Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking
Alabama: The House Judiciary Committee last week gave a late-session approval to a bill that would expand voting options and create state protections for some voters. HB 486, sponsored by Rep. Adline Clarke, D-Mobile, would automatically restore the voting rights for people who were convicted of felony offenses; allow for no-excuse absentee voting; let people vote prior to Election Day and create an Alabama Voting Rights Commission to review rules changes for voting and preclear actions related to voting related to voting that could discriminate against protected classes of voters. “This bill would modernize Alabama elections by expanding ballot access, strengthening voter protections and improving election administration,” Clarke told the committee. The legislation also reflects several bills sponsored by Democrats over the last several years aimed at making voting easier. It also requires the Secretary of State’s Office to maintain a statewide voter database; assist local elections offices administering elections and publish information to help voters better understand the state’s election laws. Among other steps, the bill would reverse 2024’s SB 1, sponsored by now-Senate President Pro Tem Garlan Gudger, R-Cullman, which made it a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for those who knowingly receive payment for “distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining or delivering” an absentee application. It also made it a Class B felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison, for voters who offer a gift “third party to distribute, order, request, collect, prefill, complete, obtain or deliver” absentee ballot applications. Clarke’s bill would allow voters cast an absentee ballot without needing an excuse, such as illness or absence on Election Day. It would also allow a voter to receive assistance to complete an application and to designate someone to deliver or mail it to the election manager in their respective county. It also allows those who are either blind or disabled to designate someone to either deliver or mail the ballot itself once they filled it out. The legislation also authorizes the absentee election manager of the county to inspect an absentee ballot to review it for defects and allow the voter to correct defects up until Election Day. HB 486 would also automatically restore voting rights for those convicted of felonies who have completed their sentences and been released or been pardoned or paroled, but not necessarily have paid all their fines, fees and restitution. The bill also authorizes probate judges to offer early voting in one precinct on the fourth Monday before the primary or general election, and the second Monday before the second primary election. The polling locations would remain open until the Friday before Election Day, and would be open on the second and third Saturdays before a primary, second primary, or general election. Counties could also vote to extend voting hours.
The Senate State Governmental Affairs Committee voted to advance a bill that would close Alabama’s primary elections to strictly registered Republicans and registered Democrats. House Bill 541 would require Alabama voters to register with a political party to participate in that party’s primary election. Republican lawmakers have said throughout the legislative process that they want to make sure that republicans are voting for republicans and democrats are voting for democrats. Right now, Alabama voters are considered unaffiliated since they are not required to register with a party to vote in primary elections. The bill now moves on to the senate for consideration.
Georgia: Members of the House and Senate concluded the 2026 legislative session last week without ending their longstanding stalemate over election policy, as Georgia hurtles toward the deadline for removing QR codes from voters’ ballots without a clear solution in sight. The lack of a solution has some lawmakers calling on Gov. Brian Kemp to convene a special session to give them another shot at passing an elections bill this year. On the final legislative day, House lawmakers passed Senate Bill 214, a measure that would postpone lawmakers’ self-imposed deadline for removing QR codes from ballots until 2028 and direct the state to begin the process of procuring a new election system this upcoming February. But the bill never made it across the finish line in the Senate, which adjourned shortly after 1 a.m. without taking up the measure. Since the 2026 session was also the end of the biennium, all bills must be refiled next year and start the legislative process over. Other election bills, such as a controversial proposal from the Senate to institute hand-marked paper ballots statewide ahead of the general election in November and a measure that would ban ranked-choice voting and withdraw Georgia from a multistate voter accuracy partnership, never made it to the House floor for a vote.
Illinois: House Bill 5414, would restore voting rights to people serving sentences in correctional institutions and require election authorities to work with prisons to facilitate voting by mail. The bill text says the change would take effect January 1, 2028, with a January 14, 2028, deadline for people already incarcerated before 2027. That is different from current Illinois law. People held in jail, including many awaiting trial, can vote. People in prison serving felony sentences cannot vote until they are released from IDOC custody. Backers said they are still educating lawmakers and the public as they try to move the bill forward this session. Legislative tracking records show HB 5414 was introduced in February and remained active this month. If lawmakers approve it, Illinois would join a small number of states that allow people in prison to vote.
The House passed a measure meant to encourage public high schools across the state to connect their students to organizations that will help them register to vote when they turn 18. Dubbed the Jesse Jackson Sr. Young Voter Empowerment Law, the bill “requires a school district” to provide voter registration opportunities for high schoolers, but there’s no penalty for districts that don’t comply — essentially making the policy optional. The bill, which passed by a 77-24 vote and now goes to the Senate for consideration, was inspired by Jackson, the civil rights leader who died Feb. 17 at 84.
Louisiana: Lawmakers have advanced a bill to require that state election officials send personal information on all registered voters to the federal government for further scrutiny. House Bill 691, sponsored by state Rep. Beau Beaullieu, R-New Iberia, cleared the House of Representatives in a 74-29 vote last week, mostly along party lines. Republicans, noting that the data sharing already began last year, supported the measure as being necessary for election integrity, while Democrats opposed it as an infringement on privacy, saying it might lead to unintentional voter purges due to outdated or inaccurate information. Under the bill, the Louisiana Secretary of State’s office would be required to submit personal identifying information, including addresses, birthdates and Social Security numbers, for all registered voters in the state to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which will check the information against a federal database that is typically used to verify citizenship of people applying for government benefits. Homeland Security rolled out its Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, database to state and local election officials last year. While the secretary of state has voluntarily submitted this information, Beaullieu’s bill would make the submissions an annual requirement for the secretary of state.
Lawmakers killed two bills last week aimed at improving voting access for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals despite testimony highlighting gaps in current laws and barriers to participation. House Bill 270 and House Bill 361, both authored by Rep. Terry Landry, D-Baton Rouge, sought to address what supporters described as inconsistencies and logistical challenges in the state’s voting system. While neither proposal would have expanded the number of eligible voters, advocates argued they would ensure existing rights were more accessible. HB 270 focused on clarifying conflicting statutes related to voting by mail. Under current Louisiana law, individuals who are incarcerated but not convicted of a felony are eligible to vote. However, a separate law requires first-time voters to cast ballots in person, creating a contradiction for those behind bars who cannot physically access polling places. The bill would have allowed eligible incarcerated individuals — such as those awaiting bond, awaiting trial or booked over a weekend — to vote by mail even if they were first-time voters. Initially, HB 270 appeared to have support from Landry’s colleagues. However, Rep. Polly Thomas, R-Metairie, abruptly moved to involuntarily defer the bill. The motion passed in a 9–7 vote after all the Republicans on the committee voted in favor of the deferment. effectively killing the bill. Involuntary deferment means that the bill cannot be brought up again during this session unless two-thirds of the committee votes to call it back and all other bills assigned to the committee have been heard. HB 361 addressed challenges faced by formerly incarcerated individuals seeking to restore their voter registrations after release, particularly those not convicted of felonies. Under current procedures, individuals must obtain documentation from a parole officer and deliver it in person to their local registrar. Critics say this process is burdensome, especially for those balancing work, lacking transportation or unable to visit offices only open during standard weekday hours. Landry’s proposal would have maintained the documentation requirement but eliminated the need for in-person delivery, allowing for more accessible submission methods. As with Landry’s first bill, his second one was also involuntarily deferred. The vote was 10-7 following a motion by Thomas as other Republicans followed suit. No explanation was given.
The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee blocked a bill this week that would have established a state Voting Rights Act to strengthen protections against gerrymandering and voter suppression. Senate Bill 365, sponsored by Sen. Royce Duplessis, D-New Orleans, failed to advance from the committee whose Republican majority defeated the measure in a 4-3 vote. The proposal sought to create state-level standards modeled after the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. It would have established a state-level commission to prevent legislators and local governments from enacting laws or drawing political districts in ways that intentionally diluted the voting power of racial minorities and any other protected classes of people.
New Hampshire: Gov. Kelly Ayotte has signed a law requiring a government-issued identification in order to vote in New Hampshire, eliminating the option to use high school or college IDs at the polls. The law, enacted via House Bill 323, takes effect in June and will be in place for the Sept. 8 state primaries and Nov. 3 general election. The new law limits qualifying identifications to a driver’s license from any state, a non-driver identification card from any state, a U.S. armed services ID card, or a U.S. passport or passport card. It strips out the ability to use college, university, and high school identification cards. New Hampshire has required voter ID to vote since 2012. That requirement recently became stricter; in 2024, lawmakers removed the ability for voters without an ID to cast a ballot by signing an affidavit attesting to their identity under penalty of perjury. Ayotte signed the bill April 3, her office said. She did not issue a statement.
New Jersey: New Jersey voters could get twice as long to vote early and in person in May’s municipal elections, after Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a law to expand the early voting period amid efforts nationally to roll back ballot access. The new law authorizes municipalities that hold non-partisan elections in May to start early in-person voting eight days before Election Day, with the early voting period ending two days before the election as it had previously. In communities that act to expand access, early voters will have seven days to vote early — four days longer than previous law allowed. “As President Trump attempts to undermine elections and make voting harder through his unconstitutional Executive Order, we will take every step to protect the integrity of our elections and ensure they are more accessible for New Jerseyans,” Sherrill said in a statement. “This bill will allow municipalities to expand early voting and ensure the people of our state have their voices heard at the local level, where these decisions will shape our neighborhoods, our schools, and our daily lives.”
Albuquerque, New Mexico: The Albuquerque City Council killed a proposal this week to use ranked choice voting for municipal elections. Proponents argued that this process would save millions of taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile, opponents said that the new system would confuse voters and that most were not educated enough to research and rank multiple candidates. According to Bernalillo County Clerk Michelle Kavanaugh, ranked choice voting could save taxpayers millions by eliminating runoff elections. Last year, the city spent $1.8 million to host a runoff election for the mayoral and city council races, Kavanaugh said. At a minimum, runoff elections cost the city around $500,000, Kavanaugh said. Kavanaugh also assured councilors that the county, which is responsible for coordinating the election, was ready to implement ranked choice voting. “Now’s the time,” Kavanaugh said during public comment. The measure was voted down on a 6-3 vote. Ranked choice voting is already used in municipalities across the country, including locally in Santa Fe and Las Cruces.
Ohio: State Senator Louis W. Blessing, III (R-Colerain Township) introduced Senate Bill 395 which implements a top-three primary and consensus general election system in Ohio. SB 395 starts with a top-three primary. What this means is that all candidates run in the same primary irrespective of party, with the top three advancing to the November general. To understand the mechanics, suppose there were seven candidates running for Congress: two Republican; two Democrat; one Green; one Libertarian; and one Independent. Every registered voter in the Congressional district would vote for the top three candidates to advance to the November general. If you’re a Republican, you might pick the two Republicans and the Libertarian. If you’re a Democrat, it could be the two Democrats and Green party member. It could be none, one, two, or any combination of three. As for the general election, consensus voting is simply voting in three head to head match-ups. Suppose you had candidates A, B, and C. On your ballot, you’d see A vs. B; A vs. C; and B vs. C. You would select one of the two candidates for each match-up just like voting today. If a candidate wins their two match-ups they win. If each candidate wins one, then the tie is broken by looking to which candidate lost by the least in their losing match-up. That’s it. Unlike ranked-choice voting, there are no multiple rounds; difficulty programming machines; and delays on results. Voting results could be shown in real-time and would be no slower than today.
Tennessee: A bill authorizing county election administrators to verify voters’ immigration status through a federal database is on its way to the governor’s desk after Senate Republicans voted to approve the measure. The bill (SB2204/HB2185) by Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson of Franklin and House Leader William Lamberth of Sumner County, both Republicans, is dependent on whether the United States Department of Homeland Security makes the data available to state election officials via a secure web service known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE). Current law already requires voters to attest to their citizenship status when registering to vote: the state then verifies citizenship using state and federal data sources. Johnson said the bill was intended to intercept potentially fraudulent registration at the point of voter registration. “This bill would allow election officials to use SAVE data during the initial application review,” Johnson said. If signed into law by Gov. Bill Lee, the bill’s implementation would remain contingent on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security working with Tennessee’s election officials to “create a secure, electronic portal through which each county administrator of elections may access information” by 2028 to verify citizenship status.
Vermont: As passed by the House, H.541 would make it illegal to intimidate, threaten or coerce a person in an attempt to interfere with their right to vote; pressure a person to vote a certain way; or obstruct the administration of an election. If violated, the offender could be fined up to $2,000, spend up to two years in prison, or both. The bill also keeps an existing law in place that can fine offenders $1,000 for similar actions, such as exposing someone’s ballot or attempting to influence their vote. Rep. Ian Goodnow, D-Windham-9, the bill’s main sponsor, said H.541 came after conversations with Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas and his own experiences helping run elections as a justice of the peace. “Over the years, I have seen the tension at the polls and some of the rhetoric around elections has really changed,” he said in an interview with Community News Service. Goodnow said the shift put local election officials on the front lines, as they are often the ones interacting directly with voters. He had people from his community, like Brattleboro town clerk Hilary Francis, in mind when working on the bill.
Wisconsin: State Senator Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) and Representative Clinton Anderson (D-Beloit) introduced LRB-5709, legislation that would implement ranked choice voting for state, federal, and local elections in Wisconsin. The legislation would also eliminate the need for February primaries in nonpartisan elections. Senator Spreitzer called the bill an improvement over a system that forces strategic voting. “Under ranked choice voting, voters can vote for the candidate they like the most instead of having to strategically vote against the candidate they like the least,” he said.
Legal Updates
Executive Order Lawsuits: Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the latest executive order issued by President Donald J. Trump. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia filed suit in federal court in Massachusetts arguing the order violates the Constitution, which gives states the responsibility to run elections and allows Congress, not the president unilaterally, the power to override state regulations. “Though the President may wish he had unlimited power to restrict voting rights, the Constitution gives states – not the White House – the authority to oversee elections,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a Democrat, said in a statement. The lawsuit named Trump, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Social Security Administration, the U.S. Postal Service, and several federal officials as defendants. “The President’s latest attempt to interfere with the States’ administration of their elections is as unprecedented as it is unconstitutional,” the lawsuit said. “Neither the Constitution nor any act of Congress confers upon the President the authority to mandate sweeping changes to States’ electoral systems or procedures.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Governors Association, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign all signed onto a lawsuit filed the day after the EO was signed. “The Executive Order’s provisions are convoluted and confusing,” said the Democrats’ lawsuit, which was filed in Washington, DC’s federal court. “What is clear is that it dramatically restricts the ability of Americans to vote by mail, impinging on traditional state authority.” In a separate lawsuit, voter rights groups — including the League of Women Voters, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas and the U.S. Vote Foundation — are seeking to stop the Trump order, arguing similarly that the Constitution explicitly states that only Congress and the states can set the rules for elections. Additionally, the groups warned that Trump’s call for DHS to build a list of citizens eligible to vote could result in unreliable voter rolls that could lead to mass disenfranchisement of eligible voters. “In effect, the Order seeks to interpose a federal screening regime between voters and the ballot box by empowering a federal mail carrier to withhold certain voters’ ballots,” a collection of voter advocacy groups said in a case filed in Massachusetts. “In doing so, the Order displaces the roles that the Constitution and federal law assign to the states and Congress to regulate elections and to USPS as a neutral, nondiscriminatory carrier of the mail.”
California: The California Supreme Court ordered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to pause his investigation into alleged fraud in last year’s special election. “To permit further consideration of this petition for review, real parties, their agents, employees, and anyone acting on their behalf are hereby ordered to pause the investigation into the November 2025 special election and preserve all seized items,” the court wrote, while agreeing to review the case itself. “The Riverside County Sheriff willfully defied my direct orders, seized 650,000 ballots, misused criminal investigatory tools, and created a constitutional emergency in the process,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court reins in the destabilizing actions of a rogue Sheriff, prohibiting him from continuing this investigation while our litigation continues,” he said.
Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gail O’Rane ordered the search warrants used to seize more than half a million ballots in Riverside County unsealed after several media organizations, including The Los Angeles Times, sued to review the documents. The release of the documents came soon after the California Supreme Court halted the investigation pending a further review of the case. The three search warrants, which were signed by a county judge, were requested by Riverside County Sheriff’s Investigator Robert Castellanos. He said the election materials were needed to “prove or disprove any criminal conduct” from the 2025 election, citing an audit from the Riverside County Election Integrity Team that purported a major miscount of ballots.
Colorado: The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’ conviction on felony charges related to a breach of her office’s elections equipment, but it ruled that a trial court had erred in imposing her nine-year prison sentence. Peters’ sentence, handed down in October 2024, was “based in part on improper consideration of her exercise of her right to free speech,” a panel of three appellate judges wrote in their unanimous 78-page opinion, ordering the lower court to resentence her. The ruling follows a January hearing during which Judges Craig Welling, Ted Tow III and Lino Lipinsky de Orlov of the Court of Appeals repeatedly questioned the severity of Peters’ sentence. Prior to issuing her sentence, District Court Judge Matthew Barrett called Peters a “charlatan” who peddled “snake oil,” and referred to her efforts to “undermine the integrity of our elections and public’s trust in our institutions.” “The trial court’s comments about Peters’s belief in the existence of 2020 election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing,” the Court of Appeals opinion says. “Her offense was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud; it was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud.” The legal team for former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters said they are weighing next steps.
Florida: Judge Lourdes Simon agreed April 6 to extend the mail-in ballot return deadline for April 7’s runoff election for Surfside mayor. That’s because candidate Shlomo Danzinger and Jewish advocacy groups filed an emergency lawsuit to delay the runoff election to later in April because of a conflict with the Passover holiday. Danzinger, who was Surfside’s first Orthodox Jewish mayor, is seeking a return to office. He lost his 2024 re-election bid to Mayor Charles Burkett and now faces Tina Paul, the town’s vice mayor. Nearly half the town’s population is Jewish. “You’re looking at about 20 to 50% of the voters who were having their voting rights impaired by having this runoff election tomorrow,” attorney Joshua Kligler argued. Town representatives and the county elections supervisor agreed that accommodations should be made for voters, but questioned the 11th-hour timing of the lawsuit. “Passover was established 3000 years ago when the Jews were released from Egypt,” Oren Rosenthal, an attorney for the county elections supervisor, said in court, “The date of the runoff election was capable of being known for 30 years.” Simon pointed out that changing an existing election date could disenfranchise additional voters who may not be able to vote on a new date. “As a general rule, I would agree that courts do not engage in enjoining or changing an election during a period of time, especially on the eve of an election, because of the risk of confusion to voters,” she said. Simon ultimately agreed to a compromise to keep in-person voting on Tuesday, but to extend the mail-in ballot period until April 28. “This will ensure enough time for people to order receive and cast their ballots,” she said.
Maine: The Supreme Judicial Court ruled this week that a bill to expand ranked choice voting to general elections for governor, state representative and state senator would violate the Maine Constitution. “Because of the Maine Constitution’s language, there are strong and convincing reasons that LD 1666 is unconstitutional, and we conclude that the presumption of constitutionality has been overcome,” the justices stated in a unanimous opinion. The bill passed initial votes in the Maine Senate and House of Representatives, but was tabled in the upper chamber while awaiting the ruling from the court. The court’s ruling is advisory, but Gov. Janet Mills previously said she opposed the legislation, but would be interested in the court’s ruling. “Today’s decision is not the outcome I hoped for, but it doesn’t change why this effort mattered,” said Sen. Cameron Reny (D-Briston), who sponsored LD 1666. “Maine voters made clear at the ballot box when they adopted ranked choice voting that they want a stronger, more representative democracy,” Reny continued. “As legislators, it’s our responsibility to make sure the laws they enact are fully and faithfully implemented.” She said even with the likely failure of this bill, she remains “committed to finding a lawful path to uphold the will of Maine people.”
North Carolina: National Republicans agreed to settle a lawsuit with the North Carolina State Board of Elections this week regarding the removal of noncitizens from the state’s voter rolls. The agreement, if approved by a judge in Wake County Superior Court, would require election officials to use jury questionnaire responses to identify noncitizens who may be registered to vote and remove them from the rolls, if warranted. The Republican National Committee and the NC GOP first sued over the jury list issue in the run-up to the 2024 elections. The state legislature had recently enacted a new law directing the usage of jury questionnaire responses — which ask those summoned if they are U.S. citizens — to conduct list maintenance on the state’s voter rolls. The lawsuit lay dormant for months after the election, until this week, when the RNC filed a proposed settlement reached with the elections board, which now has a Republican majority. The settlement sets up a timeline for the board to receive and use the jury questionnaires to identify and remove noncitizens from the rolls. It also directs election officials to provide information to the State Bureau of Investigation if records show that the voter in question cast a ballot prior to becoming a U.S. citizen. While the board and the RNC have agreed to the settlement, intervening parties in the case — advocacy groups North Carolina Asian Americans Together and El Pueblo — have not consented to it.
Wyoming: Weston County Clerk Becky Hadlock was arrested this week after a special prosecutor brought additional felony-level charges against the embattled local official for her conduct related to the 2024 general election, new court records show. According to WyoFile, state investigators found evidence Hadlock knowingly filed a false post-election audit that did not show any errors, according to an affidavit signed by a Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation special agent. A subsequent audit of the same ballots revealed 21 errors. Investigators also spoke with two people who said they overheard Hadlock describe such audits as “stupid.” The clerk now faces one count of violating the election code as an official and one count of falsifying election documents. Both are felonies and can be punishable by not more than five years in prison. Hadlock’s arrest comes less than a week before she is scheduled to stand trial in another case to determine whether she should be removed from office
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment