Legislative Updates
Alabama: The Senate Judiciary Committee, in a 4-4-3 vote, refused to let the bill, HB100, out of committee after two Republicans expressed concerns over punishing angry voters with a “crime of moral turpitude” if they are convicted of an assault for a relatively minor offense such as pointing their finger in a poll worker’s chest. The committee’s chairman, Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, said the legislation, despite the defeat, will get “carried over” and placed on the Senate agenda to “give members time to look at it.” Barfoot voted in favor of moving the bill to the full Senate for consideration. Under HB100, increased penalties would apply against someone who commits a crime against an election official if that crime is motivated by the officials’ role in working at the polls during an election day. If a felony is committed against the election official, which is motivated by an individual’s role as an election official, then they would be disqualified from voting. The felony would be considered a crime of “moral turpitude.” In Alabama, those crimes include some of the most serious offenses of murder, rape, kidnapping, sexual abuse and torture, human trafficking, terrorism, child sex abuse, etc. It was voted out of the Alabama House with a 95-0 vote on April 16.
Mississippi: Thirty-two Mississippians convicted of felonies could get their voting rights back after lawmakers advanced suffrage bills April 22, weeks after a Senate leader killed a broader bill that would have restored suffrage to many more people with criminal records. The move is necessary due to Mississippi’s piecemeal approach to restoring voting rights to people convicted of felony offenses who have paid their debts to society. To have voting rights restored, people convicted of any of the crimes must get a pardon from the governor or persuade lawmakers to pass individual bills just for them, with two-thirds approval of the House and Senate. Lawmakers in recent years have passed few of those bills, and they passed none in 2023. “I certainly don’t think this is the best way to do it,” said Republican Rep. Kevin Horan of Grenada, who chairs the House Judiciary B Committee. “There comes a point in time where individuals who have paid their debt to society, they’re paying taxes, they’re doing the things they need to do, there’s no reason those individuals shouldn’t have the right to vote.” Despite lawmakers’ dismay with the current process, some are trying to restore suffrage for select individuals. On Monday, lawmakers on House and Senate Judiciary committees passed a combined 32 bills. The bills were introduced after a House hearing on April 17 highlighted the difficulties some former felons face in regaining the right to vote. In March, the Republican-controlled Mississippi House passed a bill that would have allowed automatic restoration of voting rights for anyone convicted of theft, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, forgery, bigamy or “any crime interpreted as disenfranchising in later Attorney General opinions.” But the bill died after Senate Constitution Committee Chairwoman Angela Hill, a Republican from Picayune, refused to bring it up. Horan said the Republican House majority would only bring up individual suffrage bills for those who committed nonviolent offenses and had been discharged from custody for at least five years. Democratic Rep. Zakiya Summers of Jackson said she appreciated the House and Senate committees for passing the individual bills, but decried the death of the larger House bill.
Minnesota: The Senate approved an elections policy bill April 18 that would guarantee voters the right to sue if they face vote suppression or vote dilution. On a 35-32 vote, the DFL-led chamber approved the provision as part of a broader bill with one Republican, Sen. Carla Nelson of Rochester, siding with them One item in the bill, which backers are calling the “Minnesota Voting Rights Act,” would guarantee in state law protections previously afforded under the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act. The 8th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals last year ruled against a provision of the law that allowed voters to challenge voting policies or maps that were racially discriminatory. The court said that since voters weren’t directly named in the law, the right to challenge doesn’t apply. Senate President Bobby Joe Champion, DFL-Minneapolis, said Minnesota should cement the policy in state law and let voters sue over voter suppression and vote dilution, which is a racially driven form of preventing minority communities from electing candidates due to political boundaries being drawn in a fashion that prevents it. The broader elections bill would also use a person’s address prior to incarceration for setting voting maps, rather than counting their residence in the region where they are incarcerated. It would also sharpen the teeth of a state law that makes it a crime to make and share distorted images and videos intended to influence an election — often called deep fakes. The bill returns to the House to have changes confirmed before moving to the desk of DFL Gov. Tim Walz.
Ohio: A bill introduced earlier this month would further tighten the state’s voter ID rules, allow the hand-counting of ballots in certain cases and require voting machines and electronic pollbooks to meet strict cybersecurity rules. House Bill 472 deals with complex, behind-the-scenes procedures for administering elections. Rep. Bernie Willis, R-Springfield, said the measure aims to revise outdated standards and ensure Ohio has a plan should it fall victim to cyberattacks before an election. The bill’s prospects are uncertain. Secretary of State Frank LaRose said it includes some good ideas, but other parts are entirely unworkable or need significant revision. A spokesman for House Speaker Jason Stephens, R-Kitts Hill, said he’s reviewing the bill, which will be assigned to a committee in the near future. Under House Bill 472: Ohioans would be required to provide a BMV-issued driver’s license or state ID to register to vote and vote by mail, unless they have a religious objection to being photographed. Voters can currently use their Social Security number; Counties would have to hand-count ballots if voters approve the procedure in a general election. To put the question on the ballot, a group must submit a petition signed by 2% of voters in the county; Voters who are flagged as non-citizens have 30 days to confirm their citizenship to election officials, or their registration would be canceled; Absentee ballots that aren’t properly sealed in envelopes wouldn’t be counted unless the voter appears at the board of elections to seal it; and The state auditor would annually audit the statewide voter registration database and three county registration systems.
Republican lawmakers have put out at least four different proposals to close Ohio’s partisan primaries since the start of the legislative session last year. The most recent to be introduced and heard, House Bill 437, would also prohibit candidates from running with a political party if that candidate had not voted in the party’s latest primary. HB 437 requires voters and candidates who are switching parties alike to declare their affiliation at least 90 days before an election. “Our belief is this will help deter those who intend to manipulate the results of our primaries,” Rep. Beth Lear (R-Galena) said in her committee testimony. “Each party should have the right to determine their own candidates for general election without meddling from the outside.” Right now, Ohio conducts partially open primaries—meaning voters in partisan elections don’t have to decide which side’s ballot they will cast until they submit their mail-in ballot application or arrive at the polls.
Oklahoma: The Senate passed a bill that would impact how Oklahomans vote for their elected leaders. House Bill 3156 bans the state from offering ranked-choice voting, where voters can rank a list of candidates instead of choosing just one. The process would do away with runoffs, and some said it would allow for voters to not have to choose a candidate because they are the lesser of two evils. Republicans argued that the state shouldn’t change a system that already works fine and are concerned voters may think they have to list candidates on a preference list, even if they disagree with their positions. The bill passed off the Senate floor 37-8 along party lines. The bill is on its way to the governor, signifying a good chance Oklahoma won’t have ranked-choice voting anytime soon.
Legal Updates
U.S. Supreme Court: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up two separate elections-related cases this week. SCOTUS rejected an appeal brought by Arizona Republicans Kari Lake and Mark Finchem, bringing finality to the duo’s legal effort challenging the use of electronic voting machines two years to the day after it began. Lake, a candidate for U.S. Senate, and Finchem, a candidate for state Senate, asked the nation’s top court to hear their case in mid-March. The court declined to consider it, making that official with an order on Monday that does not include details of the court’s decision. Legal experts had predicted the court would not exercise its discretion to add the case to its docket, citing well-established legal precedent and the court’s low acceptance rate. The court also rejected a challenge to voting rules in Texas that automatically let senior citizens − but not younger people − vote by mail. Mail-in balloting has become a partisan debate as Democrats champion it as a way to increase turnout and Republicans argue it increases the risk of voter fraud. The court declined to hear an appeal brought by three voters in Texas, just as it rejected a similar challenge in 2021 to Indiana’s voting rules. It also twice declined to hear earlier versions of the Texas suit brought by the Texas Democratic Party during the COVID-19 pandemic. The challengers argued that the unequal treatment of voters is age-based discrimination prohibited by the 26th Amendment.
Maryland: Attorneys representing the Maryland State Board of Elections are asking District Court Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher to dismiss a lawsuit that alleges voter roll irregularities and other election law violations in the state. Two groups — Maryland Election Integrity LLC and Missouri-based United Sovereign Americans — filed suit in March against the state board for maintaining inaccurate voter registration lists and violating federal election law. Earlier this month, the groups asked Gallagher to issue an injunction against the state that could derail the May 14 primary and possibly the general election in Maryland. On April 22, an attorney representing the board responded, asking Gallagher to dismiss the lawsuit or, at a minimum, deny the request for the restraining order. “The companies’ complaint, however, fails to vest this Court with jurisdiction to entertain their accusations; and fails to factually allege a claim upon which relief could be granted. The companies allege no ‘injury in fact’ explaining how their allegations of election maladministration injured any individual member,” wrote Daniel M. Kobrin, an assistant attorney general representing the Maryland State Board of Elections. Kobrin, in his motion, writes that the two groups failed to establish standing and that their lawsuit “lacks a cognizable factual claim.” Maryland Election Integrity LLC and Missouri-based United Sovereign Americans filed suit in March alleging problems with the state’s elections.
Michigan: James Holkeboer, a Gaines Township poll worker will not go to trial for election fraud after a Michigan Court of Appeals threw out the case. Holkeboer was facing election fraud charges stemming from his alleged actions during last August’s primary election. Holkeboer was previously bound over for trial in 2023. Attorneys representing Holkeboer appealed the decision in May of 2023, claiming the trial court erred by interpreting MCL 168.932 “to proscribe copying election records where the statute does not use the term ‘copy’ or any of its synonyms,” Holkeboer’s attorneys wrote. Nearly a year later, the Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with that argument and dismissed the case. “The trial court erred when it denied Holkeboer’s motion to quash the bindover. The act of copying a list of voters without affecting the integrity of the document or election is not, at least at present, prohibited by MCL 168.932(c). We vacate the trial court’s order denying Holkeboer’s motion to quash and remand for an entry of an order dismissing this case,” the appeals court opinion’s conclusion reads. Kent County Prosecuting Attorney Chris Becker shared a statement after the decision to throw out the case: “I have read the opinion and I would anticipate an appeal on this issue after reviewing the reasoning. It seems a bit troubling, heading into a major presidential election, that an election worker can take information from an election computer and not be in violation of the law. I think this is an important issue that needs further review.”
Nebraska: Secretary of State Bob Evnen and Attorney General Mike Hilgers are challenging a new law to restore felon voting rights. LB 20 gives people their voting rights immediately after finishing a sentence, including parole. There used to be a two-year waiting period. Gov. Jim Pillen says he allowed the bill to become law without his signature. But he says Evnen and Hilgers have found “significant potential constitutional” issues with the bill. Multiple groups are praising the bill, including the ACLU of Nebraska, which says it removes an arbitrary barrier to voting. Rise Nebraska says it bolsters positive social engagement.
New York: A New York court dismissed a challenge to the New York State Board of Elections’ approval of a touch screen voting machine, the ExpressVote XL. As of the time the lawsuit was filed, no counties had purchased the ExpressVote XL for use. Originally filed in November 2023 by Common Cause New York, the Black Institute and five New York voters, the lawsuit alleged that the state’s approval last year of the ExpressVote XL violated state law. The plaintiffs argued that the ATM-style touchscreen machine that can both mark and tabulate ballots does not allow voters to verify that their selections are correctly counted because the machine tallies the selections by producing an automated barcode. The complaint also argued that the barcode system “can (and predictably will) provide fodder for those who peddle in election voter-fraud fearmongering and conspiracy theories about ‘rigged elections’ to reduce public confidence that votes are accurately cast and counted.” The court dismissed the case after finding that those who brought the lawsuit could not show that they would be harmed by the approval of the machines.
North Carolina: District Judge Loretta C. Biggs has ruled that North Carolina district attorneys cannot prosecute people on supervision for felony convictions if they mistakenly cast a ballot before regaining their right to vote. The reason, according to a ruling issued by Biggs: the underlying law was enacted to discriminate against Black North Carolinians — and continues to do so today. Plus, that law does not give prosecutors clear standards to prevent it from being enforced arbitrarily, giving district attorneys the ability to seek criminal charges based on “their personal predilections.” Biggs’ ruling is separate from the state Supreme Court’s decision because it deals with a different law. People on probation or parole for a felony will still need to complete the terms of their supervision before they can vote in North Carolina. But because of Biggs’ ruling, if those individuals unknowingly or mistakenly cast a ballot before their voting rights are restored, district attorneys cannot prosecute them. Attorneys for the State Board of Elections said the historical background of the law is “indefensible,” which Biggs called “an extraordinary and telling concession.” The state contended that a new constitution adopted in 1971 “cleansed the Challenged Statute of its discriminatory taint.” Biggs rejected that argument. That constitution expanded the scope of felony disenfranchisement to remove the right to vote of people convicted of felonies not just in North Carolina, but in other states as well. Even if the 1971 constitution did “cleanse” the underlying law, Biggs wrote, Black voters are still disproportionately impacted by the law. “Far from completely curing the law, by expanding the scope to include people convicted of felonies in other states, the constitutional amendment has presumably disenfranchised more Black people,” wrote Biggs.
Pennsylvania: Chester County County Court Judge Anthony Verwey rejected a legal motion from local Republicans that could have blocked some mail ballots from counting in this week’s Pennsylvania primary. Verwey said the Republican Committee of Chester County’s request for an injunction against the county election board would amount to “preemptively disenfranchising voters.” The lawsuit, filed April 17, contended that in 2023 the county had incorrectly interpreted the state’s mail ballot law with regards to ballots collected from a long-term care facility. The law limits ballot returns on behalf of disabled voters to one per person unless all the voters are in the same household. The law, the GOP committee argued, clearly explains that long-term care facilities should not be considered a single household, meaning residents cannot use the same staff member or volunteer to return their ballots. “The injunction proposed in this matter would disenfranchise and, therefore, harm voters who are unable to submit their ballots on their own and have already provided their mail-in ballot to a designated agent,” Verwey said in his ruling that denied the preliminary injunction while the broader lawsuit progresses.
Tennessee: A federal judge ruled that Tennessee election officials cannot wrongly deny Tennesseans with past felony convictions of their right to vote by improperly rejecting eligible voters’ registration forms. In addition, the court held that the state’s registration form must properly inform potential voters with past felony convictions of their eligibility. Specifically, the court found that the state’s current practice of denying individuals the right to by rejecting voters’ registration forms when applicants indicate they have a prior felony conviction and requiring those applicants provide documentary proof of their eligibility to vote violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The court also found that Tennessee’s current voter registration form does not comply with the NVRA’s requirements for informing voters if their rights have been restored. The lawsuit alleges that Tennessee has a particularly strenuous process for restoring voting rights to those with prior felony convictions. The plaintiffs also argue that the implementation of Tennessee’s rights restoration process creates “an unequal, scattershot system across Tennessee’s ninety-five counties, causing disparate results for similarly situated individuals,” and at least one county, Rutherford County, charges a fee for the process. The plaintiffs argue that this fee constitutes a poll tax and violates the 24th Amendment. The Campaign Legal Center called this decision “a big step in the right direction” with the rest of the lawsuit’s claims set to go to trial in the coming months.
Michael H. Drucker
