Legislative Updates
Alaska: The Juneau Assembly has committed $700,000 to convert a city warehouse into a ballot processing center. The facility will support a permanent move to holding local elections by mail. Juneau did that for the first time in 2020 because of pandemic concerns, and will again for the election that begins this week and ends Oct. 5. For now, Juneau’s election officials are relying on Anchorage for a secure facility and equipment to count ballots. City officials expect the facility to be ready for next year’s local election.
Massachusetts: After approximately a quarter of the city’s voters cast ballots in Tuesday’s preliminary municipal election, it took elections officials 12 hours to tabulate results. The reason: 7,000 day-of votes received via drop boxes and mail slowed the process. It was the first time the city used the voting methods in a local election. At their meeting on Wednesday, the city council approved an ordinance that, if signed by acting Mayor Kim Janey, would provide pre-paid envelopes to voters who request to vote by mail, since postage payment was an impediment for some. Councilor Lydia Edwards estimated that it would cost at most $150,000.
North Carolina: North Carolina’s attorney general would no longer be able to settle lawsuits against the state without the approval of legislative leaders, under a bill heading to Gov. Roy Cooper. In a 58-47 party-line vote, the House gave final approval to Senate Bill 360. The measure states that, if the state’s top lawmakers are part of a lawsuit, either as defendants or interveners, it can’t be settled without their permission. The bill was drafted in response to a settlement last fall that changed the state’s absentee ballot rules, allowing a later deadline for mailed ballots and ballots to be accepted without a witness signature. Rep. Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, said during House debate that the challenge to the state’s absentee ballot rules essentially became “a friendly lawsuit” because it was filed by Democratic lawyers represented the plaintiffs, Democrats held the majority on the State Board of Elections and Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein’s office represented the state.
Virginia: Gov. Ralph Northam (D) ceremoniously signed legislation which aims to further protect the right to vote in a state with a history of disenfranchising minorities. “Voting is the backbone of our democracy,” Governor Ralph Northam said at a ceremony in Norfolk for the Voting Rights Act of Virginia, a first of its kind effort in the South. Flanked by the Black, female elected officials who were the architects of the legislation, he said the law is an important part of righting the state’s racist past. “Everybody, without any obstacles, should have the opportunity to vote,” Northam said. The bill protects against changes to election rules or circumstances that could limit the voting rights of minorities via a state-level preclearance requirement. If a town or county seeks to change voting laws, they must first submit the proposed changes to the state attorney general’s office to review it against existing state and federal nondiscrimination laws. The Virginia legislation, which also makes it easier for people to sue in cases of voter suppression, was signed into law by Northam in March and it took effect in July. The law has already been put to use since it took effect this summer. According the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, filings have been summited by 10 localities. Three were questions related to future redistricting issues and the other seven were requests for changes to local election laws that were granted with no objection. Mecklenburg County General Registrar Jason Corwin was among those who had to go through the new preclearance process when they moved his office to a new building. “It was a fairly smooth process,” he said of the review before the AG’s office. He wasn’t sure the process was needed for his district, one that’s still majority-minority, as he said officials there strive to include minority voices whenever their election operations change.
Legal Updates
Arizona: The Arizona Supreme Court rejected an effort by the state Senate to keep secret records of its ongoing review of the 2020 election in Maricopa County that are in the possession of the contractors conducting the recount. The high court without comment rejected the appeal filed after an appeals court and trial court both ruled the documents are public records that must be released. The court also dissolved a stay on the appeals court ruling it put in place on Aug. 24 so it could review the record and decide whether to accept the appeal. The Arizona Court of Appeals had ruled that the documents sought by the watchdog group American Oversight detailing how the recount and audit are being conducted are public and must be turned over. The court said the main contractor, Florida company Cyber Ninjas, was subject to the records law because it was performing a core government function that the Senate farmed out. “Allowing the legislature to disregard the clear mandate of the (public records law) would undermine the integrity of the legislative process and discourage transparency, which contradicts the purpose of both the immunity doctrine and the (law),” acting presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz wrote for the three-judge panel.
Kansas: U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson signed off on a deal that would see the state pay out over $1.4 million in legal fees to a group of attorneys, including the American Civil Liberties Union, stemming from a prolonged court fight over a controversial voting law favored by former Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Attorneys for the state and lawyers for Kansas residents challenging the law in two federal lawsuits agreed to the amount during negotiations. They filed a joint request Friday to have U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson sign off. The attorneys suing the Kansas secretary of state’s office over the law would receive $1.53 million to cover their fees and another $370,000 for expenses. The lawyers had sought more than $3.3 million.
This week Shawnee County District Court Judge Teresa Watson heard arguments from plaintiffs in a suit seeking to halt controversial voting laws enacted this year, saying it is substantially harming their operations and speech rights ahead of the November municipal election. Their objection centers on two election laws that took effect earlier this year amid a nationwide effort in Republican states to tighten voting laws. The groups — led by Loud Light, Kansas Appleseed and the League of Women’s Voters — filed suit over the matter in June, arguing the laws violated the Kansas Constitution. Lawyers for the groups later filed for a temporary restraining order, blocking implementation part of one of the laws — House Bill 2183 — until a fuller ruling could be made on the case. The group’s main argument stresses that their voter registration activities puts them at risk for prosecution under a provision in the bill which criminalizes impersonating an election official. Bradley Schlozman, a private attorney representing the state on the matter, noted the language of HB 2183 only applies if an individual is knowingly aiming to represent themselves as an election official. Watson said she would have a ruling on the restraining order “very shortly.”
Michigan: Attorneys are seeking $204,000 in fees for successfully defending Detroit and Michigan from a post-election lawsuit filed by lawyers aligned with former President Donald Trump. The tally filed Wednesday came two weeks after a judge said the lawyers, including Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood, would pay a penalty for pursuing the case. The final figure will be determined later. Detroit was represented by lawyers in private practice. They’re seeking $182,000. The Michigan attorney general’s office is requesting about $22,000.
Montana: Montana Youth Action, Forward Montana Foundation and the Montana Public Interest Research Group — are suing Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen challenging several changes to Montana’s election laws enacted by the Legislature, calling them “a cocktail of voter suppression measures that land heavily on the young.” The lawsuit, filed in Yellowstone County District Court, targets three bills passed by Republican lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte earlier this year. Two are already the subject of existing lawsuits: Senate Bill 169, which tightened voter identification requirements, including requiring that student IDs be augmented with another form of identification for in-person voting; and House Bill 176, which ended Election Day registration in Montana. House Bill 506 previously received attention for a series of last-minute changes to the bill by Republicans, who amended it to alter the process for drawing Montana’s new congressional district. Thursday’s lawsuit challenges a different aspect of that law, which prevents ballots from being mailed out to new voters in advance of their 18th birthdays. In their lawsuit, the groups argue that voter participation among young Montanans jumped substantially during the 2020 election, adding that the three plaintiffs have been actively involved in increasing turnout among voters between the ages of 18 and 29. “The laws at issue here were passed for no reason other than the professed bogeyman of voter fraud, for which legislators did not and could not produce evidence,” the lawsuit continues. “Indeed, bill sponsors could not identify any benefits of their bills that would justify the adverse impact they will have — together and separately — on the ability of Montana youth to remain active and engaged participants in democracy.”
New Jersey: State Superior Court Judge Ernest Caposela stopped ballots from being printed for two towns mired in a dispute over how many seats each one should get on the Manchester Regional Board of Education. The dispute started after 2020 census results were released in August and appeared to show that Haledon leapfrogged over North Haledon in population. Haledon filed a lawsuit, arguing for the greatest representation on the regional school board in light of the new numbers. As of now, North Haledon elects four trustees, and Haledon three. Prospect Park, which is not involved in the case, has two members. Haledon scored a small victory when Judge Ernest Caposela ordered from his Paterson bench that ballots for Haledon and North Haledon not be printed until further notice. And he ruled that the Passaic County clerk must accept new candidates from Haledon who want to run for the regional school board.
North Carolina: North Carolina’s highest court has ruled that felony offenders who are out of prison and registered to vote in North Carolina during a roughly 10-day period thanks to a recent order by trial judges will remain on voting rolls for now. The state Supreme Court declined to reinstate an order last month that declared any offender no longer behind bars could register. But the court declared that a felony offender who registered to vote because the order was enforceable at the time “are legally registered voters” until told otherwise. Those offenders can vote in this fall’s municipal elections.
Texas: A U.S. magistrate judge recommended striking down parts of Texas law that prohibit wearing political apparel within 100 feet of a polling place as unconstitutionally vague — but upholding a narrower provision that specifies that clothing bearing messages related to what’s on the ballot can be banned. The issue first arose in 2018 when Harris County resident Jillian Ostrewich wore a Houston firefighters T-shirt to a polling place and election workers told her to turn it inside out because it related to Prop B, a pay parity measure for firefighters on that ballot that year. Claiming she was unconstitutionally censored and her right to free speech infringed upon, she sued Harris County and state officials. The case puts to the test a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June of that year in which the justices struck down a Minnesota law that banned voters from displaying “issue-oriented” apparel at the polls for being overbroad. The Texas suit was brought by Pacific Legal Foundation, the same California-based libertarian public interest law firm that won the Minnesota case.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
