Electionline Weekly December-11-2025

Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking

Alabama: Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen is backing legislation introduced by Representative Jamie Kiel that aims to strengthen voter data privacy and establish clearer standards for the cost and use of the state’s voter list. House Bill 67 proposes keeping the personal information of registered voters confidential by restricting which data may be released. The bill also sets a cap of $1,000.00 for the purchase of Alabama’s voter list and prohibits using voter information for commercial purposes. According to Secretary Allen, the measure is designed to reinforce long-standing efforts to protect sensitive voter data. “HB 67 prohibits the release of voters’ driver license numbers, voter identification numbers, email addresses, month and day of birth, and phone numbers,” Allen said. “Protecting the personal data of Alabama voters has been a top priority since day one of my Administration. HB 67 furthers this objective in a significant way.” Under current regulations, Alabama’s voter list is sold at a rate of one cent per voter record, with a minimum charge of $1.00. Allen noted that HB 67 seeks to update the fee structure while bringing Alabama more in line with surrounding states. “HB 67 is rooted in government accountability and transparency. Its passage will establish a clear standard by statutorily aligning the maximum cost for purchasing Alabama’s voter list with our neighboring Southeastern states,” he said.

Arizona: Rep. Alex Kolodin (R-Scottsdale) prefiled House Bill 2022 for the upcoming legislative session. His measure would permanently move the primary date to the last week of July while also allowing county party chairs to designate observers at voting locations. “This is another commonsense measure that recent election cycles have demonstrated is critical to clean elections in Arizona,” Kolodin said in a statement. “The bill ensures that Arizonans will not be disenfranchised by Congress’ mistakes and clarifies that independent observers are permitted at all voting locations.” Jen Marson, executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties, told the Arizona Capitol Times that the counties have not yet taken a position on whether to include the ballot observer language in the bill. The counties plan to run their own mirror bills through both House and Senate election committee chairs, Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff; and Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman, Marson said. Those bills were not drafted to include the language about ballot observers. Kolodin’s bill for the 2026 legislative session would also change the amount of time voters have to correct any problems with their mail-in ballot signatures from five business days to five calendar days, which was also implemented in the 2024 measure. Some Democrats opposed going to five calendar days because they believed it could disenfranchise voters who rely on public Wi-Fi and public transportation which have reduced service on weekends. Marson said the counties requested that change because it helps give election workers enough time to gain days before federal deadlines if a recount is triggered.

Georgia Rulemaking: The State Election Board rejected a proposal defining when hand-marked paper ballots could be used in place of the state’s touchscreen voting machines. Opponents said the rule would have overstepped the board’s legal authority and could have created an escape hatch for widespread use of paper ballots when state lawmakers mandated the use of the ballot-marking devices. Janice Johnston, the board’s vice chair, seemed to agree, saying, “This really is the duty and the job of the legislators.” The proposed rule failed on a 2-2 vote after a debate in which proponents contended that use of the current machines at least sometimes violates the law because voters can’t read their ballots’ QR code to ensure it matches the paper ballot, and because machines don’t afford enough privacy to voters. “You have both the duty and the responsibility for the conduct of legal elections in Georgia,” said Jeanne Dufort, a county Democratic official and a co-author of the bipartisan proposal. Hand-marked paper ballots are Georgia’s backup when the machines can’t be used because of an “emergency.” The proposed rule would have listed qualifying circumstances that define when the use of machines is “impossible or impracticable.”

Gallatin County, Montana: The Gallatin County Commission unanimously passed a resolution to appoint an Election Administrator and establish a dedicated election department. This change will take effect following the end of incumbent Clerk & Recorder/Election Administrator Eric Semerad’s term on December 31, 2026. In 2027, Gallatin County will become the ninth Montana County to appoint an Election Administrator whose duties are exclusively focused on conducting elections. During the hearing, the Gallatin County Commissioners agreed that professionalizing the role with oversight of three elected officials would improve the election system, insulate the office from political turmoil and ensure the same level of public participation and civic engagement. “Moving (these duties) from one elected office to another doesn’t remove the ability for the public to chime in and make their voice heard…” said Commissioner Scott MacFarlane. Both Semerad and former Clerk & Recorder Charlotte Mills, who originally proposed the resolution in 2017, supported the resolution during the hearing. They cited complexity and scale of elections, coupled with management of multiple departments and employee retention, amplifies the need for an appointed election administrator. “This move to professionalize the election department and have a qualified person with a job description and requirements, is the right investment to make to ensure this continues,” said Commissioner Jennifer Boyer about Gallatin’s successful election administration.

New Jersey: Assemblyman Joe Danielsen announced that he has partnered with Sen. Andrew Zwicker to introduce legislation that would establish ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections across New Jersey. Danielsen said the proposal comes at a time when elections in the state are becoming increasingly competitive, with more candidates entering races and splitting the vote. Under the current system, he noted, it is increasingly possible for candidates to win elected office with less than a majority of votes cast. While several municipalities have passed resolutions supporting RCV, no major New Jersey elected officials have publicly taken a position against it in the past year. Danielsen said he plans to advocate strongly for the measure, calling the reform an important step to strengthen voter confidence and improve the state’s democratic processes. More information about the bill is expected as it moves through the legislative process.

Wisconsin: Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed an elections administration-related bill. Voters currently can file a complaint to the Wisconsin Election Commission if they allege an election official serving the voter’s jurisdiction has failed to comply with certain election laws or has abused his or her discretion with respect to the administration of such election laws. A voter who doesn’t agree with a WEC decision can appeal to a court, though currently courts are only allowed to take up an appeal if voters have suffered an injury to a legally recognized interest as a result. That requirement was established in a 2025 state Supreme Court decision. SB 270 would have eliminated that requirement, and Evers said he objected because it “would open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits that not only burden our courts, but our election systems as well.”

Legal Updates

Arizona: The Arizona Court of Appeals has dismissed a legal challenge to the state’s 2023 Election Procedures Manual that had been brought by the Republican National Committee, the Arizona Republican Party and the Yavapai County Republican Party. Every two years, the secretary of state is tasked with creating a new EPM, outlining procedures and rules for county elections officials to implement state election laws when they conduct elections in the state. The manual carries the force of law, and must be approved by the governor and attorney general — offices both currently held by Democrats — before it’s published. Republicans heavily criticized the 2023 manual and the not-yet-finalized 2025 version. They said that multiple guidelines and rules added by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, conflicted with state law. In February 2024 when they filed the lawsuit, the RNC said that the 2023 EPM was “designed to undermine election integrity in Arizona.” In May 2024, a trial court dismissed the RNC’s arguments that Fontes violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The RNC appealed that decision, and in March 2025, the Court of Appeals overturned it. Fontes appealed the March decision, and the Arizona Supreme Court overturned it in October, agreeing that the Administrative Procedures Act didn’t apply to the creation of the EPM. The high court sent the case back to the Court of Appeals to determine whether any of the eight specific EPM provisions that the RNC challenged in the suit violated state law. On Dec. 5, the Court of Appeals ruled that the RNC, AZGOP and Yavapai County Republican Party didn’t have legal standing to challenge the EPM provisions because they couldn’t point to specific, concrete harms that the provisions caused them. “Here, the RNC has failed to explain how the challenged EPM provisions ‘make the competitive landscape worse’ for it or its candidates than it would be without the provisions,” Judge Lacey Stover Gard wrote in the unanimous decision. She was joined by Chief Judge Christopher Staring and Judge Christopher O’Neil.

Colorado: Scott T. Varholak, chief magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court of Colorado dismissed former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus, one of several long-shot legal maneuvers Peters’ attorneys and allies in the election-denial movement have sought to use to secure her release from state prison. Peters is serving a nine-year sentence for her role in a breach of her office’s election systems, part of an attempt to find evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. She has appealed her August 2024 conviction in state court, arguing that her imprisonment violates her First Amendment right of free speech, and separately filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, seeking her release on bond while the state appeal is pending. Varholak wrote in a 12-page order that Peters had raised “important constitutional questions concerning whether the trial court improperly punished her more severely because of her protected First Amendment speech.” But in dismissing her petition, he sided with arguments made in the federal case by the Colorado attorney general’s office, which cited longstanding precedent against “federal court interference with state court proceedings.” “Because Ms. Peters’ appeal remains pending in state court, where she argues that the trial court violated her First Amendment rights by punishing her based upon her speech, any First Amendment error can be corrected through the state appeal,” Varholak wrote. “Because this question remains pending before Colorado courts, this Court must abstain from answering that question until after the Colorado courts have decided the issue,” he added. Peters’ petition was dismissed without prejudice.

Michigan: Former Adams Township clerk Stephanie Scott appeared in court this week to plead “not guilty” to multiple felony charges stemming from the 2020 election. Scott and Stefanie Junttila (Lambert), an attorney she hired to investigate alleged fraud following the 2020 presidential election, were formally arraigned Dec. 8 in Hillsdale County’s 1st Judicial Circuit Court. Scott and Junttila face multiple felony charges filed by the Michigan Attorney General’s Office, centered on allegations of election interference and breaches of election security.

Hamtramck City Clerk Rana Faraj is suing several city officials, alleging they retaliated against her for trying to expose the city’s “ongoing election integrity issues.” Faraj has been on leave since Nov. 10, days after 37 ballots cast in the 2025 municipal election were initially misplaced in her office. Faraj’s lawsuit alleges that she was put on leave as a way to satisfy city officials who had a grudge against her “after being falsely accused of meddling with the election.” The lawsuit also provides more alleged details about the circumstances that led to the 37 ballots not being counted. The ballots may have been decisive in Hamtramck’s nonpartisan mayoral race, which was separated by only 11 votes after a recount last week. Faraj’s suit, filed this week in Wayne County, underscores the degree to which the relationship between city leadership and election officials has deteriorated in one of Michigan’s most prolifically troubled cities for voting. The suit names the city, its outgoing mayor, all six members of the city council, and the interim city manager as defendants.

Mississippi: Bobbie Peoples of Leflore County says she did nothing wrong when she visited senior citizens with absentee ballots at assisted-living facilities to help them vote in the 2023 Democratic primaries. But a judge convicted Peoples under Mississippi’s ballot harvesting law, sentencing her last week to a six-month suspended sentence and a $2,718 fine. Her attorney, Jeffery Harness, told the Mississippi Free Press on Dec. 9 that Peoples will appeal the decision, arguing that “the fix was in from the jump” following Peoples’ Nov. 6 trial in Leflore County Justice Court. “They want to parade this misdemeanor—one misdemeanor ballot harvesting offense—as if people are doing it all over the country, all over the state, which is bullsh-t,” said Harness, a Democratic Mississippi House representative from Fayette. Peoples was charged under a 2023 law that prohibits people from collecting and submitting an absentee ballot on behalf of another person, except for a family member, household member, caregiver, an election official or member of the U.S. Postal Service. Leflore County Justice Court Judge Jim Campbell issued Peoples’ sentence on Nov. 27.

New Hampshire: U.S. Department of Justice lawyers suing New Hampshire officials to gain access to the state’s voter file are now seeking to block a group of New Hampshire residents from entering that lawsuit. According to the New Hampshire Bulletin, in a legal memo submitted Friday to the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire, attorneys for the Justice Department said the residents do not meet the legal requirements to be added as intervenors. In September, the Justice Department brought a lawsuit against New Hampshire Secretary of State Dave Scanlan, seeking to compel Scanlan to hand over the state’s voter file so federal officials could check it for ineligible New Hampshire voters. Scanlan has refused to provide the file despite multiple requests this year, citing state law that prohibits most disclosure. The file contains the full name, date of birth, residential address, driver’s license number, and Social Security number for each registered voter. Days after that lawsuit, a bipartisan group of residents requested to the federal court to be added as intervenors, arguing the Trump administration’s actions would violate their privacy rights as voters, as well as the ability for some of them to recruit voters who may not want to be added to the list. The group, including former Republican state Rep. Neal Kurk, Portsmouth attorney Christopher Cole, former Democratic state Rep. Bob Perry, and liberal activist Louise Spencer, appealed to the federal court to be added as an intervenor. If granted, the intervenor request would give those residents a status similar to co-defendants and allow them to make their own arguments in favor of dismissal of the lawsuit.

New Jersey: The outcome of Parsippany’s tightly contested mayoral race is now heading to court, as Mayor James R. Barberio has filed a formal legal challenge questioning the certification of the November 4th election results. The verified complaint was submitted late Friday afternoon in Superior Court in Morris County and centers on what Barberio and his legal team describe as significant discrepancies in the vote-by-mail process. Democrat Pulkit Desai was certified the winner on November 17th by an 80-vote margin. According to attorney John M. Carbone, county records raise “deep concern” about the accuracy of the vote-by-mail count. Carbone pointed to an initial report showing 3,198 vote-by-mail ballots tallied on election night. The complaint alleges that later official records reflected 3,789 vote-by-mail ballots counted, despite only 3,565 being logged as received by the statutory November 10th deadline, a reported discrepancy of 224 ballots. The filing outlines what Barberio contends are violations of several New Jersey election statutes, including claims of “illegal votes received or legal votes rejected” and errors by the Morris County Board of Canvassers. The complaint further argues that more than 700 ballots are potentially in question, a figure far exceeding the 80-vote margin between the candidates. Barberio, the Republican nominee, is asking the court to review a range of ballots, including overvotes, undervotes, and late-arriving mail-in ballots. The suit names the Morris County Clerk, Board of Elections, Superintendent of Elections, and the Parsippany Municipal Clerk as respondents.

Pennsylvania: John Courtney Pollard, 63 of Philadelphia, who threatened to skin a Pennsylvania election official alive in 2024 pleaded guilty in federal court last week. Pollard pleaded guilty to making interstate threats against a poll watcher in the Western District of Pennsylvania, officials said. On Sept. 6, 2024, the election official, who was working as a regional election integrity director, posted online that they were recruiting volunteers to help “observe polls” on Election Day. Pollard then sent the poll worker four texts, including three that were threats, according to officials. The first text Pollard sent said he was interested in being a poll watcher. Then, within 10 minutes, he sent three more threatening texts. “Election workers, including volunteers and poll watchers, must be able to do their jobs without fear of threats and intimidation,” First Assistant United States Attorney Rivetti said in a statement. “Unfortunately, online threats are increasing, as individuals appear to believe that they can hide behind their keyboards. We are committed to using all of our law enforcement tools to investigate and prosecute these offenders to the fullest extent of the law.” Pollard is scheduled to be sentenced on March 31, 2026. He could be sentenced to up to five years in prison.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson Jr., overseeing a criminal double-voting case in Pennsylvania, appeared open to the defendant’s argument that a pardon from President Donald Trump should apply to him. According to Votebeat, the defendant, Matthew Laiss, is accused of voting for Trump twice in the 2020 election — once in person in Florida and once via mail in Pennsylvania. At a hearing Monday in federal court, he argued that Trump’s Nov. 7 pardon of allies who attempted to overturn his 2020 loss should also apply to his alleged crimes. While Trump did not directly name Laiss in the pardon, his attorneys argued it covers his case because of its broad language. The Department of Justice argues the pardon does not apply to Laiss, a view it says is shared by the U.S. pardon attorney. “The pardon lays out how people not named in the pardon might get relief,” said Katrina Young, an assistant federal defender representing Laiss. Young pointed out that the pardon said it applied to “all United States citizens for … voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any State or State official, in connection with the 2020 Presidential Election.” Laiss, she argued, is a U.S. citizen, and his alleged crime is voting for a slate of electors, meaning he is covered by the plain language of the pardon. Leeson will rule on the applicability of the pardon in time, but he did not indicate on Monday when he will make his decision. “This is a very interesting case,” Leeson said. “We’re going to take the matter under advisement and get a decision out.”

A group of five independent voters filed a lawsuit this week asking a Pennsylvania court to end the commonwealth’s bar against independent voters participating in primary elections. Under Section 2812 of the Election Code, people who are not registered as members of the two major political parties cannot vote in partisan primaries. The group, which also includes David Thornburgh, chairman of Ballot PA Action and son of former Gov. Dick Thornburg, argues the provision is unconstitutional. It violates the right “to cast an equally weighted vote” and to “have an equal opportunity to translate votes into representation,” enshrined in the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the state Constitution, the lawsuit claims. “After 88 years of being treated as second-class Pennsylvania citizens, 1.4 million independent voters will finally get our day in court,” Thornburgh said in a statement.

Rhode Island: The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island and the state’s Common Cause chapter jointly filed a motion this week to intervene in the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in Rhode Island federal court on Dec. 2, citing a need to halt a “potential misuse of voters’ sensitive data.” “Privacy is essential — especially as related to a right as fundamental as voting,” Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, said in a statement. “The Department of Justice has no need for voters’ personal information.” In suing Amore, the DOJ states it aims to “ascertain Rhode Island’s compliance with list maintenance requirements,” according to the 10-page complaint. But the ACLU and Common Cause argue in their filing that the federal government does not have a proper purpose under the law for requesting the personal data of Rhode Island’s electorate. “This dangerous directive puts our sensitive information at risk simply so the Trump Administration can spread election lies,” John Marion, executive director for Common Cause Rhode Island, said in a statement. The groups’ motion to intervene also includes voters who have agreed to testify over their concerns over how the Trump administration may use their data, including a recently naturalized resident originally from Brazil.

South Carolina: A new lawsuit challenges provisions of South Carolina’s election law, claiming they infringe on federal voting rights for people with disabilities. The NAACP and three South Carolina voters with disabilities filed the lawsuit in federal court in Columbia. The plaintiffs currently live in nursing homes and say existing state law will impede their ability to vote by mail in 2026 elections. The ACLU of South Carolina is representing the plaintiffs in the case against the state’s attorney general and election commission. Among the provisions challenged is a prohibition on voting assistance outside voters “who are unable to read or write or who are physically unable or incapacitated from preparing a ballot or voting.” The lawsuit also challenges provisions that restrict who can help disabled voters request or return an absentee ballot and limit the number of voters a person can assist with absentee ballots. Plaintiffs argue the restrictions conflict with federal law and are asking a judge to block the state from enforcing them. The court has given defendants 21 days from the time they’re served with the lawsuit to respond.

Texas: Texas can use its new, GOP-friendly congressional map while a legal challenge plays out, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, temporarily pausing a lower court ruling that had blocked the map from going into effect. With the Dec. 8 candidate filing deadline fast approaching, the high court’s decision likely means Texas’ new map will be used for the 2026 midterm elections. Justice Samuel Alito ruled that it was “indisputable” that Texas’ motivation for redistricting was “pure and simple” partisan advantage, which the court has previously ruled is permissible. A federal judge had previously ruled that the state likely engaged in racial gerrymandering, a claim Alito rejected. The three liberal justices dissented. Earlier this month, two federal judges barred Texas from using the new map for 2026, saying there was evidence state lawmakers had racially gerrymandered in redrawing the lines. Galveston District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, authored the opinion ordering Texas to return to its 2021 map, while 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith vociferously dissented. The state asked the Supreme Court to overturn Brown’s ruling entirely, but that could take weeks or months to proceed through the court system, especially if the justices decide they want to hear arguments in Washington, D.C. With last week’s ruling, the justices have temporarily paused Brown’s ruling while that longer legal process can play out.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker