Electionline Weekly November-20-2025

Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking

Juneau, Alaska: The Juneau Assembly has shelved plans for a local ranked-choice voting system, saying the timing is wrong as the city prepares for significant budget strain. Assembly member Ella Adkison moved to table the decision on the voting system indefinitely, after first introducing the ordinance in August. The Assembly is facing a budget shortfall resulting from tax cuts approved during October’s election. Adkison said that the city will face cuts to services and layoffs as a result. “It’s going to be a really tough time for Juneau and we’re going to spend a lot of time and energy as a community getting through that hard time and I don’t think this is the right time to implement this ordinance,” Adkison said. The motion to table passed unanimously with no further comment. Adkison emphasized that she still believes ranked choice voting would be good for Juneau.

Arizona: State Republicans have introduced a measure to place the Arizona Secure Elections Act on a future ballot. On November 1, Rep. Alexander Kolodin filed House Concurrent Resolution 2001, according to a House Republicans announcement. He described the legislation as a comprehensive election-integrity measure that strengthens voter ID requirements, tightens security for mail-in voting and bans foreign money from influencing Arizona elections. If the Legislature approves it, the proposal would appear on a future general election ballot for voters to decide.“The Arizona Secure Elections Act gives voters clear rules, strong identification standards and the confidence that only citizens are taking part in our elections,” Kolodin said. He seeks to add several new rules to the elections process, such as: Banning foreign citizens or corporations from donating to candidates or ballot measures; Requiring that voters cast early ballots by 7 p.m. the Friday before Election Day; and Requiring voters who use mail-in ballots to confirm their preferred ballot-delivery address each election year.

Republican state Sen. Shawnna Bolick filed SCR 1001, a ballot referral that would add new requirements for citizenship verification and voter ID if approved by lawmakers and voters in 2026. Specifically, SCR 1001 would require documented proof of citizenship before a ballot is issued, end early voting at 7 p.m. on the Friday before the general election, and require a government-issued ID for in-person and early-ballot voting. It’s the first bill introduced for Arizona’s 2026 legislative session, which convenes on Jan. 12.

Dundee, Florida: The town of Dundee’s municipal elections will remain in April of next year, rather than being moved to November 2027. The town commission voted to keep the elections in April after community members raised concerns that moving them would also extend the terms of current council members by 18 months. During the commission meeting this week, Dundee town commissioners passed a motion, 4-1, to withdraw the ordinance. The majority of people who attended the public comment session were not in support of the ordinance. Town officials maintain that their tenure did not factor into the decision to draft the ordinance and that they were simply following direction from the Polk County Supervisor of Elections, who has asked cities within Polk County to move the elections to November to save money and increase voter turnout.

Michigan: The fight against election disinformation and changes to Michigan’s petition circulation process cleared the upper chamber of the state Legislature on November 13 according to the Michigan Advance. Senators moved the legislative package with bipartisan support. Among the bills were Senate Bill 529, Senate Bill 530 and Senate Bill 531, sponsored by Democratic state Sens. Jeremy Moss of Bloomfield Township and Jeff Irwin of Ann Arbor. The Irwin-Moss bills would ban petition organizers from paying circulators per signature, joining other states that have banned financial incentives for circulators to lie to voters for support; require circulators to direct potential signers to a factual summary of the ballot proposal’s contents and purpose before collecting their signature; and ensure that only one signature is counted if two identical signatures appear on a single petition. The package also includes Senate Bill 533, which passed earlier this year and was sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Mary Cavanagh of Redford Township. Cavanagh’s bill would ban false statements or misrepresentations concerning elections, ensuring that bad actors would be fined and penalized.

Nevada: The Legislature advanced a constitutional amendment this week to codify the practice of sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters, which has long been opposed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo. SJR1, introduced late Wednesday evening, would require a county clerk to send each active registered voter a mail ballot within a certain time frame and would allow individuals to choose not to receive a ballot. These provisions are already in Nevada law, but the amendment would enshrine them in the state Constitution, making it harder to overturn. The resolution did not receive a hearing, and its existence was publicly revealed for the first time shortly before lawmakers voted on it. As a resolution, instead of a traditional bill, the proposal does not need Lombardo’s approval and can pass with a majority vote in the Legislature. It will now head to the 2027 legislative session, where approval would send the measure to voters in 2028. The measure also includes provisions that would expand access to mail ballot drop boxes in the days leading up to Election Day. This was part of a proposal that the Legislature passed in the 2025 session, but Lombardo vetoed it, saying the measure “falls short of its stated goals while failing to guarantee appropriate oversight.” The drop box expansion measure was resurrected as part of a potential deal between Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (D-Las Vegas) and Lombardo to require voter ID in state elections, but that deal fell apart after Lombardo said it would not do enough to require voter ID. The resolution passed the Assembly 25-8, along party lines, and passed out of the Senate on a 12-4 vote, with Republicans in opposition.

New Jersey: Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), who chairs the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, introduced S-4835 after a judge rejected more than 400 mail-in ballots cast in Bergen County largely for problems involving ballot envelopes. Sarlo’s bill would allow a voter to “cure” or fix a ballot in jeopardy of rejection if the voter failed to insert his ballot into the inner envelope, failed to sign or complete the certification on the inner envelope, failed to include or seal either the inner or outer envelope or if the envelope seal appears to have to been tampered with. The bill passed along party lines, with Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition. The only comment from Sarlo was his acknowledging that the association representing county clerks “has some issues” with the bill and his pledging to work with them before the bill would advance further. Under current law, a voter using a mail-in ballot has the opportunity to cure a ballot only for a mismatched signature. Voters have until the 11th day after Election Day – Nov. 15 this year – to submit a cure letter attesting that they did vote the ballot with the signature in question.

Ohio: Lawmakers voted to shorten the deadline again for returning absentee ballots — removing any grace period and invalidating all ballots that arrive after Election Day. That measure, Ohio Senate Bill 293, is now on its way to the governor. As recently as 2022, Ohio voters had a 10-day grace period for absentee ballots post-marked by Election Day to arrive at their local county board of elections to be officially counted. Ohio Republican lawmakers shortened that to four days for the 2024 election, and are now eliminating the grace period entirely. Threats from the Trump administration spurred Ohio lawmakers into action. In a March executive order, the president introduced a novel reading of federal law and simply declared all absentee ballots arriving after Election Day should be rejected. In recent months, the U.S. Department of Justice has been warning Ohio officials it might sue the state over the issue. At the last minute, the bill picked up an amendment that critics warn will increase provisional voting “exponentially” and make it far easier to cancel a voter’s registration. The changes direct county boards to promptly cancel a person’s registration if the secretary of state determines they aren’t a citizen. It’s a notable departure. Typically, county boards send a confirmation notice when they find a problem with a person’s registration. The amendment also directs the secretary to send reports to all 88 counties detailing apparent data mismatches. Voters identified in the report would receive a confirmation notice, and if they don’t provide corrected information they’d have to vote provisionally.

Utah: The Government Operations Interim Committee voted against approving a bill that would eventually phase out gathering signatures on paper in local elections. The text of the current bill requires the state to move to electronic signature gathering by 2030. It also requires state-approved devices, like a tablet or a phone, to scan driver’s licenses or other approved IDs of those who offer their signatures for a political candidate, ballot initiative, or referendum. Those devices would have to be able to operate while not connected to the internet or cellular data by 2028.During the hearing, Rep. Paul Cutler, R-Centerville, said the goal of the bill is to signal the state is shifting to a future of electronic signature gathering. “To make it faster, to make it more secure, and know that this person really is a valid member of the party and that it’s valid that they sign an initiative,” Cutler said. According to Ryan Cowley, Utah director of elections, state law already allows candidates to gather signatures on an approved electronic device if they want. But, according to his knowledge, no candidates have actually done this yet. The bill isn’t necessarily dead. Lawmakers said they would keep working on it, and the proposal could resurface in the 2026 general session, which begins in January.

Wisconsin: Assembly lawmakers approved a slate of GOP-authored election bills, including one that would change how absentee ballots are processed and eliminate the use of central count locations. But the measures approved do not include a plan to begin processing absentee ballots a day before the election, an idea that has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Republican backers of that plan — also known as Monday processing — have said there is not enough GOP support to get it across the finish line. Instead, the bill approved has many other provisions. It would ban the use of central count locations, where all absentee ballots from different wards are tallied at a single site. It would require any authorized absentee ballot drop box to be in a permanent building — as opposed to a mobile collection van or pop-up spot in a park. It would require clerks to return improperly filled ballots to voters, and elections officials to text voters that they’ve received their absentee ballot applications. Another bill would require the Wisconsin Elections Commission to investigate itself if it’s accused of violating the federal Help America Vote Act. Other election related legislation passed include: Expand the definition of “aggrieved” after voters file complaints against election officials and want to appeal; Require ballot questions, including proposed constitutional amendments, to be explained using language approved by both chambers of the Legislature, with that information to be posted at polling places, sent out with absentee ballots and published online; Establish new deadlines for the steps involved in certifying presidential election results; and Make it a crime for election workers to interfere with, or deny access for, election observers.

Legal Updates

Federal Litigation: Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia this week declined to order the federal government to undo its overhaul of SAVE, a database that some states are using to check voters’ citizenship status, but said she doubted the legality of the government’s changes. SAVE, which is operated by the Department of Homeland Security, was typically used by states to check residents’ eligibility for public benefits. But the changes the Trump administration introduced in April made SAVE easier to use for screening voters’ citizenship, allowing state election officials to upload voter registration records for verification in bulk, instead of one by one, and search by Social Security number. The League of Women Voters and other plaintiffs in the case claimed that the changes made SAVE less accurate and were illegal, and asked the court for a temporary order that the database revert to how it operated before the overhaul. Sooknanan declined to issue the stay, saying the league failed to show that the changes caused irreparable injury. But she called for expedited proceedings to rule on the plaintiffs’ claim that the changes are illegal, given the “rapid ongoing developments and serious issues at stake.” Sooknanan ordered the parties to propose next steps by Nov. 21. She expressed urgency to resolve the case on the merits as quickly as possible.

The League of Women Voters of the United States, along with seven state and local chapters, filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) August 2025 policy banning non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from providing voter registration assistance during naturalization ceremonies. According to the lawsuit, USCIS’s 2011 policy required that new citizens be given the chance and assistance to register to vote at naturalization ceremonies, allowing NGOs to help when local officials could not – but on Aug. 29, USCIS abruptly ended that system. Plaintiffs argue that USCIS’s voter assistance ban violates the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency issued a substantive, binding rule without undergoing the required notice-and-comment process, and because the policy is arbitrary and capricious, lacking any reasoned justification. Plaintiffs further assert that the policy infringes on their First Amendment rights to free expression and association. They are asking the court to block enforcement of the ban and prevent USCIS from withholding the schedule of upcoming naturalization ceremonies from the public.

Alabama: U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco ordered the implementation of a remedial map for two Montgomery-area state Senate districts. Manasco, a Trump appointee, ordered the implementation of Remedial Plan 3, which Secretary of State Wes Allen, the defendant in the case, said was the “least bad of several bad options” in October to allow Black voters an opportunity to pick their preferred leaders in Senate Districts 25 and 26. The plaintiffs in the case said that the map was the “weakest remedy” to Manasco’s August ruling. “Ultimately, the record makes clear that Remedial Plan 3 unpacks District 26 by reassigning some Black voters to District 25 such that both districts are Black opportunity districts,” Manasco wrote. “The court thus finds that Remedial Plan 3 completely remedies the unlawful vote dilution the court found in the Enacted Plan.” Each party has 30 days to appeal Manasco’s order.

Arizona: Former Republican state legislator Austin Smith pleaded guilty this week to charges that he personally forged more than 100 signatures on his petitions for reelection last year. “As a part of his guilty plea today, Smith admitted signing the name of a deceased woman on one of his candidate nomination petitions in March of 2024,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a statement. “He also admitted that he attempted to deceive the Secretary of State’s Office by knowingly filing petitions containing forged signatures of purported supporters of his nomination for the Republican primary for State Representative from LD 29.” Smith pleaded guilty to one count of attempted fraudulent schemes and practices, an undesignated offense, and to one count of illegal signing of an election petition, a misdemeanor. Smith was a member of the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus, which has a history of spreading false claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election and pushed for election law changes in the state legislature.

Arkansas: U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the enforcement of several direct democracy-related laws against Arkansas groups collecting signatures to qualify proposed ballot measures for the 2026 ballot. The League of Women Voters of Arkansas and ballot question committee Save AR Democracy filed the original lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the laws against Secretary of State Cole Jester in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas in April. Brooks allowed two other ballot question committees, Protect AR Rights and For AR Kids, to intervene in the case in July. Both sets of plaintiffs filed motions for a preliminary injunction, and the court held a hearing on the motions in late September. In his 77-page ruling, Brooks granted in part and denied in part the motions for a preliminary injunction. “Because the claim against him is moot,” Brooks also dismissed Attorney General Tim Griffin who intervened as a defendant in the case. Brooks preliminarily enjoined, pending a final disposition on the merits, the secretary of state, who is responsible for overseeing elections, and his officers from: Disclosing or facilitating disclosure to any member of the public any information provided by Plaintiffs or Intervenor-Plaintiffs pursuant to the Pre-Collection Disclosure Requirements of Arkansas Code § 7-9-601; Enforcing Act 602 against Protect AR Rights, including by finding its petition insufficient based on the reading level of the petition’s ballot title; Enforcing Act 241 and 453 against Plaintiffs, including by invalidating signatures, finding petitions insufficient, or pursuing criminal charges based on noncompliance; and Enforcing Acts 218, 240, and 274 against Plaintiffs or Intervenor-Plaintiffs, including by invalidating signatures, finding petitions insufficient, or pursuing criminal charges based on noncompliance. “In the General Assembly’s book, high rates of signature invalidation under the existing, highly regulated petition validation system are only evidence that the system has failed, not that the system has worked,” Brooks wrote. “These high rates of invalidation are used to justify more regulation, which will inevitably result in even higher rates of invalidation, justifying even more regulation and steadily chipping away at the right to direct democracy enshrined in the Arkansas Constitution.”

Colorado: Federal officials have formally requested that former county clerk Tina Peters be transferred to federal custody, the latest in a monthslong effort by the Administration to free the election conspiracy theorist from a state prison cell. Officials with the Federal Bureau of Prisons sent a letter about Peters to Colorado’s Department of Corrections on Wednesday, the state confirmed Friday. It’s unclear why the bureau is seeking to transfer Peters, who was given a nine-year sentence to jail and prison last year after being convicted of charges related to unauthorized access to voting equipment. A corrections spokeswoman declined to release the letter and directed The Denver Post to file a records request to obtain it. The request comes after President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for Peters, a prominent supporter of his false stolen election conspiracies from 2020, to be released. In March, the Justice Department announced that it would review the state’s prosecution of the former Mesa County clerk to check for “abuses of the criminal justice process.” Peters has also challenged her own detention and has asked a judge to release her while she appeals her convictions. Her attorneys wrote to the judge in a filing that her “health has declined” during her incarceration. Peters, who is housed at the La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo, was convicted on state charges, so Trump cannot pardon her.

Iowa: The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis has denied Kim Taylor’s appeal of her 2023 voter fraud conviction. She was found guilty on 52 counts related to election fraud. In her appeal, Taylor had argued that Judge Leonard Strand had erred while ruling during her trial. A three-judge panel ruled that trial evidence supported Strand’s rulings. A 12-page opinion written by Circuit Judge David Stras states, “Voter fraud is no myth. Kim Phuong Taylor does not think what she did counts, but the jury instructions were accurate and the evidence was sufficient, so we affirm.” Taylor was found guilty by a jury on Nov. 21, 2023, of three counts of fraudulent registration, 26 counts of false information in registering and voting, and 23 counts of fraudulent voting. Taylor requested an acquittal on Dec. 1, 2023, claiming there was insufficient evidence supporting her conviction. The state filed a response rebutting Taylor’s motion, arguing that the families that testified at trial were more than enough to prove Taylor’s guilt. The judge denied the request on Jan. 18, 2024. She was eventually sentenced on April 1, 2024, to four months in prison, four months of home confinement, and two years of supervised release. Her prison sentence at a low-security facility in Waseca, Minnesota, has been completed.

Michigan: Wayne County Judge Patricia Perez Fresard denied a request for a temporary restraining order that would have prevented the Wayne County Board of Canvassers from certifying a candidate who may contest losing the city’s Nov. 4 mayoral election by 11 votes. The request for the restraining order was made by the attorney for apparent Mayor-elect Adam Alharbi, who is suing his rival, City Council member Muhith Mahmood, claiming Mahmood lives outside of Hamtramck and is not eligible to run for city office. Mahmood is considering challenging his razor-thin loss based on questions about absentee ballots. The restraining order request asked Perez Fresard to prevent the Board of Canvassers from certifying the election, should the board declare Mahmood the winner. The board is set to meet Tuesday to certify the results of the Nov. 4 election races and issues across the county on the last possible day under state law. Following Fresard’s decision to deny the restraining order, attorneys for both sides vowed the battle over the disputed election will continue beyond an expected county decision Tuesday to certify the election.

Missouri: The Missouri Supreme Court must decide if voters need government-issued ID cards and whether people trying to register new voters can be paid. The judges on Wednesday heard a pair of cases arising from a 2022 law that also established two weeks of early voting before each election. If the high court throws out the voter ID portion of the law, it would trigger a provision that also scuttles the early voting period. The Missouri NAACP and the League of Women Voters filed both lawsuits and got a split result at the trial court level in Cole County. Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled the photo ID requirements were “everyday burdens” that did not violate voter rights but that the limitations on individuals and organizations running voter registration campaigns “chill speech and advocacy related to voting and decrease participation in elections.” Opponents of the voter ID requirements aren’t arguing that there should be no requirement for identification, Jason Orr of the ACLU of Missouri told the court Wednesday. It is the limited list of acceptable identification that violates voter rights, he said. To vote under the 2022 law, a person must present a Missouri drivers license, non-driver identification or another identification card issued by Missouri or the federal government with a photo, birthdate and expiration date. The voter registration provisions bar paid voter registration solicitors, require anyone working to register voters to be a registered Missouri voter at least 18 years old and to file paperwork with the secretary of state’s office. The law also banned the practice of paying people to collect absentee ballots on behalf of homebound voters. Arguing to overturn Beetem’s ruling, Deputy Solicitor General Michael Patton said the lower court ruling accepted too broad a definition of soliciting. Organizations can engage in voter registration drives that direct people to sign up through official government websites, he said, but cannot have individuals fill out cards that are turned in by the group.

Pennsylvania: Lackawanna County Judge of Elections Kathie Sico, 67, and her son, Michael Sico, 46 were charged with election fraud and tampering with ballots on Election Day. Sico wrote her name on ballots so she could gain votes for judge of elections at one of Scranton’s Jackson Heights precincts, according to arrest affidavits. County Detective Colleen Catanese charged both with fraud by election officers, interference with an election, forging and destroying ballots and tampering with a public record. Catanese found 35 of 141 valid ballots had Kathie Sico’s name written in the section for election a judge of elections and/or inspector of elections. Of five other ballots discarded because of “imperfections or issues with the voting,” two more had Sico’s name in the judges of election section, according to the affidavits. County deputy sheriffs who investigated said Michael Sico told them “they were writing (his mother’s) name on the ballots because people were calling them and telling them to write her in.” In an interview, Kathie Sico “admitted to signing her name to ballots prior to voters receiving the ballots,” according to the affidavits. She said she wrote on two ballots “because someone asked her to and then someone else came and took the ballot instead.”

Texas: Texas cannot use its new congressional map for the 2026 election and will instead need to stick with the lines passed in 2021, a three-judge panel ruled this week. “The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” U.S. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote in the ruling striking down the new lines. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.” Brown ordered that the 2026 congressional election “shall proceed under the map that the Texas Legislature enacted in 2021.” Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement that his office would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the ruling and allow the map to go into effect. But time is short: Candidates only have until Dec. 8 to file for the upcoming election. The map cleared the GOP-controlled Legislature in August and was quickly signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott. Several advocacy groups sued over the new district lines, saying lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black and Hispanic Texans and drew racially gerrymandered maps. Over the course of a nine-day hearing in El Paso last month, they aimed to convince the judges that it was in voters’ best interest to shelve the new map until a full trial could be held. According to Votebeat, it was not immediately clear if the state still has a legal path to restoring the new map in time for 2026. Unlike most federal lawsuits, which are heard by a single district judge and then appealed to a circuit court, voting rights lawsuits are initially heard by two district judges and one circuit judge, and their ruling can only be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision came from a three-judge panel made up of Brown; U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama, a Barack Obama appointee; and Judge Jerry Smith, who was appointed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by Ronald Reagan. The ruling comes 10 days into the monthlong period when candidates can sign up for the March primary. The ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wyoming: Weston County Clerk Becky Jo Hadlock, under fire for her actions during the November 2024 election pleaded not guilty November 14 to failing to appear at a legislative hearing where she had been subpoenaed to testify. Her attorney, Ryan Semerad, told the court his client wanted a trial. Hadlock faces a single misdemeanor charge accusing her of defying a legislative subpoena that required her to testify before a panel investigating her office in connection with errors that occurred during the November 2024 election. She faces up to six months in jail and a $100 fine if convicted. Circuit Judge Cynthia K. Sweet set a $500 personal recognizance bond for Hadlock, meaning the defendant won’t have to put up any money to remain free as long as she makes future court appearances. Hadlock sat beside Semerad for the five-minute hearing. She spoke only to enter her plea and answer procedural questions from Sweet.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker