Last week, North Carolina Democrats scored a victory when Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin, who’d lost a tight race for the state’s Supreme Court, finally conceded defeat after a six-month legal battle to throw out ballots that he contended were illegitimate.
But that same morning, the party suffered a setback that may be more consequential: losing control of the state board that sets voting rules and adjudicates election disputes.
The board oversees virtually every aspect of state elections, large and small, from setting rules dictating what makes ballots valid or invalid to monitoring compliance with campaign finance laws. In the Supreme Court race, it consistently worked to block Griffin’s challenges.
The conservative takeover comes after the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law stripping the power to appoint board members from North Carolina’s Democratic governor and gave it to the Republican state auditor.
Although a board spokesperson said its chair was traveling and unavailable to answer questions about how the new Republican majority would reshape North Carolina elections, experts said it will likely make it easier for challenges like Griffin’s to succeed and reduce expansive access to early voting….
Gerry Cohen, a former counsel for the legislature who is now a Democratic member of the Wake County Board of Elections, said it was “a real possibility” that a Republican-controlled state board “would have approved some of Griffin’s challenges” to throw out ballots. If that had happened, Riggs could have fought the board’s decision in the courts and won, but she would have then been litigating against the board rather than on the same side as it.
The law that gave the state auditor the power to appoint members of the state election board also gives him similar authority over North Carolina’s county election boards, which will mean each of them will be controlled by Republican majorities by the end of next month….
Category Archives: election administration
“Check the Box for Secure Voting”
WSJ oped by retired Senator Roy Blunt:
Why not transform the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which has sunk into obscurity, into the Election Security Fund? Public trust in elections is waning. The administration of our elections, along with the tens of thousands of dedicated civil servants who keep this machinery running, face heightened scrutiny. Elections are more complex than ever, and the politicization of administering them has made the work even more demanding. Further, rapidly evolving technologies have exposed elections to new and emerging threats such as increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks. Addressing these challenges requires significant investment.
Estimates suggest that the cost of administering elections is between $4 billion and $6 billion in an average election year, and state and local governments pay for close to 100% of the costs. Election offices often stash a portion of their limited funds for emergencies or unanticipated costs, forgoing critical investments in election technology, staff development, or physical and cyber security. Federal funds could fill the gaps and help bolster election security.
Elections should be accessible to all eligible voters and protected from bad actors and have results reported accurately and efficiently. Confidence that election results reflect the will of the voters is the thread that holds our democracy together.
“The Pa. House is set to approve new voter ID rules, reversing years of Democratic opposition”
fter years of opposing such a measure, Pennsylvania Democrats are poised on Tuesday to allow a vote in the state House on a bill that, if passed, would create new ID requirements to vote in the commonwealth, alongside long-sought election law reforms.
The vote is the first step towards breaking a yearslong stalemate over election law in Pennsylvania, as House Democrats show a willingness to negotiate on a top GOP priority — in exchange for a wide range of reforms aimed at expanding ballot access and streamlining election administration.
Lawmakers in the state House of Representatives will take separate votes Tuesday on measures split across two bills: one sponsored by Rep. Tom Mehaffie (R., Cumberland) with the proposed voter ID provisions and another sweeping bill authored by House Speaker Joanna McClinton (D., Philadelphia) to establish early in-person voting in the state, allow counties to process mail ballots before election day, eliminate the date requirement for mail-in ballots, among other changes.
Under the proposal expected to come before lawmakers Tuesday, Pennsylvania voters would be required to show ID every time they cast a ballot. The bill includes a wide-ranging list ofaccepted forms of voter ID, from photo identification to state-issued voter registration cards and utility bills.
If voters do not have an approved form of identification when voting, they would have the option to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity or ask a friend or relative to sign paperwork vouching for them, according to the bill, House Bill 771.
Pennsylvania voters are currently required to show ID only the first time they cast a ballot at a polling location, and present proof of ID every time they apply for a mail ballot.
If approved, both the bills would head to the GOP-controlled Senate. New voter ID provisions are still a several steps away from becoming law in Pennsylvania, and if passed in the current form, would not take effect until the 2027 elections. The legislation will not impact the upcoming May 20 primary election.
However, a top Senate Republican leader said that if Democrats are willing to negotiate on voter ID, it “unlocks the opportunity to have discussion on a number of issues that have not been able to advance over the last two years.” (Republicans prefer a constitutional change over a statutory change like the one expected to pass Tuesday, since voter ID statutory changes have previously been struck down by the courts.)…
Thad Hall, the election director in Mercer County, said significant changes would be needed to make the bill work for small counties.
Some of the policies, he said, appeared written for Pennsylvania’s larger counties with dozens or hundreds of staff members. The bill requires early voting be available on the weekend and that counties have two drop boxes, checked daily by two workers. While a big county may manage this easily, Hall said it would be burdensome for counties with just one or two election workers.
“It doesn’t help your cause if you don’t consult smaller counties and you put things in there that legitimately would undermine our ability to do our work,” he said.
But the concepts were on the right track, Hall said, noting that he was bracing for a “s— show” in 2026 if early in-person voting is not approved by then.
“I am grateful that somebody in leadership took the time to actually put together a bill that, even if it’s not perfect, at least it has the good moving parts in it that could be fixed,” he added.
6th Circuit finds Michigan engaged in “reasonable efforts” to remove dead voters from voter rolls
Unanimous panel decision in Public Interest Law Foundations v. Benson. No standing for plaintiffs for some of the claims, and I’m a bit surprised the panel made no effort to examine whether there’s a private right of action to enforce a federal law that speaks so clearly in terms of a responsibility placed upon the state. But from the heart of the opinion:
Third, the district court analyzed the mechanics of Michigan’s program. The court noted that Michigan undertakes a number of steps to ensure a well-functioning program, including: (1) comparing Social Security Administration death reports on a weekly basis to the CARS list; (2) reconciling the QVF with the CARS driver file on a quarterly basis; and (3) manually reviewing the bimonthly ERIC reports, which are created by comparing the QVF to the Social Security Death Index. Under this program, the district court noted, “nearly 8,000 of the ‘potentially deceased’ voters identified by PILF in its October 5, 2020 list had already been removed” by September 2023, and 5,766 had been removed before PILF filed its action in November 2021. Id. at Page ID #3658. While PILF argued that it is not enough to merely schedule registrant removal under these procedures, and that the entire list of 27,000 deceased registrants “should be fixed now,” Pl.’s Resp. Summ. J., R. 168, Page ID #3413, the district court disagreed. The court found that the NVRA “does not require states to immediately remove every voter who may have become ineligible,” and it was instead sufficient that the “record demonstrate[d] that deceased voters are removed from Michigan’s voter rolls on a regular and ongoing basis.” Summ. J. Order, R. 180, Page ID #3658.
These factors ultimately led the district court to the conclusion that Michigan’s program fell squarely within the NVRA’s reasonable effort language. That determination was correct.
“Badly needed updates to Pa.’s election law unlikely despite new consensus on voter ID”
For two decades, disputes over voter identification have sunk attempts to rewrite Pennsylvania’s badly outdated election law. But in recent years, prominent Democrats have offered tentative support for stricter rules.
In March, state House Speaker Joanna McClinton (D., Philadelphia), a longtime opponent, publicly said she is open to expanding voter ID requirements as long as they don’t make it harder for people to vote. That’s a position echoed by Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro.
In theory, Democratic support for a GOP priority should make it easier for Pennsylvania’s divided legislature to reach a deal that brings the state’s Election Code into the 21st century. The reality is much more complicated.
To understand why, it’s important to consider the transactional politics of Harrisburg.
State lawmakers broadly agree Pennsylvania’s election law is flawed and needs updates, from getting rid of archaic requirements for lanterns at polling places, to allowing counties to process and tally mail ballots before Election Day to speed up results.
But election policy is deeply political. Both parties have their own, often conflicting goals, and while voter ID has long been one of the hardest issues for Pennsylvania’s divided government to navigate, it’s not the only tough one — and it’s unlikely to pass on its own.
Pennsylvania currently requires voters to show ID the first time they vote at a new polling place. After that, they are identified by local poll workers, who check their names and signatures against the ones on record in pollbooks. If a voter requests a mail ballot, they must provide their driver’s license ID or Social Security number.
For Democrats, the issue boils down to concerns about ballot access. In particular, Black lawmakers, whose communities have historically faced disenfranchisement due to racist election policies, generally agree that changes must be closely vetted to ensure they don’t create new barriers for marginalized groups.
Republicans’ stated priority is security, a position that has been reinforced by mis- and disinformation spread by President Donald Trump after his 2020 election loss. Along with favoring mandatory voter ID, GOP proposals have included tighter rules for mail ballots, such as restrictions on drop boxes and signature verification.
To reach a deal that can win votes in a divided Harrisburg, legislative leaders have to combine policies that everyone can agree on, such as county-friendly adjustments to mail ballot timelines, with ones that only appeal to one of the two major parties.
But this tit for tat often leads to another roadblock in election legislating, said state Rep. Seth Grove (R., York), a former chair of the House committee charged with election oversight.
As the trades pile up and the bill gets bigger and bigger, Grove noted, more and more skeptical lawmakers end up with a reason to vote no, either because they oppose a specific measure or fear unintended consequences.
“The bigger [a deal] is,” Grove told Spotlight PA, “the more it falls on itself.”…
“Trump wants voters to prove citizenship. Arizona tried that and bungled it.”
WaPo:
For 30 years, no one questioned Danny Dobosz’s citizenship when the lifelong Republican cast his ballot.
So when a letter arrived from a local election official last month asking him to send back a copy of his birth certificate to prove he was an American citizen who was eligible to vote, he tossed it in the trash at his home in Yuma, Arizona. Dobosz, an ardent supporter of President Donald Trump who was born in New Mexico, said he had “no real ambition” to verify his legal status to anyone — even if his ability to vote is jeopardized.
“It’s their duty to prove I’m not,” said the 48-year-old owner of a water-softening business.
“I know I’m a citizen. I pay my taxes,” he said. “Obviously we’re citizens — it’s on their end to fix it, not our end.”
If Dobosz and about 200,000 other Arizona voters don’t provide citizenship documentation, they will not get to vote in next year’s race for governor. State officials last year discovered they had failed to keep records confirming whether about 4 percent of the state’s 4.4 million registered voters were citizens, and they’ve been hustling to fix the problem ever since. They have set off on a scramble that has prompted incredulity, hostility and suspicion from longtime voters like Dobosz who are now learning they are among those caught in the state-caused voter registration blunder.
The problems in Arizona played out as Trump and Republicans pushed for requiring voters to prove their citizenship as they claimed without proof that large numbers of noncitizens were illegally casting ballots. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and the glitches with Arizona’s registration system illustrate the risks of enacting policies that may keep eligible voters from participating in the democratic process…..
“Court of Appeals clears path for Republicans to take over NC Board of Elections. Stein to appeal”
Control over elections administration in North Carolina could flip from Democratic to Republican control within hours, following a decision late Wednesday from the state Court of Appeals.
Elections decisions in North Carolina are made by political appointees, who make calls on issues such as where and when to open early voting sites, which allegations of campaign finance violations or voter fraud to refer to prosecutors, and whether to confirm election results.
Last week, a trial court ruled that Republican state lawmakers violated the constitution when they tried taking control of the elections board away from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein.
Today, the Republican-controlled state Court of Appeals overturned that decision. The two-sentence ruling offered no explanation for why the judges were overruling the trial court; it also didn’t name the judges who made the decision. And it came despite the judges hearing no oral arguments on the case.
The 15-judge court of appeals typically hears cases in panels of three judges. Because the court has 11 Republicans and four Democrats, its panels are almost always majority-Republican.
Wednesday’s ruling means that as soon as Thursday, the elections board could switch to GOP control. After Stein defeated Republican challenger Mark Robinson for governor in 2024, Republican legislators passed a law — which former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper unsuccessfully vetoed — putting elections in the hands of the new state auditor, Republican Dave Boliek, who is close with GOP legislative leadership….
Also Wednesday, Stein immediately sent word to the North Carolina Supreme Court that he intends to appeal the ruling. Typically, big changes such as the proposed elections overhaul are put on hold while being appealed. However, it’s unclear what might happen if Boliek takes steps to overhaul the elections board quickly on Thursday before the Supreme Court can potentially step in. The state law, which the Court of Appeals put back into place Wednesday, transfers control of elections to Boliek starting Thursday.
“Grants tie Trump’s anti-DEI order to election security money”
Federal election officials are suggesting states must pledge to follow President Donald Trump’s directive curbing diversity, equity and inclusion programs as a condition for receiving $15 million in election security funding.
The new requirement for the grants has sent Democratic secretaries of state around the nation scrambling to assess the financial, legal and operational implications of accepting the money from the independent, bipartisan U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
The dispute is complicated by the vagueness of the revised federal grant agreement, which some state officials fear could be turned against them. The grant’s terms tell states they must promise to follow federal antidiscrimination laws but cite an executive order from Trump on DEI that Democrats oppose.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D)— whose state is locked in a dispute with Trump over laws on transgender athletes — said she will forgo about $273,000 rather than sign an agreement that she fears would require her to follow the DEI order. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) is reviewing the conditions with attorneys and is leaning toward rejecting the money rather thanagreeing to the conditions, according to a person familiar with her thinking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Other secretaries of state worry that taking the funds could put them in legal jeopardy if federal officials later determined that staff hires, programs or contracts ran afoul of the terms and conditions. Three secretaries said they are considering challenging the commission’s terms in court….
“These states want to adopt the SAVE Act: How could some married women be impacted?”
Dozens of states across the country are considering their own versions of a federal voting bill critics say could disenfranchise millions of Americans, including many married women.
Republican lawmakers in 24 states introduced measures requiring people to prove their citizenship, using documents such as birth certificates or passports, when they register to vote, according to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab. Three other states – Louisiana, New Hampshire and Wyoming – have enacted similar laws in recent months.
Supporters call the efforts a security measure and say they’re trying to reinforce laws barring noncitizens from voting. But voting rights advocates argue it’s already exceedingly rare for noncitizens to vote – and the laws could make it more difficult for millions of Americans to cast a ballot.
Opponents are particularly concerned the requirements will hit rural communities, military personnel and married women. About 83% of married women changed their name, and for many that means their birth certificates don’t match their current ID.
“DNC steps into voting rights fight in Pennsylvania”
The docket in RNC v. Genser is here. Politico reports on the case here:
The Democratic National Committee is ramping up its fight with the GOP over voting rights, urging the Supreme Court to reject Republicans’ efforts to limit provisional voting in Pennsylvania.
The brief, first shared with POLITICO, argues that the high court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case and that doing so would burden the court with requests to take up “any and every state-law election” dispute in the future.
The Republican National Committee is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a decision by Pennsylvania’s highest court that allows voters to use provisional ballots if their mail ballots have been rejected. Republicans argued that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had usurped the state legislature’s power to regulate elections when the justices ruled that such provisional ballots must be counted.
Round-Up: Partial Injunction Against Trump Elections Executive Order
Breaking: DDC enjoins Part of Trump Elections Executive Order **Updated**
The 120-page opinion is here. The order is here.
The preliminary injunction in LULAC v. Executive Office of the President was issued by Judge Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DDC). The proceedings involve three consolidated cases: two brought by civil rights groups and one brought by the Democratic Party. The parties sought preliminary injunctions against five provisions of the EO. The DDC enjoined only two provisions: Sections 2(a) and 2(d).
Enjoined Provisions
Section 2(a)
Section 2(a) mandates that the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) revise the Federal Form to require documentary proof of citizenship. Both the civil rights groups and the Democratic Party moved to enjoin Section 2(a). The bulk of the Trump Administration’s defense was that the challenge was not yet ripe. However, the DDC pointed to a letter—which DOJ counsel at oral argument claimed “no knowledge” of—sent by the EAC to the chief election officials in the States. As that is a required part of the EAC’s process, the DDC found that the case was ripe.
On whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, the DDC concluded that States have the power to set voting qualifications—subject to the anti-discrimination voting rights amendments—and Congress has the power to set registration requirements through the Elections Clause. As the DDC emphasized, the President is not granted these powers. Moreover, Congress in the NVRA and HAVA gave the EAC power to alter the Federal Form. Intriguingly, the DDC invoked the Major Questions Doctrine in rejecting the Trump Administration’s position. I suspect that we are going to see this move a lot in the coming months, and many lawyers/academics who were skeptical of that doctrine will find it suddenly useful. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court is willing to apply the Major Questions Doctrine as assiduously against the Trump Administration as it did the Biden Administration.
Because the President is not given the exclusive and conclusive power to trump Congress’s judgment on voter registration rules, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim against Section 2(a).
Section 2(d)
Section 2(d) directs federal voter registration agencies to “assess” the citizenship of individuals who receive public assistance before providing a voter registration form. Only the Democratic Party moved to enjoin this provision.
Here, the DDC relied on the NVRA’s plain language, which provides that federal agencies “shall” provide the Federal Form to each voter who receives their services, unless the voter declines in writing. In the DDC’s view, this mandatory language does not leave room for citizenship checks prior to handing out a voter registration form.
Provisions that were not enjoined
The Democratic Party challenged three other provisions, but the DDC declined to enjoin them.
Section 2(b)
Section 2(b) directs several federal agencies to identify “unqualified” voters using citizenship data. On this front, the DDC concluded that the present record did not disclose whether the Privacy Act would be violated by the Administration’s actions and, relatedly, that the challenge was prudentially unripe.
Section 7(a)
Section 7(a) directs DOJ to “enforce” the Election Day statutes against States that accept ballots postmarked on or before Election Day but arrive after Election Day. Put simply, the Trump Administration wants to nationalize the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Wetzel.
Here, the DDC concluded that it was unclear what steps DOJ will take to “enforce” the Election Day statutes, and not all of those steps are imminent unlawful action. Moreover, the DDC observed that the States that will be sued are better parties to raise this claim than the Democratic Party.
Section 7(b)
Section 7(b) directs the EAC to condition federal election funding on their compliance with the Administration’s view of the Election Day statute, i.e., Section 7(a). The DDC found that the Democratic Party lacked Article III standing to challenge this provision, as States are the recipients of the funding.
Concluding Thoughts
The DDC also asked whether the Purcell principle precludes the preliminary injunction. The DDC said no, because the status quo is preserved and Purcell is about avoiding pre-election changes. But here, I want to highlight that Purcell is a doctrine applied by federal courts against intervening in State election rules. Here, we have a Purcell analysis against actions taken by the President. Even though the DDC did not rely on Purcell, it is dubious whether Purcell even applies here.
In addition, there are two other pending challenges to the Trump Elections EO. One filed by a coalition of Blue States in the District of Massachusetts, and another brought by Washington and Oregon in the Western District of Washington. These cases will not have the standing issue that plagued the Democratic Party’s efforts to obtain an injunction on the federal funding provision.
Of course, the DDC’s injunction will almost certainly be appealed to the DC Circuit and eventually to the Supreme Court. So stay tuned for shadow docket updates.
“Election officials from across the US meet to consider Trump’s order overhauling election operations”
AP:
State and local election officials from across the country are meeting Thursday to consider President Donald Trump’s executive order that seeks major changes to how elections are run, the first time those in charge of the nation’s voting will formally gather to weigh in on its implications.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Standards Board, which is holding a public hearing in North Carolina, is a bipartisan advisory group of election officials from every state that meets annually.
The commission, an independent federal agency, is at the center of Trump’s executive order. The March 25 order directs the commission to update the national voter registration form to include a proof-of-citizenship requirement, revise guidelines for voting systems and withhold federal money from any state that continues to accept ballots after Election Day.
Michigan: “House GOP subpoenas Jocelyn Benson for election materials”
WDET:
The Republican chair of the Michigan House Oversight Committee has delivered a subpoena calling on Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to turn over materials related to training and managing elections.
The subpoena was authorized last week as Republicans complained the Democratic Secretary of State has refused for months to turn over the entirety of materials related to conducting elections.
“I got to tell you, only the guilty need to feel guilty,” Rep. Jay DeBoyer (R-Clay) told the Michigan Public Radio Network. “What is [it] that they’re afraid to provide to us?”
There are, in fact, two subpoenas — one names Benson and the other the Michigan Department of State. But they are otherwise identical. They were transmitted electronically Tuesday via an official portal. The request sets a deadline of 4 p.m. on May 14. The Secretary of State’s office confirmed it had received the documents.
House Republicans and Benson, who is the state’s top election administrator, have been trading jabs for weeks related to materials requested by the House Elections Committee. The Oversight Committee is the only House panel that has subpoena power and so the subpoena had to go through that panel.