the list,” so, on the list of 146 ballots for election day, all it had was the highlighted names of the people, without their signatures. Of the 91 total votes on election day, Heaton deemed only one to be legal. Of the 55 total votes cast during early voting, only 41 were found to be legal. This leaves a total 104 invalid votes and only 42 legal votes. Taking into consideration the invalid votes, Heaton found the margin of victory to be too small to declare a true winner, saying the error “constitutes irreparable harm to the integrity of the election process.” Heaton determined to overturn the position’s election and declared the seat to be vacant until 2026.

Utah: Judge Dianna Gibson of Utah’s 3rd District Court ruled this week that a map drawn by state lawmakers and submitted by the Utah Legislature unfairly favored Republicans. Gibson made the late-night ruling and selected a map, referred to as “Map 1,” brought by plaintiffs in the case: the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. The ruling narrowly upheld the Nov. 10 deadline to select a new map in the state ahead of the 2026 midterm election. The map drawn by lawmakers, referred to as “Map C,” was submitted to the court in September after Gibson initially ordered the existing map be redrawn to better align with the state’s redistricting law, Proposition 4. Map 1 was drawn to include nearly the whole of Salt Lake County, while Map C splits the state’s only Democratic county into different districts. In October, Map C was contested in court after a series of statistical tests were performed. A witness called by plaintiffs suggested that, based on the data collected, Map C was “more heavily Republican than almost all of the computer-simulated plans.” Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson stated that she would comply with Gibson’s ruling and immediately implement Map 1 “unless otherwise ordered by an appeals court.” Later on Tuesday morning, Henderson said there “will likely be an emergency appeal,” but defended her move to waste no time in making the change.

Wyoming: Laramie County District Court Judge Nathaniel S. Hibben ruled late last week that Wyoming’s closed primary election system and its so-called “sore loser” laws do not violate the state’s constitution. “The challenged statutes regulate the manner in which political rights are exercised but do not abridge the rights themselves,” Hibben wrote in his decision. “The court likewise finds the challenged statutes do not deny Plaintiffs equal protection of the laws.” First filed in August 2024, the lawsuit initially sought to overturn the state’s prohibition on failed primary candidates appearing on the general election ballot as independents, known as a “sore loser law. In April, the complaint expanded to challenge Wyoming’s closed primary election system as well as its crossover voting ban, which limits how and when voters may affiliate with a political party. The plaintiffs, who included voters, former political candidates and a retired state lawmaker, argued that such laws violate the Wyoming Constitution’s guarantee of “political equality” and “impermissibly discriminate against candidates and voters not affiliated with a major political party.” Those laws, however, are a “valid exercise of legislative power,” Hibben ruled, adding that his decision is likely not the last in the case. “As the parties made clear at argument on these motions, this dispute will inevitably be resolved by the Wyoming Supreme Court,” the ruling states.

According to WyoFile, the Natrona County District Attorney’s Office has charged Weston County Clerk Becky Hadlock for failing to appear at a legislative committee meeting in Casper after she was subpoenaed by state lawmakers, court filings show. The subpoena, issued by Rep. Chris Knapp, R-Gillette, in his capacity as co-chair of the Joint Management Audit Committee, required Hadlock to appear at a September hearing, where lawmakers were expected to question her about her office’s actions in the November 2024 election. Hadlock, however, did not attend the meeting, prompting lawmakers to pursue criminal charges. The violation is a misdemeanor, according to state law. If convicted, Hadlock could face up to six months in jail and a $100 fine. A hearing in the case is set for Nov. 14 in Natrona County Circuit Court in Casper, according to a criminal summons.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker