“DC Prosecutor Ed Martin Opens Election Accountability Unit”

Department of Justice

From Bloomberg Law:

Washington’s top prosecutor, who has amplified false claims of election fraud, said he’s formed a special unit to uphold US election laws that has already started one investigation.

Acting US Attorney Ed Martin announced the new unit, which he called the “Special Unit: Election Accountability,” or SUEA, in an office-wide email on Monday, viewed by Bloomberg Law.

The unit “has already begun one investigation and will continue to make sure that all the election laws of our nation are obeyed,” Martin wrote. “We have a special role at this important time.” The email doesn’t provide details on that ongoing investigation.

Share this:

Federal court finds several Texas election provisions from SB1 in 2021 run afoul of federal statutes

absentee ballots, court decisions, voter registration

A long opinion from the district court in La Unión Del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott is here. Several portions of SB1 relating to mail-in voting and voter assistance were found to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. (There have been other legal issues previously adjudicated in this complicated case.) There are a lot of parties, a lot of sections of the bill in dispute, and a lot of subtlety in which parts are or are not enjoined, but it is mostly a win for the plaintiffs–for more, dig into the opinion.

Share this:

Federal court finds Ohio’s “fair and truthful” review of ballot initiatives runs afoul of Anderson-Burdick

voter initiatives

Decision in Brown v. Yost, stayed pending appeal to the Sixth Circuit:

Citizens of Ohio have the power to amend the state constitution. Proponents of an amendment must follow a process that culminates in their proposal being placed on the ballot at a general election, with voters deciding the amendment’s fate. One early step requires proponents to prepare a summary of the amendment. The summary, if certified by the Ohio Attorney General as “fair and truthful,” appears on petitions circulated to the public as supporters attempt to gather enough signatures to place the amendment on the ballot. O.R.C. § 3519.01(A).

Plaintiffs are proponents of two amendments, and they have brought suit against Ohio Attorney General David Yost. This case presents the question whether plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are violated by the requirement that their summaries be examined and certified by the Attorney General as fair and truthful statements. The matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of the fair-and-truthful review requirement as to their summaries. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion.

Share this:

“Redondo Beach elects new leaders — and makes history with ranked choice voting”

alternative voting systems, election administration

Interesting dive into the election here at the LAist:

Results are in from this month’s Redondo Beach election. The South Bay city elected a mayor and other representatives — and pulled off an experiment in ranked-choice voting. Major indicators show that the process was simple for voters to navigate, didn’t depress turnout, and that most voters — though not an overwhelming majority — seemed to approve of the new system.

. . .

Voters occasionally faced confusion. Some voters wrongly assumed their top choice should be ranked 6 instead of 1, because 6 was the highest number, Manzano said. In other cases, voters weren’t sure whether they had to rank every single candidate in order to vote. (For the record, a voter’s top preference should be ranked 1, and they’re allowed to rank as few or as many candidates as they like.)

“But once it was explained, they were OK with it,” she said.

The same exit poll found that 61% of surveyed voters favored ranked-choice voting, while 25% disapproved and 13% had no opinion. . . .

Saving money was a big factor in the city’s change, Manzano said.

Under ranked-choice voting, there is no runoff election between the top two candidates. Holding a runoff would normally cost Redondo Beach about $150,000, Manzano said. This was one of the reasons the City Council opted to explore alternative voting systems, ultimately resulting in the adoption of ranked choice.

Share this:

“Shasta County Files Legal Action Over Proposed Ballot Measure to ‘Reform’ Elections”

election administration

The latest in this long-running saga in a northern California county:

A group of five local community members have submitted paperwork to the Shasta County Elections Office in hopes of amending the County’s new charter, a document that outlines specifics about how the County is governed.

. . .

But Shasta County is pushing back. In a March 13 complaint filed in Shasta County Superior Court, attorney Joseph Larmour alleged that the proposed ballot measure will be used to attempt to implement actions that he believes are illegal and would violate the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and the federal Help America Vote Act or HAVA.

The proposed ballot measure’s wording calls for the County to limit voting to a single day, outlaw universal mail-in ballots, and hand count all votes – all of which are illegal under state law.

Share this: