Electionline Weekly August-13-2026

Ballot Measures, Legislation & Rulemaking

Federal Legislation: The Senate bowed to political reality at 4:36 a.m. on Saturday, adjourning and allowing senators to leave Washington without any concrete steps toward passing the voting restriction bill that President Trump has demanded for months. Republican lawmakers had insisted they would work tirelessly to enact election changes that Trump has suggested the party needs in place to win the midterm elections. Instead, they departed with little to show for their efforts, other than a performative pre-dawn procedural vote on a watered-down version of the bill that they knew they could not pass. Even the staunchest advocates of the election measure eventually conceded what had been clear all along: There was simply not enough Republican support to push through the strict voter identification legislation. With the party’s majority at risk, senators were eager to abandon the futile effort so they could get home to their states to campaign for re-election. “We are not in a position right now where we have the wherewithal to pass it right now,” Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah and one of the most forceful proponents of the legislation, said The president’s proposed measure would require Americans to show proof of citizenship to register to vote, impose a nationwide voter identification requirement and severely limit voting by mail. That legislation, which the president has called the SAVE America Act, has neither the majority it would need to pass nor the 60 votes needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster.

Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah) and James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) have introduced the Ballots by Election Day Act) to require that all absentee and mail-in ballots in federal elections be received by the time polls close on Election Day in order to be counted. The Act Amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require that absentee and mail-in ballots in federal elections be received by the appropriate election official no later than the time polls close on Election Day; Prohibits states from counting absentee or mail-in ballots received after polls close on Election Day; Preserves existing protections for absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA); and Applies to federal elections held in 2027 and every year thereafter.

Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska: Fairbanks North Star Borough voters will be asked a pair of ballot questions Oct. 6 that could shake up how the borough runs local elections in years to come. If approved, one of them would change the date of the borough election, which now happens the first Tuesday in October each year. It would move to the same day as the state and federal elections in November, the Tuesday after the first Monday in that month, if voters approve Proposition 2. The other measure, Proposition 3, would introduce a hand count-only method for tallying votes in borough elections and ban the use of machine tabulators for producing or certifying official counts. Both would be in effect come the 2027 election. FNSB Clerk April Trickey said by email that “there are many what if’s at this point between the Borough’s Prop 2 and 3 outcomes and how that will affect our partnership in conducting elections.” She said, following the election, the borough and city clerks will figure out how the relationship will function in future years. But Trickey said one thing is more certain: If dates for the borough and city elections don’t match up, “the Borough would no longer partner with the cities to conduct their elections. The Cities would have full responsibility to conduct their elections.” If local voters approve Prop 3 – the hand count – on Oct. 6, Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Grier Hopkins predicts some major drawbacks. “I’m not excited about spending more money, and it’s going to be more expensive. I’m not excited about less accuracy, and it’s going to be less accurate,” he said.

California: California Republicans are pushing to make California’s secretary of state position nonpartisan. With the California legislative session in its final month, Republican lawmakers are pushing a proposal that would make the state’s secretary of state a nonpartisan position: ACA23. Republican Assemblymembers Josh Hoover and Natasha Johnson are behind the effort. Hoover said voters want election information that is nonpartisan and accurate. Hoover questioned whether the state’s chief elections official should be involved in partisan politics. “Should a secretary of state, who is tasked with a very important job, which is ensuring trust, ensuring that the vote is counted properly, should that individual be engaging in politics of any kind?” Hoover said. Under the California Constitution, judicial, school, county and city offices, as well as the superintendent of public instruction, are nonpartisan. Weber declined to comment. Her office said it does not comment on pending legislation.

Delaware: Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer signed legislation that ensures key protections from the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 will be retained in the state, regardless of what may happen in the future. In doing so, Delaware became the second state to write prohibitions against voter discrimination, voter suppression and vote dilution into state law following a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in April that overturned parts of Section 2 of that pivotal civil rights legislation. While codifying protected rights already held by the national Voting Rights Act, the new state legislation also crucially specifies that intent does not have to be proved for future violations of electoral discrimination. It also empowers the state attorney general, along with individuals and organizations, to bring complaints against offending agencies or jurisdictions. The bill creates a “democracy canon,” which instructs courts and officials that, when election laws are ambiguous, they should interpret them in favor of protecting voting access. HB 444 also dramatically expands requirements for language assistance in local elections, tasking the Department of Elections to provide materials, and even potentially translators, for any language spoken by more than 2%, or 1,000 people, of voting age. While now signed, House Bill 444 does not take effect until July 1, 2027, to allow for implementation.

Le Grande, Oregon Ballot Measure: Residents will not only cast their votes for city council and mayor in November, but also decide the future of elections in the city. The city council voted on Wednesday, Aug. 5, to approve the ballot title for the charter amendments and refer the issue to voters during the 2026 general election. The ballot measure asks voters to amend the language of the La Grande City Charter and change how future elections are run. If supported by voters, the ballot measure would create three revisions to the charter. The proposed amendment would eliminate the council position numbers. Instead of voting by position number, residents would select their top three candidates to serve on the council out of the entire pool of people running. The second proposed change would eliminate the language requiring a primary election. Currently if three or more candidates file for any position, the city holds the primary election and then the top two candidates advance to the general election. Finally, the proposal would allow the council to fill midterm vacancies through appointment for the remainder of the term. “I think this charter amendment would be good for the city and clearer for voters,” Councilor Corrine Dutto said.

Pennsylvania: An act amending Titles 25 (Elections) and 75 (Vehicles) would modernize how Pennsylvania maintains its voter rolls and how often they are updated. The legislation proposed by Sen. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence), SB 1429, would expand the methods used to identify and remove deceased voters, shorten reporting and record-update timelines, and broaden the data used to identify voters who have moved. Under the proposal, the Department of Health would be required to provide the names and addresses of deceased individuals to county election officials within 60 days of receiving notice of a death. Other acceptable proof of death that would allow Election officials to cancel voter registrations include newspaper obituaries and information from government agencies or private-sector data providers. After receiving proof of death, election officials would have 14 days to cancel the voter’s registration. Additionally, information provided by the Social Security Administration would be incorporated into the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE system) at least every 120 days to identify registered voters who may have died. The bill would also require election officials to use information from the U.S. Postal Service annually, and at least 90 days before a general election, to identify registered voters who may have changed addresses and cancel their registrations.

Rhode Island: Gov. Dan McKee signed legislation into law aimed at keeping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents away from polling places in Rhode Island. According to a news release, the law (2026-H 7434A, 2026-S 3339) prohibits ICE employees, agents, or officials from being within 200 feet of any polling place during voting, including early voting and Election Day voting. “This law protects the integrity of our elections by ensuring that every eligible Rhode Island voter can exercise their right to vote free from intimidation,” said Rep. Joshua J. Giraldo (D, District 56), the sponsor of the bill. “It creates a 200-foot buffer to prevent the presence of federal immigration officials at or near public polling locations in a way that could chill election participation. As the son of a Colombian immigrant, I can tell you first-hand that the presence of ICE vehicles or personnel absolutely will intimidate first-generation immigrants – naturalized citizens and lawful voters. This is particularly true in communities such as Central Falls, which I represent, that have a large population of immigrants.” The law would not apply to ICE agents who are entering the polling place for the limited purpose of voting or handing in a ballot.

Legal Updates

U.S. Supreme Court: The Trump Administration ​again asked the U.S. Supreme Court on August 12 to intervene to fully ‌implement his executive order restricting the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections that will decide control of Congress. The Justice Department filed a request asking the justices to put on hold a decision made on August 11 by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston that blocks the U.S. Postal Service from nationwide ​enforcement of the directive’s tighter rules for voting by mail. Talwani’s decision ​on August 11, in a case brought by several voting rights groups and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, effectively expands on an earlier order she issued in June preventing the enforcement of Trump’s order in 23 mostly Democratic-governed ​states and Washington, D.C., which had also challenged the action as unconstitutional. The administration has already asked ​the Supreme Court to pause the June decision. In its brief filing on Wednesday, the Justice Department ‌urged the ⁠Supreme Court to lift that decision and make clear that the ruling applies to the judge’s action on Tuesday as well.

Federal Litigation: U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani ruled against President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and directly involve the U.S. Postal Service in election operations in a way that would limit mail voting. Talwani had already halted the order Trump signed in March, his second one attempting to set national election rules. On June 25, she sided with Democratic state attorneys general in granting summary judgment, preventing the core parts of Trump’s order from taking effect. This week’s ruling creates another legal hurdle for the Trump administration to overcome should it get the initial injunction lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court. “That it is now less than 90 days before the November 3, 2026 midterm elections underscores the critical need for an injunction to prevent Defendants from changing election rules on the eve of the election,” she wrote. Talwani found that the voting rights groups that made the request to effectively expand her June ruling are likely to prove in their lawsuit that Trump’s order oversteps a president’s authority under the Constitution. Talwani, a nominee of former President Barack Obama, also found that the order is causing confusion among voters. “Throughout the multiple actions before district courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States, the federal government has declined to defend the constitutionality of the EO’s directives,” Talwani wrote. The judge concluded that blocking USPS from following Trump’s directives across the country will not harm the public, noting that the Trump administration “declined to argue that enjoining implementation of the EO will jeopardize the integrity of mail-in voting” and provided the court with no evidence of fraudulent absentee voting.

Arizona: An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld an Arizona voter registration law, concluding that a voter outreach organization does not have standing to challenge a law requiring cancellation of some voter registrations. “Because the organizations have not clearly shown that the cancellation provision affects or interferes with their voter-registration and voter-education efforts, they have not established an injury-in-fact,” U.S. Circuit Judge Anthony D. Johnstone wrote for the panel. The panel of 11 judges also held that the plaintiff organizations had standing to challenge the law’s felony provision but were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim. “Although the stand-alone phrase ‘mechanism for voting’ arguably encompasses voter registration and education, the full text and statutory context of the Felony Provision show that it likely does not criminalize those activities,” Johnstone wrote. Passed in 2022, Senate Bill 1260 requires county recorders to cancel the registration of voters registered in another county and makes it a felony for election officials to register voters already registered in another state. Nonprofits Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino say the law could lead to improper cancellations and prosecutions because voters may register in a new county or state before their old registration is removed. They argue the law would chill voter engagement and hinder their voter registration efforts. The nonprofits sued the governor, attorney general and Arizona’s 15 county recorders in August 2022. In November, a three-judge appellate panel reversed a preliminary injunction that had blocked the law since the day after it took effect. The panel found the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the cancellation provision because they had not shown an actual injury, and that they were unlikely to succeed on the felony provision. The plaintiffs successfully sought en banc review, arguing the law would lead to more improper voter registration cancellations and force them to spend more resources re-registering voters. However, Johnstone wrote that spending more time and resources educating voters about the law and helping them cancel old registrations is not a concrete injury, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. There, the justices unanimously ruled anti-abortion groups lacked standing to challenge the Federal Drug Administration’s approval of abortion pills, writing that the groups’ impaired ability to provide services “does not work to demonstrate standing.” “Without any showing of actual or imminent injury to the organizations’ voter-registration activities, they are left only with the loss of time and resources they have spent manufacturing one,” Johnstone said. But under Hippocratic Medicine, this is not a concrete injury.”

California: Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jennifer Rockwell ruled that California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s ballot title and summary for Proposition 39 was lawful and fair. Proponents under the coalition “Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39,” had sued Bonta over the revised ballot title and summary, which his office is responsible for writing. Proponents argued the revised language was “misleading” and “partisan.” Rockwell asked whether someone would be prohibited from voting if they had no ID. Columbo said that only would apply to 20% of California voters, as 80% vote by mail. Also, they could cast a provisional vote. The judge noted in the latter case the voter would have to show ID to have their vote counted. She said casting a ballot and having it counted are two parts of the same process and called the attorney general’s title and summary “sufficient.”

In a second case involving Proposition 39 Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang handed a win to Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, who disputed supporters’ claims that the measure saves money, makes voting easier and places security measures on elections. The Democratic leaders filed suit last week over ballot measure supporter arguments that would appear in a voter information guide. If enacted, Prop 39 would require people to show government-issued ID when casting a ballot in person. They’d have to include the last four digits of a government-issued ID when voting by mail. “It is hard to conceive how it would be ‘easy’ or ‘easier’ to vote if a voter has to take the extra step of either bringing government-issued identification when voting in person or search for their government-issued identification and supply the last four digits if they vote by mail,” Chang wrote. Chang found issue with all challenged claims, including that the measure would make elections more secure and contain privacy protections. “In fact, it requires voters using a mail-in ballot to include ‘the last four digits of a unique identifying number from government-issued identification’ on the outside of the ballot envelope,” she wrote. “This makes voter’s ‘government-issued identification’ numbers less private, and less secure.”

Shasta County, California: California officials stopped the enforcement of a Shasta County ballot measure that would have required people to show a photo ID at the polls. The decision came a day after two Sacramento County judges also ruled for the state over a November ballot measure that would impose voter ID. Shasta County’s Measure B, approved by about 55% of voters in June, required government-issued identification to register and vote, largely eliminated vote-by-mail and early voting, mandated hand-counted ballots and created a voter registration system separate from the state. Attorney General Rob Bonta argued the county’s charter status allowed some local laws to conflict with state law, but not election laws. California prohibits photo ID requirements at the polls and guarantees access to vote-by-mail and early voting. “Measure B would unlawfully change how elections are conducted in Shasta County,” Bonta said in a statement. “Today’s ruling prevents Measure B from taking effect while our litigation proceeds, providing certainty that the November election will be conducted under California’s established election laws. We will continue fighting to permanently strike down the measure.” Bonta had sought a resolution by Aug. 24, as Shasta County voters needed certainty before the November election about how to register and vote. In his suit, Bonta argued the county exceeded its constitutional authority. It has no home-rule power. It’s also preempted by state law. Additionally, Measure B would disrupt the November election. He pointed to over 116,000 registered voters in the North State county, saying a quick decision on the preliminary injunction was required.

District of Columbia: U.S. District Court Judge Randolph D. Moss dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice seeking a full, unredacted copy of D.C.’s voter registration data, marking another defeat for the Trump administration in its aggressive attempts to scour states’ voter rolls over claims of fraud and undocumented immigrants casting ballots. In a 23-page ruling, Moss rejected the department’s attempt to use a 1960s-era civil rights law as part of what he called an “unprecedented effort to collect sensitive information about voters.” The legal fight started more than a year ago, when the Department of Justice requested a full copy of D.C.’s voter registration list, including voters’ full names, dates of birth, addresses and either driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.

Florida: Charles Hunt. Jordan-Baldwin was arrested August 11 after a Florida State House candidate says she and her husband were attacked at an early voting site in St. Johns County. Dr. Diana Jordan-Baldwin, who is running for the District 18 seat, said she arrived around 6 a.m. to campaign outside a polling site when a man in a black pickup truck began confronting her. The St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office said Hunt began yelling obscenities at her after she tried to move her car. Jordan-Baldwin said the argument escalated after Hunt made comments about her late husband, who died in 2012 while serving overseas with the U.S. Army. Jordan-Baldwin said her current husband stepped between them in an attempt to stop the confrontation. She said Hunt went around her husband and punched her in the side of her face. Bystanders eventually intervened, Jordan-Baldwin said. She said Hunt then left in his truck, but witnesses recorded the vehicle and its tag. St. Johns County deputies then responded to the location at 21 World Golf Place. Hunt was arrested and charged with two counts of simple battery, according to the sheriff’s office.

Idaho: Prosecutors in Fremont County have dismissed or reduced charges against several individuals following an investigation into alleged voter fraud during a contentious May 2023 election in Island Park. Out of 11 people originally charged with election interference, four have pleaded guilty to reduced misdemeanor charges, several cases have been dropped, and charges against three remaining defendants remain pending. At the center of the case is a controversial May 2023 ballot measure proposing a 5% lodging tax on short-term rentals, Airbnbs, and cabins in Island Park. Proponents wanted to use the revenue to build a three-million-dollar multipurpose community center. That measure ultimately failed by just nine votes. Court documents allege that the defendants fraudulently cast ballots in that election using secondary residences, Airbnbs, or rental properties.

Maryland: Republicans in the General Assembly filed a lawsuit against Democrats’ ballot question on congressional redistricting. The late-night filing came just a few days after lawmakers finished a special legislative session to pass the ballot question, a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters in November, could pave the way for Democrats to draw a map that eliminates Maryland’s last remaining Republican seat in Congress, held by Rep. Andy Harris (R-1st), chairman of the U.S. House Freedom Caucus. The suit was filed in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court by all seven members of the conservative Maryland Freedom Caucus, the Senate minority leader and minority whip, and the president of the conservative advocacy group, the Oversight Project. The suit argues that Maryland Democrats missed a July deadline for getting the question on the November ballot, among other errors. In addition to the Maryland State Board of Elections, it names Gov. Wes Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, State Elections Administrator Jared DeMarinis and Secretary of State Susan Lee as defendants. The bill passed earlier this week contains language stating that the question should be presented to state voters in November “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” But this provision is legally insufficient, the suit contends. It would have taken “ordinary legislation” changing the deadlines for ballot questions in the law. In other words, Democrats couldn’t just attach it to their ballot question bill, the suit argues.

Michigan: Antrim County Clerk Victoria Bishop and her husband won’t face charges after she left him alone with her government computer. In February, a county maintenance worker reported that Randy Bishop was sitting in the clerk’s office unsupervised watching a public video stream of a county commission meeting on the office computer. This led to concerns that he could have used the computer to access sensitive information, including the Qualified Voter File, the central database that contains Michigan’s voter roll and can only be accessed by election officials. According to Votebeat, Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a news release that her office found “no evidence of criminal wrongdoing” or that anyone had tried to access the QVF from that computer at that time. The investigation found that the clerk likely did allow her husband to use her computer — which matches what they later told the Michigan State Police — but that no sensitive county files were touched, either. Regardless, Nessel said the case “surely represents a clear misstep from adequate practices and prudent policy.”

Nebraska: Lancaster County District Judge Ryan Post has ruled against a lawsuit led by the Republican National Committee challenging a Nebraska law allowing certain overseas voters to vote in the Cornhusker State. Post ruled that there was at least one constitutional application for the challenged law. As such, Post dismissed the challenge from the RNC and two Lancaster County voters with prejudice, meaning the RNC and the voters could not bring the same challenge again. State law allows U.S. citizens who have never resided in Nebraska but have a parent registered to vote in one Nebraska county to register in one county. It would be a felony to register or vote in multiple states or counties. To succeed, the RNC would have needed to establish that “no set of circumstances exists” which would allow the act to be valid, Post said. “A statute is presumed to be constitutional, and all reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of its constitutionality,” Post wrote in a 13-page order. In the hypothetical scenario, a U.S. citizen, “Joe,” is the son of missionaries who call Saunders County home but moved to South America, where Joe was born. The family continued to live in the foreign country and maintained a home in Saunders County, always with the intent to return home. The family did not change their domicile over time either. “Under the foregoing authorities, Joe remains a Nebraska resident and domiciliary for voter qualification purposes under the state constitution, and he is ‘eligible to register to vote and vote in’ Saunders County under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-939(2),” Post wrote.

Lincoln, Nebraska: Lancaster County officials announced the arrest of five out-of-state individuals who helped circulate petitions for three Lincoln-focused petitions this summer. However, more arrests could be on the way as the investigation continues. A news release from the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office said “several more” arrest warrants are outstanding. Chief Deputy Ben Houchin of the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office announced the arrests in a 10-minute news briefing. He said five people have so far been arrested in Missouri, Nevada, Florida and Washington, D.C. None are Nebraska residents. The man arrested near Washington, D.C., is from New Jersey. “Nothing in our investigation makes us believe any political entity is working or affiliated with this,” Houchin said. “These are people out doing crimes. Period.” The five individuals charged, according to the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office, are: Jessica Davis, 23, of Boynton Beach, Florida; David Johnson, 24, of Irvington, New Jersey.; Nathan Kirschbaum, 32, of Las Vegas, Nevada; Jason Luciano, 32, of Las Vegas, Nevada; and Ryan McKinney, 41, of St. Louis, Missouri. Those charged will face at least one count each of falsifying a circulator’s affidavit. The Class IV felony could carry a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment and 12 months’ post-release supervision or a $10,000 fine, or both. However, each falsified petition page — which includes up to 20 signatures per page — could be a separate charge.

New Hampshire: The Coalition for an Open Democracy has filed a federal lawsuit to block a new New Hampshire law that prevents the use of student identification cards when registering to vote or casting a ballot, which they call the latest in long-running efforts to disenfranchise young voters. The suit argues that the law, House Bill 323, as well as a subsequent ruling by Secretary of State David Scanlan about voter registration, “continues to privilege older voters while discriminating against younger voters by invalidating a form of identification disproportionately used by eighteen to twenty-five-year-olds.” The group is asking for injunctions blocking the law from taking effect for the state party primary on Sept. 8. HB 323 amends RSA 659:13 by eliminating student identification cards as a valid form of proving identity when obtaining a ballot, something that had been allowed since 2012. It went into effect on June 2 after Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed it into law. Supporters argued that student ID cards are not secure enough to guarantee that a person has legal residency in the state, leading to voting by ineligible people. The suit dismisses that argument: “… The New Hampshire legislature sought to justify the bill by referencing a non-existent problem: non-resident voter fraud, for which no evidence has or can be cited…”

New York: Onondaga County Democratic Elections Commissioner Dustin Czarny filed suit against Republican Elections Commissioner Kevin Ryan over getting term limits for county executive and comptroller on the November ballot. The petition stems from County Executive Ryan McMahon’s recent signing of legislation establishing a three-term limit, then minutes later, issuing a veto of it, saying that he mistakenly signed it. The legislature has said the first notice was legally binding and sent it to the county Board of Elections to be put on the ballot. Czarny says the measure was signed and should go on the ballot. He said the role of board of elections is to put transmitted resolutions on the ballot, not to determine their legal validity. Ryan, however, has not approved putting it on the ballot. He has said legislators should recognize the veto and overturn it with votes if they want a public vote. “This is an unprecedented situation, and after consulting with my legal counsel, I concluded that seeking a judicial ruling is the quickest, most appropriate, and perhaps only way to resolve this dispute before the statutory deadlines,” Czarny said in a statement. Ryan responded to Czarny’s legal action in a statement. “Rather than wait for the County Legislature to determine how it intends to proceed or whether cooler heads would prevail, my counterpart took it upon himself to sprint to the Courthouse door to commence his own lawsuit which in my opinion is nothing more than a publicity stunt. I personally don’t care that I have been sued – I just am of the belief that the County Legislature would be the proper Petitioner,” Ryan said.

South Dakota: A South Dakota group won another victory this week in its effort to preserve adequate time for petitioning questions onto statewide ballots, but a state official immediately pledged to continue the fight in court. A federal appeals panel upheld a lower court’s ruling that state lawmakers violated the First Amendment when they moved up the deadline for submitting petition signatures by three months. After the three-judge appeals panel issued its ruling, South Dakota’s attorney general said he will request a review by the entire 11-member 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Petitioners need 17,508 signatures from registered voters to put a proposed law on the ballot in South Dakota, and 35,017 signatures for a proposed state constitutional amendment. South Dakota lawmakers approved legislation last year that moved the deadline for filing signed petitions in a general election year from the first Tuesday in May to the first Tuesday in February. Last August, a district court judge ruled the law violates the First Amendment, writing that moving the deadline three months earlier “arguably goes beyond merely inconvenient and enters the realm of severe.” The state appealed that ruling. During arguments heard by the three-judge appeals panel in June, the state’s lawyer, Paul Swedlund of the state Attorney General’s Office, said a shorter deadline gives more time for potential litigation over ballot questions to play out. Judge Raymond Gruender disagreed with that assertion, writing in this week’s opinion that “even if that were the case, however, nothing in the record indicates that the new deadline advances that interest in any meaningful way.” Gruender added that the state didn’t provide “sufficient factual or legal support” for its argument that pre-election litigation on petitions would bolster the confidence of voters in the initiative and referendum process. Judge Jane Kelly joined Gruender in the decision.

Texas: The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restored several pieces of a 2021 Texas election law that overhauled mail-in and assisted voting, overturning a lower court’s block on those provisions. Five years ago, Texas passed Senate Bill 1, a wide-reaching election law that changed the way local officials administer elections and how some Texans vote. After several lawsuits over accessibility concerns created by the new law were consolidated into a single suit, a district judge in March 2025 struck down nine of its provisions. Those blocked provisions included requiring Texans to provide an identification number or social security number on mail in ballot applications and have them match the state’s records. The judge also blocked provisions that create processes for curing defective ballots and require voters and those who assist them in filling out their ballot to sign an oath swearing they did not coerce the voter and disclose how they’re related. The plaintiffs who sued argued the provisions were overly cumbersome and restrictive for voters with disabilities, and the district judge agreed, ruling they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Texas allows voters who are over the age of 65 and those with certain disabilities, among others, to vote by mail. Wednesday’s 11-page ruling from the Fifth Circuit reverses the district judge’s ruling in its entirety, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing on most of their complaints. The written opinion strongly rebuked the lower courts’ decisions in the suit, noting that appellate judges have “reversed the district court on everything” through the suit’s five years of litigation. “The bulk of the plaintiffs’ claims fail for lack of standing. One fails on the merits. But none justifies interference with the State Legislature’s efforts to prevent voter fraud and to protect election integrity,” Judge Andrew Oldham wrote in the opinion.

According to the Texas Tribune, Robert Howden, the new Texas secretary of state, said in a legal filing this week that he would continue to defend the state’s open primary system, putting him at odds with the Texas GOP in the lawsuit filed by the party last year. “The only thing that has changed in this case is the name of the defendant,” lawyers for the state agency wrote, emphasizing that the secretary would “gladly implement statutory changes” if passed by the Legislature. Last year, the Texas GOP sued to strike down the current open primary system, under which eligible Texans register to vote without declaring a party affiliation. Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the party, leaving then-Secretary of State Jane Nelson to find her own legal representation for the agency. Nelson, a Republican and former state senator, said in legal filings at the time that this was a decision best left to the Legislature. Many in the party celebrated Nelson’s retirement last month as an opportunity for the agency to change its position in the lawsuit. But Howden, Abbott’s former legislative director, is staying the course. “This issue can and will be resolved by the Legislature in the coming months,” he said in the filing, noting that the Legislature is the right venue for “thoughtfully crafting the detailed scheme that would govern it.”

Wyoming: Natrona County Judge Daniel Forgey has ruled in favor of Wyoming’s Secretary of State Chuck Gray. The ruling came after U.S. congressional candidate Jimmy Skovgard filed a lawsuit against the state’s closed primary election system. Skovgard, along with six voters, brought the suit claiming that the party affiliation deadline interferes with some voters’ ability to choose him in the primary election. Forgey dismissed the first case, and after Skovgard filed again, Forgey dismissed the second suit on July 22. Skovgard claimed that Wyoming’s party affiliation deadline interferes with his ability to “associate with willing supporters who want to vote for me in the Republican primary. Because of that deadline, I cannot fully engage, organize and receive electoral support in the decisive stage of the election from willing supporters who refuse to change their political identity or who wish to leave a party affiliation that no longer reflects their beliefs,” Skovgard said in an affidavit released after he filed his second suit in May.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker