Votebeat

Top Arizona officials urge counties to withhold voter data as FBI, DHS relitigate state’s elections

2026-03-11T17:01:33+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.

Arizona’s top law enforcement official and chief election officer are warning county officials not to hand over full, unredacted voter files to the federal government amid probes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security into the state’s 2020 election.

Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes — both Democrats — wrote in a joint letter to county recorders that disclosure of such materials to the U.S Department of Justice would “violate both federal and state law.” They urged the recorders, who control voter registration data, to “fulfill your oath by declining any such illegal demands.” Mayes and Fontes stopped short of promising litigation against anyone who gave voter information to the federal agencies, though they hinted at it.

“Our offices are committed to upholding the sanctity of Arizona’s elections and democratic process,” the letter read. “We will pursue to the fullest extent of the law all possible remedies to ensure the integrity of Arizona’s elections and the privacy rights of its citizens.”

Their letter comes amid moves by President Donald Trump’s administration to relitigate an election he lost, and that was repeatedly upheld after being subjected to unprecedented challenges, reviews, and scrutiny.

It was sent out to counties hours after State Senate President Warren Petersen, a Republican, announced that he had received and complied with a federal grand jury subpoena for records related to the chamber’s controversial review of Maricopa County’s election results, which was conducted in 2021. That review ultimately concluded that former President Joe Biden had indeed defeated Trump in the state’s most populous county.

Homeland Security Investigations, a branch of DHS that typically focuses on transnational narcotics and trafficking investigations, has also been probing past elections in recent weeks. Records obtained by Votebeat via a public records request show that the agency asked Mayes’ office for records from the 2020 election investigation conducted by her predecessor, Republican Mark Brnovich. That investigation, similar to lawmakers’ audit, found no indication of widespread fraud or conspiracy. The HSI investigation was first reported by The Atlantic.

In addition, Fontes is currently engaged in a lawsuit with the DOJ over his refusal to provide versions of the state’s voter rolls that contain personally identifying information on voters. Such records include voters’ full birthdates, full or partial Social Security numbers, and driver’s license information.

So far, there are few indications that federal officials are going directly to counties, and the letter appears to be a precaution. Officials in Pinal and Yavapai Counties — among the state’s most conservative areas — told Votebeat that they had not received any requests for their voter rolls from the DOJ, and were unaware of any such requests submitted to other counties.

Calli Jones, a spokesperson for the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, called the letter “preventative” and “a full family reminder.” But she also noted Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap’s presence at a recent press conference in Scottsdale with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

Hours after that event, Heap, a Republican, issued a press release claiming that his office had identified 137 noncitizens on the county’s voter rolls by running a subset of voters affected by a longstanding state error through a digital database maintained by DHS. Experts have long warned that the system that the office used — called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE — is unreliable, suggesting the number is likely inflated.

Judy Keane, a spokesperson for the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, did not respond to Votebeat’s request for comment on the letter from Mayes and Fontes. She also did not reply to questions about whether the office had been approached by federal officials about providing its full voter rolls, and what Heap would do if that were to happen.

The office has repeatedly refused to answer questions about its use of the SAVE system or how it is handling suspected noncitizens on the county’s voter rolls. Votebeat requested copies of any notices sent to affected voters, but was told on Feb. 23 that no such records existed. The office has yet to respond to Votebeat’s subsequent requests for any notices.

FBI subpoena targets records from Maricopa County

The FBI’s subpoena of the Arizona Senate sought records related to the 2020 election in Maricopa County.

However, the agency has yet to seek records from the county itself.

That suggests that investigators obtained records that were largely already public. Most documents pertaining to the legislative review of the 2020 election were turned over to news outlets and advocacy groups that sued for public access to them in the wake of the review.

But the records that the county turned over to lawmakers and auditors included data downloaded from hard drives used during the 2020 election. Petersen confirmed to Votebeat that the records he gave the FBI contained ballot images.

That gives the agency some records similar to those it obtained when agents searched an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, in January. That unprecedented raid also sought records tied to the 2020 election.

The records Petersen turned over to the FBI may have also contained voter information. Fontes said in a statement that his office was “working to identify legal options to secure personal voter information in the 2020 data that was shared.” He called the FBI’s subpoena an effort to “undermine the legal process,” an apparent reference to the ongoing legal battle between his office and the Justice Department, and reiterated similar concerns in the joint letter to county recorders.

“If your office receives a federal grand jury subpoena demanding that you turn over voters’ private data, we urge you to notify our offices immediately,” the letter read. “The grand jury should not serve to circumvent Arizona’s ongoing lawsuit, and our offices will pursue all legal actions available to prevent the Department of Justice from misusing the grand jury process.”

Petersen said that the subpoena he received had indicated that a grand jury was impaneled in Phoenix. He declined to share the subpoena, or answer questions about whether it contained other information about the FBI’s investigation.

The FBI declined to comment on the focus of its investigation or to share a copy of the subpoena.

Lennea Montandon, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, declined to answer questions about exactly what the grand jury was investigating.

“Per policy, we do not comment on grand jury proceedings, any potential investigations or upcoming charges,” she said.

HSI inquiry into 2020 election appears focused on debunked claims

Emails between the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and an HSI investigator suggest that the federal agency’s inquiry could be focused on long-debunked claims about the 2020 election.

Mayes said in a statement that her office provided public records related to its earlier investigation of the 2020 election when it was first approached by local HSI leadership. Records show that state prosecutors provided Matthew Murphy, acting special agent in charge of HSI Arizona, with a summary of the review’s findings on Feb. 20.

“We were happy to share them, because those materials speak for themselves,” Mayes said, adding that the “exhaustive” investigation didn’t find any proof to substantiate allegations that the election had been stolen in Arizona.

A few days later, records show that Murphy followed up asking for any additional reports or findings. He said he was specifically seeking further information regarding disputed claims of late-arriving ballots included in certified election results, questionable ballots from unknown printers, and deletion of election records.

Such allegations have long since been disproven. Claims that early ballots that arrived late were still counted in 2020 originated from documents recording the transfer of ballots to a vendor for scanning. The date on that document didn’t reflect the initial receipt of those ballots by local election officials.

Similarly, small discrepancies between paper ballots sparked conspiracies that ballots produced by an unknown printer had been injected into the vote totals. But county officials used several different types of printers at polling locations in 2020, which accounted for those differences.

Trump and his allies also previously accused county officials of deleting files prior to complying with a subpoena from the Arizona Senate. Later, the founder of one of the firms hired in the chamber’s audit told lawmakers that he was able to recover and view the database, which county officials said auditors had not correctly retrieved from the system.

Records obtained by Votebeat show that prosecutors provided multiple reports in response to Murphy’s request for further information on the claims. He then followed up again, asking additional questions about claims of late ballots and unknown printers.

“Thanks for sharing guys much appreciated,” he wrote. “Couple of quick follow up questions based on my review and in trying to focus on the few areas we are following up on.”

Murphy did not respond to Votebeat’s request for comment. Prosecutors don’t appear to have responded further. Mayes called the investigation “unserious.” She said in a statement that the probe was “based on nothing but conspiracy theories and lies,” and noted that the office’s prior investigation never uncovered widespread fraud or malfeasance.

“Those conclusions were true then and they remain true now,” she said. “There was no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election in Arizona.

In an email, a spokesperson for DHS declined to answer questions about the investigation, but said that the agency was “actively rooting out and investigating election fraud wherever it can be found.” The spokesperson, who did not identify themself and did not respond to a request to do so, said HSI had “repeatedly demonstrated that illegal aliens can and do vote in our elections,” pointing to a handful of arrests of noncitizens for alleged voter fraud. Research has long shown that such instances are extremely rare.

Sasha Hupka is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Sasha at shupka@votebeat.org.

Candidates’ faces on punching bags linked to 37 uncounted ballots in Hamtramck, Michigan

2026-03-10T23:28:20+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

Punching bags hanging inside Hamtramck’s city clerk’s office — one with mayoral candidate Muhith Mahmood’s face taped to it — helped set off a chain of events that left 37 ballots uncounted in the city’s Nov. 5 mayoral election, a race Mahmood lost by just 11 votes.

Mahmood, a former city council member, told Votebeat the episode has left him and his supporters questioning the outcome. “We all talk about transparency,” he said. “This is not a good example.”

Mayor Adam Alharbi, who defeated Mahmood in the race for mayor and was sworn in in January, confirmed Tuesday that the punching bags were one reason interim City Manager Alexander Lagrou and a number of other unauthorized city officials entered the clerk’s office after the polls closed on Election Day. Aside from Mahmood, the image of a City Council candidate whose name is not yet public was also featured on the bags.

Inside the office were 37 uncounted absentee ballots. Officials’ entry broke the chain of custody, and canvassers ultimately chose not to count them as a result. Though those ballots could have changed the outcome of the narrowly decided race, they were not part of the count — including the recount requested by Mahmood, which slightly increased Alharbi’s margin of victory from 6 to 11 votes.

The fallout has upended Hamtramck City Hall. Former City Clerk Rana Faraj’s firing was reported Tuesday by The Detroit News, with officials citing the punching bags and the handling of the ballots as reasons for her dismissal. Meanwhile, Mahmood has appealed a judge’s decision allowing the ballots to remain excluded, leaving the legitimacy of the razor-thin result under continued scrutiny.

That December ruling said that canvassers had the authority to leave the 37 ballots out of the final count. The case now sits before the Michigan Court of Appeals.

No one knows who cast those ballots or who they were for. Months after Alharbi was sworn in as the city’s new mayor, Mahmood and his supporters still harbor doubts.

“Whoever they voted for, that should be in the count,” Mahmood said.

Alharbi maintains that the 37 ballots “came after the election” and should not have been counted to begin with. He has referred to them in the past as “fraudulent,” a characterization disputed by other officials and Mahmood’s lawyers.

Alharbi told Votebeat the decision to fire Faraj was tied in part to what he called “a clear lack of professional neutrality in office” as well as procedural errors relating to elections.

Faraj was placed on paid leave shortly after the November election. In December, she filed a lawsuit alleging that several city officials were retaliating against her for trying to flag “ongoing election integrity issues” in the city.

An attorney representing Faraj did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

How did Hamtramck get here?

Faraj has said that her staff noticed the discrepancy between the number of ballots received and those tabulated on election night. The missing 37 ballots, Deputy Clerk Abe Siblani told Votebeat in November, were the result of “human error at the counting board” where ballots are supposed to be fed into the tabulator.

In her lawsuit, Faraj suggested the problem occurred after workers cut the ballot envelopes open but then mistakenly mixed them with empty envelopes instead of tabulating them.

The ballots were unaccounted for until Nov. 7, when they were discovered, sealed, and ultimately delivered to the county under police escort.

By then, Lagrou and several other non-election officials had already entered the office — a move that broke the ballots’ chain of custody, the system meant to ensure the secure transfer of election documents throughout the election process. City officials have said no one knew the ballots were there at the time. But once the chain was broken, the fight over whether the ballots could be counted began.

Canvassers ultimately declined to take action, leaving the 37 ballots out of the final results.

Uncertainty in a city wracked by election problems

The dispute has unfolded against a backdrop of broader election turmoil in Hamtramck.

In August, two council members were charged with felonies after allegedly forging signatures on absentee ballots during the city’s 2023 council elections. One of them, Muhtasin Sadman, pleaded guilty to reduced charges late last month. The other, Mohammed Hassan, is scheduled for a jury trial next month, according to court records.

Four other men — including three current council members — were named in an April document Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel used to seek a special prosecutor in the case. Nessel has been a vocal critic against Hamtramck’s LGBTQ policies and the petition notes that critics have accused her of bringing other prosecutions due to anti-Muslim bias. Monroe County Prosecutor Jeffery Yorkey has been appointed, but did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

No other charges have been filed.

Alharbi said Hamtramck is working to rebuild its reputation and show “we’re not that anymore,” pushing back against assumptions that city officials are criminals. The punching bags are gone, he said, and he looks forward to welcoming in a new clerk. Alharbi said the city already has applicants for the job.

“And now,” he said, “we have a secure door on that office.”

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Michigan AG won’t appeal decision to drop charges against 2020 “false electors”

2026-03-09T23:42:09+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

Michigan’s so-called “false electors” case is over after Attorney General Dana Nessel announced Monday she would not appeal a judge’s decision to dismiss the charges faced by 16 individuals who signed documents attempting to certify Michigan’s slate of electors for Donald Trump in 2020, despite Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

In a sweeping 110-page report, Nessel said that she still believes false electors committed crimes, but concluded that the resource-intensive case would be unlikely to ultimately succeed. She also said it was “fundamentally unjust” to continue prosecuting lower-level participants in an effort she said was led by the now President Donald Trump, who she said is unlikely to ever face his own criminal charges.

“We considered that Michigan’s Republican elector nominees, who eventually became Michigan’s false slate, did not design or demand this criminal conspiracy. As shown by the Report of Special Counsel Smith regarding these matters, this was indeed Trump’s criminal conspiracy,” the report said. “The dismissal of the false slate charges does not change the facts, and it does not change history. What Michigan’s false slate did was wrong.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The individuals charged in July 2023 — primarily with offenses related to forgery — included Stan Grot, the Shelby Township Clerk, and Meshawn Maddock, former co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party and wife of State Rep. Matt Maddock. Charges against one of the 16 were earlier dropped as part of a cooperation agreement.

Votebeat reached out to several of the now-former defendants but did not immediately hear back Monday.

Judge Kristen Simmons, of the 54-A District Court in Lansing, dismissed charges against the remaining 15 defendants in September. Simmons, an appointee of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, said she felt there was not sufficient evidence from the prosecutors to prove the alleged “false electors” had criminal intent.

Simmons ultimately decided not to bind the case over for trial, meaning she believed prosecutors had not presented enough evidence at the preliminary stage to move the case forward.

The report details that prosecutors believe an appeals court would have sided with Nessel’s office on the argument that forgery is not just a property crime, as Simmons had found. But proving that element of criminal intent Simmons highlighted could have been “more complicated.”

The unusually detailed report exists “to ensure that the full record of what happened, and why it mattered, is fully and accurately documented,” according to its opening lines, even though the criminal case will not move forward.

Legal experts say it’s rare for a state attorney general to publish such an in-depth report after declining to file charges. In other states — including Nevada, Wisconsin and New Mexico — false elector cases have been dismissed, narrowed or otherwise stalled without a comparable public explanation. Trump last year issued a sweeping federal pardon for dozens of people involved in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including the so-called false electors, but his pardon power doesn’t extend to state charges.

That Nessel, who is term-limited and will leave office Jan. 1, chose to publish such a sweeping report underscores how politically and emotionally charged the issue remains five years later, said Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame law school.

“There are a lot of people who were duped with misinformation with respect to the results of the 2020 election,” Muller said. “There’s a righteous anger after what happened. But you can have righteous anger and still not have criminal activity, and I think that’s just sometimes the difficulty of situations like this.”

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Trump administration subpoenas 2020 records from Maricopa County amid push to investigate election

2026-03-09T21:18:40+00:00

Update, March 9, 4 p.m. MST: This story has been updated to include comments from Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation recently subpoenaed records from the Arizona Senate related to the exhaustively reviewed 2020 election in Maricopa County, marking another move by President Donald Trump’s administration to relitigate an election that he lost.

State Senate President Warren Petersen, a Republican, announced Monday on social media that he had received and complied with a federal grand jury subpoena for records related to the chamber’s controversial review of the county’s election results, which was conducted in 2021. That review ultimately concluded that former President Joe Biden had indeed won in the county.

The news comes several weeks after the FBI searched an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, for records tied to the 2020 election, which Trump has long insisted was stolen from him. Such allegations from Trump and his allies have consistently been rejected by courts, officials in the first Trump administration, election officials, and experts after multiple audits and reviews found Trump lost the election to Biden.

Jason Berry, a spokesperson for Maricopa County, said county supervisors had not received any subpoena related to election records from the FBI, but that they “will cooperate if that were to occur.” Spokesperson Judy Keane of the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office said her agency hadn’t received a subpoena, either.

That suggests that the FBI obtained records that were largely already public, and did not receive documents from more recent elections. Most documents pertaining to the legislative audit of the 2020 election were turned over to news outlets and advocacy groups that sued for public access to them in the wake of the review, which found no evidence of substantial voter fraud during the election and slightly increased Biden’s margin of victory.

Two former county elected officials — Republicans Bill Gates and Stephen Richer — confirmed to Votebeat that the county, which is the most populous in the state and a key election battleground, didn’t hand over any election records from the 2022 or 2024 elections to the Arizona Legislature, beyond what lawmakers may have individually obtained via public records requests.

Gates, who now works as the executive director of Arizona State University’s Mechanics of Democracy Laboratory, said the only non-public materials that could have been turned over to federal officials by the state Senate are those covered by legislative or attorney-client privilege. He added that such privileges likely encompass only a small number of records.

But the records that the county turned over to lawmakers and auditors included data downloaded from hard drives used during the 2020 election. That included ballot images, which the FBI also obtained from Fulton County.

Under state law, the county treasurer must securely store physical ballots, and then destroy them two years after an election, which means Maricopa County no longer possesses the physical ballots from 2020. It’s unclear, though, how that statute applies to ballot images, which are digital records, or how it applies if the holder of such records isn’t the county treasurer.

The records turned over to the FBI may have also contained voter information. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, said in a statement that his office was “working to identify legal options to secure personal voter information in the 2020 data that was shared.” He called the FBI’s subpoena an effort to “undermine the legal process,” referring to his ongoing legal battle with the U.S. Department of Justice over Arizona’s voter rolls.

Kim Quintero, a spokesperson for Petersen, did not respond to a request for comment on whether the Arizona Senate retained the ballot images and if so, whether it had handed them over to the FBI.

She declined to comment in response to an earlier request on exactly what records were sought by the FBI’s subpoena, whether all of those documents still existed and were handed over, and when the subpoena was received and fulfilled.

Sasha Hupka is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Sasha at shupka@votebeat.org.

2026 primary elections start off with a Texas-sized mess

2026-03-09T09:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

This news analysis was originally distributed in Votebeat’s free weekly newsletter. Sign up to get future editions, including the latest reporting from Votebeat bureaus and curated news from other publications, delivered to your inbox every Saturday.

Election officials, start your engines.

The 2026 midterm elections officially kicked off last week with primary elections in Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas. It was the first big test for hundreds of candidates who are vying to take up residence in Washington, D.C., and state capitals next year — but it was also a dress rehearsal for election officials in a year expected to pose unusual and daunting administrative challenges.

And things were a little rocky.

While the election went smoothly for a majority of voters and jurisdictions, thousands of voters were affected by problems in Texas in particular.

Some of those — like a poll-worker shortage in South Texas or malfunctioning electronic pollbooks in northeastern North Carolina and El Paso, Texas — were routine, inevitable in a country with thousands of election jurisdictions and just as many things that can go wrong.

But others resulted from Republican-driven changes to voting procedures that Republicans argued would make the elections more secure. And in that sense, the messy primary day was a reminder that the GOP’s proposals to suddenly and dramatically overhaul voting this November carry real risks of harm to voters, election officials, and anyone affected by the results.

Sudden shift to precinct-based voting causes voter confusion

Entering this year, motivated by a trumped-up belief that voting machines are not trustworthy, a handful of county Republican parties in Texas considered counting their primary ballots by hand. (In Texas, county political parties have the authority to decide how to run their own primaries, although they usually outsource the actual work to the government.) However, hand-counting thousands of ballots requires a ton of manpower, and two of the biggest county GOPs considering it — Dallas’ and Williamson’s — ultimately decided the idea wasn’t feasible.

Instead, party leaders in those two counties settled on a compromise: conduct Election Day voting at neighborhood-based precincts, which Republicans consider to be more secure than the counties’ usual setup of a smaller number of large vote centers where anyone in the county could vote. Crucially, under state law, the county GOPs’ decision forced Dallas and Williamson Democrats to switch to precinct-based voting as well.

The result was mass confusion, as at least several hundred, and potentially thousands of, voters showed up at former vote centers where they usually cast their ballots only to be told they had to go to a different location. According to Kardal Coleman, the chair of the Dallas County Democratic Party, at least 359 Democratic primary voters had been turned away from two major polling places as of 11:30 a.m. on Election Day. That number, of course, does not capture anyone who was turned away after 11:30 a.m., anyone who was turned away from the dozens of other polling places, and any Republicans who were turned away.

Ominously, the chaos ensued even after election officials and parties made a concerted effort to educate voters. Dallas County spent $1 million on mailing notices to voters and airing digital and TV ads to get the word out about the relocated polling places. Both the Dallas County Democrats and Republicans said they had publicized the changes to their voters. And Williamson County conducted interviews with local media and posted on social media and on their website about it.

It’s worth emphasizing that many people who were initially turned away from the polls probably eventually found their correct polling place and were able to cast a ballot. Despite midday fears on Election Day, turnout in the Democratic primary in Dallas and Williamson counties was in line with the statewide average. Based on unofficial results from Wednesday evening, the number of votes cast statewide in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate was 48% of the number of Kamala Harris voters in the state in the 2024 general election. In Dallas County, that number was 54%; in Williamson, it was 44%.

Voters got some relief when a judge ordered polling places for the Democratic primary to stay open two hours later, until 9 p.m., in Dallas because of the issue. A different judge also ordered two precincts in Williamson County to stay open for both parties until 10 p.m. because of long lines. However, within hours, the Texas Supreme Court temporarily stayed both of those orders, creating doubt about whether ballots cast by voters who got in line after the regular 7 p.m. poll-closing time would count. (Those voters all cast provisional ballots, allowing them to be separated from the undisputed votes.)

As of Friday night, the Texas Supreme Court still had not issued its final rulings on whether those ballots should be counted. A significant number of votes hang in the balance: In Dallas County, 2,316 provisional ballots were cast in the Democratic primary, and 541 were cast across both primaries in Williamson — although those numbers also include any provisional ballots cast for other reasons, like the voter’s eligibility being unclear.

Hand-counting ballots leads to delayed results

Meanwhile, Republicans in three counties — Calhoun, Eastland, and Gillespie — actually went through with their plans to rely on hand-counting. Under state law, this compelled them to use precincts instead of vote centers on Election Day, too, which created headaches, at least in Eastland County, which had previously used countywide sites. Poll workers at one site told Votebeat’s Natalia Contreras, who was on the ground in Eastland, that at least 89 voters had shown up to vote that day and learned it was the wrong location. At least one was ultimately unable to cast a ballot.

The sudden switch to a precinct-based system and separate primaries for Democrats and Republicans also meant that Eastland County did not have enough accessible voting equipment to put at each precinct — a violation of federal law. At least one voter showed up on Tuesday asking to use the equipment and was told it was unavailable, the county election administrator told Contreras.

And then the hand counts themselves, as they are wont to do, severely delayed the reporting of election results. Gillespie County Republicans did not report full results to the secretary of state until after 5 a.m. on Wednesday morning, long after most counties, as well as Gillespie County Democrats (who were still able to machine-count), had gone to bed. And that was actually relatively speedy: Eastland County didn’t submit its Republican primary results to the secretary of state until around 5:45 p.m. on Wednesday, and Calhoun County did not finish reporting results until Friday morning, after the county GOP failed to deliver its results within 24 hours of polls closing as required by state law.

Taking a long time to report results is annoying, of course, to those of us who tune in on election night hoping to learn who won the election. But more seriously, it can decrease public trust in the election — an argument, ironically, most often deployed by Republicans when complaining about the slow pace of vote-counting of mail ballots in states like California.

Worst of all, research has found that counting ballots by hand is more prone to error than doing it by machine. When Gillespie County Republicans hand-counted their ballots in the 2024 primary, they ended up needing to make corrections in 12 out of 13 precincts. We don’t know yet how accurate the 2026 hand counts in Texas were, but their spotty track record at least raises the specter of the worst-case scenario: that the election results won’t reflect how people actually voted.

In the face of some undeniable problems that disenfranchised at least a few voters, even some Republicans are asking themselves if their prescriptions were worse than the disease. That might be the kind of question it’s better to ask beforehand.

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

Calhoun County Republicans miss state-mandated results deadline because of hand counting

2026-03-06T23:29:23+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

Calhoun County finished submitting its primary election results to the state Friday morning after county Republicans, who hand counted their primary ballots, missed a deadline in state law requiring them to submit early-voting and Election Day results to the county no later than 24 hours after polls closed, a county election official said.

Mary Ann Orta, the elections administrator in the South Texas county, which includes Port Lavaca, and the Texas Secretary of State’s Office both confirmed the county GOP missed the deadline and its results were submitted to the state Friday morning. The results for county Democrats, who used electronic voting equipment to tabulate ballots, were submitted to the state not long after the polls closed on Tuesday night, Orta said.

In Texas, political parties decide at the county level how their primaries will be administered, and Calhoun Republicans chose to hand count ballots this year, including those cast early and at 11 Republican precincts on Election Day, a labor-intensive process.

In a text message responding to questions from Votebeat, Calhoun County GOP Chair Russell Cain said the party “would like to thank the Calhoun County Elections Office and the Texas Secretary of State for their continual support and guidance during the Republican Primary Handcount. We had about a hundred people devoted to this endeavor and appreciate their dedication and resilience throughout the counting process.”

He did not immediately respond to questions about exactly when workers completed counting, or about the missed deadline to report results. There were 3,153 ballots cast in the county’s GOP primary, according to data posted on the Texas secretary of state’s website Friday.

Failure to provide results by the 24-hour deadline is a class B misdemeanor, which carries fines of up to $2,000 and the potential for jail time. The Texas Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment on how the law is enforced, or the potential legal implications of the party’s failure to meet the deadline. But Alicia Pierce, a spokesperson for the agency, referred Votebeat to a section of the Texas election code that says the canvassing authority — in this case, the county party chair and the party’s executive committee — can seek a court order to force the delivery of records and supervision of the counting process. However, local prosecutors generally have the authority to investigate and prosecute any election crimes or violations, according to the election code.

Orta did not have many answers Friday morning. She and her staff have been sleep-deprived since Tuesday, as they waited for all the information necessary to report results to the state.

“I’m exhausted and still trying to make heads or tails of everything we’ve got,” Orta said.

This year, Republicans in Gillespie and Eastland counties also hand counted ballots. In Gillespie, the process was complete at around 5 a.m. Wednesday. In Eastland, election officials did not report totals to the state until about 5:45 p.m. Wednesday, and said they had to obtain a court order to access a secured box containing ballots after a form containing tallies from one precinct was mistakenly locked inside.

In the 2022 primary, Harris County failed to report results by the state-mandated deadline. Election officials cited issues with new voting equipment and a two-page ballot as the reasons why it took almost 30 hours to complete the vote counts. The county sought a court order to extend the deadline. No one was charged with a misdemeanor, but the county’s chief election official resigned days later, after it emerged that her office failed to include thousands of ballots in the total vote count.

In some cases, county GOP officials have cited the pressure of the results deadline as a reason they decided against hand counting.

Correction, March 11, 2026, 1:27 p.m. ET: A previous version of this story incorrectly said Victoria is located in Calhoun County. It is located in Victoria County.

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

One of Michigan’s most populous counties will post all ballots online

2026-03-06T15:51:31+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

Macomb County has begun to post online an image of every ballot cast in the pivotal swing county.

The county, Michigan’s third most populous, is using a program called “Ballot Verifier” to upload scans of every ballot cast for anyone to see. More than 80,000 ballots from the November 2025 election are already online, as is the “cast vote record,” which shows how tabulators read each ballot.

Images of cast ballots — which do not include a voter’s name, address, party affiliation, or other identifying information — are already public record and can be requested through local officials. Putting them online simply improves transparency, Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini said.

“We all wonder, when we put our ballot in, ‘did it score it the right way?’” Forlini told Votebeat. “This takes a little bit of the mystery out of it and adds a little bit of accountability for all of us.”

The premise is simple: Let voters see the ballots, and they can judge the results for themselves. Since Michigan votes on paper ballots, that means anyone can see the sometimes wacky ways people fill in bubbles by hand — an X where a bubble should be, a rant scrawled next to a candidate’s name — right alongside write-in candidates, undervotes, and all the other markings that show the full range of voter intent.

Macomb County plans to post images going back through the November 2024 election and will include future elections in the program as well, Forlini said. He is running for secretary of state as a Republican.

Ballot Verifier caught his attention about a year ago, he said, after he saw how it worked. It’s been used in a few counties around the country in the past few years. In Ada County, Idaho, which adopted it about two years ago, elections director Saul Seyler said the program “has helped build public confidence.”

The program helped address election distrust at the roots, Seyler said. Ada County — Idaho’s most populous county and home to Boise — has worked to improve trust for years, including offering constant livestreams of the facilities where ballots are handled and adding more windows when remodeling their offices.

Ballot Verifier, he said, offered the chance for voters to ensure that the machines had counted their ballots correctly. Officials brought out some of the department’s “harshest critics” to provide feedback on the tool, Seyler said, and even they found it useful.

“Realistically, probably 95% of the public won’t ever use the tool, but there is something to the fact that it’s available,” he said. “There’s a confidence that gets built just by knowing it’s there.”

It has required some minor tweaks to protocol to ensure voters don’t accidentally violate their own right to a secret ballot. The county changed their ballot language, for instance, to make clear that ballots are public records and that voters shouldn’t leave identifying marks.

Voter privacy is one of the greatest concerns about such programs. Michigan voters have a right to a secret ballot. Maintaining that is key, said Mark Lindeman, policy and strategy director at Verified Voting, because ballot secrecy laws exist to protect voters from coercion or vote buying. Stray marks or seemingly random write-in choices can still tie a ballot directly to a voter, he said.

He pointed to the 2008 Minnesota Senate election recount, where a ballot that included several write-in spaces marked with “Lizard People” was not counted because canvassers agreed with a challenge characterizing it as an identifying mark, which goes against Minnesota’s laws.

Election officials need to find a “transparent way” to reject the ballots images that are “most blatantly potentially identifiable,” Lindeman said, which can look different depending on the ballot and an election’s circumstances.

In Ada County, officials tried to address the potential issue by working with Civera, the company that produces Ballot Verifier, to ensure that voters are “masked” if something about their ballot would identify them, meaning it won’t be made publicly available. It’s not unheard of for only a single voter in a precinct to get a specific combination of taxing districts on their ballot, for example, and officials wanted to make sure that ballot would still remain private.

That and other workflow changes can add yet another step to “an already kind of chaotic time,” Seyler said, but he believes the change has already saved Ada County money: he said the published ballot images and cast vote records have prevented at least two recounts by allowing potential challengers to review records without having to file for one.

“This can not only be a resource to help build trust, but it can also just help you operationally,” he said.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Pennsylvania secretary of the commonwealth answers questions on elections at House hearing

2026-03-05T21:59:09+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

The Pennsylvania Department of State took questions from lawmakers in Pennsylvania’s state House for more than two hours on Thursday, providing insight into the future of elections in the state.

Secretary Al Schmidt, the department’s head, answered inquiries from state representatives alongside his deputies as part of the House Appropriations Committee’s 2026 budget hearings.

Questions spanned a slew of election administration topics, from when the state’s new voter management system will be ready to how artificial intelligence is changing elections.

Here are three takeaways from the hearing. The full hearing can be viewed on the House’s YouTube channel.

SURE upgrade will not be ready by 2026

Multiple lawmakers asked Schmidt for an update on the state’s project to upgrade the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, the state’s database of registered voters.

Last March, the department announced it had entered into a $10.6 million contract with Louisiana-based technology company Civix to upgrade the system after a previous project was scrapped.

State Rep. Ann Flood, a Northampton County Republican, asked Schmidt where the project stands and if it would be ready in time for 2026.

Schmidt said the new system “will certainly not be in place by 2026” but did not provide an exact release date.

“We would never release a system to make available for such an important purpose that is anything less than as good as it could be,” he said.

The department did not provide a copy of the project plan, which includes an implementation schedule, when Votebeat and Spotlight PA requested it last week, but Schmidt has previously said it would be fully implemented by 2028.

Lawmakers question timing of special elections

State Rep. Jamie Barton, a Schuylkill County Republican, also asked Schmidt about the scheduling of special elections. A Votebeat analysis recently found that, since 2017, Pennsylvania has held more special elections than any other state.

“Do you think, Secretary Schmidt, the speaker of the House should make a stronger attempt to schedule special elections during a [primary] or general election in order to save vital taxpayer dollars?” Barton asked.

Special elections for the Pennsylvania legislature are often scheduled on days other than the regularly scheduled primary and general Election Day, and the department is required to reimburse counties for costs associated with those elections. This has cost the state more than $4.4 million since 2017. For the 2026-2027 fiscal year, the department is asking for $400,000 to reimburse counties for these elections.

But Schmidt didn’t weigh in on the issue, noting that the timing of special elections is up to the state legislature, not his department.

“For us, our role and responsibility is to oversee elections and assist counties in the administration of elections,” he said. “It is really up to the legislature and the law to determine when they should take place.”

AI poses opportunities and risks for elections

State Rep. Ben Waxman, a Philadelphia Democrat, bemoaned a recent experience he had collecting nomination petition signatures when an AI-powered doorbell rebuffed his attempt to reach a voter at their home. He asked Schmidt what effect AI is having on elections.

Schmidt said it has been challenging to keep up with the rapid development of AI but that it could have both positive and negative effects for election administration.

On the downside, it has the prospect of creating “significant harm” if it is used to generate false statements or videos attributed to candidates. At the same time, it could also be a useful tool for voter education.

“But whether it has reached that level of maturity or not, I don’t know,” Schmidt said. He seemed to suggest a cautious approach to adopting new technologies, saying, “We can never be wrong. It can never tell the voter the wrong day of the election.”

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Eastland’s hand count of Republican primary ballots stretched into Wednesday as residents wait on results

2026-03-04T17:07:33+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

Update, March 4: At about 5:45 p.m. Wednesday, Eastland County elections administrator Temi Nichols confirmed she had submitted all election results to the state. Republican workers finished hand counting all ballots around 2 p.m. Wednesday, Nichols said, and she obtained a court order permitting her to access a secured ballot box in order to retrieve tallies from one precinct that had been mistakenly locked inside. The county’s district attorney, sheriff, and county judge witnessed the opening of the box, Nichols said.

Just after midnight, as Election Day became Wednesday, workers at a polling place in the city of Rising Star called Eastland County election administrator Temi Nichols with a problem.

They told Nichols some workers tasked with hand counting the GOP ballots cast at that location had decided to call it quits, she told a reporter afterwards, and she tried to talk those on the phone out of joining them “Please don’t load up and take off,” Nichols said.

The workers on the other end of the phone said they weren’t sure how to read the tally sheets the other workers had left behind or fill out the required paperwork, among other things, according to Nichols. They asked her if they could go home and finish counting in the morning.

Nichols told them that according to state law, they could not stop once counting had begun. She told them to call Robin Hayes, the Eastland County Republican Party Chair, in charge of administering the county’s GOP primary election, and “tell her y’all need help.”

Eastland Republicans months ago decided to hand count primary ballots this year instead of using electronic voting equipment. Election officials and voting experts have found that hand counting large numbers of ballots is expensive, labor-intensive, slower to produce results, and more prone to human error than machine tabulation, though both methods can be accurate.

Supporters of hand counting say it increases public confidence, and some Republicans have backed the method in recent years as President Donald Trump and others have pushed unsupported claims about the reliability of voting machines.

Two election workers on March 3 transfer early voting ballots from Eastland County Courthouse to the Judge Scott Bailey Event Center, to be counted by hand.

Hand-counted results still not complete early Wednesday

Nichols reported final machine-tabulated results for the county’s Democratic primary to the state by 11 p.m. Tuesday night. But hand-tallied results from the first GOP Election Day sites only began arriving at her office a little after 9:30 p.m. Shortly after 2:30 a.m. Wednesday, Hayes had delivered results from at least three sites, including the Rising Star location whose workers had called shortly after midnight.

As of 9 a.m. Wednesday, Nichols was still waiting for some GOP results, including or workers to finish tallying results from ballots cast early in person and from Election Day ballots cast at the county courthouse, the site that saw the largest number of voters in the county.

In addition, Nichols said, she had received a secured ballot box and other materials from a polling place in Cisco, but had not gotten the required form listing vote totals from that precinct with it.

At around 9 a.m., Nichols said the election judge from that site confirmed she had locked the form in the now-sealed ballot box because she had mistakenly believed that was what was required. By law, the secured box cannot be reopened for six months. Nichols said opening the box so the form can be retrieved will require a court order, but she needs to retrieve the form in order to report complete results.

The county’s election results must, by law, be returned to county election officials within 24 hours after polls close. “I can’t report anything to the state yet. I don’t have all the totals,” Nichols said.

Hayes, the Eastland County Republican party chair, did not respond to multiple texts and phone calls requesting comment from Votebeat on Tuesday and Wednesday. She declined to answer questions or comment on the party’s administration of the hand count while dropping off materials at the county’s election office at about 3:30 a.m. Wednesday. She last month told Votebeat she had trained around 90 people for the hand count effort.

Nichols, who became the county elections administrator last summer and was overseeing her first major election in the job, said the primary “feels like we ran two elections, double the work, double the time.”

Election workers deliver materials from polling locations around 9:30 p.m. on March 3, at the Eastland County Courthouse.

Hand counting causes logistical headaches

In Texas, political parties decide at the county level how their primaries will be administered. Several other county Republican parties considered hand counting but ultimately decided against it, worried about cost, finding enough workers, and a state law that requires results to be reported within 24 hours. Failing to do so could result in a misdemeanor charge.

Some of the state’s least populous counties use the method, and mid-sized Eastland and Gillespie counties also decided to go ahead. Gillespie County hand counted primary ballots in 2024, taking nearly 24 hours to tally roughly 8,000 ballots and finding they later had to fix errors between Election Day and the final canvass, after accuracy issues emerged.

This year, Gillespie decided to hand count Election Day ballots only, which took until around 3 a.m. In Calhoun County, in South Texas, Republicans also hand counted early voting and Election Day ballots, and Amy Ochoa, the county deputy elections administrator, said the count was still ongoing as of 6 a.m. Wednesday.

Eastland County has more than 12,500 registered voters and is around 100 miles west of Fort Worth. In 2022, the last midterm election year, 3,217 voters cast ballots in the Republican primary. This year, about 1,300 Republicans and about 185 Democrats voted early. On Tuesday, Nichols reported a total of 303 Democrats voted in the primary. That number for the Republicans isn’t yet available.

In addition to choosing to hand count, Eastland County Republicans also decided to use paper poll books to check in voters and have voters hand-mark their choices rather than use ballot-marking devices, though both methods use paper ballots.

Eastland County had used the state’s countywide polling place program — which allows voters to cast ballots at any polling place in the county on Election Day — since at least 2013. In addition, the local political parties had for years agreed to host joint primaries. Both of these methods allowed the county to save money by staffing and equipping fewer polling locations that all voters could use. But Republicans’ decision to hand count forced all voters in the county, including Democrats, to cast primary ballots at their neighborhood precincts, instead of any location in the county.

The changes also created logistical problems, Nichols said. Federal accessibility laws require each voting site to have a machine with a ballot-marking device available for disabled voters, though anyone who asks to use it may do so. In the past, both parties used machines for all voters, and machine access wasn’t an issue.

But splitting the primary meant the county didn’t have enough accessible voting equipment. Nichols said the county only had enough for the Democratic sites, where all voters were relying on the machines, and three of nine Republican precincts. She tried unsuccessfully to obtain more from neighboring counties and the manufacturer. On Election Day, at least one voter, at a site in Gorman, asked for a machine and was told it was not available, Nichols told Votebeat Wednesday.

Voters walk into the Rising Star Volunteer Fire Dept., a polling location for the primary, on March 3 in Eastland County, Texas.

Confused voters went to the wrong voting locations

As in Dallas County, where Republicans also forced a switch from countywide to precinct-based voting sites this year, the changes appear to have confused many voters.

All morning and into the afternoon, Nichols and her deputy, Donna Fagan, fielded calls from voters confused about where to vote. They also answered call after call from election workers trying to help voters who had turned up at the wrong polling location and needed to be redirected to the correct one.

In Eastland, the county seat, election workers at the courthouse polling location said they told at least 89 voters that they were at the wrong polling location that day, from when they began keeping track at 10:30 a.m. until polls closed.

One of them, Mikalynn May-Hall, told Votebeat she’s just not going to vote. She works near the courthouse and her assigned precinct is 20 miles away in Gorman. After work, she said she’s traveling to Abilene. “I always try to do my civic duty, but I guess it just won’t happen this year,” she said. May-Hall added that she lost track of time and wasn’t able to cast her ballot early and she was unaware that everyone had to vote at their neighborhood precinct.

At the Rising Star polling site around noon, one Republican primary voter, James Bryant, had to call his job to let them know he would be late. Bryant, who works in Abilene, more than 50 miles away, told Votebeat he’d originally tried to vote in Cisco, 20 miles north of Rising Star.

Bryant said he “had no idea” the primary would require him to vote at an assigned precinct rather than a countywide site, as he’d done for years. He added he also thought it was “odd that I had to say whether I was a Republican or Democrat. It used to be all together.”

Deena Nichols and Patsy Copeland, both of Cisco, both said they had gotten used to voting on the machines and didn’t like having to hand-mark their ballot, which had 41 separate contests this year. Otherwise, they said, their voting experience went smoothly, “Everything was very well explained” by the election workers, Copeland said.

‘I don’t know how much longer I can hang on’

At one point late Tuesday night, Nichols said some workers contacted her to ask whether she could just take the ballots and tabulate them electronically.

But such a pivot would be difficult, and Nichols told Votebeat that Hayes assured her the party would complete the hand count.

Once the counting of ballots begins, under state law, it can’t stop. If there were somehow no one left willing or able to keep counting, then Hayes, the GOP chair, would need to seek a court order to switch the method of counting to electronic tabulation, said Alicia Pierce, a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State’s Office.

Eastland County election officials Donna Fagan and Temi Nichols inside the elections office shortly after midnight on March 4, 2026.

In addition, Nichols would then have to test the voting equipment for accuracy before tallying, as required by law before every election where electronic equipment is used to count votes. That’s true even though the county has already done the required testing for the Democratic primary, because the Republican primary is legally a separate election, Nichols said.

Once there are results, Texas law does not require an automatic post-election audit for these party-run hand counts. Any questions about accuracy would have to be resolved by the canvass on March 12.

Fagan had been making sure that Nichols stayed hydrated, ate, and took breaks in order to stay alert throughout the night.

“We’re gonna get through this, Temi,” Fagan told Nichols often.

Sleep-deprived and exhausted at around 7 a.m. Wednesday, Nichols stared at her computer screen, and said “I don’t know how much longer I can hang on.”

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Despite fewer ballots than in 2024, the Gillespie County GOP’s second hand count takes nearly as long

2026-03-04T12:59:13+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

FREDERICKSBURG, Texas — When Gillespie County Republicans abandoned voting machines and hand-counted ballots in the 2024 primary election, it took until 4 a.m., required corrections in nearly every precinct, and fractured the local Republican Party. And in 2026, they did it again.

On Tuesday, election workers once again gathered in this Hill Country county to tally Republican primary votes by hand. This time, the counting and tallying stretched until nearly 3 a.m., and county election officials did not send their report to the Texas Secretary of State’s Office until after 5 a.m. Whether the results are accurate may not be clear for days.

Research shows hand-counting ballots typically takes more workers and time than machine tabulation and produces more discrepancies, though both methods can be accurate. Supporters say it increases transparency and confidence. Republicans here — and in Eastland County, which also hand-counted its primary ballots this year — opted into the more laborious process amid mistrust of voting machines in the wake of claims by President Donald Trump and others that they manipulated votes in the 2020 election. No evidence has emerged to support that.

The Gillespie County GOP’s undertaking this year, though, was not as ambitious as two years ago. After determining they did not have enough workers to hand-count every ballot cast in this year’s primary, party leaders scaled back their plan. Unlike in 2024, when early votes were also counted by hand, this year those ballots were tabulated by machine. Only Election Day ballots were counted by hand at each of the county’s 13 precincts.

Amid a fiercely fought primary for U.S. Senate, along with more than 40 other contested races, just under 3,000 ballots were ultimately hand-counted — far fewer than in 2024, when more than 8,000 ballots were counted entirely by hand. Everyone involved — including county officials — said things went more smoothly this time, with fewer of the reconciliation errors that made the 2024 canvass frustrating for all involved.

Even so, the process stretched nearly as late as it did in 2024.

Some precincts began counting Tuesday morning. By 11 p.m., most of the county’s votes had been reported. But results from the final precinct — Precinct 5, in Harper — did not arrive at the central elections office until 2:47 a.m.

“Sorry to keep y’all waiting,” a bleary-looking Neill Northington, the Harper precinct’s chair, said as he sat down with county election officials to review his paperwork. He and his teams finished counting around midnight, but completing the form and checking the math kept him there for longer.

The Gillespie County elections office, pictured on March 3, 2025. County election administrators and Republican Party officials worked until 5am the following morning to hand count and then reconcile ballots in the county's 13 precincts.

Northington had backed hand-counting in 2024 — he said he was the first to propose it — but opposed it this year. Two years ago, he wanted a way to test the county’s systems. When it showed no meaningful difference in race outcomes, he felt the point had been made.

“I don’t need the bank to keep a paper ledger for me,” he said. While he’d like hand-counting to be an option for auditing electronically tabulated results, he said he’s satisfied the systems in Gillespie County are trustworthy.

After Republicans turned in their tally sheets, county staff still had nearly two hours of work left.

Unlike electronic tabulation, which automatically generates the reports required by the state, hand-counted results arrive as separate tally sheets from each of the 13 precincts. The totals for more than 40 races then had to be entered manually and added together.

Manpower — or lack thereof — was likely why it took so long for precincts to deliver their results to the county. The 2024 effort involved roughly 350 people working in shifts. This year, party leaders said about 60 people had signed up as of a few days before Election Day. It was unclear Tuesday how many ultimately showed up. Final totals are expected to be available in the coming weeks after each worker submits the paperwork to get paid for their efforts.

To Bruce Campbell, the county GOP chair, the timeline told its own story. With significantly fewer ballots to count than in 2024, he said, the fact that results again stretched toward the early morning hours underscored what he had warned for months: The party did not have enough manpower to sustain the effort at the scale some activists envisioned.

Campbell disputes claims from some hand-count supporters that ample numbers of workers were available and that lists showed sufficient staffing. He said he never received documentation that the county had enough trained counters to conduct a full hand count.

Republicans divided on hand-counting

At the county elections office Tuesday night, the divide over hand counting showed in small moments.

Brock Graef, 25, arrived to observe the process on behalf of his mother, who is running for county treasurer. Daniel Herbort, 35, came for his wife, a candidate for district clerk. Neither had served as a poll watcher before.

Just after 8 p.m., as Democratic ballots were tallied inside — Republican ballots would not start arriving for more than an hour — Graef called hand-counting “kind of stupid.”

“We’re out here trying to modernize this county,” he said, “and here we are hand-counting ballots like it’s 1952.”

Herbort was more sympathetic — “kind of,” he said — but appeared less certain after hearing about 2024’s discrepancies.

Across the county, views remained sharply divided.

Sheila Scuggs, a captain in Precinct 3, called the night a good experience. In Precinct 12, poll worker Cody Lawson said they had “plenty, too many” counters. Tom Marshall, the chair of Precinct 1, argued that redesigned tally sheets helped prevent the transcription mistakes he said caused most of last cycle’s errors.

“I myself made four of them,” he said, referring to the 2024 errors.

Others were unconvinced.

Betty Hahn, the precinct chair for Precinct 9, was against the hand count, as she was in 2024. That year, her precinct was the only one that reported no discrepancies. “If I’m going to do something,” she said, “I do it right.”

Scott Netherland, the election judge for Precinct 6, called hand-counting “less secure” than machine tabulation because it lacks built-in safeguards and clear chain-of-custody protections. In 2024, he told Votebeat his “heart sank” after he realized in the hours after finishing the count that he’d miscounted the totals in seven separate races.

“That was our trial [run],” he said of last cycle’s hand count. “We could have been done three hours ago” if the ballots had been scanned instead, he said at around 11 p.m. while waiting for county officials to process his tally.

Charlotte Belsick, the precinct chair for Precinct 8, called hand-counting “unnecessary in Gillespie.” As she spoke Tuesday night, an official from the Gillespie County Democratic Party approached Belsick to say goodbye. That party had already finished its machine-tabulated count and reported results to the state. “Oh, you mean they got done quickly because they scanned the ballots?” Belsick replied.

The hand count has become a proxy for a broader struggle inside the county GOP. Campbell, who says the practice is unnecessary, faced a challenge in Tuesday’s primary from a candidate aligned with the pro-hand-count faction. With all precincts reporting, Campbell was trailing 39% to 61% in unofficial returns.

Whether this year’s scaled-back effort avoided the discrepancies seen in 2024 will not be clear until the results are canvassed in the coming days. Last cycle, adjustments were required in 12 of 13 precincts.

Texas law does not require an automatic post-election audit for these party-run hand counts. If mistakes were made, they will surface only if someone identifies them during canvass — or if candidates request scrutiny.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Primary voters frustrated and confused after Dallas County switches to precinct-based voting

2026-03-04T02:56:26+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

This story was published in partnership with Dallas Free Press, a nonprofit newsroom focused on community and civic issues in Dallas. Sign up for Dallas Free Press’ texts and newsletters here.

DALLAS, Texas — Veronica Anderson walked 2½ miles Tuesday afternoon to the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center because she wanted to vote.

When she arrived, election workers told her she was at the wrong polling place and would need to cast her ballot at a different precinct — one she said she had never heard of. Unsure where it was or how to get there, she stood outside trying to sort out her options.

“I walked up here because I want to vote so, so bad,” she told a reporter for the Dallas Free Press and Votebeat, adding that it felt like “your self-esteem and everything is torn down.”

Anderson was one of hundreds of voters across Dallas County on Tuesday who went to the wrong voting location as they tried to cast ballots in the state’s high-turnout primaries, with closely watched contests for U.S. Senate at the top of the ticket.

Under state law, political parties have wide authority to decide how to run county primaries. The confusion stemmed from a decision by the Dallas County Republican Party to abandon the use of countywide vote centers — which allow voters to cast a ballot at any location — and return to a system of precinct-based assigned polling places for Election Day, a decision that forced Dallas Democrats to do the same. Voters were still able to cast ballots at countywide sites during early voting.

Dallas County Democrats had objected to the decision and warned it would confuse voters. After reports of hundreds of confused voters being redirected after going to the wrong polling place Tuesday, Democrats obtained a court order extending voting hours for Democrats in Dallas County until 9 p.m., with ballots cast after 7 p.m. counted provisionally. (The Texas Supreme Court later stayed the order, and said ballots cast by voters who weren’t in line by 7 p.m. should be separated pending a final ruling.) For their part, Republicans did not request an extension of voting hours.

Dallas County has used countywide vote centers since 2019. Local Republican leaders — in Dallas and in other counties making similar changes, including Williamson — said the shift would boost voter confidence.

Dallas County Election Navigator Edwin Hightower Jr., right, helps a voter who arrived at the wrong polling station find her correct voting location in Dallas, Tuesday, March 3, 2026.

County and party officials said they had warned voters ahead of time that Election Day rules would be different. The Dallas County Elections Department sent text messages, mailed notices, and ran social media and streaming ads urging voters to cast ballots early and reminding them they would need to vote at their assigned precinct if they waited until Election Day, according to Nicholas Solorzano, a spokesperson for the Dallas County Elections Department.

The county also stationed nonpartisan “election navigators” outside at least 75 polling locations to redirect voters who showed up at the wrong site. Dallas County Republican Party Chair Allen West said the party had publicized the changes as well and framed the return to precinct-based voting as a matter of trust in the process. Kardal Coleman, chair of the Dallas County Democratic Party, told Votebeat that Democrats have “called, texted, we’ve sent mailpieces. We’ve run a full campaign.”

‘There are a lot of infuriated voters’

At the Anita Martinez Recreation Center in West Dallas, election navigator Juston Marine stood outside with a county-issued tablet, stopping voters before they entered.

“Are you here to vote?” he asked. “Can I see your driver’s license? Can you choose your party? I’m just trying to make sure you’re in the right location.”

Marine said he was redirecting every second or third voter who approached. He lost count of how many people he had sent elsewhere.

“There are a lot of infuriated voters,” he said. Some cursed at him. Others had driven across the county only to learn they were in the wrong place — including one example of a voter who traveled from Balch Springs to West Dallas and was then redirected to Cedar Hill.

Ashley Feldt, who recently moved to West Dallas from East Dallas, arrived at the site with her fiancé. Marine told her she was actually assigned to vote at Hexter Elementary, miles away. Unsure she would have time to get there before polls closed, she told her fiancé — who was assigned to the recreation center — to go ahead and vote without her.

James Crolley, an Election Day inspector assigned to 12 locations ranging from downtown Dallas to Trinity Groves and West Dallas, said that voters were also surprised to find that voters assigned to the same precinct, but who vote in different parties, often weren’t voting at the same sites.

“If you had always voted at Mockingbird Elementary as a Republican, and you go there today, and you’re like, ‘Why am I not able to vote? This is my spot,’” he said, “that caused a little bit of conflict.”

The problems were not confined to Dallas.

Williamson County Republicans also returned to precinct-based voting and adopted a different counting process for their primary. Instead of using precinct scanners to tabulate votes throughout the day, Republican ballots were to be placed into separate boxes by precinct and scanned centrally after polls close, according to Connie Odom, a spokeswoman for Williamson County.

Odom said in an email that reconciliation rules and manual review of some ballots mean few, if any, Election Day results are expected before midnight. The Democratic primary there is using the county’s traditional scanner system.

In Eastland County, which moved away from vote centers to enable hand-counting of ballots, election workers at the county courthouse said they had told about 68 voters by late morning that they were at the wrong location.

Jennie Trejo and Keri Mitchell of Dallas Free Press and Carrie Levine, Nathaniel Rakich, and Natalia Conteras of Votebeat contributed reporting.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Cochise County asks feds to investigate disputed claims about voting machine testing — again

2026-03-03T19:19:13+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.

Four years after a conservative southeastern Arizona county tried to defy election laws, it may be gearing up to do so again.

The Cochise County Board of Supervisors voted on Feb. 24 to send a letter to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard asking her to investigate whether the laboratories charged with testing voting machines nationwide were properly accredited ahead of recent elections.

Cochise County officials have doubted the laboratories for years, despite the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s reassurances that they were properly accredited. Those doubts were part of what prompted two of the county’s supervisors to vote to delay the certification of its election results past the legal deadline in November 2022.

A judge ultimately ordered the supervisors to certify the midterm election results, but their doubts about the laboratories — and the voting machines they test — have apparently persisted. The board sent an identical message to the U.S. Department of Justice less than six months ago.

The letters asked federal officials to review the Election Assistance Commission’s processes for accrediting testing facilities that ensure tabulators and other voting machines meet federal standards, to determine whether the county’s equipment remains properly certified, and to advise supervisors on “the proper interpretation of federal and state requirements regarding voting system compliance and lawful ballot tabulation.”

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi never responded to the county’s initial inquiry — and it’s unclear whether Gabbard will, either. A spokesperson for her office did not comment when contacted by Votebeat.

Still, Supervisor Tom Crosby, a Republican, said that the board decided to send the letter to Gabbard after she appeared at the unprecedented federal raid of an elections office in Fulton County, Georgia, last month. Gabbard later said in a letter to the U.S. Congress that President Donald Trump had requested her presence at the scene and that she had “broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate and analyze intelligence related to election security.”

Crosby said the document established her as the “grand poobah of elections” in Washington, D.C. — so he and Board of Supervisors Chair Frank Antenori both voted to send their letter her way.

The county’s board has three members, all of whom are Republicans. Supervisor Kathleen Gomez was absent from the Feb. 24 meeting, but previously voted with her colleagues to send the same request to Bondi.

Crosby and Antenori framed their vote to reup their request as a simple inquiry designed to increase confidence in election equipment.

“It’s one tiny little piece of trying to restore integrity and confidence in the election system,” Antenori said. “That’s all this is. Nobody is doing any fishing expeditions.”

But Allison Morse, a county resident who has long voiced opposition to the supervisors’ actions in 2022 and the lone public speaker on the item, wasn’t convinced. She slammed the letter as “another futile attempt to uncover some dubious shred of evidence that there is, or was, something wrong with our voting machines.”

“Your relentless quest to find fault as a way to justify a criminal act is extraordinary,” she told the supervisors. “I don’t think you, or Ms. Gabbard, will find what you’re looking for.”

Cochise County officials continue to fight battles from 2022

The letters to the federal government are not the only signs that Cochise County officials are laying the groundwork for election challenges similar to that of 2022.

After voting to delay the certification of the election, Crosby and former Supervisor Peggy Judd were indicted on felony election interference and conspiracy charges in 2023.

Judd did not seek reelection to her seat and later took a plea deal. But Crosby pleaded not guilty and continues to fight the case. He has repeatedly attempted to get his charges dismissed and has unsuccessfully asked higher courts to review the criminal case against him.

Crosby’s new colleagues on the board appear sympathetic to his case. Over the past year, they have repeatedly and unsuccessfully asked the Arizona Counties Insurance Pool to cover his legal bills.

When appointing a new county recorder in early 2025, Antenori also said that he wanted a candidate who could handle the “political” parts of the job and was willing to “fight” for the county’s elections. And in an August 2025 meeting, the supervisors expressed an interest in re-testing Arizona’s laws regarding voting machines and election certification.

Meanwhile, Crosby’s trial has been pushed back several times — most recently because an internal report on a lead investigator for the prosecution found that he had falsified timecards and a police report unrelated to Crosby’s case.

Now, Crosby may not stand before a jury until after the midterms. In legal filings, his attorneys suggested postponing trial dates to early 2027, noting that key witnesses for both the prosecution and defense won’t be available until then.

But that delay could jeopardize Crosby’s prosecution. The case against him is being brought by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat. However, she is up for reelection in 2026, and her most prominent Republican opponent — Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen — says he would drop the case if he were to win the seat.

“This flies in the face of the theory of legislative immunity,” he told Votebeat, referencing a legal privilege that is designed to insulate legislators from punitive efforts by the executive or judicial branches of government. Crosby’s attorneys have repeatedly referenced legislative immunity while attempting to get the case against him dismissed, but judges have so far shot down the argument.

Sasha Hupka is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Sasha at shupka@votebeat.org.

When will Texas primary results come in? Here’s what to expect.

2026-03-03T01:08:37+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

Tuesday is primary day in Texas, and voters can expect to see some unofficial results not long after polls close at 7 p.m.

Election officials across the state will begin posting early voting totals to give Texans a first glimpse of results. But knowing the official outcome of the election will take longer, as election officials follow a long list of procedures to ensure your vote is counted accurately.

In large counties such as Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, and others, where election workers and officials will be coordinating the counting of Election Day ballots coming in from hundreds of voting locations that are miles apart, reporting of results will be slower. And in some counties, including Gillespie, west of Austin, and Eastland, west of Fort Worth, results are likely to take longer because Republicans are counting their ballots by hand.

Primary voters frustrated and confused after Dallas County switches to precinct-based voting

This isn’t the first time Republicans have counted ballots by hand during the primary. Gillespie County Republicans hand-counted thousands of ballots in 2024. The endeavor took hundreds of people and nearly 24 hours to complete. Officials there later found they’d made errors.

The efforts this year in both Gillespie and Eastland counties have already faced hurdles, and with highly contested primary contests for the state’s U.S. Senate race on both the Democratic and Republican ballots, election administrators and party officials in both counties are under pressure to ensure they meet the state’s 24-hour deadline to report results.

“This is a very tight race, and very much could go down to the wire. Margins here matter, and a slower count is likely to put a lot more uncertainty around the final result,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston.

He added that, although Eastland and Gillespie aren’t the most populous counties, hand-counts introduce “significant risks of human error.”

“People get tired, they lose concentration, and they make mistakes,” he said.

Here’s what you need to know about when to expect primary election results.

It’s 7 p.m. on Election Day and polls are closed. What’s next?

Voters can expect many counties to begin reporting early-voting results shortly after 7 p.m. This batch of results would include only early-voting ballots and mail ballots received up to that point. In counties with a population of more than 100,000, election officials are allowed to begin counting received mail-in ballots after polls close on the last day of early voting (in this case, Friday, Feb. 27), to get a head start on reporting results. Smaller counties may begin that process on the morning of Election Day.

In Eastland County, where Republicans are counting all ballots by hand, the tallying of early voting results is set to begin an hour after the polls open today. Depending on how many ballots were cast and how many people are gathered to count them, Republicans in Eastland, especially, may not see early voting results for hours after polls close.

In Gillespie County, Republicans are only hand-counting ballots cast on Election Day, so the county will likely report early voting results shortly after polls close.

What about results from Election Day voting?

The counting process for votes cast on Election Day can only begin after polls close and voting has ended. Polling places on Election Day are open until 7 p.m., but some locations could still have people waiting in line at closing time.

By law, those voters must get the opportunity to cast their ballots. In previous years, some voters have had to wait several hours to cast their ballots on Election Day, such as during the 2020 primaries, when the lines extended for hours after closing time.

This can delay the reporting of election results.

Once all ballots are cast at a voting location, polling location supervisors must follow a series of security measures. Before leaving the polling location, they must fill out paperwork detailing the number of ballots counted by ballot scanning machines and the number of voters who checked in to vote. They must then carefully pack up all ballots, paperwork, and voting equipment and transport them all back to the county’s central counting station — the place where ballots cast on Election Day are tallied.

In Gillespie and Eastland, the process will be slightly different because, by law, the hand counting of votes must take place at each polling location. Once that’s done, they’ll have to follow those same security measures before transporting ballots, materials, and results to local party and county election officials, who will then submit them to the state.

In large counties, getting ballots and equipment back to the main counting station can take more time and delay the election results. For example, in Harris County, the third most populous county in the country, some election results come in from polling sites located 40 minutes away from the county election headquarters. To speed up the process, Harris and other large counties have more than one counting station where election workers can drop off their materials to get the vote counting started.

Once election workers turn everything in, county election administrators then review and verify the information from each polling site, and counties must post the comparison of the number of voters and the number of ballots cast on their election websites.

How are votes gathered to produce results?

By state law, Election Day totals must be submitted to the state within 24 hours after polls close.

Once vote counting has begun, it cannot stop until it’s done. In large counties, election officials will work in shifts in case counting extends into the early morning hours. Once the count is complete, election administrators will manually enter totals for every race into the statewide election management system, known as TEAM.

The Secretary of State’s Office then reviews each county’s reports to ensure the information is correct before unofficial election night results are finalized. If there are any discrepancies between the data posted on a county website and the state’s system, the Secretary of State’s Office will with the local officials who entered the data to ensure the correct information is included in the state’s unofficial reporting of election night results.

Why are election night results “unofficial”?

The results calculated and reported out on election night are unofficial because they do not yet reflect a final count of all ballots cast. That’s because counties still must account for late-arriving mail-in ballots, ballots from military or overseas voters, and provisional ballots. The deadlines for receiving different kinds of ballots vary, but all must be reviewed and counted or rejected by March 12, according to the election law calendar.

Each party’s state chair then does a statewide canvass of races by March 15. At that point, statewide primary results become official and final.

That said, election-night counts will include the vast majority of ballots cast, and will likely give us reliable projections of the winners much earlier, in all but the closest of races.

Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org

Trump’s call to heavily restrict mail ballots draws a lukewarm response

2026-03-02T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

When President Donald Trump called on Congress to pass a bill mandating voter ID and proof of citizenship during his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, it was one of many moments that prompted Republican lawmakers to stand and applaud.

But when he followed that up with “no more crooked mail-in ballots except for illness, disability, military, or travel — none,” the applause was less vigorous. Some of those standing and applauding sat down.

Trump’s latest broadside against mail ballots (it’s far from the first one) is interesting given that the SAVE America Act, the bill Trump specifically called on Congress to pass, wouldn’t institute the limits on mail voting that Trump called for. Despite that, Trump has repeatedly suggested that it would.

Polls have found bipartisan support for the bill’s voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements. But it’s clear there’s markedly less support for restricting the use of mail ballots, even from many Republican politicians. “Utah has an exemplary mail-in voting system” that is “administered very well and is vital for our rural communities,” Rep. Blake Moore, a Utah Republican, told the Deseret News this week. A focus group conducted during the speech found that independent voters didn’t like Trump’s call for mail ballot restrictions, either.

The president has a long history of railing against the use of mail ballots (even though he’s voted by mail himself) and suggesting without evidence that Democrats use them to cheat in elections. But if he were to get his way, it would force millions of Americans — Democrats and Republicans alike — to find a new way to vote. In 2024, nearly 47 million Americans cast mail ballots that were ultimately counted, according to data tracked by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. And multiple studies have found mail voting doesn’t benefit one party over the other.

Another major GOP elections bill, the Make Elections Great Again Act, does have provisions to limit mail voting — but even it wouldn’t go as far as Trump is proposing. That bill would ban the counting of mail ballots received after Election Day (that’s also at issue in an upcoming Supreme Court case), prohibit states from mailing ballots to voters who hadn’t specifically requested them, and place new limits on who is permitted to return a voter’s ballot on their behalf. The bill has yet to pass either chamber of Congress.

The SAVE America Act, by contrast, has already passed the House. On Tuesday night, Trump increased what has been his steady pressure on the U.S. Senate to act. “Congress should unite and enact this common-sense, country-saving legislation right now, and it should be before anything else happens,” he said.

Nearly all Democrats have opposed the SAVE America Act, arguing the new requirements, especially for proof of citizenship, will disenfranchise voters. Trump, though, without offering evidence, said Democrats oppose the bill because “they want to cheat. They have cheated. And their policy is so bad that the only way they can get elected is to cheat and we’re going to stop it.”

Then, seeming to directly address Senate Majority Leader John Thune, he added, “We have to stop it, John.”

But it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster in the Senate, and Republicans have just a 53-47 majority in the chamber. Proponents of the SAVE America Act have called on Thune to change the filibuster process for the bill from an on-paper hold to a literal talking filibuster, requiring Democrats to hold the floor and speak continuously in order to block a vote on it. However, that course of action could consume weeks of Senate floor time, and, this week, Thune said that wasn’t happening either.

It isn’t clear what happens next. Many people in Trump’s orbit seem determined to overhaul U.S. elections by whatever means necessary, and the president himself has suggested that if Congress fails to codify the election changes he’s called for, he’ll put them in place through an executive order.

Most legal experts, though, say the president has no legal authority over elections, and federal courts have largely blocked key provisions of his previous executive order on elections, including those to tighten proof-of-citizenship requirements. Trump suggested in a recent social media post that his next legal argument would be “irrefutable,” though he didn’t provide any details. There has, however, been speculation for months that he will in some way invoke emergency powers based on claims of foreign interference in U.S. elections.

Either way, preparations for the 2026 midterm elections are well underway, and primaries begin Tuesday. Voters, it turns out, have been using mail ballots for weeks already.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Without a dedicated election committee, Wisconsin Senate lags on election policy

2026-03-02T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

When this legislative session began, Wisconsin Senate leaders made the unusual decision not to create a committee dedicated to election policy for the first time in nearly two decades. That choice has had a measurable consequence: The Senate has taken up far fewer election bills than the Assembly, and several measures that cleared the lower chamber are now stalled with no clear path forward.

Of the 19 election bills that Votebeat has tracked this legislative session, 18 have gotten at least a public committee hearing in the Assembly, compared with nine in the Senate. Fourteen of those bills passed the Assembly, compared with six in the Senate.

Even in a session when the Senate has generally moved more slowly than the Assembly on many issues — as of Feb. 25, the Assembly has passed 439 bills since the start of the current two-year session, while the Senate has passed 276 — the disparity is especially stark on elections.

Both chambers’ election activity is down compared to last session. With a dedicated election committee in the Senate, about 30 election bills received a committee hearing, compared with about 45 in the Assembly. Republicans have controlled both chambers for more than a decade.

“The lack of the dedicated committee has definitely changed things,” said Sen. Mark Spreitzer, a Democratic member of the local government and government operations committees. Without a clear Republican point person on election policy in the Senate, he said, the chamber is allowing the Assembly to drive most of the legislative action.

Some of the bills that have moved through the Assembly but haven’t passed the Senate include proposals to expand early voting hours and to bring the state in line with a 2022 federal law regarding the timing of casting electoral votes and certifying election results in presidential elections, designed to prevent the kind of post-election chaos that President Donald Trump and his allies sowed after the 2020 election.

Two other bills — one that would require ballots to include plain-language explanations of proposed constitutional amendments and another requiring early in-person voting hours in every municipality — have gotten a public hearing in the Senate but have since stalled.

Clerks have told Votebeat that some of the stalled bills would significantly improve their efficiency — including an omnibus proposal to create a system tracking voters adjudicated incompetent and also send voters text notifications on the status of their absentee ballots, said Rock County Clerk Lisa Tollefson, a Democrat. That proposal passed through the Assembly in November, but hasn’t been heard in the Senate.

Given the absence of a dedicated Senate election committee, Tollefson added, the Assembly has been doing the heavy lifting. But even with ready-made bills, the Senate does not appear to be eager to pass election legislation.

In every legislative session since 2009, there has been a Senate committee formally tasked with covering election legislation. Committee chairs typically serve as the go-to experts on their panels’ subject areas. They consult with lobbying groups, schedule public hearings and set up committee votes — giving them the power to advance or stall legislation.

But when election bills are scattered across multiple committees, there’s no clear point person in the Senate to guide them through the process.

In the absence of a dedicated elections committee in this session, several committee leaders declined to explain whether or when the stalled election bills might move. And some voting groups say it has made it harder to know who to consult with in the chamber to discuss election legislation.

At a WisPolitics event in Madison on Feb. 12, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said that the absence of a Senate committee “doesn’t make it hard to pass election bills.” He added that there are “definitely avenues where election bills can run in the Senate,” including the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Labor and Economic Development and the Senate Committee on Transportation and Local Government.

LeMahieu, a Republican, didn’t respond to Votebeat’s request for comment. Sen. Dan Feyen, the chair of the government operations committee, didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. Sen. Cory Tomczyk also, who chairs the local government committee, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

But even some of their fellow Republicans are seeing the effects. For example, Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara is the author of two of the bills languishing in the Senate, which would require and fund a certain number of early in-person voting hours in every municipality. Those reforms, she said, are “crucial to restoring confidence in our election process.”

She said in the Assembly, municipalities and clerks are working on a few details before the bills receive a final Senate vote, though both proposals passed the Assembly in November. The proposal to require the in-person hours got a Senate hearing in late January but has seen no activity since, while the bill to fund it hasn’t gotten a hearing at all.

There could still be a late flurry of committee activity. On Feb. 27, the Senate government operations committee approved the proposal to bring the state in line with new federal laws regulating presidential elections. But the next presidential race is 2 years away, and most of the bills that would affect all elections — not just presidential ones — remain stalled. Another bill to require the Wisconsin Elections Commission to hear complaints against itself was scheduled for a March 3 hearing.

With the legislative session entering its final stretch, though, the stalled bills face increasingly long odds. The last general floor session period of the biennium ends on March 19, and the Assembly is effectively finished for the session. That means the Senate only has a few weeks left to consider election bills that already cleared the lower chamber, and if the Senate modifies any of them, the Assembly is unlikely to return to approve the changes.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Michigan will pick a new top election official this year. Here’s where the candidates stand.

2026-03-02T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

The 2026 elections will decide many things. One of them is who will administer the 2028 presidential election in one of the nation’s largest swing states.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson cannot run for reelection in 2026, meaning the state will have a new top elections official for the first time in eight years. Six candidates are running to replace her: Democrats Barb Byrum, Garlin Gilchrist, and Suzanna Shkreli and Republicans Anthony Forlini, Amanda Love, and Monica Yatooma. A fourth Republican, Articia Bomer, filed paperwork to run but told Votebeat she was dropping out and endorsing Forlini.

In Michigan, the two major parties each pick their secretary of state nominees (along with their nominees for attorney general and state Supreme Court) at endorsement conventions instead of primary elections. Republicans will hold their convention on March 28, while Democrats will hold theirs on April 19.

Votebeat reached out to the major-party candidates to ask their opinions on some of the biggest topics in election administration ahead of the conventions.

The questions: What do they think about requiring people to prove their citizenship when registering to vote? What are their thoughts on the security of Michigan’s elections? And what, in their opinion, is the most important part of the job of secretary of state? Elections, of course, aren’t the only part of the job in Michigan — the secretary of state also runs the driver’s license offices and vehicle registration, for example.

Yatooma could not be reached for an interview. Love initially agreed to an interview but then did not call Votebeat back. All other major-party candidates are listed alphabetically below.

Barb Byrum

Byrum, a Democrat, launched her campaign in May. She served six years in the Michigan House from 2007 to 2012. She was elected Ingham County clerk in 2012, a job she won again in 2016 and 2020.

Proof of citizenship

Byrum noted immediately that noncitizen voting is against the law and that there are checks in place to prevent it.

“As a clerk, if I find out a noncitizen voted, I absolutely [would] have gotten all of the information — the application to vote, as well as the voter history — and [turned] that over to law enforcement to do what law enforcement is supposed to do,” she said.

She pointed to state requirements that anyone without an ID who goes to vote signs an affidavit verifying their identity under penalty of perjury.

Election security

Byrum said she is “uniquely equipped” to address election security given her time as a county clerk. She said she’s managed 42 elections while clerk and served on a number of statewide and national boards focused on elections.

“I have quite a bit of experience when it comes to election security and technology,” she said. “I’ve done numerous tabletops [exercises where election officials simulate various hypothetical scenarios] with emergency managers around the state and the secretary of state’s office and other clerks, in regard to all of the physical security concerns that occur during Election Day, early voting, and during absentee counting boards.”

What else is important in the job?

People want a secretary of state who understands election administration, Byrum said, but they also want someone who will listen.

“I have that as well,” she said. “I owned and operated a retail hardware store for 20 years. I was raised in a family business, so I know how to listen to customers and implement their desires.”

Anthony Forlini

Forlini, a Republican, launched his campaign in September. He started his political career as the supervisor of Harrison Township before serving in the Michigan House from 2011 to 2016. He ran for Michigan’s 10th Congressional District in 2016 but came in fourth place out of five candidates in the primary. He was elected Macomb County clerk in 2020 and won the seat again in 2024.

Proof of citizenship

Forlini believes that it’s not enough for people to self-report their citizenship when they register to vote. The government “has some responsibility,” Forlini said, to verify their citizenship. He pointed to his recent attempt to find noncitizens on the voting rolls by comparing them to the jury pool as an example. That effort flagged 15 voters as potential noncitizens, although the secretary of state’s office later said that only five of them appeared to be, while at least three were citizens after all.

“How does this happen? Why does it happen? It’s a systemic problem, not a political problem,” he said. “Nobody wants noncitizens in the jury pool or on the voting records. … So we need to set up systems that are better to avoid this happening.”

Election security

Forlini said he believes Michigan’s elections are physically secure, adding that at least in Macomb County, voters do not feel threatened when they vote and are able to vote their conscience. He was less certain about cybersecurity, saying that when he initially became clerk, he felt there were “holes that could have been manipulated.”

“I think all clerks need … to do a little better job in holding the standards and the protocols in place,” Forlini said.

As clerk, he said he took measures to improve election security such as using watermarked paper for ballots and hash validations on tabulators — an algorithmic tool that helps election officials verify software was not tampered with after certification — and offering more training for clerks and election workers.

What else is important in the job?

Forlini said that while the job of secretary of state has a lot of responsibilities, one thing he thinks no one is paying attention to is the Office of the Great Seal, which manages requirements for notaries public.

“Who is notarizing the notaries? Think about it. With today’s technology, we don’t have … any good processes in place to ensure that that notary did indeed sign and notarize the signature,” he said. “It’s a huge, huge hole. Why do I know that? Because I’m also the register of deeds, and I see it.”

He added that “the bad guys” have figured out how to forge signatures in a way that looks legitimate. Concerns about that don’t often draw a lot of attention, Forlini said, because the office is “behind the scenes.”

Garlin Gilchrist

Gilchrist, a Democrat, joined the secretary of state race in January after dropping out of the race for governor. He has served as Michigan’s lieutenant governor since 2019. He also ran for Detroit city clerk in 2017 but was defeated by incumbent Clerk Janice Winfrey.

Proof of citizenship

Gilchrist said that voting is “reserved for citizens” and that anyone who votes despite not being a citizen needs “to be held accountable for that to the fullest extent of the law.” He also noted that “vanishingly few noncitizens … actually cast ballots.”

“As a process person, I want to make sure that we get that number to zero. I also want to make sure that we are focusing on the right things, and that is again making sure we have a good process,” he said. “But frankly, I want to make sure that more eligible voters in Michigan are doing what they need to do so that they can cast ballots.”

He said his goal as secretary of state would be to increase voter turnout and to protect the state and its voters from “any threats or any interference from the federal government trying to infringe upon our constitutional responsibility as state election officials to operate our elections.”

Election security

Gilchrist said Michigan has made progress on making sure voters know their ballot will be handled securely after it is cast. The state’s elections have withstood a number of audits, he said, demonstrating the state is doing a good job.

“We’re going to continue to make sure that our processes can be safe and secure,” he said. “I want to make sure that we are focused on the right thing. People having confidence in the voting process means that more people will participate in the voting process.”

He pointed to his experience as a computer engineer as an example of making systems work for people.

What else is important in the job?

“It is also important that we bring the whole range of services provided by the secretary of state’s office to the 21st century, making sure people have good experiences in person at the offices, online by appointment, or drop in,” Gilchrist said. He pointed to the state’s campaign finance website as an example of something that needs to work to “shine a light on the dark in our politics.”

He also emphasized a desire to protect Michiganders’ private data to avoid it being used by the federal government for surveillance. Gilchrist pointed to his experience as a software developer as evidence that he takes cyber threats seriously.

Suzanna Shkreli

Shkreli, a Democrat, launched her campaign in December. A lawyer by training, she has served as an assistant prosecuting attorney in Macomb County and deputy legal counsel for Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. She has also worked as the director of the Office of Children’s Ombudsman, director of juvenile justice reform at the state Department of Health and Human Services, and commissioner of the Michigan State Lottery. She unsuccessfully ran for Michigan’s 8th Congressional District in 2016, losing to then-Rep. Mike Bishop.

Proof of citizenship

Shkreli said that she took issue with the idea that Michigan doesn’t require proof of identity to vote, as anyone who isn’t able to show ID when voting has to instead sign a legally binding affidavit. The discussion around it needs to change, she said.

“The president and [GOP] party leadership and the Republicans are peddling in lies and conspiracies about how our elections are not secure when they are,” she said.

The SAVE Act — a bill currently being considered by the U.S. Senate that would require people to prove their citizenship when registering to vote — would make it harder for people to vote, she said, adding that she didn’t want to see clerks in a position where they had to authenticate people’s documents.

Election security

Shkreli pointed to her experience as a prosecutor and in the governor’s office as evidence that she knows how to handle emergencies. As deputy legal counsel, Shkreli worked the meeting after the 2020 election where Michigan’s electoral votes were officially allocated to President-elect Joe Biden.

“We didn’t really know what to expect, but because of our preparation, we were able to thwart those fake electors and deliver on the governor’s constitutional obligation,” she said.

She considers protecting the vote to be one of the most important parts of the secretary of state’s job and hopes her experience coordinating across agencies will allow her to better support clerks with clear training and communication.

What else is important in the job?

Shkreli argued that the secretary of state’s office is “the most important office that is up for election this year.” She said that the office is “really all about elections right now because of what’s happening across the country,” and that her experience in emergency management makes her especially suited to the role. But that’s not all, she added.

“This is such an important office that gets things done for people every single day,” she said. “Although elections are top of mind for folks, the secretary of state’s office is really making government and life work for folks.”

If elected, Shkreli said she wanted to expand mobile units and improve on customer service and delivery of service across the state.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

In appeal, Madison warns disenfranchisement ruling could trigger wave of election lawsuits

2026-02-26T21:14:17+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

The City of Madison on Monday appealed a ruling that allows it to be sued for monetary damages for disenfranchising nearly 200 voters in the 2024 election, arguing the decision would unrealistically require “error-free elections” and expose municipalities across the state to liability for mistakes.

The appeal comes after Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Conway Feb. 9 ruling that Madison could face potential financial liability for disenfranchising 193 voters whose absentee ballots were unintentionally left uncounted. Notably, the city did not specifically contest the judge’s rejection in that ruling of its earlier argument that absentee voting is merely a “privilege” under state law — a claim that would have shielded it from damages.

Instead, the appeal centers on who has the authority to enforce election laws and whether voters can sue for negligence. The city argues that such complaints must go first to the Wisconsin Elections Commission and asks higher courts to revisit a landmark 1866 case that allowed damages against election officials who deprive citizens of the right to vote.

“It is not difficult to imagine how the circuit court’s ruling may be perceived as an opportunity by partisan actors to influence the election,” attorneys for the city, former Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl, and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick wrote in the filing.

A permanent path to sue for damages over accidental election errors without going first through the commission could “chill the willingness of individuals to volunteer to assist with elections, and the willingness of voters to participate in the political process,” they wrote.

Madison asks court to revisit landmark voting case

Much of Madison’s appeal asks the court to revisit a key finding in the landmark 1866 case that secured the extension of the franchise to Black Wisconsinites, Gillespie v. Palmer. In that case, the court held that state law allows plaintiffs to sue election officials for damages if they “negligently deprive citizens of the right to vote.”

The case arose after Ezekiel Gillespie, a Black man, was turned away from the polls in 1865. While voters had ratified a measure extending the franchise to Black residents 16 years earlier, it went largely unenforced, as state officials still disputed whether the change was valid. Gillespie sued, and courts ultimately ruled in his favor, concluding in 1866 that Black Wisconsinites had been wrongfully disenfranchised for 17 years.

Although Gillespie was intentionally barred from voting, the court’s ruling established negligence — not just intentional misconduct — as a basis for disenfranchised voters to seek damages. The Dane County Circuit Court relied on that broader standard in allowing the Madison lawsuit to proceed.

Madison officials in their latest appeal argue the lower court misapplied the precedent. In their view, Gillespie was about protecting the right to cast a ballot — a right that they say isn’t disputed in this case. No election official in Madison denied that the 193 Madison voters had a right to vote, they wrote. Rather, they contend, the voters’ ballots were unintentionally left uncounted after being cast.

If Gillespie is extended under these circumstances, the defendants argue, Wisconsin would be the first state to allow “any voter whose ballot is accidentally uncounted a right to sue for monetary damages,” a premise that they say requires immediate review by higher courts given the impending 2026 midterms.

They also contend the 1866 ruling predates Wisconsin’s modern election system, and relying on “such an archaic interpretation of Constitutional rights in Wisconsin is grossly in error and requires intervention before the case proceeds further.”

Madison’s filing “seeks to erode the protections” guaranteed in Gillespie, said Scott Thompson, staff attorney for Law Forward, which filed the case. “This argument follows the city’s failed attempt to throw out this case by arguing that the right to vote does not protect absentee voters from disenfranchisement. The right to vote has value, and the voters the City of Madison disenfranchised look forward to having their day in court.”

Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative, clarified that a court wouldn’t need to overturn the historic Black voting rights case entirely to rule that it doesn’t apply in the lawsuit against Madison.

“You could potentially read that case in a more narrow way, as applying only to intentional deprivation of the right to vote, as opposed to negligence and deprivation,” she said, adding that it’s likely that only a higher court could reinterpret Gillespie in such a way.

Law Forward’s response to Madison’s appeal is due on March 9. Then the Madison-based District IV Court of Appeals is expected to determine whether the appeal may move forward.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

ICE won’t be at polling places in 2026 election, Trump administration official says

2026-02-26T14:03:14+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

Agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will not be stationed at polling places for the 2026 elections, an official from the Department of Homeland Security told election officials in a virtual meeting on Wednesday.

“Any suggestion that ICE is going to be present at polling places is simply disinformation,” said Heather Honey, the deputy assistant secretary of homeland security for election integrity, in response to a question from California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, according to five people who listened to the call and confirmed her comments to Votebeat. “There will be no ICE presence at polling locations for this election.”

It’s the most definitive statement yet from President Donald Trump’s administration on a question that has loomed large over the 2026 midterms. As ICE has ramped up immigration enforcement with highly visible operations in cities like Minneapolis, election officials and voting-rights advocates have voiced concern that ICE or other federal agents could attempt to interfere with the voting process on Election Day — particularly after Trump said he regretted not deploying the National Guard in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

In November, a White House spokesperson called concerns over armed agents at polling places “baseless conspiracy theories and Democrat talking points” but didn’t explicitly rule it out. Earlier this month, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, “I haven’t heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations,” but said she couldn’t guarantee that it wouldn’t happen.

Federal law makes it illegal to station “troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.” Even so, some Republicans have continued to push the idea.

In a recent interview with CNBC, U.S. Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri questioned why ICE should be banned from polling places. On his podcast, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon called for ICE to “surround the polls come November.” And Arizona state Sen. Jake Hoffman introduced a bill that would require federal immigration agents at every voting location in the state, although the proposal ultimately went nowhere.

Honey’s statement, however, may not placate everyone worried about federal interference at the polls. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes told Votebeat after the call that he was not inclined to take Honey at her word. “It’s too bad that they used an election denier without any integrity to send that message,” he said, referring to Honey’s previous role as a prominent activist in the movement to question the 2020 election results. “We can’t guarantee that what she said was true,” Fontes said.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Honey’s statements on the virtual meeting or Fontes’ remarks. Honey has previously defended her prior work.

Also in the meeting on Wednesday, Honey said that the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database had helped states identify more than 300,000 dead people and 25,000 noncitizens on their voter rolls, people on the call said.

The Department of Homeland Security last year overhauled the SAVE database, which was originally designed to check immigrants’ eligibility for public benefits, to turn it into a voter-verification tool. However, the new version of the tool has produced many false positives, and election officials in Texas found that it had flagged some people as noncitizens even though they had already provided proof of their citizenship.

Honey also encouraged states to use hand-marked paper ballots whenever possible, people on the call said, though she said ballot-marking devices should be available for voters who need them. Trump has made unfounded claims that voting machines manipulated the results of the 2020 election and called on states to use exclusively paper ballots. According to Verified Voting, nearly 70% of registered voters already live in a jurisdiction that uses hand-marked paper ballots, and nearly every jurisdiction uses paper ballots in some form.

Otherwise, despite speculation leading up to the meeting, the call on Wednesday was a fairly standard gathering between state election officials and federal agencies whose work is relevant to elections. In addition to Honey, the call included representatives from the FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which organized it.

“Today’s virtual meeting with our federal partners resembled previous ones the Secretaries of State have had with them, during both the Trump and Biden administrations,” Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams said in a statement. He said the federal representatives “reminded us of the resources they make available to help us election officials do our job” and “reaffirmed state officials’ primary role in the election process.”

Carrie Levine and Sasha Hupka contributed reporting.

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

Navajo County, Arizona, seeks a new top election official after resignation

2026-02-25T23:23:40+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.

Navajo County Recorder Tim Jordan was done fighting.

He’d served as one of the county’s top election officials for a year — and spent most of that time wrapped up in a legal fight after being indicted on criminal charges connected to a road rage incident. That included one count of disorderly conduct with a weapon, a felony charge that threatened to disqualify him from holding office.

Former Navajo County Recorder Timothy Jordan posing during a training in Maricopa County in Dec. 2025 in Phoenix, AZ.

As 2026 dawned, he seemed ready to move on. He agreed to a plea deal on Dec. 30 and, about a month later, announced that he planned to resign on April 15, opening up a key election-administration job in the politically divided county.

“I feel my decision is within the best interest of all,” he wrote in his resignation letter. “I choose to leave quietly as possible to avoid further media and social distractions.” He signed off his letter with “much love.”

Jordan’s announcement — which came after a “sit-down conversation” and “verbal agreement” with county leaders, per his letter — brought a quiet end to a highly publicized saga that drew media attention to the northeastern Arizona county.

Now, county supervisors must find someone to pick up the pieces and run the recorder’s office during the heated and fast-approaching 2026 election cycle. Whomever they appoint will serve out the rest of Jordan’s term, which lasts through 2028 — meaning the new recorder will also help oversee voting in the next presidential election.

The county’s board of supervisors is divided 3-to-2, with Democrats in the majority. But any appointee they pick must be a Republican. When there is a vacancy in an elected office, state law dictates that it be filled by an appointee of the same political party as its most recent occupant.

But it’s unclear whether the person supervisors pick will hold the same views as Jordan, who promoted false claims of rampant voter fraud while running for his seat. On the campaign trail, he said past elections had been rigged and claimed without proof that there were dead voters and noncitizens on the county’s voter rolls.

Board Chair Daryl Seymore, a Republican, said he wants the county’s voter lists to be accurate, but suggested he was more concerned about the board’s appointee following routine processes to remove deceased people from the rolls than noncitizens.

“That’s the cleanup part that needs to be done, and done thoroughly,” he said, adding that he wanted someone who could “do the job that’s required.”

“That’s something that we want to see always happen, regardless of what party. That’s the role of the recorder’s office.”

Ultimately, supervisors said they want to find someone with a healthy respect for the job and the county’s voters. Seymore said he wants a candidate who will approach the role with “seriousness”and who also can handle the non-voting side of the job, which includes recording official documents like contracts and deeds. Vice Chair Dawnafe Whitesinger, a Democrat, said she’s looking for a new recorder with “a public servant’s heart.”

But finding someone qualified might be difficult in the remote county. Other rural areas have struggled to locate qualified applicants for high-level positions involving elections, particularly when their previous occupants have come under close scrutiny.

Even if someone already in the office steps up, it could create a cascading chain of vacancies that experts say pose challenges for counties with fewer resources.

“These smaller counties are often run with a small workforce,” said Bill Gates, executive director of Arizona State University’s Mechanics of Democracy Laboratory and a former GOP supervisor in Maricopa County. “You don’t have the capability to have a deep bench.”

Candidates have until March 6 to apply for the job. Navajo County Manager Bryan Layton said the county has received nine applications so far — including one from Jose Lerma, a voter registration coordinator in the recorder’s office whom Jordan recommended as his replacement.

Lerma has worked for several years in the office’s voter registration department. Prior to that, he worked for the county as a child support enforcement officer. He said he previously was not affiliated with any specific political party, but recently registered as a Republican so that he could apply for the recorder’s seat.

“I believe that I could bring a lot to the table, if they just allow me the opportunity,” he said.

Lerma said maintaining clean voter rolls is important and that the recorder’s office currently does “a great job” of ensuring that only eligible voters are able to cast ballots. He said elections have been “clean and fair” in the county — although he expressed less certainty about elections in other areas of the state.

“I want to believe that,” he said of whether election results were accurate statewide, adding that he “can’t speak for other counties.”

Seymore said Jordan’s recommendation wouldn’t have any bearing on his evaluation of the candidates. He said he was looking for the most qualified applicant.

“We have the time to vet people, and to do it in a process where the entire board of supervisors will be involved,” he said. “I think that’s the best thing that we could do.”

Sasha Hupka is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Sasha at shupka@votebeat.org.

How the plan to hand count ballots in Eastland, Texas, could affect voting access

2026-02-25T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

EASTLAND, Texas — On Monday, a group of four people spent more than an hour at a table inside a realtor’s office, hand counting the results of two races on 100 sample ballots. It was only a week before Tuesday’s primary election, and for this small group, it was their first time practicing to tally votes by hand.

They counted in batches of 25 and used different colored markers to keep track of where one counted batch ended and a new one began. They also used laminated tally sheets, which allowed them to erase and remark them if they made any errors. The group twice marked a vote for the wrong candidate, an error that meant they had to go back and start over and correct their laminated sheets.

But on Election Day, “you won’t be able to erase the errors on the sheet. That’s why we practice,” said Robin Hayes, the county’s GOP chair, who was training the group.

Hayes hasn’t yet participated in an official hand count herself, but said she’s attended trainings to learn how to do it and has been preparing and training other volunteers for months.

After the group finished, Hayes reminded them that on Election Day, when there will be at least 41 races on the Republican primary ballot, they’ll have to minimize the chatter and focus on counting. “This was only two races. Remember that there’s more,” Hayes said.

Donna Smith, one of the trainees, gasped at that. “Ok, we’re gonna have to stay on task,” she said.

Robin Hayes, the Eastland County Republican Party chair leads a hand count training with county residents on Feb. 23, 2026. The party voted last fall to hand count all of the GOP's primary ballots. Hayes said she's recruited about 90 people to count ballots on Election Day.

Hand counting poses bigger costs, logistical challenges

Eastland County Republicans voted last fall to ditch electronic voting equipment and instead hand count all of their primary ballots. They’ll be using paper poll books to check in voters, and expect voters to hand mark their choices on paper ballots rather than using a ballot-marking device. And instead of having a joint primary with the Democrats, as they’ve done for years, Republicans have chosen to split everything: staff, equipment and materials. Democrats in the county are still planning to use the electronic voting equipment to cast and to tabulate their ballots.

Hand counting is no small endeavor. Election officials and voting experts have warned that hand counting large numbers of ballots is expensive, labor-intensive, slower to produce results, and more prone to human error than machine tabulation. But some Republicans across Texas have backed the method in recent years as President Donald Trump and others have pushed unsupported claims about the reliability of voting machines.

In Texas, political parties decide at the county level how their primaries will be administered. Other county Republican parties, including Dallas, considered hand-counting, but ultimately decided against it, worried about cost, finding enough workers, and a state law that requires results to be reported within 24 hours. Failing to do so could result in a misdemeanor charge.

The only two counties planning to hand count this year are Eastland and Gillespie. In 2024, Gillespie Republicans hand counted more than 8,000 ballots. That endeavour took nearly 24 hours and led to errors in tallies that officials later had to fix. Gillespie Republicans this month scaled back their plans and said they will only hand count ballots cast on Election Day because, officials said, they weren’t able to recruit enough workers to count ballots cast during early voting, which ends Friday.

Eastland’s plan, meanwhile, has created major logistical problems, Temi Nichols, the county’s elections administrator, said.

Eastland County has used the state’s countywide polling place program — which allows voters to cast ballots at any polling place in the county on Election Day — since at least 2013. In addition, the local political parties had for years agreed to host joint primaries. Both of these methods allowed the county to save money by staffing and equipping fewer polling locations that all voters could use.

But Republicans’ decision to hand count and hold a separate primary from Democrats means that won’t be the case this year, since both political parties have to agree in order for the county to use countywide polling places. Voters casting primary ballots must do so at their local precincts. In addition, the county is struggling to comply with federal accessibility laws requiring that each polling location has at least one accessible voting machine available for voters who need it. That hasn’t been an issue in the past because both parties used the machines for all voters.

But Nichols said the county only has enough accessible voting equipment for the Democratic sites and three of the nine Republican precincts. Her attempts to attain more from neighboring counties or by leasing them from the manufacturer have so far been unsuccessful. As of Tuesday, Nichols told Votebeat she was continuing to seek help from the state and the manufacturer in an attempt to comply.

“I’m just trying to help both parties have an election. I don’t want to be in national news because Eastland County didn’t do this right,” Nichols said.

Temi Nichols, the Eastland County elections administrator, looks up the county's voter turnout in her office at the Eastland County Courthouse on Feb. 23, 2026. Nichols has been stressed over the county GOP's decision to hand-count ballots, which has led to logistical issues for the primary election.

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment on whether the lack of such equipment would be a violation of the law by the county or the party. The state plans to dispatch election inspectors to Eastland to monitor the election, Alicia Pierce, a spokesperson for the office, said. The U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

For her part, Hayes told Votebeat she’s aware there aren’t enough voting machines to have one available for disabled voters at all of the Republican precincts. When asked if she was concerned about potential legal challenges, she said, “Well, the Lord will have to prevail. It’s not intentional,” and added that voters who need assistance can request it from an election worker or any person the voter chooses.

“This country has too many laws anyway,” she said.

‘We’re going to end up getting blamed’

Eastland County has more than 12,500 registered voters and is around 100 miles west of Fort Worth. As of Tuesday, 651 Republicans and 92 Democrats have already cast primary ballots.

The county is known for honoring and preserving in a tiny coffin the remains of Old Rip, a horned toad that was believed to have been sealed in the cornerstone of the courthouse during its construction in the 1800s and found alive inside the stone 31 years later. Old Rip’s remains are on display in the county courthouse. These days, though, most of the county’s residents get around more than Old Rip.

Many Eastland County residents are commuters who travel to work in nearby cities of Weatherford, Stephenville, and Abilene. David Hullum, the county judge, said he’s concerned that voters could have to travel far out of their way to cast a ballot at their assigned precinct when they’re used to countywide sites. Hullum, a Republican, and Nichols have each made multiple TV and radio appearances and attended local community gatherings to urge voters to vote early to prevent confusion and potential disenfranchisement on Election Day.

Hullum also worries about the costs that additional workers and hours will impose on the county’s taxpayers. For example, during early voting, which the county is responsible for managing, the county is paying for six election judges: three Democrats and three Republicans. In a joint primary, where the parties shared staff, only three workers are needed.

Hayes did not respond to questions about Hullum’s concerns about the added costs. She said there won’t be a shortage of workers to hand count ballots, specifying that she has so far trained around 90 people who will be spread out on Election Day to hand count at each of the nine Republican precincts across the county and at a local county events center, where they’ll tally the ballots cast during early voting. The party will need at least two people to count at each precinct, as well as 26 people, who Hayes says she’s recruited, to count the early ballots.

“I’ve been praying for months,” Hayes said. “Of course I worry, because I won’t be able to be at each location watching, but I’m trusting the Lord. And they’re getting better each time,” she said, speaking about the group she was training on Monday.

Others were less sanguine about possible problems.

Nichols has been stressing over the Republicans’ hand-count plans for weeks. She has watched hours of online training by the Texas Secretary of State’s Office on how to conduct the hand count and what state law requires.

Appointed to the job last summer, this will be the first major election she and her deputy, Donna Fagan, will help the local parties run.

“If this doesn’t work on election night at midnight, am I supposed to step in and save the day? I really don’t know if I can do that,” Nichols said.

Hullum, the county judge, also expressed concern. If there are issues he said, “Everyone is going to look at the county for answers, not the Republican party … We’re going to end up getting blamed for the whole deal.”

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Pennsylvania holds tons of special elections. That costs taxpayers millions.

2026-02-24T20:19:13+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

If it feels like Pennsylvania voters are constantly going to the polls, it’s not your imagination.

According to data from Ballotpedia, a nonpartisan online political encyclopedia, Pennsylvania has held 47 special elections for vacant state legislative and congressional seats since 2017, including two being held Tuesday for state House seats in Allegheny and Lehigh counties. That’s more than in any other state over that period.

It’s not clear why Pennsylvania has had so many special elections, though observers have pointed to the state’s large full-time legislature as a possible factor. But what’s more clear is the cost. Many of those special elections were held on different days from normal primary or general elections, increasing the burden for administrators and costing taxpayers millions of extra dollars.

Legislators have proposed bills aimed at reducing those costs, but none have passed.

Special elections can be a burden

In recent years, special elections in Pennsylvania have been especially high-stakes, at least in the state House. Democrats have controlled the chamber since they won a narrow one-seat majority in the 2022 election, but the House majority has technically been up for grabs in 12 special elections since then, including the two on Tuesday, although most of them were not competitive.

Two such elections came in Philadelphia in September 2024. Two Democratic representatives had resigned in July, temporarily leaving the state House with 101 Republicans and 100 Democrats. Under House rules, though, Democrats retained control until the special elections could be held. (Democrats won both seats unopposed.)

Seth Bluestein, a city commissioner in Philadelphia, said he understands from the legislature’s perspective why those special elections needed to be held quickly. But, he said, “from an election administration standpoint, to hold an election less than two months before a general when the election could have been on the same ballot was frustrating.”

Even though special elections typically draw fewer voters than primary or general elections, counties must go through the same steps to prepare for them. Machines need to be tested, pollbooks need to be printed, and mail ballots need to be sent out. Holding special elections on a non-regularly scheduled election date can also make finding polling places and poll workers more difficult, Bluestein said.

“The biggest problem for that timing was the staff didn’t really get a break going into the general,” he said. “There was no break there for them to recover.”

It also costs money to hold a special election. By law, the Pennsylvania Department of State must reimburse counties for special elections for the state legislature. Twenty-three of the 47 special elections since 2017 have fallen on a primary or general election day (when voting was already supposed to happen anyway), were congressional special elections, which the state doesn’t pay for, or were not submitted to the state for reimbursement. But the remaining 22 special elections (not counting today’s) have cost the state more than $4.4 million, according to data from the department.

That may not represent the full cost to taxpayers, however, as the state may not have covered every cost of those elections.

In the two September 2024 elections, Bluestein said the $1.5 million the state paid back to the city represented about two-thirds of the cost of the elections. That’s in part because some materials used in the special elections were also used in the general election less than two months later, and therefore were not eligible for reimbursement.

Not the only option, but little appetite for change

Special elections are not the only way states fill legislative vacancies. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about half of states appoint, not elect, new legislators to fill the term until the next election. These appointments are usually made by the governor or the political party of the legislator who left the seat vacant.

Even states that do use special elections can have different laws governing their timing. Pennsylvania requires a special election to be called within 10 days of a seat becoming vacant, and the special election must take place at least 60 days after the call. If a regularly scheduled election is close enough on the horizon, the special election will be consolidated with it — that’s often not the case, though, forcing elections to be held on more random dates.

But Louisiana, for example, only calls a special election if six months or more remain in the term; otherwise, the vacancy is filled at the next general election. If that were the law in Pennsylvania, the two special elections in Philadelphia would not have taken place, as those offices were also on the November ballot.

Katy Owens Hubler, director of elections and redistricting at NCSL, said Pennsylvania’s full-time legislature could contribute to the high number of special elections in the state.

Some states also limit which days in the year a special election can be held.

“I think part of the intent of that is to relieve the [administrative] burden a little bit,” she said. “Having to have a couple of special elections in September of a big election year — that’s hard, and I’m sure it’s confusing for voters too.”

It’s unusual for states to change their methods for filling vacancies, Owens Hubler said. When they have tried to do so, it’s generally been to move from appointments to special elections, not the other way around.

In Pennsylvania, there hasn’t been a widespread push for change. Bills have been introduced in recent legislative sessions to bar candidates from running for more than one office at a time, which could reduce the number of people forcing special elections because they were simultaneously elected to two seats and had to decline one. For example, a special election was necessary in February 2023 after Summer Lee won a seat in both the state House and the U.S. Congress in the 2022 general election.

“The needless vacancies created by candidates pursuing multiple offices have had a detrimental impact on the governance of our Commonwealth, with legislative bodies almost evenly split along partisan lines, and taxpayers have been burdened with the costs associated with running special elections, which can total hundreds of thousands of dollars in a single state house district,” former state Sen. John DiSanto said in a memo introducing one of those bills in 2023.

State Sen. Lisa Baker reintroduced DiSanto’s proposal this session as Senate Bill 658, but the bill has yet to receive a vote in the Senate State Government Committee.

Bluestein said there are several considerations when it comes to special elections that need to be balanced: the need for representation, saving taxpayers money, and the stress on election workers.

“But right now,” he said, “I think that balance is tilted in the wrong direction.”

Correction, Feb. 26, 2026 10:45 a.m.:A previous version of this story misstated the timeline for when special elections must be held in Pennsylvania.

Nathaniel Rakich contributed reporting.

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Who will run the next election in small-town Wisconsin? No one knows.

2026-02-24T11:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

TOWN OF WAUSAU — Inside the mostly empty town hall on County Road Z last week, a handful of voters cast ballots in wooden booths for a school board race. The biggest question on the minds of local election officials wasn’t who would win — it was who would run elections next year.

After two clerks left within a year, longtime town supervisor Sharon Hunter stepped in because no one else would. Hunter’s term ends next April. Nomination papers for a potential successor are due in January 2027, but local officials still don’t know who comes next.

“Sharon’s not going to do 29 years,” Deputy Clerk Amy Meyer said, referring to the long tenure of the clerk who resigned in late 2024, setting off the cascade of brief replacements.

Hunter, 72, laughed. “I’d be over 100 years old,” she said. “I don’t think you want me here with my walker.”

Sharon Hunter, who moved to the Town of Wausau in the 1970s, stepped in as clerk after a series of resignations left the position vacant. She plans to decide later this year whether she will run to remain in the role.

Hunter’s decision to step up in a town of 2,200 may seem insignificant. But Wisconsin’s election system — one of the most decentralized in the country — depends on people like her. The state requires each of its 1,850 municipalities to run its own elections. That means hundreds of local clerks are needed to keep the system running. By contrast, Texas, a state with nearly five times Wisconsin’s population, relies on county-level election offices and has about one-sixth as many local election officials.

That structure leaves Wisconsin unusually dependent on small-town clerks. Between 2020 and 2024, more than 700 municipal clerks here left their posts, the highest turnover by raw numbers in the nation. As rural communities age and fewer residents are willing or able to take on an increasingly complex job, replacing them has become harder — raising questions about how long the state’s hyper-local model can hold.

The system can absorb one vacancy. It strains under dozens. Elections get stitched together, paperwork piles up, and the quiet machinery of local government — licenses, payroll, meeting notices — shifts its weight onto whoever is left.

Meyer, 55, understands why people don’t want the job — she doesn’t want it either. Like her mother, she has worked elections in town for much of her adult life. She considered becoming clerk, but it wasn’t the right time. She doesn’t want residents coming to her house with ballots or questions, as they once did under the longtime clerk.

“There comes a point in the day where I want to turn my phone off,” Meyer said from the town hall, situated at the center of loosely stitched county roads dotted with ranch homes and small farms, some of them no longer in operation. “I don’t want to hear that your garbage didn’t get picked up, or your neighbor’s dog is barking,” she said. “I just don’t.”

In a small town, the clerk is often the first call for everything from election deadlines to everyday complaints — and the learning curve is steep.

“It’s going to take you practically the first year to learn everything,” Meyer said. “Now, we have somebody new in it, and we have spent half the term relearning.”

Older residents have long filled these roles, but clerks say the job has grown more demanding, with little added support. It is often thankless work for modest pay. In Wausau, the clerk earns about $27,000 a year with no benefits.

Even so, many residents remain committed to keeping elections at the town level. Hunter said preserving local control was her biggest reason for stepping in, though she has not decided whether to seek another term.

“But we do need to have someone coming after me,” she said. “Because I am old.”

In an aging town, succession is unclear

The rural town of Wausau sits just east of the City of Wausau, a community of about 40,000 that began as a logging town in the 1830s and now centers on manufacturing and a burgeoning ginseng farming industry. As the city has grown, the town has increasingly become a bedroom community, as its lower property taxes attract commuters. A handful of farms remain, but the town is less agricultural than it once was.

Its population is slowly growing — and steadily aging. That’s because retirees also make up a large and growing share of the town’s residents. Its median age has climbed by roughly a decade since 2000 and now hovers around 50 — a decade older than the statewide average. The town still must run elections, issue licenses, and post meeting notices. What’s less certain is who will do it.

Here, as in many communities nationwide, the responsibility will likely fall to older residents. Nationally, nearly 70% of chief election officials are 50 or older, according to the Elections & Voting Information Center. In Wisconsin, that share climbs to almost 80%, with the oldest officials concentrated in the smallest jurisdictions.

One poll worker, knitting pink yarn during a lull between voters, said at 71 she was too old to take on the clerk’s job. She had encouraged a younger neighbor to consider it, she said, but the woman had just given birth.

Wausau’s shift reflects a broader reality in rural Wisconsin: The state built a system that depends on hundreds of small-town clerks and their deputies — a structure rooted in an era when farms were multigenerational, churches were full, and civic roles widely shared. That foundation is thinning. About a quarter of Wisconsin’s farms closed between 2002 and 2022, and churches are aging and shrinking. Volunteer fire departments and other local services report persistent staffing shortages.

There is no sweeping rural exodus. Rural counties are mostly growing, largely because retirees are staying or moving in. Wisconsin’s population is projected to age most rapidly in its rural communities, according to UW-Madison’s Applied Population Lab.

Originally from nearby Birnamwood, Hunter moved to the town of Wausau in the 1970s and has worked in public service ever since. For four decades, she wrote federal grants and helped low-income youth map out their futures through the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

Her entry into town government came by accident. Upset over a town decision to pave the ends of some residents’ driveways, but not hers or her neighbors’, she ran for town treasurer. What began as frustration became a career: She spent 10 years as treasurer and two decades as a supervisor.

Her path shifted again after the former town clerk, Cindy Worden, retired after 30 years on the job. Supervisors appointed a replacement, but she left after two weeks because of a terminal cancer diagnosis. The next clerk resigned within months, overwhelmed by balancing the duties with a full-time job and raising a family.

As the town searched for a clerk, Hunter and fellow supervisor Steve Buntin, a retired auto mechanic, filled in. Supervisors listed the job on Facebook and the town website. Potential candidates declined. Some didn’t want the scrutiny of elections, and others resisted the administrative grind.

At one point, county officials offered to step in to run elections and charge about $1,000 per election. That was Hunter’s turning point, though stepping into the role meant giving up her vote on the town board — a sacrifice she did not take lightly.

“After you start, you kind of get hooked,” Hunter said. The residents might be “ornery most of the time,” but helping them navigate difficult choices is public service. “It’s in your blood.”

She can return to being a supervisor if someone else steps up as clerk, but, as Buntin put it, “nobody seems to be knocking down the door.”

Last April, the town asked voters to allow clerks to be appointed rather than elected, which would have permitted hiring someone from outside town limits. The referendum failed narrowly. A new state law has since made it easier for small municipalities to switch to appointments, but the town has yet to make the jump.

“You still have to have somebody come forward who wants to be a clerk,” Meyer said. “Just because the state law changed doesn’t make it all that easy.”

Clerks are hard to recruit, and harder to retain

Wausau sits in Marathon County, home to about 130,000 people. To run elections for that population, the county depends on roughly 60 separate municipal clerks — one in each city, village, and town — layered beneath its elected county clerk. In most similarly sized counties elsewhere, such as St. Joseph County, Indiana, or Frederick County, Maryland, a single county office oversees elections for everyone.

There’s little appetite to abandon Wisconsin’s structure. Local clerks argue decentralization limits errors and keeps elections in familiar hands. But filling dozens of posts — and keeping them filled — is no easy task. Of the 13 new municipal clerks who have taken office in Marathon County since the April 2025 election, including Hunter, four resigned within months, County Clerk Kim Trueblood said. Since then, a fifth clerk — in the City of Wausau — has also stepped down.

Trueblood attributes part of the churn to recruitment practices that understate the job. Town and village chairs often approach potential clerks by describing the work as little more than taking meeting minutes.

“Then they get into a job, and it’s the elections, it’s all of the financial reporting, the liquor licenses, everything that they have to do — it’s just overwhelming,” she said. “And people who work a full-time job and have families, I don’t know how they do it.”

Voter check-in materials sit on a table during a school board election that affected only part of the Town of Wausau. Turnout remained slow throughout the day.

The pay rarely offsets the demands. In the town of Wausau, the clerk makes $27,628 per year plus a $1,000 mileage stipend, with no benefits. The job can require 10- to 20 hours a week — and far more around elections — covering everything from meeting notices and licenses to payroll and ballot administration.

Other municipalities in Marathon County pay far less. Kelley Blume, the clerk in the town of Marathon who’s also a deputy clerk for the county, earned just over $10,000 for her town role in 2025. During election seasons, she said, the hours stretch late into the night.

When she was first approached for the job about 10 years ago, she said town officials told her it would only be a couple of hours per week.

“It’s not a couple hours,” she said. “I feel bad for all of these new clerks that think it’s going to be easy.”

She is considering stepping down. The added responsibilities have grown heavier each year, she said, and she wants to spend more time with her children and grandchildren.

Waiting for the next name on the ballot

Hunter says she stepped in to preserve something she believes is worth protecting: the idea that elections should be run by people who know the roads and the names on the ballot, who know which farm sits beyond the bend and which houses were built last year. To her, local government isn’t an abstraction. It’s a neighbor answering the phone.

“I do feel local government is critical, and I would hate to see that be taken away from the residents,” Hunter said. “It’s important they have a voice, and it starts at their local government.”

She knows the structure is imperfect, but pride in local control runs deep here, even as the pool of residents willing to shoulder the work grows thinner. Ultimately, she said, the town may have to bend. Communities could share clerks or other services, even if that means loosening borders that have long felt fixed.

She’ll decide later this year whether to run again. If she doesn’t, she said, the town may take another vote on hiring clerks outside of town limits. In the meantime, she has no regrets about stepping up — even if nobody in town seems ready to follow her lead.

“It’s my civic duty,” she said.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Indiana bill would make early ballots traceable to voters

2026-02-23T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

For more than a century, American elections have operated around a simple promise: who you voted for is a secret. But a bill moving through the Indiana legislature would undermine that promise — at least for people who vote early.

House Bill 1359 would let counties have early voters feed their completed ballots directly into a scanning machine instead of placing them in a sealed secrecy envelope. It would then allow those ballots to be scanned starting on the first day of early voting, rather than waiting until closer to Election Day.

On its own, that process isn’t unusual — it’s similar to how ballots are handled at in-person polling places on Election Day. But the bill also authorizes counties to generate a unique identifier connected to each voter during early voting, print that number on the voter’s ballot, and allow officials to retract a scanned ballot if its voter is later found ineligible. That combination weakens the traditional separation between a voter’s identity and the ballot they cast.

Election officials and voting rights advocates argue those changes touch one of the most fundamental protections in modern democracy.

“Voters expect that when they cast a ballot, it is done privately, without the ability of clerks or staff to determine an individual’s actual vote,” Marion County Clerk Kate Sweeney Bell, a Democrat, said in a statement. The public is already “fatigued from political partisanship,” she said, and the additional requirements “will ramp up pressure on our staff and poll workers at the point of highest activity.”

The bill advanced out of committee the same day lawmakers added — without public testimony — an amendment that would reduce Indiana’s early voting period from 28 days to 16. If the measure passes, the changes would take effect before the May primary.

To understand why this matters, it helps to zoom out.

For the first half of American history, votes were cast publicly — often orally or by depositing colored party tickets into transparent containers — so that everyone present, including party operatives, knew exactly how each person voted. As a result, elections were rife with vote-buying, employer coercion, and party surveillance.

That started to change when states began adopting the secret ballot — also called the Australian ballot, after the country that exported the concept to the U.S. — in the 1880s and 1890s. States started printing their own ballots and setting up private voting booths so voters could mark their choices confidentially, fundamentally transforming elections from open spectacles into private acts.

Allowing ballots to be scanned within a system that uses voter-specific identifiers — and making those ballots retractable — is a step back in the opposite direction. Election scholars have long warned that even perceived weakening of ballot secrecy can erode public confidence, regardless of whether misuse occurs.

Support for the proposal has come primarily from Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Tim Wesco, who authored the bill, and Senate Elections Committee Chair Mike Gaskill, who offered the amendment to shorten early voting. Supporters have framed the changes as administrative improvements, arguing they would reduce costs, ease strain on county election offices, and allow for more efficient processing of early ballots.

During committee debate, however, lawmakers did not directly address how the early voting identifier system would affect the longstanding practice of keeping a voter’s identity separate from their ballot choices.

At least one Republican lawmaker, Sen. Greg Walker, voted against the piece because he opposes shortening early voting, citing concerns about its impact on voters in his district. So far, there have been no public reports of Republican lawmakers opposing the early voting identifier provision or raising concerns about its implications for ballot secrecy.

If you have questions about how ballots are handled in your county — or how this proposal would change that — shoot us an email. We want to hear from you.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Maricopa County recorder’s claim of 137 noncitizen voters may be too high

2026-02-19T23:54:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.

Update, Feb. 19: The Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office told Votebeat on Thursday that Recorder Justin Heap’s office had not yet referred any alleged noncitizen voters to them for investigation, contradicting Heap’s announcement. Judy Keane, a spokesperson for Heap, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap claimed last week that his office had identified 137 noncitizens on the county’s voter rolls — but that number may be inflated, as the database he used to arrive at it has a history of inaccuracy.

In a press release, Heap’s office said it identified the noncitizens while attempting to confirm the citizenship status of 61,681 voters impacted by a longstanding state coding error by running them through a digital database maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It said the database confirmed the citizenship of 58,782 of those voters, or 95% of them, but flagged 137, or 0.2%, as noncitizens. Of those, it said 60 had voted in prior elections.

But experts have long warned that the system that the office used — called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE — is unreliable. A ProPublica investigation found that the system provided incorrect information to at least five states. In Texas, election officials in several counties found it had identified people as noncitizens who had already proved their citizenship to the state Department of Public Safety.

It’s unclear whether Maricopa County attempted to weed out false positives from its data. Judy Keane, a spokesperson for the recorder’s office, declined to answer questions about whether staff took any additional steps to confirm the voters’ noncitizenship status beyond running their names through SAVE.

The recorder’s office said it would refer the alleged noncitizens who had previously cast ballots to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. However, on Feb. 19, both offices said they had not yet received those referrals from the recorder’s office. Keane did not immediately respond to a request for comment on why the referrals had not yet been sent.

Calli Jones, a spokesperson for the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, said her office was not aware that county officials were using the SAVE database to identify noncitizens. She added that it was “imperative” for officials to independently research voters’ citizenship status before taking steps to cancel their registration, and said her office will contact the recorder’s office to determine whether those procedures were followed.

The recorder’s office’s announcement came hours after Heap, a Republican, appeared at a news conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in Scottsdale. As a state lawmaker, he aligned with some of the farthest-right members of the Arizona House, and during his 2024 campaign for county recorder, he said there were “inconsistences and illegalities that happened” in prior elections. In last week’s press release, he framed his use of the SAVE system and his collaboration with the federal government as a move to ensure “election integrity.”

But in other states, Republican election officials’ initial estimates of noncitizen voters have often been found to be too high. For example, Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate claimed in October 2024 that he had identified more than 2,000 noncitizens on his state’s voter rolls. Later, that number was revised down to 277. Officials in Texas, Missouri, and other states have been forced to make similar corrections.

“There have been times when a handful of election officials have acted highly politically in order to feed a narrative about fraud, and their claims so far have not withstood even minor scrutiny over time,” said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research. He added that “claims made without transparency about methodology,” like Heap’s, should “be taken with a giant mountain of salt.”

One of the reasons that estimates of noncitizens are often inflated is that false matches are common — often, several voters living in the same state, county, or city have similar names and the same date of birth. Plus, each year, hundreds of thousands of people become naturalized citizens, and they rarely take steps afterward to update their status with various government agencies. And when they do, government systems are often slow to update.

The SAVE system was initially designed in the 1980s to check immigrants’ eligibility for public benefits. In Arizona, election officials have sometimes used it to verify a registrant’s citizenship. State law mandates that county recorders “use all available resources to verify the citizenship status” of those registering to vote without providing a passport, birth certificate, or similar document.

But the system long required specific identification numbers that local officials didn’t have for most voters. It also couldn’t verify the citizenship status of U.S.-born citizens.

That changed last year, when the Department of Homeland Security revamped the tool to add citizenship data for U.S.-born citizens and allow states to upload thousands of names to it at once. However, the rush to turn SAVE into a voter verification tool made it prone to errors, ProPublica reported.

In light of that, Becker said he suspects the recorder’s office’s claim about noncitizens on the voter rolls is “a vast overstatement that will shrink significantly under further scrutiny.”

“Even taking his investigation at face value — which I think is probably questionable — the rate of noncitizen voting in Arizona is minuscule,” Becker said. “I think the recorder just proved that Arizona is doing a great job of keeping noncitizens off its voter lists.”

Sasha Hupka is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Sasha at shupka@votebeat.org.

Gillespie County Republicans scale back hand count amid staffing shortage

2026-02-18T22:23:39+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

Gillespie County Republicans have scrapped plans to hand count all of their 2026 primary ballots after failing to recruit enough workers — at least for early voting. The lack of manpower prompted party officials to vote last week to use the county’s voting equipment to tabulate thousands of ballots expected to be cast during the two weeks before Election Day on March 3.

However, Gillespie Republicans still plan to hand count ballots cast on Election Day, party officials told Votebeat.

The effort has deepened a divide within the county party: Some members wish to ditch electronic voting equipment entirely and hand count all ballots, while others trust that the county’s electronic voting equipment is safe and the process contains appropriate checks and balances. It’s a continuation of a long-running disagreement that began in 2024, when the county party first hand counted primary ballots.

In 2024, Republicans in Gillespie County spent nearly 24 hours on Election Day hand counting more than 8,000 ballots, deploying over 350 workers they’d spent months training and recruiting. Party officials later found tallying errors in 12 of the county’s 13 precincts, but because Texas law does not require a post-election audit of hand-counted ballots, those results were never formally reviewed for accuracy. The hand counting effort cost more than $40,000 — more than five times the roughly $7,000 spent in 2020, when the party used voting machines. Those expenses are ultimately reimbursed by the state.

Bruce Campbell, the chair of the county Republican Party, told Votebeat that since last week’s vote to use the county’s voting equipment to tabulate early votes, county party officials in charge of recruiting workers to count ballots have kept him in the dark about the number of people who have signed up to work on Election Day. Campbell said he doesn’t know how many will show up.

“They think that I’m going to somehow talk [workers] out of hand counting, which would not benefit me at all,” Campbell, who defended the 2024 hand count, said. “I just want the votes counted, and when it didn’t look like we were going to have enough people, I called a meeting and solved the problem.”

Worker shortages expose rift over machines, hand counting

The last time Campbell was given updated figures was at a party executive committee meeting in January, when the precinct chairs informed him that only about 60 people had signed up for a job that requires closer to 200.

Jim Riley, the county’s election administrator, declined a request for comment. He sent an email to the Texas Secretary of State’s Office late last month to say the local Republican party was receiving “little or no response in recruiting and training hand counters” and that some Republican precinct chairs had begun to “object” to the process of hand counting.

“I know this is a local problem and a Party problem. Yet, the splash back will hurt our elections in Gillespie,” he wrote, asking for guidance on how best to ensure votes were counted.

The Secretary of State’s Office told Votebeat they responded to Riley’s request for guidance via phone call, and declined further comment.

In 2024, the office sent election inspectors to monitor Gillespie County’s hand count, but no post-election audit was conducted because state law does not require audits of ballots counted by hand. This year, one inspector will observe part of early voting and two will be there on Election Day, according to the agency.

Texas law does require a bipartisan post-election audit of machine-counted ballots in a random sampling of precincts. But Gillespie Republicans say they plan to go further, voluntarily hand recounting all ballots cast in the election whether they were initially counted by hand or by machine — a step that would require recruiting many of the same volunteers a second time.

Party officials have not released details about how that recount would work. But unlike in 2024, this year’s ballots were designed to be scanned by a tabulator if needed, allowing results to be verified without organizing another full hand count. It’s unclear if party officials will take that step.

In 2024, the old ballot design meant results could only be counted — and recounted — by hand. Without a scannable paper trail, there was no practical way to independently verify the outcome without organizing another full hand count, so the 2024 results were never formally audited or otherwise checked for accuracy. This year, the ballots can be run through voting machines, a decision Riley told the Secretary of State’s Office he made because he “anticipated the collapse potential” of the hand count.

In the same email to the state, Riley described a chaotic internal debate within the county GOP. During a Zoom call held the day he sent the email, he wrote, party leaders acknowledged the mounting problems but disagreed about how to move forward — and some did not show up at all. “I didn’t expect the childish behavior of these folks,” he writes.

That meeting described in Riley’s email was the precursor for last week’s vote to count the early voting ballots electronically instead. The vote passed 7-3, Campbell said.

In September, Campbell sent the party’s 13 precinct chairs — local elected party officials tasked with staffing polling locations — contact information for all 355 workers who’d counted ballots in 2024. Campbell said the recruitment effort by precinct chairs wasn’t done early enough and there was little interest among hand counters for returning this year.

“People weren’t signing up like they did last time for whatever reason, so if we don’t have enough people, we need to be responsible,” said Campbell.

Lack of responsibility in this context has consequences. Texas law requires that ballots be counted within 24 hours after polls close. If a county’s results are not reported to the state within that window, party officials from that county could face a misdemeanor charge. They could also be subject to lawsuits from candidates contesting the results.

But not everyone in the party shares Campbell’s worries. David Treibs, a Republican precinct chair and vocal opponent of electronic tabulation, opposed the move to count the ballots electronically. He said he hasn’t heard of any candidates on the ballot concerned about the hand count, and told Votebeat he’s not worried about legal fallout if the count isn’t done by the state-mandated deadline.

“Nobody’s gone to jail yet over this,” Treibs said. “I don’t think anybody’s going to sue either, unless they want to make an example out of this.”

He also rejected assertions that the party’s recruitment efforts were unsuccessful.

“We were on track” to have enough workers, he told Votebeat. “I believe strongly that that was not the real issue. They just wanted to flip us back to machines.”

Each of the county’s 13 precincts will need a minimum of three election workers to help supervise the polling location and help check in voters, and a minimum of three additional people to hand count the ballots. The county’s two largest precincts would require between 3-5 teams of people to hand count.

Triebs said he doesn’t know how many workers the party has recruited. His precinct — precinct 13 — is fully staffed. But Triebs said it won’t matter if they don’t get the numbers they’re expecting — they’ll just take longer to count the ballots.

“It’s not like they’re going to shred all the ballots if we’re not done on time. Of course not. That’s ridiculous. That’s not going to happen, “ Treibs said. “The ballots will be counted, so that’s not the issue.”

Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Natalia is based in Corpus Christi. Contact her at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Chat: What lies ahead for redistricting and the Voting Rights Act?

2026-02-17T19:12:02+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

Welcome to a new occasional feature at Votebeat: a chat with Votebeat staffers and outside experts on hot topics in elections. Today, we’re chatting about redistricting with Harvard Law School professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, co-founder of the redistricting website PlanScore, and Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, who runs the website All About Redistricting. The transcript below has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Nathaniel Rakich (managing editor, Votebeat): Redistricting usually happens in years ending in -1 and -2, as congressional districts are resized to account for the most recent population data from the U.S. Census (which happens at the start of every decade). But over the past year, several states have broken with precedent and decided to redraw their congressional districts in the middle of the decade.

Facing pressure from President Donald Trump to shore up Republicans’ chances in the 2026 midterms, Republicans in Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina redrew their congressional maps to add more safe Republican seats. In response, Democrats successfully got a ballot measure passed to override California’s independent redistricting commission to add more safe Democratic seats, and they are currently attempting to pass new maps out of Virginia and Maryland as well. Two other states, Utah and Ohio, have also redrawn their congressional maps this cycle, but because they were legally obligated to.

First, let’s establish how weird this is. How unprecedented is it for this many states to draw new congressional districts mid-decade?

Nicholas Stephanopoulos (professor, Harvard Law School): It’s totally unprecedented in the modern era. You have to go back to the Gilded Age to see this much discretionary redrawing of maps.

Justin Levitt (professor, Loyola Law School): Agreed. Individual states have done this before, but not in the context of a national partisan war.

Carrie Levine (editor-in-chief, Votebeat): Is it possible to gauge whether this is an unusual blip, or whether it’s going to be the new normal?

Justin Levitt: I think it’s the new normal unless an adult in the room steps in.

Congress could fix this ... tomorrow.

The Supreme Court could fix this.

If they don’t, the war continues.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: I agree. Now that this genie is out of the bottle, there’s no incentive for legislators to forgo this redistricting technique.

Witness Democrats’ glee at the prospect of squeezing 10 blue seats out of Virginia’s 11 districts.

Justin Levitt: I’ll add that the gerrymandering we’ve seen so far is relatively restrained, crazy as that sounds. California could have gone much bigger.

There’s no federal law saying that districts have to be connected to each other. If California Democrats had wanted to put Riverside in the same district as San Francisco, or Humboldt County in with West Hollywood, they could have.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Exactly. Why not draw a district in Illinois made up of two noncontiguous bubbles — one in Chicago, the other hundreds of miles downstate.

Justin Levitt: If they wanted to spell out an obscenity and the name of a political figure, that’s available. As bad as things are, the wasteland on the other side could be even more severe.

Carrie Levine: Sort of like runners who map out their routes to make interesting shapes on Strava?

Justin Levitt: Exactly. But screwing with democracy in the process.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: There’s also not much evidence that map-drawers are using statistical algorithms to maximize their partisan advantage. But that could be harnessed to win more seats in some places.

Nathaniel Rakich: Wowzer. I mean, I think most people would agree something like non-contiguous districts are beyond the pale. Do you think that kind of thing could actually impel Congress or the Supreme Court to step in?

So far, they’ve shown little interest in doing so.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: I don’t think anything could change the mind of the current Supreme Court, which seems to see partisan gerrymandering as normal and good. (Most recently, they declined to block California’s new map in an order earlier this month.)

Justin Levitt: Yep. It’s hard to root for states to violate the Constitution. But if California was going to wade into this fight, I wanted them to go all out ... in part to inspire Congress to set reasonable rules.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: I also think aggressive gerrymanders by Democrats are helping Republicans realize that both sides can play this game — Republicans aren’t guaranteed to have the advantage in a gerrymandering war, as they did in the 2010s when they controlled more state governments.

There was a time when ending partisan gerrymandering wasn’t a partisan issue. Former President Ronald Reagan deplored it. In the 1986 case Davis v. Bandemer, the Republican National Committee sided with Indiana Democrats in asking the Supreme Court to strike down a new map as a partisan gerrymander, while the Democratic National Committee told the court to stay out of this area.

And the justices in Bandemer crossed ideological lines in their positions. It’s only from the 2000s onward that the reform position came to be associated with Democrats.

But successful gerrymanders by Democrats could make Republicans more willing to consider federal action. For instance, Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — who is very likely going to lose his seat because of the new map — has now proposed legislation to ban mid-decade redistricting. Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey of Texas has proposed a bill to do the same thing.

Carrie Levine: Going back to the Supreme Court for a minute … When the court ruled in 2019 (in the case Rucho v. Common Cause) that federal courts aren’t the right place for partisan gerrymandering claims, do you think the court meant for there to be no limit to partisan gerrymandering whatsoever?

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: If the court isn’t bothered by a 48D-4R map in California, or a 10D-1R map in Virginia, I think nothing will offend it.

Except maybe a large Democratic advantage in the aggregate, like in the ’70s and ’80s!

Justin Levitt: Agreed. Rucho was the perfect opportunity for the court to rein in partisan gerrymandering in an even-handed way (or to not get involved and just let lower courts do their thing). There was an obvious Republican gerrymander and an obvious Democratic gerrymander before the court at the same time. And the court chose cowardice.

It’s no more interested in wading in today than it was seven years ago.

Carrie Levine: What does all this mean for the push to create more independent redistricting commissions?

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: That’s a great option for state legislative and local redistricting.

Justin Levitt: Agreed. I think that’s on pause for congressional redistricting for now.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Redistricting commissions for congressional districts are concerning if done piecemeal due to the possibility of partisan asymmetry — for example, if all the blue states adopt fair maps via commissions while red states gerrymander.

Back in 2022, I wrote a column worrying about redistricting commissions in blue states, so I’ve been beating this drum for a while.

Justin Levitt: On the other hand, commissions aren’t totally dead, even for congressional districts — because they really do draw fair maps, which voters appreciate.

The California ballot measure that passed last year was carefully worded. It didn’t repeal California’s commission; it just paused it until after the 2030 census.

Nathaniel Rakich: Yeah, but are they really going to go back to using the commission? As you guys noted, the genie is out of the bottle. Are Democrats in California and Virginia really going to voluntarily sacrifice several Democratic-held House seats in the 2032 election?

Justin Levitt: Not without Congress putting rules in place to govern congressional redistricting across the country. But that could happen.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Yeah, congressional action seems really far away right now — but all it would take is a Democratic trifecta with a little wiggle room in 2029.

University of California Los Angeles law professor Joseph Fishkin has proposed pairing redistricting reform with expanding the House, which I think is a great combination. Then there’s no need to sacrifice California or Virginia Democrats!

Carrie Levine: Do you think a Democratic trifecta is likely to make that sort of change a priority?

Justin Levitt: Democracy reform will absolutely be a priority. Court reform could be well up there on the menu too.

Democracy reform was also a priority for Democrats in 2022, but their legislation to outlaw partisan gerrymandering and shore up voting rights couldn’t make it past a Republican filibuster in the Senate. (They were also two votes shy of advancing the package by changing filibuster rules, but lacked the support of former Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema — who aren’t around anymore.)

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Yeah, I think this is like item 1 or item 2 on the Democratic agenda (the other biggie being guaranteeing access to abortion nationwide).

I don’t know exactly what shape electoral reform would take in this scenario, but I’m reasonably confident that Democrats would do something. They’re very, very aware of this issue, and I think the intra-party debate has largely been won by the reformers.

Nathaniel Rakich: Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. The Supreme Court is currently considering Louisiana v. Callais, a case over Louisiana’s congressional map that could overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 law that bans racial discrimination in voting. (I should note that both Justin and Nicholas submitted amicus curiae briefs in the case.)

In the redistricting context, Section 2 of the VRA requires states to draw districts that give minority voters the opportunity to elect their preferred candidate whenever practicable. But if the Supreme Court strikes it down, dozens of predominantly Black and Latino districts across the country could be eliminated.

What’s your guys’ read on that case? What are the range of possible outcomes here?

Justin Levitt: It’s a HUGE range. From nothingburger to effectively declaring a portion of the Constitution unconstitutional.

I like to remind folks that, in 2023, we were awaiting similar potentially giant news in Allen v. Milligan (another case that threatened the VRA) and Moore v. Harper (a case that could have ended state judicial review of congressional redistricting) — and the court backed away from the cliff’s edge in both cases.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: I still find it so, so objectionable that this is the potential vehicle for hobbling the VRA.

Justin Levitt: Yeah, Nick, Callais should have been the easiest case ever. I still think it’s the easiest case ever. Justice Clarence Thomas thinks so too, but in exactly the opposite direction, and that’s made it weird.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Callais is a constitutional racial gerrymandering case! It’s not a VRA case! The VRA is only relevant as a potential justification for the district in Louisiana that’s being challenged. (The 6th District, which was redrawn in 2024 to be predominantly Black after the Supreme Court maintained the status quo for VRA claims in Allen v. Milligan.)

But Louisiana is no longer offering that justification. It will just take the court so many contortions to reach the issue of the VRA’s constitutionality here.

And there are several actual VRA cases floating around. So I really don’t know why this is the big one.

Carrie Levine: So where does that leave us on this unusually complicated case? Are there any tea leaves to read?

Justin Levitt: There are nine people who know what the court will do in Callais. And I’m not one of them.

As Nick says, the question should have been whether Louisiana drew its lines predominantly based on race or predominantly based on politics. And literally all of the evidence says that it drew its lines predominantly based on politics.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: The fact that the case was reargued — i.e., it was originally part of the court’s 2024-2025 term, but the court wanted to hear it again — is the biggest tea leaf. The court didn’t need to do that to decide the racial gerrymandering issue, and the court’s (read: Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s) focus at the reargument was on the “temporal” critique of Section 2 of the VRA — the idea that it’s somehow outdated or obsolete.

Oral argument was also a bit of a mess, but Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts all said things that suggested skepticism of the current interpretation of the VRA.

I also want to flag the U.S. solicitor general’s devious proposal in Callais.

The solicitor general says, “Hey, no need to strike down Section 2 — just add one teensie new requirement for plaintiffs: that their sample maps achieve states’ political objectives.” Like advantaging a certain party.

That one little tweak would effectively doom just about every Section 2 case. Because the new predominantly nonwhite district required by a successful Section 2 case would essentially always change the political composition of the map. So if the state just says it wants to maintain that political composition, the plaintiff would lose.

Justin Levitt: The court could take a few different statutory interpretation paths that look small but practically would be really really big. That’s one of them. And, as Nick said above, absolutely none of them are necessary to decide this case.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: I can see the court’s conservatives being drawn to the solicitor general’s proposal because its impact would be so huge — but it would seem much more modest than a sweeping ruling declaring the VRA unconstitutional.

Justin Levitt: The only mild blessing in a statutory interpretation decision is that Congress could adjust the statute in response.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: More provisions for the 2029 omnibus election reform bill!

Justin Levitt: Yep. And that would also unquestionably be on the menu for a democracy-friendly Congress.

Carrie Levine: So we’re back to a huge range of options in terms of how the justices could rule, and the potential effects.

Justin Levitt: Correct.

And as with redistricting commissions, it’s really important not to focus only on Congress when discussing Callais. The biggest impact of an adverse VRA decision would be on local government.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: At least last year (before reargument), my guess was that the court would just strike down the challenged Louisiana district as a racial gerrymander, in which case Louisiana would have to draw a different, less funny-looking Black-opportunity district, and the case wouldn’t affect any other states.

Nathaniel Rakich: Same.

Justin Levitt: And that would have been one of the other easy outcomes!

The district Louisiana drew after the Supreme Court upheld the VRA in Milligan wasn’t even close to the district plaintiffs were asking for.

Nathaniel Rakich: Basically the exact same district got struck down in the ’90s for being a racial gerrymander.

Justin Levitt: And/but the reason this time was different.

The reason this time was to preserve a bunch of Republican-held seats, including Speaker Mike Johnson’s.

Nathaniel Rakich: It would have been very easy to draw a more compact second Black-opportunity district. It’s just that doing so would’ve endangered Republican Rep. Julia Letlow, which Republicans didn’t want to do.

Justin Levitt: Right. WHICH IS WHY IT WAS PREDOMINANTLY POLITICS.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Well, if she wins a Senate seat they can do that!

Justin Levitt: Sorry — this case makes me shout.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: And very little makes Justin mad. 😉

Carrie Levine: Well, given the reargument, everyone has had a lot of time to get worked up about it.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: I want to flag the historical context here, too. A maximal Callais decision — one in which the Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 — could lead to the biggest drop in minority representation in Congress since the end of Reconstruction. So the stakes are pretty high.

Justin Levitt: A maximal Callais decision would also declare the 15th Amendment unconstitutional.

Which is a pretty nifty trick. And would be really hard to write.

(That’s in part why I’m guessing the majority of the court won’t go there. Leaving Thomas once again to write for himself.)

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: The court’s conservatives seem to believe this narrative that Section 2 of the VRA is this all-powerful sword that plaintiffs are using left and right to draw new maps. One of the goals of my amicus brief was to show how wrong this narrative is.

Justin Levitt: Yeah, Thomas in particular has this stereotyped view that it’s easy to win Section 2 cases. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Most Section 2 cases lose, and the vast, vast majority of district maps are never challenged (let alone struck down) on this basis. The court’s conservatives are over-indexing based on a tiny number of cases in the Deep South.

Nathaniel Rakich: You guys mentioned that there are other VRA cases still floating out there — including a few on whether private citizens have the right to sue over the VRA, as well as VRA-based challenges to the congressional maps in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas. What happens to those cases after Callais?

Justin Levitt: Some of them might continue on, some of them might change course, some of them might stop dead. Depends entirely on what the court decides, and how it decides, in Callais.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: At least some of those cases — like the ones in North Carolina and Texas — also didn’t look likely to win anyway, I think.

Justin Levitt: Oh, we might agree to disagree on Texas.

North Carolina was a much harder case. Texas had an awful lot of evidence stacked up. (At least in some parts of the state.)

Carrie Levine: Does the fact that those cases are in limbo tell us anything important?

Justin Levitt: I’m not sure how much to make of that fact, Carrie. The Supreme Court often holds cases that seem related to something they’re considering even when the result isn’t all that significant.

There were a bunch of cases held for Allen v. Milligan two years ago, and that decision didn’t change the law at all.

And people forget Milligan also upheld the constitutionality of the VRA! (Again, this case makes me shout.)

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Yeah, an additional crazy thing is that the court just addressed the operation of the VRA two years ago, in Milligan. Nothing has changed since then! Not even the court’s composition.

Justin Levitt: RIGHT.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: It really supports the most cynical views of the court — i.e., that it upheld the status quo in Milligan because the court wanted to avoid another big race-related blockbuster that term (the other being the case that struck down race-based affirmative action at most colleges).

Nathaniel Rakich: When are you guys expecting a decision in Callais? And what’s the latest that we could get a ruling and still have it affect the 2026 elections?

Justin Levitt: If the court is planning to make significant changes to the VRA, my money’s on a decision in late June. It’s going to be hard to write, and there will be some vigorous responses.

If it essentially just says “stick with current law,” could be any day now.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: One slightly humorous question is whether a dissenter can unilaterally delay the decision so it’s less likely to affect this election. I think the answer is yes.

I can imagine Justice Elena Kagan coming up with all kinds of excuses for why she’s not done with her opinion yet. “Sorry, guys, my computer crashed.” “I had to travel for a while.” “You almost convinced me, but then I went back to dissenting.”

Justin Levitt: And all of that means that if the decision is a big deal — and it might not be! — the court is likely to rule too late to affect any districts in 2026.

Nathaniel Rakich: Right, because candidate filing deadlines will have already passed by late June — and many states will even have held their primaries by then.

Carrie Levine: So does that mean that the longer this takes, the more likely it’s a big deal? Or not necessarily?

Justin Levitt: Not necessarily. The reverse is true — it only comes quickly if it’s not a big deal. But a late opinion could be big potatoes or small potatoes.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: I agree. Because reaffirming the status quo is also very controversial in this area. Milligan took forever but just reaffirmed the status quo.

Nathaniel Rakich: Right, the same point about a dilatory dissenter holds if liberals are in the majority. It could be Thomas or Alito who drags his feet.

Carrie Levine: And sometimes, the justices’ thinking evolves through the process of writing rulings, right? (And dissents and concurrences.)

Justin Levitt: 100%.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Although I tend to think that happens more in less familiar, less ideologically charged cases.

Nathaniel Rakich: OK, this has been a great discussion! We’ve already covered a lot of ground, but do you guys have any closing thoughts before we wrap — either on Callais or redistricting at large?

Justin Levitt: I’d just make the point that a party can’t fully insulate itself from electoral backlash through redistricting.

Redistricting is a seawall. It stops modest tides. An electoral tsunami comes in right over top of that seawall.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: I like to mention (1) state voting rights acts and (2) multi-member districts with proportional representation.

Justin Levitt: Both super important.

And both available to the states (at least for the state legislature) without any congressional action.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: State VRAs are a big new trend (in blue states at least), and they go well beyond the federal VRA. They might be the wave of the future after Callais, or they might be imperiled by Callais.

And as my colleague Guy Charles stresses, proportional representation may be the only route forward for proponents of minority voting rights if Callais neuters the VRA.

Compared to race-conscious districting, proportional representation has the big advantage that it achieves even greater minority representation without any race-based lines at all.

Carrie Levine: That’s so interesting! We may need to have a whole second separate chat on it.

Nathaniel Rakich: Haha, we’ll have to have you guys back. Thanks so much for joining us!

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos is the Kirkland & Ellis professor of law at Harvard Law School and the co-founder of the redistricting website PlanScore. Contact Nicholas at nstephanopoulos@law.harvard.edu.

Justin Levitt is a professor of law and the Gerald T. McLaughlin Fellow at Loyola Law School. He runs the website All About Redistricting. Contact Justin at justin.levitt@lls.edu.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

What if everyone had to prove their citizenship to register to vote?

2026-02-16T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

Presidents’ Day is always the hardest holiday to shop for; it’s hard to know what to get the president in your life. But the U.S. House of Representatives got President Donald Trump exactly what he wanted when it passed the SAVE America Act on Wednesday.

The act, which passed with the support of all 217 House Republicans but only one Democrat, is a centerpiece of Trump’s agenda to exercise more federal oversight over elections and prevent illegal voting, which is already very rare. It’s essentially version 2.0 of the SAVE Act, which passed the House last year.

Like its predecessor, the SAVE America Act would require people who are registering to vote to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship. (Currently, new registrants only have to attest under penalty of perjury that they are citizens.) This version of the bill also adds a photo ID requirement for voters and requires states to run their voter rolls through the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database to scan for noncitizens. All provisions of the bill would take effect immediately upon enactment.

But enactment is unlikely. The filibuster rule effectively means that legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate, and Republicans hold only a 53-47 majority in the upper chamber. Some Republicans are pushing to turn the filibuster from a procedural formality into a literal requirement that Democrats hold the floor and talk indefinitely in order to block the bill, which could allow the bill to pass with a simple majority if Democrats run out of steam. But that would derail the Senate for weeks, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune isn’t making encouraging noises.

If the bill does somehow become law, though, it would dramatically shake up how the 2026 elections run. Only three states currently require all newly registering voters to prove their citizenship, and 27 states don’t require photo IDs to vote, so the bill would suddenly impose new requirements on millions of Americans.

And there are serious questions about whether it’s even practically possible to implement them all in time for the midterm elections. Election officials are sounding the alarm about how the bill would force them to build out entirely new procedures without the time or money to do so.

The SAVE America Act could stymie potential voters

The proof-of-citizenship requirement in particular would be a hassle for potential voters and election officials alike. According to a 2023 survey conducted by SSRS on behalf of the University of Maryland and three voting-rights groups, 9% of voting-age citizens don’t have easy access to a document that proves their citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization certificate.

Even people with the correct paperwork could be confused or inconvenienced too. Several election officials have compared a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the Transportation Security Administration’s slow rollout of REAL ID requirements. That policy was repeatedly delayed amid confusion over what documents were necessary to get a REAL ID and bottlenecks at driver’s license agencies.

The SAVE America Act would also effectively neuter the option to register to vote by mail or online, since new registrants would have to show up in person with their documentation.

In states that have already tried to implement proof-of-citizenship requirements, many eligible voters ended up getting disenfranchised. After Kansas started requiring proof of citizenship in 2013, 31,089 people were unable to register because they couldn’t prove their citizenship. That amounted to 12% of all the people who tried to register to vote in Kansas during that period. By contrast, the state could identify only 39 confirmed noncitizens who had registered to vote in the previous 14 years.

A court struck down Kansas’ proof-of-citizenship law in 2018.

An election administration ‘nightmare’

“This is bad for voters, but this will be a nightmare for election administrators,” Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, told Votebeat.

Multiple election officials said that adding document verification to their already very full plates was a logistical burden that they were not prepared to assume. Many felt that it was simply not possible to implement a proof-of-citizenship requirement in time for the midterms, especially since the SAVE America Act does not provide them with additional funding to, for example, hire more staff to review documents.

“We are going to have significant challenges training all of our clerks and registrars to uniformly verify citizenship,” said Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat. “We will have to create the training from scratch, and we don’t have the personnel to travel to all 487 municipalities [in Maine] to make sure that they’re doing it right.”

“If Congress wants to do this,” she said, “they should give the states the proper runway of multiple years and millions of dollars of funding per state.”

Justin Riemer, the president of the group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, which has advocated for proof-of-citizenship requirements, was more optimistic that states were up to the task. “States will undoubtedly have to move very quickly to implement this legislation,” he said, “but there is precedent, as states did [quickly change their voting procedures] during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Riemer pointed out that a plurality of new voters already register through their state department of motor vehicles, whose staffs are already well trained in document verification thanks to the REAL ID requirements.

A proof-of-citizenship requirement would undeniably cost election officials more time and money, though. According to a social media post by Bob Page, the registrar of voters in Orange County, California, the county conducted an analysis last year of what it would have taken to prove the citizenship of the 633,568 people who registered to vote or updated their voter registration in 2024. The study found that, at an average of 10 minutes per applicant whose documentation needed to be verified, the county would have needed to hire 59 additional staffers at a cost of $6 million.

And according to a report from the Campaign Legal Center, proof-of-citizenship laws cost Kansas and Arizona (one of the three states where the requirement is currently in place) millions of dollars — in additional staffing, voter-education efforts, system upgrades, fixing errors, and defending against lawsuits over the requirements.

Ultimately, as long as the filibuster remains in place in the Senate, the SAVE America Act has little chance of becoming law before the midterms.

But that may be the point: The bill wasn’t introduced with the goal of making elections run more smoothly; it was introduced to make the point that elections aren’t as secure as they could be. If, as expected, the bill fails and voters don’t have to prove their citizenship or show photo ID in 2026, it could make it easier for Trump and his allies to claim that the results are tainted by fraud. That could be a different type of nightmare scenario.

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

Votebeat editor-in-chief Carrie Levine contributed.

Kristi Noem’s hastily-arranged Arizona visit stokes rumors in wake of feds’ unprecedented actions

2026-02-13T22:36:16+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made a hastily-scheduled appearance in Arizona on Friday to push for federal legislation that would institute photo identification and proof of citizenship requirements for voters nationwide.

The announcement that Noem was planning to hold a press conference about “election security” at an undisclosed location in Maricopa County sparked rumors, ultimately baseless, about the purpose of her visit and whether it signaled an election investigation. Her press conference was scheduled to be held just hours before her agency was set to run out of funding and face a partial shutdown.

Ultimately, her focus on the SAVE America Act highlighted the emphasis that President Donald Trump’s administration is placing on the legislation, which just passed the U.S. House of Representatives but faces a difficult path in the U.S. Senate.

Materials initially distributed to journalists announcing the event contained few details — just that Noem would be joined by local leaders to discuss election security.

The announcement came as the Trump administration has been taking increasingly aggressive steps on elections. The Federal Bureau of Investigation recently conducted an unprecedented search of an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, another critical election battleground. Last week, Trump said Republicans “ought to nationalize the voting.” The Justice Department is also suing Arizona for its unredacted voter rolls, one of 25 such lawsuits that it has filed against states and Washington, D.C..

As word of the event began to spread locally, supervisors in Maricopa County called an emergency, closed-door meeting to receive “legal advice” about their “authority and responsibilities regarding election administration.” Jason Berry, a county spokesperson, declined to confirm whether the sudden session on Thursday afternoon was related to Noem’s planned visit.

Meanwhile, election officials statewide told Votebeat that Noem’s visit caught them by surprise, and that they hadn’t been briefed on it.

Reporters who had RSVPed to attend the event were notified late Thursday that they should report to a DHS office in Phoenix. They would then be taken by shuttle to an undisclosed location with limited cell service and no Internet access, per the message.

That location turned out to be an office building for Homeland Security Investigations in Scottsdale, located about 30 minutes from the meeting point in Phoenix. Journalists were transported in unmarked government SUVs, and upon arrival, waited more than an hour for Noem to take the podium.

When she did, she asserted that it was “a fact” that noncitizens were voting in elections, and added that the SAVE America Act was “absolutely critical to our country’s future.” She was joined at the event by several GOP officials from Arizona, including U.S. Rep. Eli Crane, U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar, Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap, and others.

Evidence overwhelmingly shows that noncitizen voting is rare. Arizona already requires its voters to show photo identification at the polls and to provide proof of citizenship — such as a birth certificate or passport — in order to register to vote in state and local races. Voters can register to cast ballots in federal elections without showing such documents, but must still attest to their citizenship status under penalty of perjury.

Later, Noem blasted Arizona’s election processes and procedures, saying it needs “more improvement” than any other state.

“Your state has been an absolute disaster on elections,” she said. “Your leaders have failed you dramatically, by not having systems that work, by disenfranchising Americans who wanted to vote, that had to stand in lines for hours, because machines failed or software failed.”

Those remarks drew quick condemnation from top state officials. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, accused Noem of “grandstanding” and “spreading misinformation.” Calli Jones, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s Office, said that Noem had not reached out to Fontes to meet with him about election security during her visit.

“Don’t come into Arizona there from Washington, D.C., and tell us how to run our elections,” Fontes said in a taped statement responding to Noem’s comments. “We’re doing just fine without you, thank you very much.”

Sasha Hupka is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Sasha at shupka@votebeat.org.

What’s next for Liberty Vote, the company formerly known as Dominion?

2026-02-12T20:47:21+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

CONCORD, N.H. — On a freezing December day, Liberty Vote executive Robert Giles sat before the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission to answer questions about a familiar company operating under an unfamiliar name.

Until October, the company had been Dominion Voting Systems — one of just two vendors certified to sell voting systems in the state. Then, it was sold to a former election official named Scott Leiendecker and rebranded as Liberty Vote. State regulators required to sign off on changes wanted to know more about who and what, exactly, they were signing off on.

As one ballot law commission member pointed out, in New Hampshire, “when we give somebody a liquor license for a little restaurant, they have to go through quite a bit of a background check before we’re able to provide that. So I think we’d like to know a little bit more.”

Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, said he and others had “some really hard questions” for the company. A commission member had a fundamental one.

“Why did he acquire this company?” he asked, referring to Leiendecker.

“You would have to ask him that question,” Giles replied.

They would hardly be the first. Election officials have been wrestling with that question since the announcement that Leiendecker — who previously had founded a major electronic pollbook company — had purchased Dominion. The purchase immediately vaulted the former Republican election official from St. Louis, little known to the public, into one of the most powerful players in American elections. Whether he can stabilize a company that provides voting systems to roughly a quarter of the country — and has been battling conspiracy theories since 2020 — is an open question.

‘I felt I needed to do something about it’

In a January interview with Votebeat, Leiendecker said Dominion had a good product, employees, and customer base but needed a new owner who understood and cared about election technology and elections — an area where he has a long track record. “I felt I needed to do something about it. So, you know, here we are.”

He also said that he wondered, “if not me, then who would?”

That’s a good question, too. Dominion came with considerable baggage. In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, President Donald Trump and his allies alleged Dominion systems deleted or switched votes, but no evidence emerged to support that. The claims were repeatedly debunked, including by Republican officials. Fox News, Newsmax, and former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani settled defamation claims brought by the company, in Fox News’ case for $787 million.

But the false allegations hurt business, the company said, and some places canceled or rescinded contracts and selected other vendors. In 2023, after the Fox settlement, Dominion’s former CEO told Time that the allegations had “basically put us into a death spiral” and said a customer had described it “as the most demonized brand in the United States.”

Dominion was a distressed business, Leiendecker acknowledged in December to the St. Louis Business Journal. But in the interview with Votebeat, he stressed that he believes there’s a path forward, despite the challenges. “Can we turn this around? And I believe that we can,” he said, adding that he’s received a lot of encouragement from election officials.

There are big challenges, as well as signs Trump administration officials continue to focus on election equipment in general and Dominion specifically. Since returning to the White House, Trump has continued to rage against voting machines. In addition, officials reportedly contacted local officials in Colorado and Missouri, unsuccessfully asking to examine Dominion equipment used in the 2020 election. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence took custody of voting equipment in Puerto Rico last year. And the White House has said the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is expected to deliver a report on the cybersecurity of voting systems.

Leiendecker said Liberty Vote has not directly heard from officials with the departments of Justice or Homeland Security regarding the planned cybersecurity report or any requests to review the company’s equipment.

He’s happy to answer questions from people with concerns, he says, but he hopes that if election officials and others prove the system is secure, people will listen. “Our election officials do a great job. They know what they’re doing,” he said. He said he hopes the public will be reassured by learning more about the checks in place, such as, for example, paper ballots that can be audited and checked against machine counts to ensure they are accurate, and also said the election process needs to be as transparent as possible.

As for Trump’s views, Leiendecker chooses his words carefully. “The president, you know, has an opinion, and he has a very big opinion when it comes to it, right?” he said. “His views need to be heard, obviously, but I hope that he listens to” election officials.

‘Can we turn this around?’

Dominion was hardly the first election technology company to get consolidated into another one, including after controversy. In 2003, for example, Diebold’s CEO, a fundraiser for former President George W. Bush, said he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year,” sparking worries about whether the machines could be trusted; he later called his comments a “huge mistake.”

There was ultimately no evidence of wrongdoing in connection with the company’s equipment, but that and other issues prompted it to sell its voting machine division. Many of those Diebold assets ultimately went to Dominion.

“Now we jump ahead to Trump’s time, and now the Republicans think that the same system that was created by Diebold that was then sold to Dominion is now going to rig votes against them and for Democrats,” said Terry Burton, the co-director of the Wood County Board of Elections in Ohio.

“And now that it’s been sold again, now we’re starting to see the first vestiges of the swing back.”

Burton was referring to the focus on Leiendecker’s Republican background after he acquired Dominion. The press release announcing the company’s sale described it as “a bold and historic move to transform and improve election integrity in America” and echoed language used by Trump and other conservatives, including calls for hand-marked paper ballots.

The announcement — managed by a Republican-aligned communications firm and hastily put together (Leiendecker had expected to have more time) — sparked full-throated fears that the company was now an arm of the Republican Party. As a result, some expressed concern that the left would start embracing conspiracy theories about the company previously pushed by the far right.

At the time, Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, told Votebeat that clerks were initially “very upset” about the announcement’s tone and the initial uncertainty about what might change. Some Colorado clerks issued public statements, and Crane arranged a meeting for clerks to talk through the changeover with Leiendecker. Since then, Leiendecker has followed up individually with many of them, and tensions have “calmed down,” Crane said.

Leiendecker says he hadn’t expected the response and doesn’t think of himself as partisan. He stressed his long track record in the election technology business and as a former election official, pointing out he understands and has worked to meet the challenges of the profession. He also stressed the positive responses he’s gotten as he’s spoken to election officials.

People in the industry said the launch complicated an already fraught and closely watched sale. Mark Lindeman, the policy and strategy director for Verified Voting, a nonprofit organization that tracks voting equipment use, said he was also distressed to see news coverage around the sale of Dominion focus on Leiendecker’s partisan background.

“Our judgments should not be based on our gut feelings about the politics of anyone involved in the companies. It’s just not a reasonable way to go,” he said. “We have to look at performance. So that’s why we have voting system certification, that’s why we have pre-election testing. That’s why we have post-election audits, right? I hate to see this continued swerve into partisan speculation.”

Leiendecker says existing wells of trust from his long track record in elections and past work helped him recover from the rocky rollout: His other company, KNOWiNK, is the country’s leading manufacturer of electronic pollbooks, the systems used to check in voters at polling places, and the company’s pollbook was the first to be certified by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

As of the November 2024 election, Dominion provided election equipment to more than a quarter of registered voters in the U.S., according to Verified Voting — more than all but one other vendor, Election Systems and Software. Together, Leiendecker’s two companies provide election equipment to thousands of jurisdictions led by officials from both parties.

Among those publicly vouching for him: Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, a Democrat who said Leiendecker was responsive and attentive as the head of KNOWiNK when Nevada transitioned to a new voter registration management system.

Leiendecker says election officials seem relieved to know Liberty Vote has a new, committed owner and encouraging about its plans for the future, though he’s assured them that little or nothing is changing immediately. In 2026, Liberty Vote’s focus is making sure the midterms run smoothly for clients, he said.

Plans include federal certification for new voting system

Leiendecker is slowly settling in and figuring out ways to streamline the work his companies are doing.

Liberty Vote is still headquartered in Denver, where Dominion was based. KNOWiNK is headquartered in Leiendecker’s home base of St. Louis and will remain a separate company, Leiendecker said, though he said technology staff members at the two companies will be looking for ways to make the products work more seamlessly together.

Liberty Vote recently hired former Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman, a Republican who was also a senior election security adviser at the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, to handle government affairs. It also hired a firm with strong Missouri ties earlier this month to lobby the federal government on election security, federal lobbying disclosures show; a Liberty Vote spokesman said it “will support our ongoing work to serve election officials nationwide and advance the future of American elections.”

In late November, Liberty Vote submitted a system, called Frontier 1.0, to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission for certification under the latest set of voluntary voting system guidelines approved by the agency, a set of standards widely referred to as VVSG 2.0. The submitted system is a version of Dominion equipment currently in use, but updated to meet the criteria of the newer guidelines, company officials said.

The submission is an important benchmark for the company, since many jurisdictions planning to purchase new equipment will want it to meet the most recent set of federal guidelines, or be in the process of getting certified under those guidelines (the company is also one of six competing for the biggest available contract at the moment, from Louisiana). So far, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has certified systems from only two manufacturers as meeting the VVSG 2.0 guidelines, and others are still in the testing process.

At a December meeting, members of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission asked Liberty Vote's Robert Giles, left, pictured from the back, questions about the sale of the company formerly known as Dominion, now called Liberty Vote.

Dominion’s existing agreement with New Hampshire, which Liberty Vote has now inherited, calls for the company’s system to receive certification under VVSG 2.0 by the end of 2026. At the December meeting, Giles told the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission that after discussions with the testing laboratory, the company believes it can finish the process in about eight to nine months; New Hampshire officials later said the laboratory confirmed that certification this year is a reasonable expectation.

The New Hampshire commission must sign off on any changes to the technology currently certified for use in New Hampshire. And each state has different requirements for voting machines to be approved for use in the state, though many require either federal certification or testing in federally approved laboratories.

Among the changes in the system submitted for certification: Liberty Vote, and just about every other manufacturer, is moving away from using barcodes or quick-response codes in ballot tabulation, something Trump sought to prohibit in his March executive order on elections.

Election officials, too, are worried about how to rebuild public trust in elections and election technology. As New Hampshire’s Scanlan points out, voting equipment is one area where it’s hard to be transparent. At some level, people have to trust that the voting machines in use to allow local election officials to quickly and reliably tally large numbers of ballots and report results quickly are doing so correctly.

Pre-election testing and post-election audits, including hand-count audits, are part of how election officials provide evidence that tallies are correct, he said.

“If they question whether the machine is counting votes accurately, it’s not an easy thing for any election official to explain,” Scanlan said, other than to stress, “we have these safeguards in place: testing, audits and just other ways to verify the accuracy of the results.”

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Pennsylvania plans to test out internet-connected pollbooks in 2026 primary

2026-02-12T19:08:26+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

UPDATE Feb. 12, 2026 4:45 P.M.: This article has been updated with additional comments from the Department of State.

The Pennsylvania Department of State is launching a pilot program to try out the use of internet-connected electronic pollbooks, and the devices would be deployed as early as the May primary election.

More than half of Pennsylvania counties are already using or have tested out electronic pollbooks, or e-pollbooks. But the state doesn’t currently allow those systems to be connected to the internet, limiting their utility, proponents say, and some county election officials have been petitioning the state to change that.

Proponents point out that internet-connected pollbooks could reduce administrative burdens and allow counties to check results more quickly. But some county officials are concerned that connecting them to the internet could compromise election security.

Amy Gulli, a spokesperson for the Department of State, said that on Jan. 28, the department informed e-pollbook vendors about how to to apply to participate in the pilot program, which is still in the early stages, and “will assess whether internet-connected EPBs allow county election officials to respond to polling place issues faster and more efficiently.”

Gulli emphasized that voting machines and ballot tabulators will still not be connected to the internet. The e-pollbooks would be disconnected from the internet before they are used to transfer data on who voted into the state’s voter management system.

Some states, such as Arizona and New Mexico, allow e-pollbooks to be connected to the internet.

Devices could ease election administration

Thad Hall, Mercer County’s election director, previously oversaw elections in Arizona, and said he has been pushing Pennsylvania since 2021 to update its guidance. Mercer County uses the KNOWiNK Poll Pad, the most widely used e-pollbook in the state. While he said other factors will prevent him from participating in the pilot, he does hope to use connected pollbooks in the future, as he did in Arizona.

Hall said the internet connection would allow counties to more easily provide their polling place workers with updated lists of who is eligible to vote.

Pennsylvania’s deadlines for registering to vote and requesting a ballot leave a tight turnaround time for printing pollbooks in time for Election Day. Even when a county uses an e-pollbook, the devices can’t be updated as quickly as if they had an internet connection, so the county still needs to print paper pollbooks as a backup and sometimes force poll workers to flip between the two sources to find the voter.

Connected pollbooks also would allow election directors to easily see which precincts are opening on time in the morning and monitor turnout throughout the day, allowing counties to see in real-time whether they need to deploy more resources to overburdened precincts.

After the polls close, the devices could also help election officials more quickly check the accuracy of their results, Hall said. Typically, the data showing who voted on Election Day is not uploaded to the state’s voter rolls until the days after the election, but internet-connected e-pollbooks would allow that data could be uploaded nearly instantaneously, meaning administrators could verify on election night whether the number of cast ballots matches the number of voters recorded checking in for a given precinct.

Finally, he pointed out that the new devices could help mitigate problems with paper pollbooks on Election Day.

In 2025, Chester County mistakenly printed paper pollbooks that excluded independent and third-party voters, forcing thousands of them to vote provisionally until supplemental pollbooks could be printed and deployed to the polls. With internet-connected e-pollbooks, an updated file could have been pushed out far more quickly.

Some concerned about security

Not all counties are greeting the pilot program with excitement, though. Joe Kantz, a county commissioner in Snyder County and president of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, said he is concerned about security and the perceptions this will create about the state’s elections.

Unclear sections of the law have resulted in a wide array of election policies across the state, and internet-connected e-pollbooks could become another difference between counties, he said, inviting further criticism of the state for non-uniform election administration.

Beyond that, he is also concerned about the security of the devices.

If a bad-faith actor was to hack a precinct’s e-pollbook and take it offline, Kantz said, voters could be prevented from voting. “I’m not against progress, but I’m concerned about the security aspect of networking anything related to elections,” he said.

Jerry Feaser, a former Dauphin County elections director who now works for e-pollbook vendor KNOWiNK, said the devices can’t be used to directly add voters to the state’s voter rolls, as even in states which allow same day registration at the polls using e-pollbooks, registration needs to be approved by an election official. Conversely, voters can only be added to the e-pollbooks from the voter rolls if their registration has been approved by an election official.

Hall also pointed out that even if someone were to get access to an e-pollbook and try to fraudulently add voters, counties would be able to detect that though other methods, such as by checking the numbered list of voters who come into a precinct on Election Day or through the original copy of the voter file.

After publication, the Department of State said counties are required to have paper pollbooks in all precincts, regardless of if they are using e-pollbooks, in case any issues arise. Hall also noted that in Arizona, precincts used secured WiFi hotspots.

One Pennsylvania county, Delaware, partnered with KNOWiNK in September to run a mock election using internet-connected e-pollbooks, which Feaser said went “swimmingly.” Other KNOWiNK counties have already expressed interest in participating in the state’s pilot program, he said.

Gulli, the Department of State spokesperson, said applications from the vendors are due Feb. 28, and it is still unclear how many counties will participate in the pilot.

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Michigan Gov. Whitmer proposes $43 million for new election equipment

2026-02-11T23:33:57+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s proposed 2027-2028 budget includes more than $43 million for new voting equipment, an appropriation election officials across Michigan say is critical in keeping the state’s election infrastructure secure and up to date.

The money is only a tiny portion of the $88.1 billion proposal Whitmer unveiled Wednesday. If approved, it will allow clerks to upgrade their machinery to the newest federal standards without forcing cities and townships to shoulder all the costs on their own.

If that money doesn’t win approval from the Legislature, however, it could put a major crunch on local clerks who have already seen their elections budgets double or even triple in the last decade with recent expansions to voting procedures.

All three of Michigan’s contracts with the major voting companies that service election equipment across the state are set to expire at the end of February 2027, meaning clerks will upgrade to machines that meet new state certifications. The latest equipment, designed to meet new federal voting standards, can often cost at least $15,000 per precinct for tabulators and voter assist terminals, said Michael Siegrist, first vice president of the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks and the Canton Township clerk.

Up until now, much of the expense for new voting equipment has been covered by a combination of state money and federal funds from the 2002 Help America Vote Act. Clerks will sometimes buy upgraded equipment out of their elections budget, Siegrist said, but these “refreshes” are typically covered by federal and state dollars. That money greatly lessened clerks’ financial burden in 2007 and 2017, but the bulk of that money is now spent.

“If the state’s like, ‘You’ve got to get new equipment,’ it’s an unfunded mandate, and most of our local jurisdictions can’t really afford that,” Siegrist told Votebeat. “Some people can, some people can’t. We’re really pushing to avoid a two-tiered election system, where there are some [jurisdictions] on brand new, good equipment and some on bad equipment.”

That’s why clerks and election officials — including former Michigan Director of Elections Chris Thomas, who now works on contract with the city of Detroit — pushed hard to ensure there was money from the state in the budget proposal. Including the money in the 2027 fiscal year budget “allows sufficient time for procurement, testing, training and implementation ahead of future election cycles,” the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks said in a news release Wednesday.

The state funding would also result in more secure and reliable machines, Thomas told Votebeat. The new systems will meet the 2.0 version of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines adopted by the U.S. Election Administration Commission in 2021. Those guidelines have higher standards for security and durability, Thomas said.

“It’s not just a replacement of what we’ve got now,” Thomas said. “It’s actually taking a large step up to a better voting system, and that will ensure higher security across the board for every jurisdiction and every voter.”

Election security has become a key talking point among the state’s Democratic leaders in recent days after President Donald Trump suggested nationalizing elections and named Detroit as part of that conversation. In response, Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson have both emphasized that Michigan runs its elections safely and independently. Michigan has one of the most decentralized systems in the U.S., as local clerks take on the bulk of the elections work, unlike a majority of other states where elections are administered at the county level.

It’s likely that the budget, including elections funding, will be closely scrutinized by Republicans in the Legislature, whose support will be required to pass it. (While Democrats control the state Senate, Republicans control the state House.) Budget tensions nearly shut down the state’s government last fall.

Rep. Ann Bollin, a Republican from Brighton Township and the chair of the House Appropriations Committee, told Votebeat on Wednesday that she wasn’t sure that $43 million was “the right number” but added that she expected Republicans “want to make sure that we’re running fair, free, and secure elections.”

Bollin is a former local clerk herself and said she supports state funding for new election equipment but isn’t sure the timeline is appropriate.

“We are going to have a change in secretary of state” after the 2026 election, she said. “That makes me pause. But putting in money and start saving for a reserve fund, I am supportive.”

Whitmer’s proposal is just the first step in the state’s budget process. The Legislature is required to pass a budget by July 1 each year. The new fiscal year starts on Oct. 1.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

How many voters could be affected by earlier mail ballot deadlines? We ran the numbers.

2026-02-11T18:24:24+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

President Donald Trump’s sweeping attempts to overhaul the way U.S. elections are run have mostly run into dead ends in the courts. But his administration and allies have successfully tightened rules around at least one of his biggest pet peeves: the counting of mail ballots that are received after Election Day.

Since the 2024 election, four states — all Republican-controlled — have changed their election laws so that they no longer accept mail ballots that arrive after Election Day. And while 14 states and Washington, D.C., still do so as long as those ballots are postmarked by Election Day, more of those ballots could be rejected in future elections due to recent changes to U.S. Postal Service procedures. To top it all off, a pending U.S. Supreme Court case could make it illegal for any jurisdiction to count ballots that arrive after Election Day, period.

Taken together, these changes have the potential to impact, and even disenfranchise, thousands of voters. At the same time, the share of voters whose ballots may be affected constitute only a small fraction of the overall electorate, according to a Votebeat review of data on mail ballots arriving after Election Day.

Votebeat contacted the 19 jurisdictions where voters in the 2024 general election could return their ballots after Election Day and still have them counted. Across the 13 that provided information, more than 750,000 ballots were received after Election Day, representing 0.1-3.1% of the total turnout in those states.

However, voting patterns in 2026 may not look the same as they did in 2024. Voter-education efforts are already underway in some states to urge mail-ballot voters to return their ballots earlier in the future, likely shrinking the number of voters who could be harmed by these changes.

4 red states have already changed their mail ballot deadlines

In the 2024 election, several states allowed mail ballots to arrive after Election Day as long as they were postmarked by then. But in 2025, in line with Trump’s executive order, four of those states — Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah — reversed course and enacted laws making Election Day the deadline for ballots to be received. Other states are considering similar changes. A bill to eliminate the grace period recently passed the state House in West Virginia.

All four states that changed their laws are fully controlled by the GOP. Republicans control both legislative chambers and the governorship in North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah, and they have supermajorities in both chambers in Kansas, allowing them to override Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto.

Despite Democratic objections to these changes, the number of voters affected should be very low. Data is not available on the number of ballots that arrived after Election Day 2024 in North Dakota and Utah, but in Ohio and Kansas, relatively few voters took advantage of this grace period.

In Ohio, just 7,579 mail ballots were received after Election Day and counted, representing just 0.1% of the state’s total votes cast that year. An additional 1,944 mail ballots were received after Election Day but didn’t count, either because they arrived too late after Election Day or for some other reason.

In Kansas, only 2,110 ballots were received and accepted after Election Day, or 0.2% of the total vote. An additional 603 ballots arrived too late to count, and 104 ballots that arrived after Election Day were also rejected because they lacked any postmark whatsoever.

As low as they are, these numbers could decrease even further in future elections. Election officials are already working to inform voters in these states of the new deadline, which will hopefully lead to them returning their ballots earlier. For instance, officials in Wyandotte County, Kansas, told a local news outlet they would be telling voters about the new rules via postcard. In Utah, election officials are advising voters to make use of dropboxes if they are worried their ballot will not be delivered in time via the mail.

But the changes are causing issues in at least one state. Local election officials in Ohio are warning that that state’s new deadline could put additional strain on election offices and require that they hire more workers to process ballots.

Postmark delays could affect mail ballots

Even with the above changes, there are still 15 jurisdictions, representing 43% of 2024 voters, that allow mail ballots to arrive “late” — as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. But late last year, the U.S. Postal Service caused a stir when it issued new guidance declaring that mail might not be postmarked on the same day it is dropped off.

In other words, even if a voter mails their ballot on Election Day, it may not be postmarked until the next day — which would lead to its rejection.

The Postal Service clarified that the new guidance “does not change any existing postal operations or postmarking practices”; it has long been the case that mail is postmarked only once it reaches a processing facility, not necessarily on the day that it’s dropped off at a mailbox or post office. However, the Postal Service did say these lags have become more common following 2025 changes to its collection procedures.

It’s difficult to say how many ballots will be affected by these changes in 2026. Votebeat doesn’t have data on how many ballots were dropped off in 2024 on Election Day itself, and it’s unclear how many more of those ballots might receive delayed postmarks than in 2024. But the number of ballots that arrived after Election Day but were still counted in 2024 can serve as a reasonable ceiling for the number of ballots at risk.

In some places, that number was very small, according to data from state and local officials. For instance, in Mississippi, 1,140 ballots arrived after Election Day that were postmarked on time and accepted. That was just 0.1% of the total votes cast in the state that year. In Washington, D.C., that number was 1,062 ballots, or 0.3% of the total votes cast. In Oregon, it was approximately 13,000 ballots, or 0.6% of the total vote. In West Virginia, it was a tiny 449 ballots, or 0.1% of the total vote.

Barring major changes to voters’ ballot-delivery habits in 2026, the postmark changes should have only minuscule effects on elections in these places.

In other states, these numbers are higher, but they’re still relatively small. In Illinois, 106,521 ballots arrived after Election Day that were postmarked on time and accepted, or 1.9% of the total votes cast in the state. In California, 373,116 ballots arrived after Election Day with valid postmarks (although some of those were rejected for other reasons, like a bad signature), or 2.3% of the state’s total vote. Washington had the highest share of its ballots arrive after Election Day properly postmarked: 3.0%, or approximately 120,000 ballots.

So if voters in these states return their mail ballots in 2026 on the same schedule as they did in 2024, around 2-3% of their voters are at risk of being disenfranchised due to the new postmark rules. But that doesn’t mean they will definitely be disenfranchised. Some of these ballots were certainly mailed before Election Day, meaning they would still likely be postmarked on time even if not the day they were dropped off. And, of course, even some of the ballots mailed on Election Day may still be postmarked on time, given that the new policy doesn’t preclude ballots from being postmarked on the day they are mailed.

There’s one more big caveat: Voters in 2026 probably won’t return their mail ballots on the same schedule as they did in 2024. Many of them will likely hear about the new postmark guidance and decide to return their ballots earlier, use a ballot drop box or bring them to a post office and request a manual postmark (which remains an option for voters afraid of processing delays).

States have also started educating voters about the changes. For instance, Oregon updated its guidance in October to tell voters to mail their ballots a week ahead of time, or else to use a drop box. Many states that do not accept ballots after Election Day, such as Pennsylvania, engage in voter-education campaigns each cycle to make sure voters return their ballots on time

(There’s one other possibility here too. Because the new postmark guidance isn’t actually a change in how post offices operate, it’s possible that many of the ballots that will be rejected as a result of it have already been going uncounted due to late postmarks. Thankfully, this does not appear to be a major issue based on the limited public data available from 2024. Only a few states keep track of how many mail ballots are rejected because of invalid postmarks, but in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, those numbers were just 0.04%, 0.22%, and 0.12% of the electorate, respectively.)

The Supreme Court could require ballots to arrive on Election Day

Finally, it’s also possible that the 15 remaining jurisdictions that accept mail ballots after Election Day will be forced to join Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah in discarding the practice by the 2026 midterms. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing properly postmarked ballots to be counted if they are received within five business days of Election Day.

Opponents of the state law, which include the Republican National Committee, argue that allowing the ballots to be counted conflicts with federal law, which says that federal elections are to be held the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and that counting ballots that arrive after this date risks “chaos and suspicions of impropriety.”

Mississippi argues an “election” is the “conclusive choice” of voters, and voters make that choice by Election Day, even if election officials don’t receive the paper evidence of that choice until a few days later.

Arguments in the case are expected on March 23, with a ruling by early July.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules against Mississippi, it could ban the counting of all ballots received after Election Day nationwide as well, regardless of postmark date. As detailed above, that would still impact only a small percentage of ballots — between 0.1% and 3%, depending on the state. But it would, on average, be more than in Kansas and Ohio, as well as more than would be affected by the new postmark guidance alone.

Officials in the 15 jurisdictions that could be affected are concerned about how voters would adapt.

“Such a ruling would impact our [military and overseas] voters, who have had that additional mailing time for decades, and our Legislature would need to choose how to reconcile that with our absentee ballot laws,” said Debra O’Malley, director of communications for the secretary of the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Spokespeople for both the Illinois State Board of Elections and Washington secretary of state’s office said their respective states were monitoring the case. A ruling that bans the acceptance of ballots that arrive after Election Day would likely require election officials to undertake a large-scale voter reeducation campaign in the states where the practice is still allowed.

“We’re aware of that potential but at this point there’s not a concrete plan for adapting to the ruling,” Matt Dietrich, the Illinois spokesman, wrote in an email. “But we’re certainly prepared to help our election authorities and voters adapt should the ruling affect General Election mail deadlines.”

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit over Michigan’s voter rolls

2026-02-10T16:10:19+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

UPDATE March 2, 2026, 4:50 p.m.: The U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal in this decision on Feb. 27. Opening materials in the case are due to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by March 13.

A federal judge has dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Michigan over the state’s refusal to give the department an unredacted list of registered voters, finding the state isn’t required by federal law to turn it over.

Last year, the Department of Justice requested unredacted voter data from virtually every state as part of President Donald Trump’s quest to root out noncitizen voters, which are extremely rare. The department requested a copy of Michigan’s voter roll in July, along with answers to a series of questions about its voter registration practices.

In September, Michigan provided a redacted version of the voter roll that withheld voters’ personally identifiable information, which the state said was necessary to avoid breaking state and federal law. The Department of Justice then sued Michigan for the complete data later that month.

However, on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou of the Western District of Michigan, a Trump nominee, dismissed the case. Jarbou wrote in her opinion that none of the three laws that the Department of Justice had used to justify its request — the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act — required the disclosure of the data.

Justice Department officials have argued that obtaining voter rolls is necessary in order for the department to make sure states are complying with federal requirements for how voter rolls should be maintained. Over the past year, the Department of Justice has sued 24 states, plus Washington, D.C., for not sharing their data. Federal judges have also so far dismissed the suits against California and Oregon.

A spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

The Department of Justice also did not immediately respond to a request for comment, including a question about whether it would appeal the ruling.

Read more Votebeat coverage of the Justice Department’s lawsuits and requests seeking state voter rolls:

Texas shares entire voter registration list with the Trump administration (Jan. 9, 2026)
U.S. Justice Department sues Arizona, Connecticut for access to unredacted state voter rolls (Jan. 6, 2026)
U.S. Justice Department sues WEC for not providing unredacted voter list (Dec. 18, 2025)
U.S. sues Michigan, Pennsylvania and four other states over request for voter rolls (Sept. 25, 2025)
A guide to understanding the debate over keeping voter rolls ‘clean’ (Sept. 4, 2025)

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

2 found guilty in signature fraud case that rocked 2022 Michigan primary

2026-02-10T00:19:19+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

Two of the three people accused of fraud in a 2022 signature-gathering scandal were found guilty Monday, bringing an end to a nearly four-year saga that kept a number of candidates off the ballot due to phony signatures on their nominating petitions.

The convictions are a rare occurrence. Accusations of fraud — fake signatures, misleading statements, and more — permeate nearly every major election in Michigan, but people are almost never prosecuted, let alone punished, for it.

A Macomb County jury found Shawn Wilmoth and Willie Reed guilty of multiple felonies, including conducting a criminal enterprise and several counts of election law forgery. Jamie Wilmoth-Goodin, the third person accused, was found not guilty.

Ahead of the 2022 election, five Republican gubernatorial candidates and three judicial candidates used firms owned and operated by Wilmoth and Reed to collect the signatures they required to qualify for the ballot. After the candidates — who included former Detroit Police Chief James Craig and 2026 gubernatorial candidate Perry Johnson — turned in their nominating petitions, thousands of their signatures were found to be fraudulent and the candidates were kept off the ballot.

The Bureau of Elections released reports showing that for several candidates, signature gatherers made almost no effort to disguise the forged signatures, leading to full pages of nearly identical handwriting. Others tried to make the words intentionally illegible. In a 2023 press release announcing the charges against Wilmoth, Reed, and Wilmoth-Goodin, Attorney General Dana Nessel called the methods “sophomoric and transparent.”

Wilmoth and Reed charged the candidates more than $700,000 for the signatures, Nessel said in a release Monday.

It’s standard practice to hire signature gatherers to collect the 15,000 signatures needed to make the ballot as a statewide candidate. While candidates are considered responsible for the signatures, there is no indication they were aware of the wrongdoing.

The scandal reshaped the 2022 Republican primary for governor, as some of the affected candidates were considered to be front-runners in the race. But Michigan’s laws around signature gathering have not changed in the time since. Signature gatherers remain powerful and largely unregulated in the state. They’re permitted to lie to potential signers, for example, and have no obligation to let someone read the petition before they sign.

Michigan lawmakers have for years introduced legislation to try to address these issues. But such bills are rarely legislative priorities and tend to be pushed off.

“The fraud perpetrated by the defendants robbed eight candidates of their chance to appear on the ballot, defrauded their campaigns and denied millions of Michiganders a choice in the 2022 gubernatorial election,” Nessel said in a press release Monday.

An attorney for Reed declined to comment Monday evening. Attorneys for Wilmoth and Wilmoth-Goodin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Wilmoth and Reed are set to be sentenced March 18. The most serious of the charges — conducting a criminal enterprise and using false pretenses involving $100,000 or more — each carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Court says Madison can be liable for disenfranchising voters

2026-02-09T19:03:18+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Update, Feb. 9, 2026: Madison spokesperson Dylan Brogan said the city is reviewing the decision and considering its next steps. Brogan stressed that the city “has a long history of promoting and protecting absentee voting and that policy has not changed,” but said monetary damages for unintentional errors would mean money and resources “would be diverted to pay for this human error.”

A Dane County judge on Monday rejected the city of Madison’s claim that absentee voting’s characterization in state law as a “privilege” precludes damages against the city for disenfranchising 193 voters, and ruled that Madison can face potential financial liability for the error.

In rejecting motions by the city and other defendants to dismiss the case, Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Conway said that a state law describing absentee voting as a privilege does not mean absentee ballots receive less constitutional protection than votes cast in person.

“That right to vote,” Conway wrote, “would be a hollow protection if it did not also include the right to have one’s vote counted.”

Conway also rejected former Madison Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl’s legal argument that there is a meaningful legal difference between intentionally not counting votes and mistakenly failing to count them due to human error. He held that state law allows for people to seek damages against election officials who “negligently deprive citizens of the right to vote.”

“When an election official fails to count a valid absentee ballot, whether by negligence, recklessness, or malice, he or she deprives the absentee voter of that constitutional right,” he wrote.

The city and Witzel-Behl’s legal argument, made in response to a lawsuit seeking damages on behalf of 193 Madison voters disenfranchised in the 2024 election, drew sharp rebukes from legal experts, Gov. Tony Evers, and the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which filed its very first friend-of-the-court brief opposing the rationale.

Conway dismissed the Madison clerk’s office from the case after arguments that it could not be sued separately from the city, but allowed the case to proceed against the city, Witzel-Behl, and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick. The voters are represented by a liberal election law firm, Law Forward.

“At the dawn of another election season, the message is clear: the right to vote protects Wisconsinites whether they vote in-person or absentee,” Law Forward staff attorney Scott Thompson told Votebeat. “We are pleased the Court agreed with our arguments and that this case will proceed.”

Matt O’Neill, the lawyer representing Witzel-Behl, declined to comment, and Madison spokesperson Dylan Brogan didn’t immediately comment.

Madison mayor says ‘nonsensical lawsuit’ could weaken elections

In an interview with Votebeat last week, Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway said she didn’t like the state law calling absentee voting a privilege, not a right. But she said that critics should direct their concerns at the Legislature, rather than at the city.

Rhodes-Conway said the city’s argument “literally repeat[s] what’s in state law.” Legal experts have disputed that characterization, saying the city advanced a novel interpretation of a long-standing statute. Rhodes-Conway said she wasn’t sure those critiques were relevant.

“It shouldn’t be in the law,” she said. “And the state Legislature should take action to correct that and better protect voting in this state.”

The 1985 state law describes absentee voting as a privilege exercised outside the safeguards of the polling place. Another provision requires absentee voters to comply with laws regulating the practice for their votes to count. The law has been cited in lawsuits seeking to restrict absentee voting, but it had never before been used to shield election officials from liability for failing to count valid ballots.

In his Monday ruling, Conway dismissed the city’s interpretation of the law without questioning the statute itself.

“Just because the absentee voting process is a privilege does not mean that those who legally utilize it do not exercise their constitutional right to vote,” he said.

Rhodes-Conway said that, despite using that legal argument in court, the city has consistently promoted absentee voting and will continue to do so.

Rhodes-Conway criticized the lawsuit as a whole, saying that the solution for the city disenfranchising 193 voters in the 2024 presidential election “is not to charge the city of Madison millions of dollars because our clerk’s office made a mistake.”

“That’s not achieving anything. It’s not making elections better,” she continued. “It’s simply taking money that could be invested in basic services and in election protection and election services, and paying it to the plaintiffs. It’s just nonsensical to me.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Arizona primary to move up 2 weeks under bipartisan legislation

2026-02-09T17:52:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.

Update, Feb. 9: Gov. Katie Hobbs signed the bill into law on Feb. 5, permanently moving Arizona’s primary date.

Update, Feb. 5: The Arizona Senate has passed this legislative proposal, sending it to Gov. Katie Hobbs. A spokesperson for her office declined to comment on whether she intends to sign the bill.

Arizona will permanently move up its state primary election date under a new law that will also give voters more time to fix signature problems on early ballots and codify where party observers may watch election activity.

The Arizona House voted unanimously on Feb. 2 to pass the legislation, which will move the primary from the first Tuesday in August to the second-to-last Tuesday in July. That will ensure that election officials can meet federally mandated deadlines to send out general election ballots to military and overseas voters, even if a statewide recount delays the finalization of the primary results.

The legislation passed the Arizona Senate with a similarly bipartisan vote on Thursday, and was signed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on Friday. The 2026 primary election date will now move from Aug. 4 to July 21.

This is the second time in recent years that lawmakers have sought to adjust the state’s election timeline on short notice. Arizona faced similar timing challenges in 2024, and after months of fraught negotiations, the state moved that year’s primary election ahead by a week. It also made a number of smaller, temporary changes, such as compressing the period for voters to fix missing and mismatched signatures on early ballots, a process known as ballot curing.

The new law required similar behind-the-scenes dealmaking to gain bipartisan support. Both chambers of the Arizona Legislature are controlled by Republicans, but a two-thirds vote is required to ensure that legislation will take effect immediately if passed. Without this emergency authorization, the law wouldn’t have taken effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends, which will likely be after the primary has already taken place.

The proposal also had to make it past Hobbs, who has set records throughout her first term with her extensive use of the veto pen.

The legislation passed the House after its sponsor — Republican Rep. Alexander Kolodin — offered a floor amendment that would reextend the ballot curing period.

Under the law passed in 2024, voters have five calendar days to cure early ballots. The legislation would change that to five business days starting in 2027. Because Arizona generally holds its elections on Tuesdays, that effectively moves the curing deadline from the Sunday after the election to the Tuesday after the election.

That change got voting access advocates on board. Alex Gulotta, state director for All Voting is Local, told Votebeat that the amendment represented a “significant victory for voters by making sure that the votes of all eligible voters are counted.” His organization had previously opposed the legislation.

Meanwhile, Kolodin framed the changes to observer access as a win for the GOP’s voting integrity efforts. He said the bill “strengthens security by making clear that counties must allow political party observers at every voting location.” Most counties in the state already did so.

The legislation’s changes may not hold for long. Jen Marson, executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties, said the bill permanently addresses timing challenges in non-presidential election years. But it won’t fully fix the issue in 2028, when recounts could still push general election results so late that election officials wouldn’t meet the federal deadline for sending presidential results to the U.S. Congress.

That means state lawmakers will have to address the problem in coming years — for a third time.

“We will have to revisit the cure window conversation,” said Marson, who was one of the chief negotiators on the legislation. “I would prefer to do it in 2027 so the calendar is set and we don’t have this anxious conversation in the year of the election.”

Sasha Hupka is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Sasha at shupka@votebeat.org.

What did Trump mean by ‘nationalize the voting’? No one is sure.

2026-02-09T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

As Votebeat’s readers are well aware, concerns have long been simmering about President Donald Trump potentially interfering in the 2026 midterm elections. Last Monday, in just a few seconds on “The Dan Bongino Show,” Trump turned the heat up to HI.

“The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over, we should take over the voting in at least — many — 15 places.’ The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump told the conservative commentator.

Trump is known for making provocative, over-the-top remarks — but he’s also the president of the United States, so his rhetoric has to be taken seriously. The only problem is, if you ask three different people what Trump meant by these comments, you’ll get five different answers.

Many people assumed he meant that he wants the Republicans in the executive branch to conduct the 2026 elections. Trump himself encouraged this interpretation when he said in the Oval Office on Tuesday, “When you think about it, the state is an agent for the federal government in elections. I don’t know why the federal government doesn’t do them anyway.”

Needless to say, this would be an extraordinary challenge to the power of state and local governments to run their own elections. It’s virtually unprecedented in American history for the federal government to take such an active role in elections, without an act of Congress. But if this is what Trump has in mind, he’ll likely be disappointed: It’s pretty clearly unconstitutional for the executive branch to do that. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives states the power to set the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections.”

Another potential interpretation is that Trump wants Republicans on the state and local level — who do have legal authority over elections in states where the GOP holds power — to exercise more power. For instance, a Republican-controlled state could attempt to take over election administration in a Democratic-controlled local jurisdiction.

A lot of news coverage of the podcast interview assumed that Trump wanted to take over the voting in 15 states, but he could have meant 15 counties or cities instead. In his Oval Office remarks, Trump name-checked Detroit, Philadelphia, and Atlanta as places he doesn’t trust to administer their own elections. “If they can’t count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over,” he said.

Republicans aren’t necessarily in a position to take over elections in those places (though in Michigan, which has a Democratic governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, GOP state lawmakers previously said they wanted federal oversight of the state’s elections), and might not even if they could. In 2020, plenty of GOP election officials resisted Trump’s pressure to interfere in the election on his behalf. That said, his grip on the party today is stronger than it was six years ago, so it’s worth taking this possibility seriously.

Yet another possible interpretation is that Trump wants Congress to “nationalize” elections by passing laws codifying his preferred election policies, such as voter ID, nationwide. Indeed, when White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked about Trump’s comments, she said he was referring to the SAVE Act, which would require Americans to prove their citizenship when registering to vote. And in the Oval Office, Trump reinforced the notion that he was asking Congress to intervene by saying, “If a state can’t run an election, I think the people behind me” — members of Congress — “should do something about it.”

Compared with the federal government taking over the actual administration of the election, Congress passing a law governing it is on much safer legal ground. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “make or alter” state election laws. Trump and conservative activists have been pushing hard for it to do so. Politically speaking, however, none of the proposed Republican election bills have a path to pass the Senate as long as the filibuster remains in place.

Finally, Trump could’ve been referring to his efforts that are already underway to nationalize certain aspects of election administration. For instance, last March, he issued an executive order that sought to require proof of citizenship to register to vote, change certification standards for voting machines, standardize the due date for mail ballots, and more. (Major parts of the executive order have been blocked in court.)

And in another unprecedented move, the Department of Justice has asked most states to send it their unredacted voter lists, which the department hopes to review for potential noncitizens. The administration is suing 24 states, plus Washington, D.C., that have not complied with the request.

We don’t know what exactly Trump had in mind when he went on Bongino’s show. But in a larger sense, Trump’s comments didn’t tell us anything new. We already knew from his actions over the past year that Trump thinks there should be more federal involvement in election administration. Last month’s search of an elections facility in Fulton County, Georgia, reinforced that. Whether you call it nationalization or not, that’s been the theme of his entire second term.

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

Mail ballot application error adds to Chester County’s woes

2026-02-06T21:12:46+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

A Pennsylvania county election office that was already facing criticism for a 2025 election snafu and an alleged hostile work environment is dealing with another error.

Roughly 145,000 mail ballot applications sent out in Chester County this week for the 2026 elections were printed with the first and last names of voters reversed, according to the county. However, the applications can still be used as they are, the county and state said.

The error comes three months after the county misprinted its pollbooks for the 2025 municipal election and two months after The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote an article tying the county’s high staff turnover to what critics described as the election director’s heavy-handed management style.

On Monday, the county sent out mail-in ballot applications to voters on its annual mail voter list, sometimes referred to as the permanent list. The list comprises voters who, when applying for a mail ballot the prior year, indicated they wished to be sent an application the following year. Counties around the state mail out those applications around this time each winter.

Chester County officials said they became aware of the reversed names on Wednesday afternoon, but they didn’t post a notice about it on the county website until Friday morning, after the county was contacted by Votebeat and Spotlight PA.

“The County has confirmed with the Pennsylvania Department of State that voters can still complete and submit their applications to Voter Services, either online or using the paper applications, and they will be processed correctly,” spokesperson Andrew Kreider said via email.

Kreider added that the error occurred “during the printing process used by the County’s printing vendor.”

Matt Heckel, a spokesperson for the Department of State, confirmed the applications are still valid. He also said no other county reported similar issues with the vendor Chester County uses.

Thad Hall, election director for western Pennsylvania’s Mercer County, said the data for the applications comes from a spreadsheet from the Department of State. His office sends out its applications itself, but in the past it has also used a vendor.

Hall said counties typically send a letter informing voters they are on the annual list and telling them they can apply again for mail ballots; on the back of that letter is the application. His process involves using a template letter and performing a mail merge to populate that letter with voters’ names and addresses from the spreadsheet. Before sending out the materials to voters, he checks that they were generated properly, and when he used a vendor for this task, the vendor would send him a sample to check for accuracy.

Chester County’s election director, Karen Barsoum, confirmed that the vendor performed the merge and that a sample was sent back to the county for an accuracy check. Barsoum declined to say which employee or division of the office performed the check.

She said the accuracy check was more focused on confirming that the proper information, such as voter ID number or address, was connected to the right voter rather than whether the names were in the correct order.

Hall, the Mercer County director, said at this year’s conference of county election officials, organizers are planning to host panel discussions on leadership, delegation, and having effective vendor interactions.

“We will be doing panels that address these specific issues that have come up twice in Chester County,” he said. “We want to give people the tools to avoid these election pitfalls.”

The mail ballot application mishap comes on the heels of a contentious county meeting Tuesday night at which residents expressed their frustration over the county’s two other recent controversies.

During the November 2025 election, human error resulted in pollbooks getting printed without third-party and independent voters, forcing thousands of people to vote provisionally. (Virtually all of those people’s ballots were eventually counted.) Investigators determined that human error was compounded by the fact that the county did not have adequate processes in place to detect and prevent such problems.

Although the investigation did not conclude that Barsoum management style contributed to the county’s turnover, some commenters at the meeting called for Barsoum to be fired, arguing that her poor leadership had led to the department’s issues. A local blogger and radio station have also called for her ouster.

Following that meeting, county officials declined to comment on Barsoum’s future employment status, and Barsoum told Votebeat and Spotlight PA she had no intention of resigning.

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Tempers flare in Chester County as investigators detail causes of pollbook error

2026-02-05T20:21:39+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

Roughly 100 voters and election workers filled the tiered seating of the wood-paneled courtroom on the top floor of Chester County’s Judicial Center Tuesday night to hear how the county had misprinted its pollbooks last November, and to express their frustration at county officials for the debacle.

Two lawyers from West Chester-based law firm Fleck Eckert Klein McGarry LLC, which the county had hired to investigate the episode, sat at the prosecutor’s table and delivered their findings to the general public seated on their left and the county commissioners on their right.

On Nov. 4, 2025, pollbooks used to check voters in at polling places didn’t include the names of Chester County’s more than 75,000 unaffiliated and third-party voters. Those voters had to either wait for supplemental pollbooks to be delivered or use a provisional ballot, an option used when there is some question about a voter’s eligibility. The error forced about 12,600 voters in the county to cast provisional ballots, or roughly 6.4% of the county electorate — more than in any other recent election. Almost all of those ballots were eventually counted.

At the nearly three-hour meeting, the public learned more about the precise nature of the failure, as well as how the county planned to prevent the issue from happening again.

Checking one wrong box led to big problems

Attorney Sigmund Fleck gave the simplest, purest explanation for what happened: “This appears to be a human error in clicking a wrong box,” he said. But that human error was compounded by other missteps in the county’s processes.

Fleck explained that the two employees who generated the pollbooks ahead of the 2025 election were inexperienced, having just one election’s worth of previous experience between the two of them. During the primary, one of them used a training aid from the Department of State on the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, or SURE, system to help them generate the pollbooks for that election.

While doing so, the employee had annotated the training guide with notes indicating which boxes on a particular screen needed to be checked — including one box, under the prompt “Voters to include,” that said “only voters for the major parties.”

This box, Fleck explained, was added to the SURE system by the Department of State to make it easier to generate pollbooks for primary elections, in which generally only major-party voters can participate. And while the Chester County employee had written in margins “Dem Republicans only” and “Presidential do not select,” they hadn’t noted that this box should be left unchecked for any November election, not just the presidential. Fleck said the Department of State confirmed this box was selected when the pollbooks for last November’s municipal elections were generated.

However, Fleck did not blame this employee alone. He said that the employee generating the pollbooks “had not had the benefit of any formal training,” only informal “on-the-job” training, and that they weren’t supervised.

Crucially, the investigation found that there was no system in place to check the accuracy of the pollbooks after they were generated from SURE and before they were sent to the printer.

The report recommended, among other things, that the county implement supervision for critical tasks, add spot checks to catch errors, and work with the Department of State to make changes to the SURE system and associated training.

Some of those changes are already underway. The Department of State says the updated version of the SURE system, which is currently in development, will include warning screens that let users know they are about to generate a pollbook that excludes some voters. The county will implement a dual-signature verification process for critical tasks that could affect the entire electorate, including pollbook generation. The county will also build spot checks for the pollbooks into its pre-election process and create its own employee training program, among other reforms.

Residents call for election official’s resignation

But for some county residents at Tuesday night’s meeting, the planned reforms weren’t enough.

“In describing the pollbook error, people are confusing the technical simplicity of the mistake itself with what we should be and are actually investigating,” Michael Albaladejo, a judge of elections in Valley Township, said. “The concerns are more why it wasn’t caught.”

Many commenters felt they had an answer for the root cause of the issue: the county’s election director, Karen Barsoum.

Among other election officials in Pennsylvania, Barsoum has a reputation as a competent, professional director of one of the state’s largest counties. But in a recent article in The Philadelphia Inquirer highlighting her department’s high staff turnover, some former employees accused her of creating a “hostile work environment.”

One former employee, Nate Prospero Fox, came Tuesday night to make just that case. He had worked at the department nearly continually from August 2020 through April 2024, meaning his employment spanned the timeframe before and after Barsoum took over as director.

“Sixty-seven counties face the same exact issues,” he said, referencing the threats and stress many election workers face nowadays. “Except for one: management.”

“Please tell me why [those other counties] have half the turnover.”

Fox, wearing a blue blazer and khakis, said he would have remained with the department his entire career if not for its management, and he ended his remarks by imploring the commissioners to “fire Karen Barsoum.” As he walked back to his seat, he stared down Barsoum, who sat in the back row of the jury box, as many in the crowd applauded.

Barsoum faced other pushback following the election, including a campaign from a local blogger to fire her, which included her face as the missing person on a milk carton. A local radio station also ran two versions of a jingle, which were enhanced by artificial intelligence, titled “Time to Go, Karen,” as part of a listener contest.

While the investigators’ report acknowledged some complaints about Barsoum’s leadership, it concluded that it wasn’t the main cause of the pollbook error.

Fleck noted that one of the complaints about the department’s leadership was micromanaging, but a big part of what led to the generation of the incorrect pollbooks was a lack of any supervision in the first place.

Many of those who spoke up at the meeting took issue with the limited scope of the firm’s investigation. Specifically, they were unhappy that investigators hadn’t interviewed any former employees and argued that it was impossible to determine if there was a leadership issue without doing so. They also noted that the finding that low pay contributed to the turnover was based on a single employee’s experience.

Both the county’s spokesperson, Andrew Kreider, as well as Commissioner Josh Maxwell, who chairs the board of elections, declined to say whether the county planned to terminate Barsoum. Barsoum told Votebeat she would not resign and planned to implement the report’s recommended improvements.

“As for the public testimony, it is noteworthy that the comments come from individuals who were either terminated or left due to poor performance,” she said via email. “Working in Voter Services has become a more stressful job in recent years, and the comments come from those who could not adapt to the stress.”

Chester County residents offer many opinions

At times, the rancor at the meeting was directed not only at the county and its employees, but also at fellow citizens. Maxwell at one point had to remind participants not to give each other the middle finger to express displeasure at one another’s remarks, shortly after one commenter had called others “nutjobs.”

The commenter was reacting to a panoply of election conspiracy theories and general mistrust in elections, ranging from admiration of U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s role in investigating the 2020 election to questions about the susceptibility of vote tabulation machines to hacking.

On the other hand, some speakers, while acknowledging the county’s mistakes, gave it credit for reacting quickly on Election Day to mitigate the issue and working diligently to address its failings.

Among them was Marian Schneider, a Chester County resident who is also a longtime voting rights lawyer who has experience working on high-profile election issues for the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Everyone in this room knows that a grievous error was made, and everyone is upset about it, so we can stop the browbeating and focus on the path forward,” she said. “I just invite the voters of Chester County to allow the county to do the work — and there’s going to be a lot of work as you recognize and the report shows — to address the issue and make changes.”

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Why many Texans are still waiting for their voter registration cards

2026-02-05T19:16:15+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

Texas’ unusual mid-decade redistricting and problems with the state’s new voter registration system have delayed the mailing of voter registration certificates, the documents that give voters information about their polling place and their assigned districts, state and local officials say.

Under state law, the certificates should have been issued by Dec. 6, though there’s no penalty for a late mailing. With early voting for the March 3 primaries set to begin Feb. 17, the delay has confused some voters who were expecting to have received the certificates by now, and multiple election officials said they have been fielding calls and questions about the missing certificates for weeks.

The certificates are small postcards that counties send to registered voters every two years, listing the voter’s local voting precinct, their congressional, state Senate and House districts, county precincts, and city and school districts.

Voters don’t need the cards to vote, but election officials say the cards can serve as an additional form of ID and help voters identify their new congressional or legislative district if it has changed. They also help election officials conduct voter list maintenance: When a card is returned as undeliverable, it signals that the voter may have moved.

Redistricting puts added strain on TEAM

Most of the state’s 254 counties rely on the Secretary of State’s free election and voter registration management system, called TEAM, to produce the certificates. Local election officials have for months complained that they are struggling with the system, which was overhauled in July, and several election officials said that is contributing to the delay.

State election officials said they also didn’t anticipate the system needing to handle the unexpected mid-cycle redistricting lawmakers undertook last year, and the redrawn boundaries are creating additional complications. Alicia Pierce, a spokeswoman for the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, said the state is still working with “several counties” to upload redistricting data, including Harris and Tarrant counties, which could not begin the process until they completed special runoff elections Jan. 31.

The system has lagged in producing reports containing large amounts of data and images that county officials need to print the certificates. Those reports are reviewed by both state and local election administrators to ensure voters’ information, including street addresses, cities, precincts, and districts, is accurate.

“This involves a massive upload of data to our system and then a careful review of voter data and validations at the county level to ensure accurate voter lists,” Pierce said. She did not respond to specific questions about election officials’ comments about TEAM.

Counties that use an outside vendor instead of TEAM to manage their voter rolls, including Collin County in North Texas and Nueces County in South Texas, mailed out the certificates to voters in late January.

Time is short for updating voter rolls

In Brazos County, which uses TEAM, election administrator Trudy Hancock counts on having time to update her voter lists after the initial mailing of voter registration cards. She typically gets more than 10,000 of them returned to her office as undeliverable. Brazos is home to College Station and Texas A&M University, and voters there are constantly moving either within the county or elsewhere.

The returned cards help election officials identify voters who may have moved and can be placed on the suspense list. Those voters have a chance to update their registration at the polls before they can vote.

But as of Wednesday, Hancock hadn’t been able to mail the certificates to her voters yet. She doubts she’ll have time to process returned certificates in time to flag voters before the March 3 primaries.

“Even if voter certificates went out this week, we’re not going to get that done in time to update the pollbooks,” Hancock said.

Tandi Smith, the Kaufman County elections administrator, also has not yet been able to mail out certificates to voters and said she doesn’t know when she’ll be able to. Kaufman has more than 117,000 registered voters.

“For us, especially in a growing county with a smaller staff, we’re having to adjust when a system should be functional and meeting our needs,” Smith said. “So we’re just trying to work through those growing pains until there’s a better way.”

Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Natalia is based in Corpus Christi. Contact her at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

What causes long lines on Election Day — and how they can be avoided

2026-02-05T16:39:54+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

In the November 2022 election, lines at polling places in Ann Arbor, Michigan, spilled out of buildings and down some city streets.

More voters were taking advantage of the opportunity to register and vote on the same day. But the process of registering hundreds of new voters and issuing them absentee ballots had to be done by clerk’s office staff and took up to five minutes per person, leading to waits that were often hours long, City Clerk Jackie Beaudry recounted to Votebeat.

Election officials weren’t willing to let that happen again. So Beaudry, along with other local clerks dealing with similar backups, successfully lobbied lawmakers in Lansing to allow people who register on Election Day to be able to cast regular ballots issued by standard poll workers. In the meantime, voters also approved measures allowing them to vote early in every statewide or federal election, alleviating pressure on Election Day voting.

Those changes cut the time to process each newly registered voter down to almost nothing, Beaudry said, and all but eliminated the city’s long lines in 2024. “I think on Election Day, the longest same-day registration wait was like 15 minutes,” Beaudry said.

Lines at polling places are the bane of election administrators nationwide. Long waits can take hours out of a voter’s day; in the worst-case scenario, they can even deter them from voting, robbing them of their voice in the election. So officials like Beaudry often feel duty-bound to do everything they can to minimize these waits.

The best kind of line, election officials typically agree, is no line at all. But the second-best — one that ensures a voter gets to cast their ballot in a timely manner, even if they do have to wait — relies on a precise combination of policy making, engineering, and sociology to make everything run smoothly.

Supporting them are researchers at universities across the country who study ways to make lines not only more efficient but also more tolerable for the voters who have to wait in them.

Eliminating lines altogether can be difficult. Local and state laws, including those focused on electioneering or election security, sometimes limit what is possible. But even within those confines, experts and election officials around the country have found that good lines are possible, even likely, with a little collaboration and a healthy amount of forethought.

What makes a good line?

What makes a bad line probably feels obvious to the people waiting in it. But what makes a good line is a little less clear cut. Charles Stewart, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said there are two answers to the question.

The first is that it should be short. Specifically, the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, convened by then-President Barack Obama in 2013, concluded in a 2014 report that, “as a general rule, no voter should have to wait more than half an hour in order to have an opportunity to vote.”

Of course, that’s not always possible. In 2012 — a presidential election before mail and absentee voting became widespread — research found that some 10 million voters probably waited at least that long to cast their ballot, with half of those voters waiting more than an hour.

So the second secret to a good line, Stewart said, is having enough resources to make it move smoothly even if it is longer.

For example, Stewart’s research has found that check-in stations are one of the worst bottlenecks on Election Day. But having an extra person to check in voters allows twice as many voters to get their ballots and start filling them out. That makes the wait shorter, which is key, but also can just make people feel that things are moving faster.

Stewart points to Disney theme parks as a great example. One of the members of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration was Brian Bitton, then the vice president of global park operations at Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. The commission held one of its meetings at Disney World, Stewart said, to gain real-world context on how lines can be improved even when they can’t be shortened.

Along with trying to make lines shorter, he said, Disney did things “to manage how people were thinking about the lines they encountered.”

That meant giving people things to do while in line, which in an electoral context could look like giving someone a sample ballot to consider. It also meant giving people live tracking of how long the lines are, so they can decide when to go or know what to expect.

Improving the experience of waiting can be as easy as having staff greeting people in line, Stewart said, or having a poll worker check the pens to make sure no one has to wait for a working one.

“Using staff to make sure the experience is pleasant, that’s efficient to a voter,” he said.

The policies that can make lines bad

Keeping people stimulated while they wait makes them less annoyed, Stewart said. But a number of states have policies that limit what people waiting in line, or the people helping them, can do.

For instance, in Ann Arbor in 2022, volunteers provided those waiting outdoors in the cool autumn temperatures with blankets. That would likely run afoul of the rules in a few other states, where laws ban people from providing food, beverages, or “anything of value” to voters.

Georgia is one of the most well-known examples of that, but similarly strict laws exist in Montana, Idaho, and other states. The laws are intended to prevent candidates from influencing people’s vote. But they can also make waiting in line less bearable.

Gretchen Macht, the founder and executive director of the University of Rhode Island’s Engineering for Democracy Institute, told Votebeat that laws that don’t take real-world experiences into account often end up being too rigid. From an engineering perspective, lines are a matter of balancing systems by meeting needs as they arise.

For example, when Macht’s team looked into the causes of lines at Rhode Island polling places, one culprit was a law that allowed for only one checkout station per precinct.

“That’s what was causing lines, especially if there was any sort of failure, especially if there was high turnout,” Macht said. Her team eventually worked with the state to help amend the law.

And sometimes, the culprit is a local failure to plan. If officials keep tabs on when their polling places are busiest, they can better allocate resources throughout the day, Macht said.

Gathering tangible data on when voters show up and acting on it, rather than just gut feelings about people showing up after the standard work day, can be a lot of work but often pays off, Stewart said. It allows for better messaging on what voters can expect and, in many cases, may motivate them to go at off-peak times or even vote early or absentee when available.

“People are less irritated at waiting in line when they can control being in that line,” he said.

Creative solutions can solve line bottlenecks

The best policies are the ones that consider the human aspects of voting. That means trying to mitigate the irritating parts of lines or the confusing parts of a governmental process. But it also means accounting for quirks, such as voters’ desire to take a picture of their ballot at the voting booth. Officials have found that many voters really relish that opportunity.

But Stewart studied that in Michigan and found that, over the course of the day, such photo taking tied up voting booths and added immensely to wait times.

As a result, many Michigan election officials have begun to include separate photo stations at their polling places, typically separate from voting booths and away from where other voters may be unwittingly caught in the photos, which would go against Michigan’s rules.

In Ann Arbor, Beaudry’s photo stations were originally just posters on the wall. But the city eventually worked with University of Michigan design professors to make the stations more visually appealing. The effort has paid off, especially for younger voters, who find them to be a fun treat after casting a ballot.

But the best thing, Beaudry said? The city’s lines are nearly nonexistent now.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Wisconsin Elections Commission steps in to challenge Madison’s argument on absentee voting

2026-02-04T20:12:16+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission, filing its first ever friend-of-the-court brief, challenged Madison’s controversial legal argument that it should not be financially liable for 193 uncounted ballots in the 2024 presidential election because of a state law that calls absentee voting a privilege, not a right.

The argument presented by city officials misunderstands what “privilege” means in the context of absentee voting and “enjoys no support in the constitution or case law,” the commission wrote in its filing Tuesday, echoing a similar rebuke by Gov. Tony Evers last month.

“Once an elector has complied with the statutory process, whether absentee or in-person, she has a constitutional right to have her vote counted,” the commission said.

That both the commission and the governor felt it was necessary to intervene in the case should underscore “both the wrongness and the dangerousness of such a claim,” commission Chair Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, told Votebeat.

The dispute over the city’s legal defense stems from a lawsuit filed in September by the liberal election law firm Law Forward in Dane County Circuit Court against the city of Madison and the clerk’s office, along with former clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick in their personal capacities. It seeks monetary damages on behalf of the voters whose absentee ballots were never counted in the 2024 presidential election, alleging that their constitutional rights were violated.

Attorneys for Witzel-Behl — and later the city — argued that by choosing to vote absentee, the disenfranchised voters “exercised a privilege,” citing a 1985 state law that describes absentee voting as a privilege exercised outside the safeguards of the polling place.

Law Forward called the argument a “shocking proposition,” and Evers filed his own friend-of-the-court brief last month, warning that the city’s position could lead to “absurd results.”

Some legal experts said the argument could run afoul of the federal Constitution.

Matthew W. O’Neill, an attorney representing Witzel-Behl, declined to comment.

No statute can override the constitutional right to vote, the commission stated, adding that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided in 2024 that state law the defendants invoked does not allow for a “skeptical view” of absentee voting.

The argument has also drawn negative reactions from a range of political voices.

On Wednesday, six Wisconsin voting groups — Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, Common Cause Wisconsin, ACLU of Wisconsin, All in Wisconsin Fund, and All Voting is Local — released a scathing statement saying they were “deeply alarmed” by the city’s argument.

“We call on the City of Madison to immediately abandon this dangerous legal argument, take responsibility for disenfranchising voters, and work toward a remedy that respects voters’ constitutional rights,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, Rick Esenberg, the founder of the conservative group Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty — which cited the same 1985 law in its 2021 effort to ban ballot drop boxes — said on social media that Madison’s legal argument was likely going too far.

“Madison is correct in noting that absentee voting is a privilege and not a right in the sense that the legislature has no obligation to permit it at all,” Esenberg said. “BUT if it does and people choose to cast their ballot in the way specified by law, it doesn’t seem crazy to say that Madison has a constitutional obligation to count their legally cast vote.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Election officials draw on sobering 2020 lessons as Trump calls for nationalizing voting

2026-02-03T23:30:08+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

When President Donald Trump pressured state and local officials to intervene in his behalf in the 2020 election, it wasn’t a matter of abstract constitutional theory for the people running elections. It was armed protests outside offices, threats against their families, subpoenas for voter data, and months of uncertainty about whether doing their jobs would land them in legal jeopardy.

Now, Trump says he wants Republicans to “nationalize the voting” and “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” language that evokes the pressure campaigns he and allies mounted during that contentious 2020 period.

Trump’s 2020 effort ultimately stalled when even some Republicans refused to take steps they believed were unlawful. And his call to nationalize voting this week prompted pushback from some GOP members of Congress and other Republican figures.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Trump’s proposal raised constitutional concerns, and he warned that nationalizing elections could make them more susceptible to cybersecurity attacks. Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska was more blunt, saying he has long opposed federal control of elections. “I’ll oppose this now as well,” he wrote on X.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump’s comments referred to his support for federal legislation commonly called the SAVE Act.

Election officials say the lesson of 2020 was not that the system is invulnerable, but that it can be strained in ways that cause lasting damage long before courts step in. While it’s unclear whether Trump’s latest demands — and possible future actions— would lead to the same level of disruption, legal experts say some of the backstops that ultimately stopped him last time are now weaker, leaving election officials to absorb even more pressure.

Memories of 2020 shape the response

Kathy Bernier, a Republican former Wisconsin lawmaker and Chippewa County clerk, was the chair of the state Senate’s election committee following the 2020 election and repeatedly pushed back on Trump’s claims of widespread fraud. As Republicans launched a prolonged review of the results, Bernier criticized the effort publicly, saying Wisconsin’s elections were secure and that “no one should falsely accuse election officials of cheating.”

She faced extensive backlash, including calls for her resignation, and Bernier said the dispute escalated to the point that she carried a gun for protection. She ultimately left the legislature, a decision that she said wasn’t politically motivated.

A key takeaway from the 2020 election for election officials, Bernier told Votebeat, was the importance of radical transparency — not just following the rules, but showing people, in real time, that the rules are being followed “to a T.”

“When there’s a paper jam,” she said, “announce it.”

Still, she said, officials also learned the limits of that approach. After she tried to boost election confidence across Wisconsin, she came to a blunt conclusion: “There’s nothing you can do with ‘I don’t believe you.’”

In the years that followed, Bernier said, a bigger danger than Trump himself were the “charlatans” who took his words and turned them into a business model, spreading conspiracy theories for profit. The misinformation and disinformation those people spread, Bernier said, continue to resonate among the conspiratorial segments of the GOP.

The impact of their campaigns has been felt acutely by election officials. Many received death threats, and some had to relocate and enhance their security protections. Large cities redesigned their election offices to better protect their workers, and election official turnover increased dramatically, reshaping the profession long after the votes were counted.

Stephen Richer, a Republican who became recorder in Maricopa County, Arizona, shortly after the 2020 election, had similar advice: Follow the law, tell the truth, and consult attorneys, national associations, and state associations before making key decisions, because “the likelihood that they are dealing with your jurisdiction alone is limited.”

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is among the Republicans who prominently resisted Trump’s calls to overturn the 2020 election. He and his wife received death threats, and were assigned a protective team by the state. He declined an interview with Votebeat, but in a statement this week, he urged lawmakers to improve state election administration “rather than rehashing the same outdated claims or worse — moving to federalize a core function of state government.”

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt, another Republican who pushed back on Trump’s baseless allegations of widespread fraud following the 2020 election and faced similar retaliation, told Votebeat that the state’s elections are freer and fairer than ever before, and that the Constitution stops Trump from unilaterally nationalizing elections.

The Michigan Department of State, similarly, said this was a settled constitutional matter.

On the other hand, Michigan Republicans have asked the U.S. Justice Department for increased federal involvement in elections in the state, calling for monitors — not atypical in American elections — as well as “oversight,” although GOP leaders didn’t elaborate on what that would mean.

Richer, who lost his reelection bid for recorder in 2024 to another Republican, said Trump’s comments, combined with similar calls for federal involvement, suggest the Republican Party is drifting from its traditional commitment to federalism and local control. He also pointed to increased legislation at the federal level seeking to standardize elections, which has received little pushback from the Republican Party. That’s despite Republicans criticizing an earlier Democratic legislative effort as federal overreach.

“Clearly the federal government is going to do things that it’s never done before,” he said. “The FBI going in and taking materials from an election that happened over five years ago is unprecedented, so maybe we’re destined for additional unprecedented actions."

Election officials and courts the most significant ‘line of defense’

One of the key reasons that Trump failed in his efforts to delay and then overturn the 2020 election was the “men and women of principle” in his administration, said David Becker, an election lawyer who leads the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research. Becker, a former Justice Department official, said the experience offered an uncomfortable lesson: Those internal guardrails existed because individuals chose to enforce them — and there is less reason to assume they would be there again.

After the 2020 election, Bill Barr, the attorney general at the time, disputed Trump’s claim that there was widespread fraud; the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency similarly disputed the president’s claim that swings in unofficial results during election night meant that there was election fraud; and national security officials reportedly warned Trump that he couldn’t seize voting machines.

“That line of defense is largely gone,” Becker said, because “the primary and perhaps only qualification for being hired by this administration — particularly in those key roles in the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security — is loyalty to this man.”

With fewer internal checks, Becker said, the second and most important line of defense this election cycle is courts and state and local election officials. Courts have already stymied many of the election policies Trump has tried to carry out via executive order, and “election officials are holding firm.” But he cautioned that court challenges take time — time in which “untold damage” can be done to erode public trust and to the officials caught in the middle.

That gap between what Trump can say and what he can actually do is where the risk now lies, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University who advised President Joe Biden’s administration on democracy and voting rights. Levitt said Trump does not have the legal or operational authority to unilaterally nationalize elections, even if he were inclined to cross legal boundaries.

He contrasted the president’s ability to control elections with ICE’s use of force in Democratic-run cities. In immigration enforcement, Levitt said, Congress has given the executive branch authority that can be exercised aggressively or improperly, even when courts later find those actions unlawful. In those cases, Levitt said, the president has “his finger on a switch” — the practical ability to act first and answer questions later. “No such switch exists” in elections, said Levitt.

But with fewer administration officials pushing back on Trump’s claims compared with his first term, Levitt said election officials can expect Trump’s messaging to get “much, much, much worse this year,” and for those claims to be given more oxygen by the rest of the federal government.

“It’s up to us to choose to believe him or not,” he added. Obedience in advance isn’t required, and treating Trump’s claims as commands would grant him authority he does not have, Levitt said, adding, “We have agency in this.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Half of Western U.S. counties have lost top election officials since 2020, report finds

2026-02-03T12:00:01+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

A new analysis from Issue One finds that half of all counties in 11 Western states have lost their chief election official since the 2020 election, underscoring a deepening workforce crisis driven largely by stress, threats, and burnout — not electoral defeat or term limits.

“This isn’t just normal turnover,” the report’s authors wrote in the report, released in advance to Votebeat. “Veteran officials are opting to head for the exits,” taking with them institutional knowledge that can be difficult and costly for local governments to replace.

The study by Issue One, a nonprofit group that works on election and democracy issues, examined post-2020 trends in local election administration in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and found widespread turnover among top local election officials.

The findings build on earlier research showing elevated departures after the 2020 election but suggest the trend has not eased even after the 2024 presidential race. In 2025 alone, 53 chief local election officials in Western states left their jobs, nearly matching the 55 who departed in the year after the 2020 election.

Election officials have long described their work as demanding and under-resourced, but scrutiny of the profession intensified after false claims of widespread voter fraud gained traction following President Donald Trump’s loss in 2020. Since then, election administrators across the country have reported burnout and serious job-related health consequences, along with harassment, intimidation, and threats — pressures that the report links directly to the pace of resignations.

The issue has become more pressing in recent weeks, as the Trump administration has ramped up attacks on local administrators. While lack of funding, increased local legislation, and scrutiny have continued, Issue One Policy Director Michael McNulty said the administration’s willingness to issue search warrants and file lawsuits means “we are in a different world now.”

The pressure has been especially intense in places where elections are most contested or draw outsize media attention. The report found that 80% of counties where the 2020 presidential election was decided by five percentage points or less experienced turnover, compared with just 40% of counties where margins exceeded 50 percentage points. Large, populous counties also saw higher rates of departures than smaller rural jurisdictions.

In California’s Shasta County, Clerk and Registrar of Voters Cathy Darling Allen retired in 2024 after nearly two decades in the role, citing heart failure and the need to reduce stress. Her successor resigned less than a year later for similar health-related reasons, underscoring how quickly the pressure can take a toll.

In Nevada, longtime Clark County Registrar Joe Gloria said threats escalated to the point that police were checking on his home hourly — and that his family was also targeted. “That’s when it did feel a bit different,” Gloria told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, explaining why he ultimately left after nearly 10 years running elections in the state’s most populous county.

Why election officials keep quitting

Taken together, the data and anecdotes point to a workforce under long-building strain, particularly in places where elections are most closely watched. The report suggests that the very conditions that have made election administration increasingly demanding in recent years — high turnout, national attention, legal challenges, and persistent scrutiny — are also the ones driving experienced officials away, leaving many jurisdictions heading toward the 2026 midterms with less institutional memory and thinner leadership benches than they had just a few years ago.

Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, said that while localities and universities are investing in durable training programs and peer mentorship for new election administrators, much of what it takes to run an election well comes from experience.

“So many times, if there are small mistakes that happen in election administration, it’s human error,” he said.

The concern is not simply that new officials lack commitment or skill, but that they are being asked to take on increasingly complex jobs in a politically hostile environment. The report found that many departures occurred mid-term and that turnover remained high even after the 2024 presidential election, suggesting that the pressures driving officials out have not eased.

“We are not out of the woods yet,” said Beckel. While new officials are coming in “with their eyes wide open” to the new pressures, it will still take a significant increase in support to lower turnover rates ahead of the 2028 presidential election.

Stabilizing an exhausted workforce

The report argues that the turnover trend is not inevitable — but reversing it will require political leaders to reduce pressures on election officials rather than add to them.

Among its recommendations, Issue One calls for stronger protections against threats, harassment, and doxxing of election workers, noting that election infrastructure is already designated as critical infrastructure under federal law. While dozens of states have criminalized intimidation of election officials, the report says enforcement and broader political condemnation of threats remain uneven.

The report also calls for increased funding and staffing support for local election offices, which often absorb new legal and security demands without additional resources. Limiting unfunded mandates, curbing last-minute changes to election law, and investing in recruitment and retention programs — including fellowships that bring new workers into election offices — could help stabilize a workforce strained by burnout, the authors say. Without sustained investment, they warn, jurisdictions will enter future elections with fewer experienced leaders and little margin for error.

“Counties can’t do this alone,” said Beckel. “It really takes people working in partnership and across the aisle to stop re-ligitating the past and to stop treating conspiracy theories as truth.”

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

After a busy week of election news, Trump Cabinet officials ghost election officials at conference

2026-01-30T23:08:55+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

What a week of election news, huh?

Attorney General Pam Bondi set off a furor when she appeared to link the aggressive immigration enforcement efforts in Minnesota to the state’s refusal to share its voter rolls with the Trump administration. The FBI searched a Fulton County, Georgia, election office, apparently as part of a criminal investigation into the 2020 election. Congressional Republicans dropped big new legislation to overhaul election administration.

Against that backdrop, secretaries of state from around the country gathered in a hotel ballroom in Washington, D.C., many expressing growing unease about the implications of the Trump administration’s actions and rhetoric around the 2026 elections they’re responsible for administering in November.

Multiple Trump administration officials were scheduled to address the secretaries’ conference at various points, but the plans kept shifting. Earlier this week, a spokeswoman for the National Association of Secretaries of State said Bondi — whose Justice Department has so far sued 24 states and Washington, D.C., for access to their voter rolls — and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem would potentially be added to the schedule. Later, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was added to the list of expected officials, less than 48 hours after she appeared at the FBI search in Fulton County.

It wasn’t clear what they were planning to say, and some Democratic secretaries said they planned to skip the remarks.

But after a crowd of secretaries of state, their staff, consultants, vendors, and media members filled the ballroom Friday afternoon, with four chairs set up on the dais, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican, announced that the chairs would stay empty.

“Unfortunately, it appears that we will no longer be having a 3 o’clock session,” Watson said, to rueful chuckles.

It wasn’t the only shift.

An early agenda had called for a Thursday panel with two White House officials, as well as Harmeet Dhillon, the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, and Heather Honey, the deputy assistant secretary for election integrity for the Department of Homeland Security. Ultimately, only one official, Jared Borg of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, spoke. Borg opened by outlining the administration’s efforts to overhaul a federal database used by many states to verify voter citizenship, as well as ongoing consultations with secretaries of state on that and related initiatives.

Election officials from both political parties had pointed questions.

Referring to comments from Justice Department officials about states’ maintenance of voter rolls, Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican and the state’s chief election officer, said it is “problematic to publicly claim that secretaries of state are not doing our jobs and that the federal government has to do it for us.” Connecticut Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas, a Democrat, asked why the administration wasn’t answering their questions about its election initiatives.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, asked pointedly how the Trump administration squared his executive order on elections with the fact that the Constitution gives authority over elections to the states and Congress. Borg said the question would be better directed to Bondi or Noem the next day.

But as it turned out, Bellows didn’t get the chance, and she wasn’t happy about it. After Watson announced the session wouldn’t happen, a small group of Democratic secretaries of state spoke to the press. “Noem, Bondi, and Gabbard are cowards for not showing up today and answering the questions from election officials from across the country about this administration’s abuses of power,” Bellows said, while secretaries of state from Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Vermont looked on.

Their frustrations with the Trump administration were clear. But the Democratic secretaries ended on a more upbeat note: emphasizing that NASS is still a bipartisan organization, and that their Republican colleagues are just as committed to administering a fair 2026 election as they are.

“Following the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law,” Thomas said, “is not a partisan issue.”

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Correction, Feb. 6, 2026, 10:12 a.m.: This story has been corrected to reflect that the Department of Justice has sued 24 states for not handing over their voter rolls, not 23 states.

Republicans introduce sweeping election legislation, but it’s unlikely to become law

2026-01-30T18:19:01+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

Congressional Republicans on Thursday redoubled their efforts to regulate elections nationwide, introducing two new bills that draw heavily from President Donald Trump’s agenda.

U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, the chair of the House Administration Committee, unveiled the Make Elections Great Again Act, a bill that would overhaul several aspects of how elections are run, from limiting the use of mail voting to setting a national photo ID requirement for voting.

Later in the day, Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Chip Roy introduced the SAVE America Act, which combines a photo ID requirement for voters with the SAVE Act, a bill passed by the House last year to require Americans to prove their citizenship when registering to vote.

Both the MEGA Act and SAVE America Act face long odds of becoming law anytime soon. Although the measures could pass the Republican-controlled House, they would almost certainly fail in the Senate, where the filibuster effectively means that legislation needs 60 votes to pass. (Republicans control the Senate only 53-47.) Given that both bills go farther than the SAVE Act, which has languished in the upper chamber for almost a year, there’s little reason to expect they would have any more luck in the Senate.

Trump and his allies have for years been intent on changing the way U.S. elections are run, building on their false assertions of widespread fraud. In recent days, billionaire Elon Musk has used his social-media site X to pressure senators to pass the SAVE Act, which may explain the timing of the two new bills.

Since the start of Trump’s second term, his administration has also attempted to exercise extraordinary power over election administration, suing 24 states and Washington, D.C., for not sharing comprehensive data on their registered voters and issuing a sweeping executive order on elections last year. The bills also come the same week that the FBI seized ballots from the 2020 election from an elections office in Fulton County, Georgia, in search of evidence of malfeasance.

So far, however, key provisions of Trump’s executive order have been struck down in court, and in recent months, he’s repeatedly called on Congress to pass legislation enacting his election-related priorities. The two proposals contain several policies from Trump’s 2025 executive order.

In November, the White House press secretary said the White House was working on a second executive order on elections, but one has yet to materialize.

What the Republican election bills would do

Should they ever pass, the SAVE America Act and especially the MEGA Act would represent the most transformative federal law aimed at reshaping national election administration in decades.

Both bills would:

Require Americans to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship (such as a passport) when registering to vote. Currently, new registrants must attest that they are a U.S. citizen, but most people aren’t required to provide documentation to prove it. According to Ballotpedia, Arizona, New Hampshire, and Wyoming are the only states that currently require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Require voters to provide photo ID. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 23 states ask voters to provide photo IDs; in 13 states, non-photo IDs are acceptable, while 14 states plus Washington, D.C., don’t ask voters for ID. Notably, the ID requirement would apply not only to in-person voters, but also to mail voters, who would have to provide photocopies of their IDs (although the MEGA Act allows voters to provide unique identifying numbers, such as the last four digits of their Social Security number, instead). Currently, only Arkansas and North Carolina require mail voters to enclose copies of their IDs.
Require states to regularly check their voter rolls for noncitizens. For example, the MEGA Act would require states to compare their voter lists against the Department of Homeland Security’s citizenship database, known as SAVE, on at least a monthly basis. The Trump administration upgraded SAVE last year to make it easier to use for large-scale searches, and the department said in November that 26 states are now using it for voter verification.

The MEGA Act also includes a host of other provisions, such as:

Banning universal vote-by-mail. In other words, the eight states (plus Washington, D.C.) that automatically mail ballots to every voter would no longer be allowed to do so.
Prohibiting states from accepting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day. Currently, 14 states and Washington, D.C., do this, as long as the ballots are postmarked on time. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of this practice later this year.
Barring anyone except the voter, an immediate family member, or caregiver from possessing the voter’s ballot. Each state has different rules about who (if anyone) can return a mail voter’s ballot for them, but several have laws broad enough that allow third parties, such as campaign operatives, to do so — a practice Republicans have described as “ballot harvesting.”
Requiring states to provide hand-marked paper ballots. According to Verified Voting, nearly 70% of registered voters already live in a jurisdiction that uses hand-marked paper ballots. Most of the remaining jurisdictions use ballot-marking devices, which would be still legal under the bill, but they would need to provide voters with the option to hand-mark their ballots as well.
Outlawing ranked-choice voting. This would affect only a few jurisdictions. Alaska, Maine, and Washington, D.C., are the only places that use ranked-choice voting in federal elections in the regular course of business. However, Georgia also uses it for military and overseas voters, and Hawaii uses it for special elections.

The provisions in both bills would only apply to federal elections, forcing states to choose between changing their state election laws to match and administering federal and state elections differently. Either way, the bill would likely create more work for election officials. Given how many states would have to change their voting procedures, the enactment of either of these bills would send officials scrambling to adapt to unfamiliar requirements.

And if officials fail to live up to the law, they could be held liable in new ways. The MEGA Act explicitly allows the attorney general, and even private citizens, to file civil lawsuits against election officials for noncompliance.

Connecticut Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas, a Democrat, said that this type of broad mandate from the federal government “not only potentially disenfranchises voters, but it also ignores how under-resourced elections and secretaries of state are in general.”

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

Correction, Feb. 6, 2026, 10:09 a.m.: This story has been corrected to reflect that Washington, D.C., will use ranked-choice voting starting in 2026 and that Georgia and Hawaii also use ranked-choice voting in some circumstances. It has also been corrected to reflect that the Department of Justice has sued 24 states and Washington, D.C., for not handing over their voter rolls, not 23 states.

Michigan investigation finds fewer potential noncitizens on voter roll than Republican official claimed

2026-01-29T23:21:42+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

A preliminary state investigation into potential noncitizen voters in Macomb County, Michigan, found one noncitizen who had cast a ballot in the county in 2018, but also found that several people whom the county flagged were actually U.S. citizens.

Anthony Forlini, the Macomb County clerk and a Republican candidate for secretary of state, said two weeks ago that he had found 15 people on Macomb County’s list of roughly 725,000 registered voters who had recused themselves from jury duty on the grounds that they were not U.S. citizens. Officials from his office said that at least three of those people had voted before, which Forlini described as evidence of broader problems with the state’s voter roll maintenance.

After her department investigated the claim, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said Thursday that, of the three people Forlini’s office had flagged, one was a noncitizen, one was a citizen (and thus an eligible voter), and one was still under review but had last voted in 2024. The noncitizen last voted in 2018, and their registration was canceled in 2022.

Benson said during a press conference Thursday that while it is her department’s policy to refer noncitizen voters to the attorney general’s office, the 2018 case was “so long ago” that her office is reviewing the statute of limitations before deciding whether to pursue legal action.

Four of the remaining 12 voters Forlini flagged do appear to be noncitizens, according to Angela Benander, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of State. The state will request additional information from them before canceling their registrations. Two more are U.S. citizens who are properly registered, three had already been removed from the rolls, and the remaining three are still being investigated by the state, Benander told Votebeat on Thursday.

“When we review our voter lists, it is not uncommon to find eligible American voters improperly labeled as noncitizens, whether by clerical error, change of citizenship status or otherwise,” Benson said Thursday. “We update our lists accordingly, so that eligible citizens aren’t wrongfully investigated, removed from voter rolls or stopped from voting.”

Comparing voter rolls to databases containing citizenship data like those produced by jury service can be an unreliable way to find noncitizen voters. Other states have tried it and ultimately came up with inflated numbers of potential noncitizens.

David Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, joined Benson on Thursday. He said that “jury questionnaires are a really bad source of matching to voter files for a variety of reasons.”

He said those matches tend to produce false positives because those called for jury duty often lie about their citizenship status “to get out of jury duty, rather than having lied under penalty of perjury on a voter registration form.”

Benson criticized what she called “reckless accusations” that “can lead to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.”

She also criticized President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice, which Forlini told media he had been in conversations with, for trying to force states to turn over voter rolls. Michigan, along with several other states, has been the target of one of those requests. The state turned over only the public file, with no personal identifying information, and is now facing a lawsuit over that decision.

Forlini did not immediately respond to Votebeat’s requests for comment.

Voting by noncitizens is extremely rare. Michigan’s review of the entire qualified voter file conducted last year found that of the more than 5.7 million ballots cast in the 2024 general election, only 16 people were potentially noncitizens. Similar reviews in other states have produced comparable numbers: A review in Georgia, for instance, found only 20 potential noncitizens in its own voter rolls of 8.2 million people.

In Michigan, Republicans in particular have said that any instance of noncitizen voting is unacceptable and pushed for a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement in the state, rather than just an attestation from registrants that they are citizens. Democrats, meanwhile, including Benson, have insisted that such requirements would be too burdensome and would disproportionately prevent eligible citizens from voting.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Texas attorney general acted in bad faith against Latino civic group Jolt Initiative, judge rules

2026-01-29T23:17:12+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

This story was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton failed to offer “any plausible proof” that Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is violating the law, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

Paxton had filed a lawsuit in state court accusing Jolt of submitting “unlawful voter registration applications,” specifying in a press release that the group was “attempting to register illegals, who are all criminals.” The suit, which seeks to revoke Jolt’s nonprofit charter through a legal mechanism known as a quo warranto petition, was put on ice by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, who said in his ruling that Paxton appears to be operating in bad faith.

The attorney general’s case against Jolt “supposes absolutely no wrongdoing,” and indicates that the attorney general may be “harassing [Jolt] and fishing for reasons to investigate its organization.”

This is not the first legal back-and-forth between Jolt and Paxton’s office. Last year, the organization successfully sued to stop the state’s investigation into its voter registration efforts. In the new suit, Jolt’s lawyers argue Paxton’s efforts to shut it down are retaliation. The attorney general’s office has also in recent years targeted other organizations aiding Latinos and migrants, such as the effort to investigate and shut down El Paso-based Annunciation House.

“For over a year, we have faced a relentless campaign of harassment designed to completely crush our organization and silence our community,” Jolt Executive Director Jackie Bastard said in a statement. “Judge Pitman’s finding that AG Paxton acted in bad faith confirms what we have known all along: this was never about election integrity, it was about political retaliation.”

The background: Case spurred by Maria Bartiromo’s debunked claims

In August 2024, Fox News host Maria Bartiromo said on X that a friend had seen organizations registering migrants to vote outside state driver’s license facilities in Fort Worth and Weatherford. But local officials, including the Parker County Republican chair, said there was no evidence backing the post.

Bartiromo’s debunked claims still prompted an attorney general investigation into organizations including Jolt.

Jolt then sued for a temporary restraining order, saying that Paxton’s probe would harm the organization as well as put its workers and volunteers at risk. In October 2024, both sides agreed to pause their legal fight and Jolt was allowed to continue its work, while the courts addressed a different lawsuit involving the tool used by Paxton to investigate the group. The attorney general’s office now said in its recent court filing that it has agreed to not issue another subpoena, instead opting to launch a new lawsuit.

In addition, Paxton announced earlier this year that his office is investigating cases of “potential noncitizens” casting more than 200 ballots in 2020 and 2022, which would be around one-thousandth of 1% of the votes cast during these periods.

Meanwhile, Texas counties are looking into more than 2,700 registered voters who were flagged as “potential noncitizens.” At least six of them have been confirmed to be U.S. citizens.

Voters also recently approved a constitutional amendment adding language to the state’s constitution saying that a person who is not a U.S. citizen cannot vote in Texas. Noncitizen voting was already illegal prior to this update.

Why Texas sued: Paxton claims ‘unlawful motive’

Following Bartiromo’s claims, the attorney general’s office sent an undercover agent to a DMV location near San Antonio to investigate by attempting to register a fake daughter — who wasn’t physically with him — to vote, according to Paxton’s Oct. 23 court filing. It said a Jolt volunteer deputy registrar still instructed the agent on how to register his daughter, despite her absence.

Paxton’s filing didn’t provide evidence of Jolt registering noncitizens to vote. Instead, it said the group’s decision to hold voter registration drives near DMV locations “illuminates its unlawful motive.”

“This is because U.S. citizens can already register to vote at any DMV with proof of citizenship,” the court document said. “Thus, there is no need for a VDR at such locations.”

In November, Paxton filed a quo warranto suit in Tarrant County, seeking to revoke the group’s charter and shut it down. Paxton claimed a “substantial part of the events” underlying the case took place there; Jolt requested that the suit be moved to Harris County.

“JOLT is a radical, partisan operation that has, and continues to, knowingly attempt to corrupt our voter rolls and weaken the voice of lawful Texas voters,” Paxton said in a news release at the time. “I will make sure they face the full force of the law.”

Jolt points to provision of election code

In response to Paxton’s suit seeking to shut them down, Jolt leaders filed a federal lawsuit asking a judge to stop Paxton’s case in state court because it infringes on their rights under the First Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.

In particular, Jolt said in a court filing that its volunteer didn’t do anything wrong because Texas’ election code does allow for a person to appoint their parent as “an agent” to “complete and sign a registration application” for them. The parent must also be a qualified voter or must have submitted a registration application and be eligible to vote, according to the code.

Pitman, an Austin-based judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, agreed, saying Paxton’s office did not produce evidence of any wrongdoing. He took the unusual step for a federal judge of intervening to stop a state court proceeding, which he said was warranted because Paxton was acting in bad faith.

“The court does not come to this conclusion lightly,” Pitman wrote. “Given multiple opportunities to assert his good faith by pointing to any credible evidence of illegal activity or even general wrongdoing … Defendant could not.”

Social media post shared by Trump misinterprets the way Wisconsin manages its voter rolls

2026-01-29T21:48:31+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

A misleading claim that Wisconsin has more registered voters than people eligible to vote is gaining traction on social media, including in posts shared this week by President Donald Trump.

It’s just the latest in a long-running series of claims that misinterpret basic data about voter rolls to create alarm about the risk of voter fraud.

The posts circulating this week cite videos asserting that Wisconsin’s voter rolls contain more than 7 million names — far more than the state’s voting age population — and are overlaid with text reading, “This Is Not a Glitch — This Is Election Fraud Waiting To Happen.”

The videos feature Peter Bernegger, an entrepreneur who has been convicted of mail fraud and bank fraud. Bernegger has repeatedly promoted false theories about the 2020 election in Wisconsin legislative hearings and repeatedly filed unsuccessful lawsuits against election officials in search of proof for his claims.

But his claim conflates two different datasets in Wisconsin’s voter registration system: the Wisconsin voter list and active registered voters.

As of July 2025, the state had about 8.3 million names on its voter list — in line with the number Bernegger cites. But of them, only 3.7 million were active registered voters. The remaining roughly 4.6 million are inactive voters. Inactive records include people who previously registered to vote but later moved out of state, died, lost eligibility because of a felony conviction, or were ruled incompetent to vote by a court. Those individuals haven’t been removed from the voter list, but because of their inactive status, they cannot vote unless they re-register, which requires proof of residency and a photo ID.

Bernegger claims in his video that the list of voters generally grows every day, going down only once every four years, when voters who haven’t cast a ballot in four years are sent postcards asking whether they want to remain registered, and then removed from the active list if they don’t respond.

Part of that claim is true: Wisconsin never deletes voter records, so the total database of active and inactive registrations only grows. But the active voter roll, which includes only voters currently eligible to cast a ballot, can shrink.

By email, Bernegger disputed Votebeat’s characterization of his claims but provided no further proof for them.

The confusion stems from a common misunderstanding about Wisconsin’s voter system, Wisconsin Elections Commission Chair Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, told Votebeat. The pollbooks used to check voters’ eligibility on Election Day contain only active voters, while the broader voter database also retains inactive records.

The inactive records also detail why a voter was deactivated. Wisconsin state law allows for several reasons for a voter’s registration status to be changed from eligible to ineligible, but there’s no state law calling for the destruction of voter registration records, not even for a voter who has died.

And Jacobs said there’s a good reason for that: Keeping these inactive records indefinitely helps prevent fraud: If somebody tries to register using the identity of a dead voter, for example, clerks can flag that application, because the prior record — including the reason it was deactivated — is still on file.

“It’s actually pro-list-hygiene to have access to that information immediately,” she said.

Interstate databases also play a role in maintaining accurate voter rolls. One such organization, the Electronic Registration Information Center, has helped states including Wisconsin identify hundreds of thousands of voters each year who have moved across state lines, and tens of thousands of voters who died. But the system has gaps. Some Republican-led states have left the program, leaving just 25 states and Washington, D.C., participating.

Experts say voter fraud is extremely rare, but Republicans have long argued that dirty voter rolls could enable fraud and reduce confidence.

Similar misleading claims about voter rolls have circulated in other states, including Michigan, amplified by right-wing figures such as Elon Musk.

Democrats and many election officials typically support regular voter roll maintenance but warn that aggressive cleanup efforts may risk disenfranchising lawful, active voters.

Wisconsin’s own data shows how infrequently fraud occurs. In its latest report, which covers five elections, the WEC identified just 30 potential instances of fraud. One relates to a voter seeking to vote in two states. Most involved voting after a felony conviction or double-voting by casting an absentee and in-person vote in the same election.

Correction: This story was updated to reflect the number of names on the state’s voter list was 8.3 million and the number of suspected instances of fraud in a 2024 Wisconsin Elections Commission report as 30.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

State election officials project confidence after FBI search of Georgia elections office

2026-01-29T19:02:40+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

The FBI’s search of a Fulton County, Georgia, election office, sent shock waves through election offices nationwide that have spent years responding to lawsuits, audits, and investigations driven by President Donald Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election.

But state election officials — many of them gathered this week for a national conference — projected confidence afterward, saying their work has already withstood years of scrutiny following the 2020 election, and they have followed federal and state law.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, said election officials are “concerned” and “upset,” and believe “a certain individual is trying to intimidate us” ahead of the 2026 and 2028 elections. At the same time, he said, officials want voters to know they are running “safe, secure, and accessible elections,” with safeguards that are continually reviewed and improved.

Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican and the state’s chief elections officer, said the only response to heightened scrutiny is strict adherence to the law. “We’re committed to orderly and fair elections, no matter what political party the voter belongs to,” she said. “But we live in a reality where politicians politicize stuff.”

Those comments came as the National Association of Secretaries of State met this week for its annual winter conference, with the FBI’s search in Georgia hanging over the gathering. The conference schedule shifted amid the uncertainty, with NASS officials offering late confirmation that Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard would address the group on Friday.

Tensions surfaced Thursday as speakers addressed the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive push for greater federal control over elections. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat and former secretary of state, referenced the Fulton County search and called it a “wake-up call” for election officials.

Later, West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner, a Republican, introduced Jared Borg, a special assistant to the president and deputy director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, noting that Borg had been asked to speak about the administration’s future plans — including the possibility of a second executive order on elections. Borg did not address that issue during his remarks and declined to comment when asked about it afterward.

The FBI on Wednesday executed a broad search warrant at a Fulton County elections office as part of a federal investigation into the handling and preservation of 2020 election records. A federal judge authorized agents to search for ballots, tabulator records, ballot images, and voter rolls, citing potential violations of federal election law.

The search came a week after Trump repeated his claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged and said “people will soon be prosecuted for what they did.”

Trump-appointed officials at the Justice Department and other agencies in 2020 said they had found no evidence of fraud swaying the outcome of the election, and allegations of it from Trump and his allies were rejected by courts, election officials, and experts after multiple audits and reviews found Trump lost the election to Joe Biden.

The raid in Fulton County, which Gabbard was present for, is the latest escalation of Trump’s efforts to use the federal government’s authority and resources to continue pursuing those allegations over elections. And it’s the most visible federal law enforcement step to date connected to Trump’s long-running claims of widespread election misconduct, raising concern among election administrators about continued scrutiny years after the election.

Last week, Bondi sent a letter to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz pressing the Justice Department’s demands for voter roll data amid tense discussions over immigration enforcement efforts there, prompting Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon to call it “an outrageous attempt to coerce Minnesota into giving the federal government private data on millions of U.S. Citizens in violation of state and federal law.”

Election officials have openly said they are preparing for a range of scenarios including potential federal intervention in the administration of the 2026 midterm elections.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, framed the FBI action as politically motivated.

“This administration is weaponizing law enforcement across the board and in this case for the purpose of satisfying the president’s obsession with his 2020 election loss,” Fontes told Votebeat in a statement. “If Arizona is next, so be it. We’ve got nothing to hide and they’ve got nothing to prove.”

Warrant leaves key questions unanswered

The search warrant stands out for its breadth and timing: Issued more than five years after the 2020 election, it authorizes federal agents to seize nearly all of Fulton County’s election records from that contest, including ballots, tabulator tapes, ballot images, and voter rolls, rather than just materials tied to specific allegations.

The warrant cites federal records-retention and election-crime statutes, though required retention periods have long since passed, and allows government attorneys to take custody of and independently review the seized materials. Both statutes are typically subject to a five-year statute of limitations, which would have expired in 2025 for conduct related to the 2020 election.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said he is not aware of any evidence that Fulton County destroyed election records before retention requirements expired and said the county appears to have preserved its ballots.

Becker said the five-year limitation has run out and leaves “no possible claim” tied to how the election was conducted.

Becker added that seizing ballots years after an election raises separate concerns, including new chain-of-custody problems that could undermine the integrity of any evidence gathered. “We have no idea what’s going to happen to those ballots once they’re seized,” he said, warning that such uncertainty could itself create evidentiary issues.

A rare federal search, in a county long targeted by Trump

Fulton County is Georgia’s most populous county, and encompasses most of Atlanta. Its unique position helps explain why federal investigators are still seeking access to physical ballots and detailed election records years after the election. The county has faced sustained litigation, audits, and public-records disputes tied to the 2020 vote, creating pressure to retain ballots and related materials long after many states stopped keeping them.

That prolonged scrutiny overlaps with Fulton County’s central role in Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 loss in Georgia, a Republican stronghold that flipped for Biden and also elected two Democratic senators in the same election cycle. Trump and his allies repeatedly singled out the county as evidence of a stolen election, even after recounts, audits, and court rulings upheld the results, keeping local election officials under pressure long after most jurisdictions moved on.

The FBI search followed earlier attempts by the Justice Department to obtain 2020 election records through the courts. In December, the department sued Fulton County after officials declined to turn over ballots and related materials without a court order, arguing the records were sealed. The lawsuit sought access to the same categories of records later named in the search warrant, marking a shift from civil litigation to criminal process.

Fulton County did not respond to an interview request, and the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment.

States say their systems have already been tested

For election officials elsewhere, the Georgia search underscores just how atypical Fulton County’s situation has become. Many states say their 2020 election systems were examined exhaustively and are governed by clear legal timelines for record retention, making similar searches for 2020 records less likely.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said the FBI’s search in Fulton County was rooted in “unproven conspiracy theories” about the 2020 election. While election officials welcome good-faith questions, Benson said, they reject efforts “driven by conspiracy theories” and “verifiably untrue claims” to use the federal government to intimidate election workers or interfere with elections for political purposes.

Calli Jones, a spokesperson for the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, said the agency is notifying county election officials about the situation in Georgia but is not issuing formal guidance. She said the office is preparing in case a similar situation were to arise in Arizona and is available, along with its legal staff, to assist counties with questions about record retention.

She added that Arizona no longer has 2020 ballots, because state law requires counties to destroy ballots within 24 months of an election.

Pennsylvania election officials were “not aware of similar activity taking place in Pennsylvania,” a spokesperson for the Department of State said in a statement, emphasizing that the state’s 2020 election “was free, fair, safe, and secure,” with results upheld repeatedly by state and federal courts.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

What you need to know before voting in Texas’ March 3 primary elections

2026-01-28T11:00:00+00:00

This story was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Texans will have more of a say over who their state elected officials will be during the 2026 primaries.

Texas Republican and Democratic voters will pick which candidate they want to represent their interests and their party on the ballot for the November general election. In a state where Republicans dominate state government and where many legislative and congressional districts often are drawn to favor them, the primaries are often very significant. Yet, only a fraction of citizens in Texas vote in primary elections.

There are more than 18 statewide elected officials up for election, along with Texas’ members of Congress, state lawmakers, district-based judges, and local elected officials. With the new congressional maps redrawn to boost the number of Texas Republicans in Congress, some Texans will have to vote in new congressional districts.

Here’s what you need to know about primaries and the voting process. Stay tuned for more guides about candidates in the following weeks. In the meantime, you can use this tool to see how state lawmakers — some of whom are up for election this year — voted on major bills in the past legislative session.

What to do if you still don't have your Texas voter registration card

What’s on the ballot?

Here’s a quick glance at the federal, state, and local elected offices that are up for election this year, according to the Texas Secretary of State.

Federal

1 U.S. senator (John Cornyn’s seat)
All U.S. representatives under new congressional maps after they were redrawn in 2025

State (statewide races)

Texas governor
Lieutenant governor
Attorney general
Comptroller of public accounts
Commissioner of General Land Office
Commissioner of agriculture
One Railroad Commission member (Jim Wright’s seat)
Four members of the Texas Supreme Court
Three members of the Court of Criminal Appeals
Three members of the 15th Court of Appeals

State (regional district-based races)

Eight members of the State Board of Education
Sixteen state senators for districts
All 150 state representatives
Several chief justices of Courts of Appeals
Various regional Courts of Appeals judges

Depending on where you live, lower-level judges and local county offices could also appear on the ballot, including:

County judges
County Courts at Law
Justices of the peace
District clerks
County clerks
County treasurer
County surveyors
County commissioners (precincts 2 and 4)
Various district judges, including on criminal and family courts.

See all the 2026 primary candidates here.

What about third party and independent candidates?

The Libertarian and Green parties have their own nomination process at conventions that typically take place later in the spring. The Libertarian Party of Texas’ state convention is scheduled for April 10-12. The Green Party of Texas has said its county and district conventions will take place in March, followed by a state convention on April 11.

Independent candidates, such as Mike Collier, who announced he is again running for lieutenant governor but not within the Democratic Party, will appear on the ballot in the November general election.

What dates do I need to know?

Feb. 2 is the last day to register to vote and to submit an address change for the midterm election.

You can report an address or name change online. You should do this if you’ve moved since the last time you voted, especially if you have moved to a different county or political subdivision or have legally taken a different name.

How do I check if I’m registered to vote?

You can check to see if you’re registered and verify your information through the Texas Secretary of State’s website.

You’ll need one of the following three combinations to log in:

Your Texas driver’s license number and date of birth.
Your first and last names, date of birth and county you reside in.
Your date of birth and Voter Unique Identifier, which appears on your voter registration certificate.

Read more about voter registration requirements further down in this story.

Feb. 20 is the last day to apply to vote by mail.

When do I need to drop off or mail an application to vote by mail?

Applications for mail ballots must be received by the early voting clerk in your county — not postmarked — by Feb. 20. Applications can also be submitted by fax or email, but the county must receive a hard copy within four business days. They can also be dropped off in person.

You can download an application here or request one be mailed to you here.

If you’re looking to vote by mail, give yourself as much leeway as possible. You’ll need to budget for the time it will take your county to get your ballot to you in the mail after you apply.

What is the deadline to mail my completed ballot?

The deadline for mail-in ballots to be returned to the county is Election Day, March 3. If a ballot is postmarked by 7 p.m. locally on Election Day, it’ll be counted if the county receives it by 5 p.m. on March 4. The U.S. Postal Service recommends mailing your ballot at least one week before the deadline, if not sooner.

Absentee ballots can also be delivered in person to the county elections office with a valid form of ID while polls are open on Election Day.

Completed ballots from military or overseas voters are accepted if they’re received by March 9. (Military and overseas voters can go through a different ballot request and return process.)

Read more about vote-by-mail requirements in this section.

Early voting in person runs from Feb. 17-27. If you can’t vote inside of a polling place because of an illness or disability, curbside voting may be available to you. Read more about what qualifies as a disability and about curbside voting options here.

Who is eligible to vote early?

Anyone registered to vote may vote early, but it must be done in person unless you qualify to vote by mail.

Where am I allowed to vote early?

Voters can cast ballots at any polling location in the county where they are registered to vote. Check your county elections office’s website for early-voting locations.

Election Day is March 3.

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election Day.

Are polling locations the same on Election Day as they are during early voting?

Not always. Check where polling locations are open in your area before you head to cast your ballot. In some counties, Election Day voting may be restricted to locations in your designated precinct. Other counties allow voters to cast their ballots at any polling place on Election Day.

Read more about voting options for those who can’t vote in person in this section.

What dates do I need to know for the primary runoff election?

Runoff elections will take place on May 26. The deadline to register to vote in the runoff election is April 27. The deadline for counties to receive applications to vote by mail is May 15. Early voting will occur from May 18-22.

Who can register to vote in Texas?

U.S. citizens in Texas can register to vote if they are 18 or older or if they will be 18 by Election Day.

Citizens in the state cannot register to vote if they have been convicted of a felony and are still serving a sentence, including parole or probation, or if they have been deemed mentally incapacitated in court. Here are more specifics on eligibility.

Eligible people experiencing homelessness can vote, as long as they provide on their registration an address and description for where they are residing, such as a shelter or a street intersection. If needed, their mailing address can be different, but a P.O. Box address is usually not considered a residence address in Texas.

Students studying in Texas who are from other states can also choose to register to vote in the state with their dorm or Texas address.

How do I register to vote?

You must complete and submit a paper voter registration application by Feb. 2.

You can find this at county voter registrars’ offices and some post offices, government offices, and high schools. You can also print out the online application and mail it to the voter registrar in your county. Download your application here. You can also request a postage-paid application through the mail, but this will take some time to receive.

Applications must be postmarked by Feb. 2. You can request the postmark at your local post office.

If you’re worried about the registration deadline, you can also complete or deliver an application in person to your county’s elections administrator. Find yours here. You can also register through organizations that have volunteer registrars like the League of Women Voters, which often hold voter registration events.

Additionally, you can register to vote through the Texas Department of Public Safety while renewing your driver’s license. You may be able to register to vote online if you’re also allowed to renew your license online. This is the only form of online registration in the state.

After you register to vote, you will receive a voter registration certificate within 30 days. It’ll contain your voter information, including the Voter Unique Identifier number needed to update your voter registration online. If the certificate has incorrect information, you’ll need to note corrections and send it to your local voter registrar as soon as possible.

The voter registration certificate can also be used as a secondary form of ID when you vote if you don’t have one of the seven state-approved photo IDs. More information on that here.

Do you have to reregister to vote?

Once you register to vote, you generally remain registered, but there are various reasons why you may want to verify your registration status. For example, you need to update your registration after a name or address change. You can make those updates online here.

What does it mean if my voter registration is ‘in suspense’?

If a county receives a nondeliverable notice after sending a voter registration certificate or suspects an address change, a voter is placed on a “suspense list” and asked to confirm their address. Voters on the suspense list can update or confirm their address before the voter registration deadline to ensure their ability to vote. Voters marked as “in suspense” can also fill out a Statement of Residence when voting by mail or at the polls if they still live in the same county where they registered. (See the next question for options for voters who have moved to a different county.)

If no action is taken by a suspended voter, they are removed from the voter rolls after about four years, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s office.

Federal law prevents the state from removing registered voters within 90 days of a federal election unless the voter has died, been convicted of a felony, or been declared mentally incapacitated.

If you’re concerned about your voter registration, you can verify it online here.

What if I moved after the voter registration deadline?

You must reside in a Texas county by the voter registration deadline to vote in the upcoming election unless you qualify for absentee voting. You can read more about absentee and mail-in voting here.

You can vote at your previous polling location if you moved within the same county or political subdivision. Or you can vote at your new polling location on a ballot limited to the elections you would qualify to vote in at both polling locations, such as federal and statewide races. Limited ballots are available only during early voting at a “main early voting polling place,” which is usually the office of the election administrator or county clerk who runs elections in your county. The main early voting polling place should be noted in a county’s list of early voting locations.

What if I run into issues with my voter registration?

If you have questions or concerns about your registration, you can find your county’s voter registration contact here.

Inside polling locations, there are typically “resolution desks” where poll workers can address registration issues.

You can also find frequently asked questions from the Secretary of State’s office at votetexas.gov.

How do I know if I’m eligible to vote by mail?

This option is fairly limited in Texas. You’re allowed to vote by mail only if at least one of the following applies:

You will be 65 or older by Election Day.
You will not be in your county for the entire voting period, including early voting.
You cite a sickness or disability that prevents you from voting in person without needing personal assistance or without the likelihood of injuring your health.
You’re expected to give birth within three weeks before or after Election Day.
You are confined in jail but otherwise eligible (i.e., not convicted of a felony).

College students who are registered at a residence in Texas, such as a parent’s home, but are studying out of state can apply for absentee ballots.

If you are voting absentee and want to see what will appear on your ballot, you can get a sample ballot from your county. In most cases, sample ballots can be found on your county’s election website.

What identification do I need to vote by mail?

Texas rules for voting by mail require voters to provide an ID number on both their application for a ballot and the carrier envelope used to return a completed ballot. This must be one the following ID numbers:

A driver’s license number
A state ID number
The last four digits of their Social Security number
Texas election ID certificate number (this is a photo ID issued by DPS and is different from the number found on your voter registration certificate)

If you don’t have any of these, you can also check a box indicating you haven’t been issued this identification.

This identification rule was added by the Texas Legislature in 2021. Some voters have had their ballots or applications rejected because they didn’t provide an ID number or the number they provided did not match the one the state had for them.

If you don’t have a license number on file or are unsure about which ID number you provided, the secretary of state has previously suggested contacting your local voter registrar to ask about how to add one of the required numbers to your voter registration record.

Other voting advocates have suggested voters include both their driver’s license or state ID number and the last four digits of their Social Security number, if they have both, to avoid issues.

What counts as a disability to qualify to vote by mail?

The Texas election code’s definition for disability is broader than other federal definitions. A voter is eligible to vote by mail if they have a “sickness or physical condition” that prevents them from voting in person without the likelihood of “needing personal assistance or of injuring the voter’s health.”

What kind of postage do I need to return my mail-in ballot?

Some counties may pay postage for you. Local elections offices should have the specifics once ballots are finalized. That said, if you don’t have enough postage, your ballot is not supposed to be returned to you. Instead, the Postal Service said its practice is to deliver the ballot and bill your election administrator.

What if there’s an issue with my mail-in ballot?

Texas will allow voters to correct their mail-in ballots if the ballots are at risk of being rejected for a technical error, including missing information or signatures. This also applies to issues with the applications for those ballots. County officials are responsible for alerting voters if there is a defect with their application or ballot.

Voters can use a new online ballot tracker to check the status of both their application to vote by mail and their ballot. The tracker can be used to make corrections and is available here. The deadline to correct mail-in ballot applications is Feb. 20. The deadline to correct the envelope of a mail-in ballot is March 9. Corrections may also be submitted by mail – if election officials determine there’s enough time to do so – or in person at a county’s early voting clerk’s office.

How does primary voting work?

During primary elections, you’ll be selecting candidates from the same party. At the polls, you’ll choose whether you want to vote in the Republican or Democratic primary. Some counties will host what’s known as a joint primary, which means everyone checks in at the same desk and uses the same voting machines. In other counties, there will be separate check-in stations and lines for either party.

How can I find which polling places are near me?

By Feb. 11, county election offices should post on their websites information on polling locations for Election Day and during the early-voting period. The Secretary of State’s website will also have information on polling locations closer to the start of voting. However, polling locations may change, so be sure to check your county’s election website before going to vote.

What form of ID do I need to bring?

You’ll need one of seven types of valid photo ID to vote in Texas:

A state driver’s license (issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety)
A Texas election identification certificate (issued by DPS)
A Texas personal identification card (issued by DPS)
A Texas license to carry a handgun (issued by DPS)
A U.S. military ID card with a personal photo
A U.S. citizenship certificate with a personal photo
A U.S. passport

Check out this story for more details.

What if I don’t have a valid photo ID?

Voters can still cast votes if they sign a form swearing that they have a “reasonable impediment” from obtaining a proper photo ID. Those voters will also have to present one of the following types of supporting identification documents:

A valid voter registration certificate
A certified birth certificate
A court-admissable document that confirms your birth and establishes your identity (which may include a foreign birth document)
A current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other document that shows the voter’s name and address. This can be the original document or a copy, except for government documents that contains a voter’s photo, which must be the original.

If you have a valid photo ID but forgot it, you can cast a provisional ballot but will have to visit the local voter registrar’s office by March 9 to present an acceptable ID or documentation in order for the ballot to be counted. A registered voter without a valid photo ID or any of the supporting documents can also cast a provisional ballot.

Are there rules at the polls?

Cellphones, cameras, computers, and other devices that can record sound or images cannot be used within 100 feet of voting stations (where ballots are marked). There are usually traffic cones or signs indicating this. Campaigning, including wearing clothing or other items that publicize candidates, political parties, or measures on the ballot, is also banned beyond this point.

A new law also bans the use of wireless communication devices, like cellphones, in the same room where voting is taking place. Voters are allowed to use written notes to cast their ballot at the discretion of election officers, who determine if the material counts as campaigning.

Firearms, including handguns, are also prohibited at polling places, according to Texas law.

What are my rights as a voter?

If a registered voter’s name does not appear on the list of voters because of an administrative issue, they have the right to cast a provisional ballot.

Voters are entitled to get written instructions about how to cast a ballot or to ask a polling place officer or worker (they can not ask who or what to vote for).

If a voter makes a mistake while marking their ballot, they have a right to use up to two additional ballots to make corrections.

Voters generally have the right to cast their ballots in secret and should not be subject to intimidation.

Voters with disabilities or limited English proficiency can also get interpretation, assistance or other accommodations to vote.

A state law passed in 2023 also allows voters with disabilities or mobility problems to skip the line at their polling location and requires each polling location to have a designated parking spot for curbside voting.

Texas law says voters have the right to vote during work hours without being penalized or losing pay, but this may not apply if a worker has two hours before or after their shift is done to vote.

On Election Day, voters have the right to cast their ballot as long as they’re in line by 7 p.m.

At the polls, voters can talk to election officers or poll workers if they run into issues.

The Secretary of State’s office has a helpline at 1-800-252-VOTE (8683) where state attorneys are available to assist voters and election officials with questions.

A coalition of voting rights groups runs voter protection hotlines in several languages. Disability Rights Texas also offers a helpline for people with disabilities.

What if I was planning to vote in person but can no longer do so?

If you didn’t apply to vote by mail but are unable to go to a polling place, consider requesting an emergency early voting ballot or using curbside voting. Contact your county elections office for more details.

Emergency ballot: These ballots can be requested if you become sick or disabled close to an election and are unable to go to a polling place on Election Day. To qualify, you must designate a representative to submit an application in person on your behalf and have a certified doctor’s note. The application must be received by your county’s early voting clerk before 5 p.m. on Election Day.

Your ballot must be returned by the same designated representative before 7 p.m. on Election Day to be counted. Read more about the process here.

Emergency ballots are also available, through a different process, for individuals who cannot vote on Election Day due to the death of a close family member. Read more about that process and requirements here.

Curbside voting: You can contact your county elections office to determine if you’re eligible for curbside voting, which must be made available at every polling place for voters with disabilities who are unable to enter a polling location. A new law requires curbside voters to fill out a form attesting that they are physically unable to enter a voting location.

How do I know if my provisional ballot was counted?

If you voted with a provisional ballot because of an administrative issue or photo ID problem, you should receive a notice by mail saying whether your ballot was counted in the local canvass, which is the final tally of votes. These notices must be mailed by March 23, according to the state’s election law calendar.

What about regular ballots?

Counties keep track of when people have voted but a voter’s choices are anonymous once ballots are submitted and added to the official count of votes. To ensure vote counts are accurate, counties test election equipment multiple times, including in a public test conducted before an election.

What voter data is public?

Voting history is public. This includes primary election history, meaning the primary you voted in may be disclosed in the rosters of voters that counties are required to post. Your ballot choices are not public.

Disclosure: The Texas Secretary of State has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Early-voting period in Houston area’s 18th Congressional District extended

2026-01-26T22:08:37+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

A district judge has ordered Harris County to extend the early voting period for the runoff election in Texas’ 18th Congressional District, after polling stations were closed Sunday and Monday due to severe weather.

The Texas Civil Rights Project on Sunday filed a lawsuit against the county on behalf of organizations Houston Justice and Pure Justice, asking to add Jan. 28 and Jan. 29 to early voting.

“While understandable in light of severe weather and safety concerns, these closures will make it impossible for some of Plaintiffs’ members and other voters in Congressional District 18 … to exercise their right to vote in this important special runoff election,” the lawsuit said.

On Monday, Judge Latosha Lewis Payne granted the groups’ request. According to her order, the county is required to operate the same early voting locations that were set for Monday on Wednesday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Meanwhile, the Sunday polling places would have to be open from noon to 7 p.m. on Thursday.

Harris County Clerk Teneshia Hudspeth’s office didn’t immediately respond to a comment request.

The runoff election is between former Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee and former Houston City Council member Amanda Edwards, both Democrats. Both support the lawsuit.

“Folks in TX-18 have already gone nearly a year without a voice in Congress,” Menefee said in a Sunday post on social media. “We shouldn’t have to settle for just five days to vote early in such an important election.”

He subsequently called the judge’s order “a big win for voter access.”

The district hasn’t had representation in Congress since the March 2025 death of U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner.

“This district has gone without its voice, without its vote, without anyone to advocate on its behalf of federal funding for far too long,” Edwards told The Texas Tribune Sunday. “We are finally on the cusp of it getting its voice back and we want to make sure that as many people in this 18th Congressional District as possible have the opportunity to participate in this process.”

The winner will hold the seat through the end of this year, but will have little time to prepare for the primary election on March 3, which will effectively decide who represents the heavily Democratic district starting in 2027. The primary also includes U.S. Rep. Al Green, who is changing districts after his district was redrawn in the recent mid-decade redistricting, and Gretchen Brown, a candidate with defense policy experience.

In the Nov. 4 special election to replace Turner, Menefee finished first with 28.9% of the vote, while Edwards was second at 25.6%, out of 16 candidates.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers disputes Madison’s argument that absentee voting is a privilege

2026-01-26T20:01:40+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers criticized an argument by Madison and its former city clerk that they shouldn’t be held liable for losing 193 absentee ballots because absentee voting is a “privilege,” writing in a court filing that accepting such an argument would “lead to absurd results.”

The argument is key to the city’s defense against a lawsuit that seeks monetary damages on behalf of the 193 Madison residents whose votes in the November 2024 election weren’t counted. It was first presented by the former clerk, Maribeth Witzel-Behl, citing a provision of state law, and then adopted by the city.

If courts accept the argument that absentee voting is a privilege and not a right, the Democratic governor said in a friend-of-the-court brief, election officials would be free to treat absentee ballots in ways that diminish people’s right to vote. For example, he wrote, they would be under no obligation to send voters replacement ballots if ballots they left in a drop box were damaged, and clerks could effectively disqualify ballots from politically disfavored precincts by intentionally not signing their initials on the ballot envelopes.

Experts say that for a governor to intervene in such a local matter is rare and underscores how seriously Evers views the potential implications. In an earlier communication with the court, the governor said the argument from the city and Witzel-Behl “ignores longstanding state constitutional protections.”

Barry Burden, a political science professor at UW-Madison, said Democrats are likely conflicted by the case, seeking to prevent election administration failures like those in Madison while also resisting arguments that could weaken protections for absentee voting in Wisconsin.

“They’re in a weird place to be criticizing absentee balloting in Madison, one of the most Democratic cities in the state,” he said, adding that he thinks the governor “is speaking for the Democratic Party in getting involved in this case” to convey that it is an “isolated incident,” and that the party does not share the position that “absentee voting should be treated any differently in terms of the protections that are given to voters than people who vote in person.’”

In his filing Friday, the governor noted that about 45% of ballots in the 2024 presidential election were absentee.

“The constitutional right to vote,” Evers wrote, “would mean little if close to half of all voters in Wisconsin were deprived of it because they chose to legally cast an absentee ballot.”

Witzel-Behl, former clerk, stands by the ‘privilege’ defense

The lawsuit against Madison officials is a novel type of case in seeking monetary damages over the loss of voting rights. A liberal law firm called Law Forward filed the case against the city and the clerk’s office, along with Witzel-Behl and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick in their personal capacities, alleging that through a series of errors that led to 193 absentee ballots getting lost in the November 2024 election, election workers disenfranchised the voters and violated their constitutional rights.

As part of their defense, attorneys for Witzel-Behl argued in a court filing that by choosing to vote absentee, the 193 voters “exercised a privilege rather than a constitutional right,” and that she therefore couldn’t be held financially liable for the lost ballots. Madison later joined that argument.

Law Forward rejected the argument in a response filed in late December, calling it a “shocking proposition.”

Attorneys for the city and the former clerk submitted their own briefs last week.

Attorneys for Witzel-Behl reiterated their argument that absentee voting is a privilege and not a constitutional right, adding that “an error in the handling or delivery of an absentee ballot is not the constitutional equivalent of barring the door to the voting booth.”

While absentee ballots should normally be counted, they argued, not counting them because of an unintentional error isn’t a constitutional violation that they should be financially liable for.

Rather than following court precedent, they said, the plaintiffs seek to create a “new, foundationless doctrine allowing monetary damages for the mishandling of an absentee ballot.”

Other defendants zero in on novel monetary claim

In a separate brief, Verbick, the deputy clerk, said he “does not, of course, dispute that Plaintiffs have a right to vote” but rather alleges that there’s no path for the plaintiffs to seek monetary damages for the city’s error.

The city, in another brief, similarly said that no court case cited by Law Forward allows plaintiffs to seek damages for ballots that are unintentionally mishandled.

Allowing such claims, outside attorneys for the city warned, would push courts into “dangerous, untested waters.”

“As other courts have cautioned,” they said, “exposing local election officials to financial liability for unintentional disenfranchisement would thrust courts into the minutia of any given election, a role for which courts are unsuited.”

In a separate statement, the city said it believes that all forms of voting, including absentee voting, should be “encouraged, promoted and protected.” But it argued against attaching a dollar amount to a mishandled vote.

Doing so, it said, “would end up regularly costing cities, towns and municipalities hundreds, thousands — or in this case millions — of dollars that could otherwise be spent improving voter access and elections processes.”

Absentee voting has changed substantially since law’s enactment

The law cited by Witzel-Behl’s attorneys labeling absentee voting a privilege — one that may require more regulation than in-person voting — dates back to 1985. It was enacted after judges in a series of Wisconsin court cases called for more liberal interpretation of absentee voting rules. While it has previously been used to invalidate absentee ballots on which voters did not follow procedure, it has so far not been used in support of a locality failing to properly count votes.

“Absentee voting has changed so radically in the 40 years since the law was written,” Burden said. “It was used by a very small number of voters, it was more difficult to use, there were more witness requirements at the time, and clerks were not really as amenable to absentee voting as they are today.”

Today, absentee voting is an expected and routine part of elections.

“So to treat it as kind of a special class with different rules or rights, maybe in the 1980s that made more sense,” Burden said. “But now it’s as important as any other kind of voting and so it seems more peculiar, I think, to treat it in some different way.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Why Trump can’t cancel the 2026 midterms — and why that fear distracts from the real risk

2026-01-26T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump floated the idea of canceling the 2026 midterm elections, drawing widespread attention and concern even as White House officials later dismissed the remarks as facetious.

But election experts consistently agree that Trump has neither the legal authority nor the practical ability to cancel elections. And state and local election officials consistently say they will carry out the elections they’re legally required to run.

The election system is under real strain, and bad-faith efforts to undermine it are serious. But after talking with local election officials, lawyers, and administrators across the country, I don’t see evidence that upcoming elections are at realistic risk of not happening at all. Elections happen because thousands of local officials follow state and local law that mandates them — and history shows they’ve done so before, even under immense pressure. The greater danger isn’t no election, but one that’s chaotic, unfairly challenged, or deliberately cast as illegitimate after the fact.

Stephen Richer, the Republican former recorder in Maricopa County, Arizona, said the idea that a president could simply halt or meaningfully cancel an election misunderstands how elections function on the ground. The system, he said, is “made up of so many disparate actors” — thousands of local officials, courts, vendors, and administrators operating under different authorities and timelines. Even if there were a coordinated attempt to get these people not to go through with the election, “you’ve got to figure at least half of those people aren’t big fans of the president, and many of the rest are on autopilot regardless of what they think of the president.”

Some election processes are fixed by law and timing. Military and overseas ballots, for example, must be sent on a specific schedule — a deadline Richer described as “an immutable deadline, like gravity.” Any attempt to disrupt that selectively would quickly become obvious. “How absurd would it be that one county got ballots and the next one didn’t?” he said, predicting “a gazillion lawsuits” and court orders compelling officials to move forward.

Richer also pointed to the scale of U.S. election administration: more than 9,000 jurisdictions and more than 90,000 polling locations nationwide. “You are not going around and shutting those down,” he said. He noted that even voter-intimidation efforts would face immediate legal challenges and injunctions, while plenty of voters would have cast ballots via other means (e.g., early or mail voting) anyway.

That assessment is echoed by David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, who speaks regularly with local election officials. (When we spoke, he was driving to a conference for Colorado election officials — and had just come from a conference of 300 officials in Texas.) Becker said nearly 1,500 local officials across 47 states have participated in his monthly informational sessions, which he’s held since Trump put out his executive order last March, and none of them have suggested canceling the election or violating state law.

“Every single one of them is committed to putting on the best election they possibly can,” Becker said. Even under pressure, officials aren’t signaling they’ll stop. “They are getting it done,” he said, adding that if support doesn’t come from the state, “they will band together and do it themselves.”

But state election officials aren’t backing down, either. Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, says elections will proceed as planned regardless of what Trump might say. The academics and media stars gaining popularity and attention for saying otherwise are being “disingenuous” and “dangerous,” he said.

Courts have also played a critical role when local officials have threatened to overstep their authority. In 2020, even light suggestions that Trump might delay the election to accommodate COVID were met with outrage. After the 2020 election, judges made clear that certification is not discretionary and ordered officials to follow election law and move the process forward, even amid intense political pressure.

Those same state and local laws remain in place today. Courts and election offices are also better positioned than they were four years ago, with legal strategies drafted, training in place, and judges already familiar with these arguments. Across the country, clerks and secretaries of state describe updating contingency plans, consulting attorneys, and stress-testing procedures much as they would for a natural disaster or cyberattack.

If you’re worried about what lies ahead, election officials say there are meaningful ways to respond — and that spreading fear isn’t one of them. Richer said the bigger danger now is renewed distrust of election results. That distrust makes it easier for those in power to make bad-faith attempts to twist the math after votes are cast.

His advice is straightforward: “Continue being a repository for facts and truth about election administration, and kindly and sensitively inject those into conversations that you are a part of if you hear something you know to be wrong.” He added, “Don’t be dismissive. It never works.” And, he said, “you are responsible for the false information you spread.”

Aguilar said that academic voices predicting doom “don’t understand the nuances” of state and local law and that voters should be skeptical of them. Those who want better information should go to their local and state elections offices.

There’s also a risk that continually framing elections as likely not to happen — or as already lost — could have the opposite of the intended effect, discouraging participation rather than protecting democracy. If you’re concerned about what might happen in your county, there are concrete ways to help now: sign up to be a poll worker, volunteer to help register voters, offer your business or community space as a polling location, or donate to organizations preparing to defend election laws and certification in court.

Elections don’t happen just because people assume they will. They happen because people — especially at the local level — show up and do the work.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Chester County pollbook mishap resulted from human error and flawed systems, report finds

2026-01-23T21:48:55+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

UPDATE, Jan. 26, 11 a.m.: This article has been updated with additional comments about SURE from a Pennsylvania Department of State spokesperson.

Human error was the primary cause of a pollbook printing issue that forced thousands of voters in Chester County, Pennsylvania, to cast provisional ballots in the 2025 municipal election, according to a report by outside investigators.

Early on on Nov. 4, 2025, voters and election officials realized that the pollbooks — the printed voter lists used to check people in at polling places — didn’t include the names of Chester County’s more than 75,000 unaffiliated and third-party voters. Those voters had to either wait for supplemental pollbooks to be delivered or use a provisional ballot, an option used when there is some question about a voter’s eligibility.

According to the report — from West Chester-based law firm Fleck Eckert Klein McGarry LLC and released Thursday by the county — the “two inexperienced employees” who generated the pollbook files mistakenly selected the option to include “only voters from the major parties.” The report said the employees had “limited election experience, no formal SURE system training, and no direct supervision during a critical task performed under compressed statutory deadlines.” SURE, or the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, is Pennsylvania’s voter registration database.

As a result of the error, about 12,600 provisional ballots were cast in the county, accounting for roughly 6.4% of the county’s total vote, more than in any other election in the county’s recent history. The vast majority of the provisional ballots were counted after the county confirmed the voters’ eligibility.

Report cites other gaps in the system

The report said there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing. While the report primarily blamed human error, it said that other factors also contributed to the issue.

First, it noted that the SURE system allows a pollbook with only major-party voters — meant for use in the state’s closed partisan primaries — to be generated without any confirmation or warning screens. The report also said the state’s training did not sufficiently guide employees through the settings needed to generate a general-election pollbook versus one for primaries. Finally, the report said “no policy or procedure was in place” to check the files generated from SURE for accuracy before the pollbooks were printed.

Poll workers previously told Votebeat and Spotlight PA that in years past they had the ability to check pollbooks before Election Day, but the county recently began sealing those materials.

Asked if it would be updating the SURE system, the Pennsylvania Department of State highlighted the ongoing effort to replace it with a more modern voter management system.

“The new system will have validation and quality assurance built in around our business logic — meaning, for example, that a county user will not be able to select ‘only major parties’ for their general election poll books,” the department said in a statement.

After this article was first published, Amy Gulli, a spokesperson for the department told Votebeat that the default setting for the SURE system is to include all voters.

“In this instance, a county employee overrode that default when generating the county’s poll books for the November 2025 election,” Gulli said.

Gulli also noted that counties have been generating pollbooks through SURE since 2010, and in the 15 general elections since then, no other county has had this issue.

The report also said high staff turnover at the county’s election office in recent years “has increased operational risk.” The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in December that dozens of employees have left the office since its director, Karen Barsoum, took over in 2021. Some former employees described a toxic work environment under Barsoum.

While the pollbook report acknowledged complaints about Barsoum’s leadership and management style, it said the turnover trend was “not necessarily reflective of a cultural or managerial deficiency” and attributed it to recent high-pressure election cycles and better pay in surrounding counties.

What the investigators recommended

The report recommended several changes to avoid similar failures in the future. Among them, it said the county should ask the Department of State to implement safeguards in SURE that would alert users when they are about to export pollbooks that exclude some voters, as well as ask the state to revise its pollbook training guide.

The county itself should implement a procedure to double-check that pollbooks are accurate prior to Election Day, the report suggested.

“At least two trained staff members, including a supervisor, should independently verify SURE Poll Book generation selections prior to finalization,” the report said. “Before transmitting files to the print vendor, staff should also be required to complete a mandatory audit checklist certifying to the commission that randomly selected precincts have been spot-checked and that Poll Book files include all required data and all required voter categories.”

Allegheny County, in western Pennsylvania, told Votebeat and Spotlight PA in November that it performs such spot checks for accuracy.

The report said Chester County should also more thoroughly document its procedures, as well as who is responsible for performing what steps, and any action that could affect the entire electorate, such as printing pollbooks, should require signatures from a supervisor and administrator.

In a statement responding to the report, the county said that while it believes some sections could benefit from additional context, it otherwise “fully supports and plans to implement the report’s recommendations.”

The county said it has developed an action plan to address all the recommendations. The county board of elections will hold a meeting at the Chester County Judicial Center on Jan. 27 at 7 p.m. to discuss the report and the action plan. If the judicial center is closed that day because of weather, the meeting will be moved to Feb. 3 at 7 p.m.

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Judge dismisses Texas lawsuit over ballot numbering, threat to secrecy

2026-01-22T16:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

A federal judge Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by conservative activists who challenged the use of electronic voting equipment to randomly number ballots in Texas on the grounds that the practice compromised ballot secrecy.

Judge David Alan Ezra of U.S. District Court in Austin ruled that the case, filed in 2024 by longtime Texas election activist Laura Pressley and voters from three counties, was moot, because the Texas Secretary of State’s Office has since prohibited counties from using electronic pollbooks to generate and print numbers on ballot paper.

He also wrote that two of the counties named in the suit, Williamson and Bell, had taken steps to eliminate the use of pollbooks to number ballot paper, and that the third, Llano County, doesn’t use them for that purpose.

In court filings, Pressley had said she used public records to find what she described as an “algorithmic pattern” that could link more than 60,000 voters in Williamson County, north of Austin, to their ballots and expose how they voted, though she did not reveal her exact method.

Ballot secrecy has become a growing concern in recent years, as Texas passed laws that made it easier for the public to access various election records and datasets — anything from voter lists to the labels on election office computers and printers. Votebeat and the Texas Tribune in 2024 reported that the increased availability of records made it possible, in limited instances, to determine the ballot choices of individual voters, compromising their right to a secret ballot.

Following that reporting, the Texas Secretary of State’s Office directed counties to redact any information on election records and materials released to the public that could tie a voter to their ballot. Election officials have offered other solutions to address the state’s ballot secrecy concerns, but Texas lawmakers have yet to take action to tighten access to any publicly available election records.

In court filings, Pressley argued that ballots in the three counties she named in the lawsuit included unique identifier numbers generated and randomized by electronic pollbooks, the devices that are used to check in voters at polling places. Pressley alleged that these numbers were key in allowing ballots to be traced back to voters, though she didn’t specify how.

Pressley argued the ballots should instead be numbered sequentially, starting with 1, and then shuffled before they are issued to voters to protect ballot secrecy. She cited a 19th-century state law that calls for numbering ballots sequentially, but for years, the Secretary of State’s and and Attorney General’s office have said that randomized numbering complies with the law.

Pressley has sued at least twice before over ballot numbering, but those cases haven’t gone anywhere. Ezra said that Pressley and the other plaintiffs may file similar claims in the future, but they can’t “be based on facts alleged in this case.”

Pressley told Votebeat in an email that she’s planning to appeal Ezra’s ruling. The Texas Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment.

A federal lawsuit against Harris County election officials filed last year by the national conservative nonprofit group Public Interest Legal Foundation also alleges that the county’s voting system violated at least three voters’ right to a secret ballot. The plaintiffs allege that Harris County officials failed to follow the state’s directive and released unredacted election records. The case, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Houston, is pending.

Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Natalia is based in Corpus Christi. Contact her at ncontreras@votebeat.org

Postal Service changes mean Texas voters shouldn’t wait to mail voter registrations and ballots

2026-01-21T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

The new policy means that even if a voter drops their mail ballot in a box by Election Day, it could be rejected if it’s not postmarked on that day. A voter registration application also could miss being postmarked by the Feb. 2 deadline.

That means it’s important to mail voter registration applications and mail ballots early, or bring election mail to a post office and request a manual postmark.

In Texas, there’s no way to register to vote online. The state requires voters to submit a voter registration application to county voter registrars in person or by mail. Mailed applications must be postmarked by Feb. 2 in order for a voter to be eligible to cast a ballot in next month’s primary election.

Mail ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and received by 5 p.m. on the following day in order to be counted.

Here’s what you need to know about the deadlines and procedures for registering and voting by mail:

When is the Texas voter registration deadline for the primary?

In order for a voter to be eligible to vote in the March 3 primary election, their voter registration application must be submitted to the county voter registrar or postmarked by Feb. 2.

Voters can register to vote at any time prior to the deadline. You can print out this form, sign it, and submit it.

What is the Texas mail-in ballot application deadline?

If you qualify to vote by mail, you must first fill out and submit a mail ballot application. For the coming March primary, all mail ballot applications must be received by the end of business on Feb. 20. That time of day varies by county.

What’s the deadline to mail in my ballot?

Election officials can tally mail-in ballots that are postmarked before 7 p.m. on March 3, which is Election Day, and received by 5 p.m. on March 4.

Can I drop it off in person instead?

Yes, but only on Election Day, when voters are permitted to drop off their mail ballot in person at the elections office. Voters are allowed to deliver only their own ballot, and must bring a photo ID. Mail-in ballots cannot be dropped off in person during the two weeks of early voting or any other time prior to Election Day.

What if I live abroad or I am a member of the military overseas?

The deadline to receive ballots from overseas voters is Monday, March 9. The carrier envelope must have a postmark showing it was in the mail by 7 p.m. on March 3 (Election Day).

For military voters who mailed ballots domestically or from overseas and who submitted a Federal Post Card Application, the deadline is also March 9. The carrier envelope does not need to have any postmark.

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Voters say signature gatherers often misrepresent what proposals will do. Nothing has changed.

2026-01-20T16:03:49+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

College students across the state say they have been lied to by petition circulators, who have descended on their campuses to gather signatures in support of requiring Michigan voters to prove their citizenship.

In August, Michigan State University freshman Abby Lindley was told the petition would make it easier for immigrants and transgender people to vote, she said. University of Michigan junior Aidan Rozema reported being told in September that it would make voting easier. In October, circulators told MSU freshman Hunter Moore it would expand absentee voting, he said.

No law in Michigan requires circulators — often paid per signature — to tell the truth about what’s on a petition, or to show prospective signers the full text. While some states try to ensure accountability by banning per-signature pay or requiring circulators to live in-state, rules across the country are a patchwork.

Michigan falls on the lax end of the spectrum, allowing paid, out-of-state circulators and placing virtually no limits on how they’re compensated. Voters, in repeated episodes over decades, have complained that they signed petitions only after being misled about what an initiative would do. In some past instances, candidates for local and statewide office have been kept off the ballot — or nearly so — after circulator-related problems with signatures.

In Michigan, anyone with an idea and enough signatures can put a law or constitutional amendment before voters. It’s one of the nation’s most accessible initiative systems. Twenty-four states, as well as D.C. and the U.S Virgin Islands, allow citizen-led initiatives, but fewer let residents directly amend their constitutions. The process has become central to Michigan’s political culture: The Board of State Canvassers approved language for more than half a dozen petitions in 2025 alone.

Lawmakers have repeatedly failed to fix a system that state Sen. Jeremy Moss said incentivizes fraud by paying per signature. “It is ripe for abuse,” he told Votebeat in September.

Nothing has changed, leaving a new generation vulnerable.

“I was being open with them and trusting them,” Lindley, the MSU freshman, said of the signature gatherers. “They were not being truthful and open with me.”

Petition organizers say they have zero tolerance for lying

Around October, students at MSU and at other schools began posting online about feeling misled by circulators and began warning each other to “be careful” when approached.

The petitions circulating on the campuses — based on the descriptions given by students and photographs showing petition language in The State News, Michigan State University’s independent student newspaper — appear to match the wording of a proposal backed by Americans for Citizen Voting.

ACV is an effort from the Virginia-based, libertarian-leaning group Liberty Initiative Fund.

Liberty Initiative Fund President Paul Jacob said that their team is running checks to ensure that signature gatherers are being honest. In a single instance, he said, a circulator was found to be lying to potential signatories and was fired. Organizers said they were unaware of any others being fired for misrepresentation.

“If anybody feels that they signed the petition and they weren’t told the truth, we’d want to hear from them,” Jacob said.

ACV hired contractors to manage its signature gathering, campaign finance records show. The group paid nearly $3 million to a Colorado-based company called Campaign & Petition Management for “petition management,” a category that includes signature gathering.

ACV also paid nearly $200,000 to Ludington-based Campaign Audit & Trust and $35,000 to Webberville-based Victory Field Operations for petition work, according to records as of Oct. 20, the most recent available.

Canvassers for the group Rank MI Vote speak to voters as they circulate petitions for a ballot proposal on ranked choice voting on Aug. 25, 2025 in Ann Arbor's Kerrytown neighborhood. Rank MI Voter's petitions don't appear to have been the subject of complaints.

Campaign & Petition Management and Campaign Audit & Trust directed Votebeat’s questions to Kristin Combs, a consultant for ACV. In an email, Combs said she did not work for or manage any vendors. Victory Field Operations did not respond to requests for comment.

Training materials, Combs said, make clear the company’s contractors are not allowed to lie, though she did not provide copies to Votebeat. She said both paid and volunteer circulators are held to the same standard.

“We have a zero tolerance policy for that,” Combs said. “If we catch them lying to us or to anyone else, they will be fired immediately. And frankly, with the popularity of this issue, they shouldn’t be saying anything other than the truth.”

Combs later said that the checks Jacob referred to involve calling some signatories to confirm they actually signed and through a “secret shopper” method.

Votebeat provided a list of five instances, ranging from late August to early October, when students said they were misled by signature gatherers. The complaints were forwarded to vendors, Combs said. More than 700 people collected signatures for the effort, she said, and organizers were aware of only three additional instances of concern.

It’s not clear exactly which group, if any, these signature gatherers were working with, though ACV is the only proof-of-citizenship effort currently collecting signatures using language approved by the Board of State Canvassers. By email, Combs said that one August incident occurred before the campaign had circulators on MSU’s campus, and that a canvasser pictured in The State News did not appear to work for ACV. She did not have information on any of the others.

A separate proof-of-citizenship amendment has also been approved but is not yet collecting signatures.

“Opponents of the measure have been clear that they intend to do everything possible to prevent it from appearing on the ballot,” Combs said in an email. “Given that context, we cannot rule out the possibility that some reported incidents involve individuals who were not affiliated with our campaign.”

Potential signers may not know if the person handing them the clipboard is a politically active neighbor volunteering for a cause they deeply believe in or a contractor making up to nearly $15 per signature, the national average in 2024 according to Ballotpedia, though rates can vary widely. While Michigan courts have ruled paid petition gatherers must disclose this information, it typically appears in small font at the top of the petition and it’s difficult to assess compliance.

Lindley and Moore told Votebeat they signed the petition on campus but later realized they do not support it. Both said they’d take their signatures back if they could, but neither knew where those forms might be now or how to ask that their signatures be removed.

If those forms contain enough valid signatures gathered within a six-month period before July 6, the deadline to turn them in, Michigan voters will be asked to approve a measure that would force new Michigan voters to prove their citizenship before casting a ballot. Already-registered voters would also have to show proof if the state can’t verify their status.

Opponents say the requirements are unnecessary, and could make it harder for eligible Michiganders — such as college students — who have recently moved, or have changed their names. Supporters say it is a necessary protection against noncitizen voting.

Signatures are difficult to obtain in Michigan

Clearing the signature bar isn’t easy. The number of signatures needed for inclusion on the ballot keeps rising.

To be on the ballot for a constitutional amendment in 2026 will require nearly 450,000 signatures from registered Michigan voters — 10% of the number of ballots cast in the last gubernatorial race. That’s more signatures than everywhere but the more populous California and Florida. A decade ago, the required number was only 315,654 signatures — a major jump despite Michigan’s mostly stagnant population that’s due to the state’s improved voter turnout.

Not all of the signatures collected will be considered valid. Some signers won’t be registered voters, for example, or some names won’t be legible and thus, can’t be verified. Verification requires state elections staff to review petition sheets for obvious errors or fraud, then use a computer program to randomly verify about 1,000 signatures per petition to confirm voters are registered.

That’s plenty of work for signature gathering firms, but there’s more: Candidates also need signatures — at least 1,000 to get on the ballot as a congressional candidate, and at least 15,000 as a gubernatorial candidate.

A canvasser for the group Rank MI Vote speak to voters as they circulate petitions for a ballot proposal on ranked choice voting on Oct. 31, 2025 in Detroit, Michigan. The group has since suspended its effort to put this question before voters this November.

There’s only so many people willing to sign petitions — whatever they’re for — and finding those people can feel like an arms race. It’s also expensive, and the number of signatures needed for almost everything means the competition is driving those costs up, said Mary Ellen Gurewitz, the vice-chair of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers.

Groups with a lot of volunteers can try to bear this burden, but often fail. Rank MI Vote (the effort to change the state’s elections to a ranked choice system for many elections) boasted around 2,500 volunteers but still reportedly struggled to meet benchmarks before dropping out of ballot contention in December. Katherine Nitz, spokesperson for Invest in MI Kids (a proposal for a tax on particularly wealthy people to support local schools) declined to share specific numbers, but noted the campaign has “thousands of volunteers across the state.”

But some issues don’t draw a crowd of committed volunteers. Then, groups turn to private companies that will collect signatures for a fee, mostly relying on paid contractors. Authorities have repeatedly flagged issues.

In 2021, Attorney General Dana Nessel announced her investigators “found clear evidence of misrepresentations by petition circulators” but was unable to file charges in part because lying is “not in violation of any criminal statute.”

In 2017, a state representative said he approached circulators who were collecting signatures using false claims about lawmakers’ healthcare.

And back in 2006, circulators for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, aimed at banning affirmative action in the state, allegedly lied to a number of signers, telling them the amendment would protect affirmative action.

The legal fallout was detailed in a 2007 paper in the Fordham Urban Law Journal written by a then-professor at the Wayne State University Law School: Current Secretary of State Jocelyn Friedrichs Benson.

“An electorate that perceives fraud as an endemic presence in the electoral system — based on either their own experiences or the prevalence of allegations elsewhere — is likely to lose faith in the accuracy of an election’s results,” she wrote at the time.

She recommended solutions — deeper investigations into accusations of fraud, eliminating pay-per-signature, federal legislation — some of which have been unsuccessfully proposed by state lawmakers in the two decades since.

“There are a lot of other issues that I think rise to higher priorities for many folks,” Benson said in a November interview. She said officials and activists often need to remind people that the current system “is unjust and needs to be changed.”

Ironically, Benson said major changes may need to be the result of a citizen petition effort. She admits it’s a “heavy lift,” but pointed to the successful effort to get an independent redistricting commission as a sign that it’s possible.

Invalid signatures keep candidates off ballots

Signature gathering has also caused problems for campaigns.

In 2016, for example, a blogger in Western Michigan was sentenced to jail time for forging signatures he was gathering for a candidate.

In 2022, state elections officials found thousands of fraudulent signatures on petitions for five GOP gubernatorial candidates, all of whom had hired the same signature-gathering firm and were removed from the ballot. Three people tied to the firm have since been charged with fraud. Their trials are set to begin this month. One lawyer declined to comment and two did not respond.

Donna Brandenburg, a Republican gubernatorial hopeful, was among the five candidates kept off the ballot after relying on the company to gather the necessary 15,000 signatures. Her campaign submitted 17,778 signatures.

Of those, the Michigan Bureau of Elections found that only 6,634 were valid — pages of signatures were submitted with identical handwriting, or were purportedly signatures of those who had moved from their registered address.

It still upsets Brandenburg, who said she was denied her opportunity to challenge big names in a crowded field. “I think anybody has a chance,” she said.

Even more recently, Adam Hollier — a Democrat from Detroit now running to be Michigan’s next secretary of state — was kept off the 2024 primary ballot for a congressional seat after county officials rejected hundreds of his gathered signatures.

A handwriting review found “the same distinct handwriting and patterns” and suggested “ the same hand fraudulently signed every line of each petition sheet,” Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett wrote in an email.

Hollier, in a statement at the time, said he “put (his) trust in someone who let us down in the collection of signatures.”

“It is also clear that our state’s system of ballot access is sorely in need of reform,” he continued, “ so that future campaigns, as well as of the voters of this state, do not fall victim to fraud.”

Legislation to fix signature gathering in Michigan has repeatedly stalled

Last year, as in past sessions, legislators submitted bills to restrict some of these practices. One proposal from State Sen. Jeremy Moss, a Democrat from Bloomfield and chair of the Senate elections committee, would ban per-signature payment. He’s submitted another that would require a potential signatory to have a chance to either read a proposal or have it read to them before signing.

“I don’t think anyone wants to have lies and deception be the tool that people use in order to gain support for their ballot proposal,” Moss told Votebeat in September.

Moss filed the bills in September, and they passed in November with some bipartisan support, though state Sen. Ruth Johnson, a Republican and former secretary of state, questioned whether they were “really a good solution,” and warned enforcement could become partisan.

Republican leaders on the House Election Integrity Committee — the House counterpart of Moss’s Senate committee — did not respond to questions on whether they might take up the bills.

Even if these bills do pass, groups have sued elsewhere over similar laws. In a 1988 case from Colorado, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that outright banning signature gatherers from being paid violates the First and 14th Amendments.

And last January, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed a number of bills Gurewitz and other members of the state canvassing board supported to codify the way signatures are reviewed by the state, saying the bills “fall far short of the serious need to address this fraud.”

But those who have signed petitions they later realized they don’t actually support want to see action taken. Lindley, the MSU freshman, said she now warns others not to sign without reading. She’s frustrated that proposed fixes have stalled.

“I’m just really frustrated that it is totally legal for them to lie to people about what they’re signing,” Lindley said. “I know that’s a hot statement to make, that people should be truthful in politics, but it’s the least we can do.”

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Trump regrets not calling up troops after the 2020 election. What stops him in 2026?

2026-01-19T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

Regrets — we’ve all had a few. One of President Donald Trump’s, apparently, is not directing the National Guard to seize voting machines after the 2020 election in search of evidence of fraud.

That revelation, part of a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times on Jan. 7, commands particular attention in a world where Trump has already sought to push the boundaries of his power, deploying the National Guard to multiple U.S. cities to crack down on protests and crime. The November midterms will be the first federal general election with Trump as president since that 2020 contest, and even before his comments to the Times, plenty of people were already worried that Trump would attempt to deploy the National Guard around the 2026 election.

The National Guard isn’t necessarily the problem here; the Guard actually has a history of helping with election administration, such as when troops in civilian clothing helped fill in for absent poll workers during the pandemic in 2020. But many Democrats and election officials are worried that Trump could, say, send them to polling places to interfere with voting on Election Day. If troops were to take possession of voting machines or other equipment, it could break the chain of custody and invalidate scads of ballots. And if troops just show up outside polling places, even if they don’t try to impede the administration of the election, their presence could still intimidate voters.

That’s a worst-case scenario. However, there are significant legal and practical barriers to Trump doing this.

First, it’s clearly illegal: Federal law prohibits stationing “troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.” It’s also illegal for members of the military to prevent, or attempt to prevent, an eligible voter from voting and to interfere “in any manner with an election officer’s discharge of his duties.” That could include taking possession of voting machines.

Even the Insurrection Act — which grants the president wide leeway to use the military for domestic law enforcement in emergencies, and which Trump threatened to invoke just last week in Minneapolis — wouldn’t give troops the right to break these laws, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Second, courts have so far significantly reined in Trump’s existing National Guard deployments — raising questions about whether he’d even have control of the Guard in key states. In December, the Supreme Court signed off on a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from deploying troops to Illinois, whose Democratic governor had challenged his authority to do so. (National Guard troops are usually under the command of their state’s governor.)

The Supreme Court’s order for now functionally limits Trump to deploying the National Guard in states where he has the governor’s consent. And the 2026 midterm elections are likely to be decided in states whose governors mostly aren’t the type to let Trump deploy troops there. Of the 60 U.S. House seats currently listed as “in play” by Inside Elections, an election handicapping website, 38 are in states with Democratic governors.

And while the path to the U.S. Senate majority does mostly run through red states, and Republicans have, on the whole, not shown much interest in standing up to Trump, it’s not a given that every Republican governor would acquiesce to Trump sending in troops — especially for as norm-shattering a reason as to police an election.

The New York Times also reported this week that multiple Republican politicians privately criticized Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. And plenty of sitting Republican governors have had their differences with Trump publicly as well:

Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio (home to three competitive House seats and a pivotal Senate race) is very much an old guard Republican who has objected to Trump’s most controversial behavior.
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa (also home to three competitive House seats and a potentially interesting Senate race) endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over Trump in the 2024 Republican presidential primaries and is not running for reelection this year.
Gov. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire (home to two competitive House seats and a vulnerable Democratic-held Senate seat) is a moderate Republican who disavowed Trump in 2016 and waited a conspicuously long time to endorse him in 2024.
Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia (home to another vulnerable Democratic Senate seat) famously rebuffed Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election result in his state.

The Trump administration has thrown cold water all over the idea that it will mobilize the National Guard this November. A White House spokesperson told NPR in November that concerns about troops at polling places were “baseless conspiracy theories and Democrat talking points.” And in an interview with Vanity Fair late last year, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said that “it is categorically false, will not happen.”

But given Trump’s avowed interest in using the National Guard to subvert an election, many officials aren’t taking any chances. At a conference of local election administrators earlier this month in Virginia, attendees were already gaming out what to do in a scenario where armed troops arrive at a polling place.

Any attempt to use the military to influence the election — even if it’s quickly extinguished by a court — would be one of the most brazen acts of election interference in modern times. Whether or not it ultimately affected the outcome of the election, it could still shatter many Americans’ belief in the sanctity of the voting booth.

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

Michigan clerk claims he found 15 noncitizens registered to vote — but his data may not be reliable

2026-01-16T20:07:44+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

Anthony Forlini, the Macomb County clerk and a Republican candidate to be Michigan’s next secretary of state, said this week that he had found more than a dozen noncitizens on his county’s voter rolls — but there’s reason to be skeptical of his claims.

Forlini told Votebeat on Thursday that a comparison of the county’s jury pool — specifically, the more than 230 people who have recused themselves from jury duty since September by saying they are not U.S. citizens — and the state’s qualified voter file found 15 people who were on both lists.

Forlini said his data shows that “the system is flawed” and needs adjustments. But comparing two separate lists is generally a fraught way to find actual noncitizens on the voter rolls, experts say, and verifying his findings will be difficult. As other states have repeatedly found, lists of people identified as noncitizens are often inaccurate or outdated. Each year, hundreds of thousands of people become naturalized citizens, for instance, and they rarely take steps afterward to update their status with various government agencies.

During a press conference Monday, Monika Rittner, a department supervisor in Forlini’s office, said that three of the 15 people flagged as potential noncitizens had voted before, including one who had voted “several times but has since been removed.”

The jury pool Forlini cited comes from the state driver’s license database, which is separate from the qualified voter file (even though both are maintained by the Michigan Department of State). People do not need to be U.S. citizens to get a license or state ID in Michigan.

David Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, and his team have looked into noncitizen voting complaints across the country and found that most allegations are the result of “misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, or outright fabrications about complex voter data,” as CEIR detailed in a July report.

“It is extremely hard to compare data from a jury questionnaire to data in a QVF with certainty and without false positives,” Becker told Votebeat. “Even if you get that part right, there’s still multiple ways in which the data can be misinterpreted.”

Forlini argued that his comparisons were functionally foolproof. He said his team compared names, ages, and addresses to verify that it was the same person who appeared on both lists.

“The scope that we’re doing it, this wasn’t a mass-produced thing,” he said Thursday. “It was a list where we looked at each individual person.”

He has since sent the idea on to other county clerks, and said many of them have thanked him for it.

Forlini said Monday he was handing the information off to Macomb County Corporation Counsel Frank Krycia. On Friday, Forlini said Krycia had handed it off to law enforcement but declined to say which agencies, adding that he’d been advised not to name them while the matter was under investigation. Krycia did not return a call seeking comment.

Forlini is a Republican candidate to be Michigan’s next secretary of state, although he said he was checking for noncitizen voters in his “role as a county clerk.” Doing that work was a matter of “operational efficiency,” he said.

“I’m looking to make things better,” he said.

In recent years, Republicans around Michigan and across the U.S. have zeroed in on noncitizen voting as a threat to American elections. An instance in Ann Arbor in 2024, where a University of Michigan student from China allegedly cast a ballot and turned himself in before fleeing the country, became a focus of Republicans looking to pass a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the state.

The Michigan Department of State said it would look into the claims once Forlini’s office gives it the necessary information.

“We can’t fully evaluate his claims because he hasn’t shared specific details about the list he reviewed, how it was compiled, and how he determined these people were noncitizens,” Angela Benander, a department spokesperson, said in an email.

Noncitizen voting is extremely rare in Michigan and across the country. The Michigan Department of State conducted its own lengthy review of the state’s driving records and voting records last year and found that, across the state during the 2024 general election, it appeared a total of 16 noncitizens had cast ballots — 0.00028% of the more than 5.7 million ballots cast.

“Our department did several rounds of validation in this review to make sure that these individuals actually cast a ballot and to verify their citizenship status,” Benander said in an email. “In each additional round of review, we found more individuals who may have initially appeared to be non-citizens but were, in fact, a U.S. citizen legally able to vote in 2024.”

The state has since established “an ongoing review process” to identify possible cases as they come up.

Other states that have conducted similar audits have turned up similarly minuscule numbers. Georgia, for instance, found about 20 noncitizens in its statewide voter roll of more than 8.2 million people in 2024.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

All about the ‘chain of custody,’ the process that keeps elections secure

2026-01-16T15:48:13+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

In any given election, a whole lot of people handle the ballots and voting equipment. So how does a ballot stay secure and countable after it’s left the voter’s hands?

That’s possible thanks to a critical safeguard in election administration called the chain of custody. The chain of custody is a huge part of why voters can trust that their ballots are counted exactly as they intended.

Voters may not give much thought to this process, but if you’re concerned about the security of your ballot and the integrity of your vote, here’s a full explanation of how the chain of custody works.

What is the chain of custody?

The chain of custody is the process that ensures election materials are handled properly and by the correct people at every step, between when ballots are printed and when everything is put into storage after the election. It involves a prodigious amount of documentation of who is handling election materials, when, and what they do with them.

As the U.S. Election Assistance Commission noted in a 2021 report, “it is a best practice for chain of custody procedures to be clearly defined in advance of every election, well documented and followed consistently throughout the entire election lifecycle or process.”

It can seem tedious, but every link in the chain helps keep the election on track, and every piece of documentation makes it possible to retrace election officials’ steps.

How do election officials maintain the chain of custody?

The chain of custody starts long before a voter even sees their ballot. When blank ballots arrive from the printers, election workers document how many were received and when they arrived. When workers take voting machines out of storage, they write down their serial numbers and note their condition.

To make sure no unauthorized people can access these sensitive materials, election administrators often seal their offices (or wherever the materials are stored) starting at the very beginning of election season, when the first blank ballots arrive from the printers. That means many officials spend weeks redirecting packages or even cleaning their own offices to ensure no non-election officials, such as postal workers or custodial staffers, walk in.

From there, it is a matter of keeping intense and highly specific records whenever election materials are moved, such as when ballots and voting machines are taken to precincts on Election Day. And when a new person in the chain takes possession of the materials, they consult those records to make sure the chain is still intact, said Tina Barton, senior election expert at the Elections Group and a former election official.

For instance, in Barton’s home state of Michigan, the pollbook for each precinct includes the serial numbers of that precinct’s voting machines, as well as the number from the machine’s locking seal (basically a stronger version of a zip tie, with an identifying number on it). When pollworkers arrive on Election Day morning, they compare the numbers in the pollbook with the numbers on the machine and seal. And if there are any irregularities — boxes that have been opened, for instance, or equipment that had to be changed out — they document them.

At each subsequent step in the process, documents are added to the record. Poll workers generally take note of who hands a ballot to which voter when, how the voter’s identity was verified, and any other factors that may be important.

After voting is completed, election officials seal the ballots in secure containers, noting the number of the seal and, often, other details such as the time and who is handling it. Depending on local rules, officials keep track of who is moving ballots, where they are going, what time they arrive, who is tabulating them, and so on. After ballots are tallied, witnesses sign paperwork to attest that the count was done properly. Any discrepancies between the number of ballots issued and the number counted? Documented. Any irregularities seen? Noted. Any errors at any step in the process? Recorded.

Once the ballots are all counted, election workers again seal them in secure containers, document the details thereof, and put the containers into storage. The warehouses where the ballots are stored are typically controlled by a small number of local officials who hold on to each piece of documentation for as long as is required by state and federal law.

Who is responsible for maintaining the chain of custody?

Importantly, almost nothing in the chain of custody involves one person working alone. Ballots are typically handled by groups of election officials working together, for instance. In many places, forms demand signatures from multiple people.

“Nearly every single thing we do in the election world is done in teams of two at minimum,” Barton said. “You’re not only documenting, but you have someone else who’s affirming it.”

Many states require such paperwork to be signed by two people from opposing political parties to add additional strength to such attestations. It’s one of Barton’s favorite things about elections, she said — that, even in an increasingly polarized nation, elections are an opportunity for people from both major parties to come together and sign off on the election.

Why does the chain of custody matter?

Keeping tabs on where ballots are at every step in the process ensures the integrity of an election from start to finish. It also helps the public feel more confident in the election result.

“It’s critical both to make sure that every eligible vote is counted and also to make sure that nothing interferes with, whether intentional or accidental, the security of the vote,” said Kathy Boockvar, president of Athena Strategies and formerly the top election official in Pennsylvania.

Maintaining the chain of custody is important for ensuring that no one is able to tamper with the ballots or any of the machinery, giving voters more than just blind trust that the election was secure.

“What we want to do is have as many checks on the process, as many eyes on the process, through different stages before certification,” Boockvar said. “Those layers of checks and reconciliations and confirmation that you know the numbers match to the extent possible — all those steps help strengthen the process and should give confidence to voters.”

Maintaining a strict chain of custody also helps with auditing election results, if needed. Officials going back to double-check ballots after the election — for recounts, for example — can find exactly what they’re looking for based on the documentation and know who was tasked with what at every step.

What if the chain of custody breaks?

Officials agree that breaks in the chain of custody are typically rare, but they do happen. Elections are run by humans, Boockvar noted, and humans sometimes make mistakes.

There are a variety of ways the chain can break. In one Michigan city, for instance, the chain of custody for 37 ballots was broken when non-election officials walked into the office where voted ballots were. In Maine, a number of ballots were mistakenly delivered in September to a private residence instead of to city officials. Mislaid paperwork can cause problems, as can car accidents or simple human forgetfulness.

It’s impossible to avoid every single problem, but best practices generally recommend adding documentation “at multiple points” during tabulation, as the EAC noted in its 2021 chain of custody report. That way, if there are problems, they can be caught more quickly and election officials can explain them and act accordingly. In Boockvar’s words, “it’s important as a means to track sources of error, help identify ramifications, and target resolution.”

When the chain of custody is not maintained, voters can be disenfranchised through no fault of their own. In the Michigan example, for instance, those 37 ballots were not included in the certified election results.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Election officials say trust with CISA is broken — and may not come back

2026-01-15T16:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

When the U.S. Department of Homeland Security first declared in January 2017 that election systems were “critical infrastructure,” alarmed state election officials pushed back quickly and loudly, fearing the move could lead to a federal takeover of elections.

DHS’s designation came during the final days of the Obama administration, as federal officials scrambled to respond to evidence of Russian interference with the 2016 election.

Denise Merrill, a Connecticut Democrat who was then president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, helped lead the opposition.

“The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has no authority to interfere with elections, even in the name of national security,” NASS said in a February 2017 bipartisan resolution urging the new administration to rescind the designation.

But the designation stuck and, Merrill said, something unexpected happened. As President Donald Trump’s first term progressed, states began to buy in. The designation elevated elections into a national security category that brought federal cybersecurity resources and intelligence sharing on threats. It also meant closer coordination between agencies, states, and the federal government that states couldn’t replicate on their own.

Officials at DHS’s cyber arm, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, created in 2018, emphasized that states remained in control, and over time, election officials came to trust the partnership enough not only to accept help, but to defend it publicly.

Now, Merrill and others say, that trust is gone — perhaps for good.

Election officials, private election vendors, and security experts describe a dual breakdown: renewed alarm that the Trump administration is seeking tighter federal control over elections, and a simultaneous retreat by CISA from the hands-on support states had come to depend on.

“It took us years,” she said in a recent interview with Votebeat. “It’s like so many things that are being torn down — it will take us generations to replace it, if at all.”

With federal support receding, states are improvising. A coordinated national communication system once run through CISA has been replaced by a patchwork of informal phone calls, email lists, and association meetings. Some information still flows through a nonprofit tied to the critical infrastructure designation, but only for election offices and associations that pay for membership.

Election offices in places like California have turned to state agencies for cybersecurity and other services, trading CISA’s standardized approach for looser, less uniform processes. In some states, like Pennsylvania, budgets have been stretched to pay for scans and assessments from private companies or nonprofits; in others, gaps remain.

In an email, a CISA spokesman said that CISA has now “refocused on its core mission” and continues to provide “the most capable and timely threat intelligence, expertise and resources” election officials need. The spokesperson did not immediately respond when asked which services the agency still provides.

“Any claims that CISA is not communicating with our state and local partners is false,” said the spokesperson. “However, CISA will not be functioning the way it was during the Biden Administration when it was performing duties outside of its statutory authority – to include electioneering and censorship.”

‘Critical infrastructure’: From backlash to buy-in

The backlash to the “critical infrastructure” designation in 2017 was bipartisan and swift. NASS warned that it was “legally and historically unprecedented” and raised concerns about federal authority and control. State officials worried the designation could open the door to new mandates, reporting requirements, or federal involvement in polling place security.

A document from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission cataloged dozens of unresolved questions from election administrators nationwide, including whether DHS would have a greater role in administering elections or dictating physical security standards.

DHS and CISA officials tried to calm the fears. Chris Krebs, CISA’s first director, and Matt Masterson, then the agency’s top election security official, emphasized that the federal role would be voluntary, responsive, and driven by state needs.

CISA showed up — repeatedly — at conferences, trainings, and briefings, positioning itself as a convener rather than a regulator. It brought private companies like Microsoft and Facebook directly to election officials to share intelligence about foreign interference. It offered cybersecurity scans, simulations to game out responses to potential threats, and physical security assessments, all on request.

Matt Crane, now executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, was the clerk in Arapahoe County when DHS first adopted the critical infrastructure designation for elections. He said he was initially concerned that CISA would go too far. What won him over, he said, were the boundaries Krebs and Masterson set.

“They did a great job drawing clear lines in the sand,” Crane said. By the time his term ended, his views had shifted so dramatically that he went to work for CISA as a contractor, helping counties access its services.

By late 2018, participation in federal election security programs had grown rapidly. All 50 states joined the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, or EI-ISAC, and CISA became embedded in election planning nationwide.

A state-federal partnership unravels

That model appears to have broken down.

Weeks into Trump’s second term, NASS warned his homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, that the federal election security partnership built since 2017 was unraveling, and highlighting the role played by federal support for the EI-ISAC, which the group said, helps election officials defend against “sophisticated cyber threat actors including nation-state and cybercriminal groups.”

ISACs are voluntary information-sharing groups within each area designated as critical infrastructure that are meant to help organizations spot and respond to security threats. The elections version was created after the 2017 designation and is run by the nonprofit Center for Internet Security to support election offices specifically, while the Multi-State ISAC, also managed by the group, serves state and local governments more broadly.

Weeks after NASS’s letter, CISA halted roughly $10 million in annual funding for the two information-sharing groups, citing a need to focus on “mission critical areas.” State officials and vendors warned the move would weaken information sharing on threats and slow coordinated responses to cyber and physical threats.

Election technology companies have since begun pulling back from sharing sensitive information with CISA. Votebeat spoke to three technology companies that confirmed this, though none would speak publicly for fear of reprisal. Some fear data on vulnerabilities could be exposed or used against them in a more politicized environment — concerns that echo, but invert, those raised in 2017.

“If you share information, you don’t know if it’s going to stay confidential,” Crane said. “Why would a vendor ever share a vulnerability?”

Gabriel Sterling, the former chief operating officer of Georgia’s secretary of state office and now a Republican candidate for the job, said he has long been skeptical of CISA — particularly its approach to disclosing vulnerabilities.

Even so, Sterling draws a sharp distinction between the current moment and the Krebs-Masterson era. “They focused on what they could do well and how they could make systems more resilient,” he said. “Now, I have no idea what the goal is. I don’t think anyone really understands the mission. I don’t think they even understand the mission.”

The uncertainty has been compounded by a leadership vacuum at CISA. Nearly a year into Trump’s second term, the agency still lacks a Senate-confirmed director after the nomination of Sean Plankey, a longtime security official who has worked at the Department of Energy and the National Security Council, stalled amid bipartisan objections. Trump this week renominated Plankey.

Trump has continued to attack the agency’s past work. He has repeatedly attacked Krebs, the former director, for defending the integrity of the 2020 election, which Trump falsely claims to have won. In early 2025, Trump ordered an investigation into Krebs and the security firm he now owns, apparent retribution for Krebs’ statement that the 2020 election was the “most secure” in U.S. history.

Republicans have also spent years criticizing CISA over its work against election misinformation, arguing the agency overstepped its role by coordinating with state and local officials and social media companies.

This has unfolded alongside a broader shift in how the second Trump administration is approaching elections, said Merrill, who left office in 2022. Justice Department efforts to require states to send full, unredacted voter lists to the federal government — something many states have now done — are, she said, a warning sign that federal involvement in how states run elections could expand far beyond technical support.

“I don’t know how you would ever go back to the federal government just helping states with security — which is obviously a very positive thing to do,” she said.

Looking toward the midterms

The November 2025 elections offered an early glimpse of what this new landscape looks like. For the first time in years, CISA did not stand up its Election Day situation room — a centralized hub for monitoring and communicating about threats nationwide.

In December, Gene Dodaro, departing comptroller general of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, warned senators that federal cybersecurity efforts were not receiving enough attention given the potential threat. He expressed concern that CISA can’t provide the assistance state and local election officials had come to expect heading into the midterms.

Paul Lux, chair of EI-ISAC and the supervisor of elections in Okaloosa County, Florida, told Votebeat that a now-membership-based EI-ISAC, run by the nonprofit Center for Internet Security, is working to rebuild communication infrastructure, and hopes to make arrangements with smaller jurisdictions that cannot afford the fees.

It plans to restart the situation room for this year’s primaries using private vendors, “making sure all the nuts and bolts are tightened” before Election Day in November, said Lux.

Some cooperation with the federal government will likely persist, albeit in narrower forms. Ryan Macias, an election security expert who has also contracted for CISA, said that if CISA were to again offer direct services, states could engage selectively — allowing isolated cyber scans or physical security assessments without broadly sharing sensitive vulnerabilities, which would be more like what other critical infrastructure sectors currently do.

Many jurisdictions, he noted, also benefited from years of basic cybersecurity hygiene training and can carry that forward on their own. In Georgia, for example, Sterling said much of the state’s scanning and assessment work flows through the Georgia Emergency Management Agency rather than CISA.

Lux said he believes the federal government is needed, and that another federal agency — one with a more independent leadership body, like the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has a bipartisan set of commissioners nominated by congressional leadership — might have more success.

Local and state offices, he said, can’t “be expected to battle malicious foreign actors without the resources and assistance of the federal government.”

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Supreme Court makes it easier for candidates to challenge election laws

2026-01-14T18:42:27+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

Candidates for office are entitled to challenge the rules governing how votes are counted in their elections, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision Wednesday, making it easier for candidates to bring such lawsuits.

“Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

Roberts wrote that requiring candidates to show “a substantial risk” that an election rule would cause them to lose an election could force them to wait until closer to an election to bring a lawsuit, which causes other problems.

The Supreme Court, he wrote, has repeatedly said lower courts should not alter rules close to an election. “Such late-breaking, court-ordered rule changes can result in voter confusion and undermine confidence in the integrity of electoral processes. The democratic consequences can be worse if courts intervene only after votes have been counted.”

Multiple legal experts said the ruling is likely to increase the already skyrocketing number of election law cases. But they stressed that, more importantly, it should prompt candidates to bring any legal challenges well before the election, as opposed to close to Election Day or afterward.

“Candidates shouldn’t sit on complaints about an election and see how it goes,” said Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA Law School and an expert on election law. “They should sue as early as they can if they see a problem.”

Derek Muller, an election law professor at Notre Dame Law School, agreed. “We should want to make sure the rules are fair and known ahead of time,” he said.

The ruling is a victory for U.S. Rep. Michael Bost, an Illinois Republican who sued over a state law allowing the counting of mail ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Bost argued the Illinois statute violates a federal law setting a uniform day for federal elections.

A lower court had dismissed the case, ruling that Bost, who easily won his election, did not have standing to sue because he had not suffered a “concrete” or “particularized” injury.

The justices ruled only on the question of whether Bost could sue, not on the merits of his case about counting mail ballots. The Supreme Court is expected to rule directly on whether mail ballots can be accepted after Election Day in a separate case out of Mississippi later this term.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch joined Roberts’ majority opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote a concurring opinion agreeing with the outcome, but saying they would have found Bost had standing “because he has suffered a traditional pocketbook injury” — specifically, the costs his campaign incurred in tracking the late-arriving ballots — and not because of his status as a candidate. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Outside the court, sentiment about the case did not break down neatly along ideological lines. Several civil rights groups usually identified with liberal causes, including the League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union, had urged the justices to side with Bost and find that candidates do have standing to sue.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

New federal ruling is latest defeat to Trump administration’s election agenda

2026-01-13T20:10:57+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

A federal judge on Friday became the third one to block key provisions of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at revising election rules nationwide, ruling that the Constitution gives states and Congress —not the president— the authority to exercise power over elections.

The administration signaled it is likely to appeal the decision, the latest blow to Trump’s agenda on elections.

His March executive order sought to require proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form, mostly ban the use of machine-readable codes when tallying ballots, and prohibit the counting of ballots postmarked Election Day but received afterwards.

The administration has appealed two earlier rulings in other cases against the executive order. The cases could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, but election law experts told Votebeat the president faces long odds.

The White House has said the president is planning a second executive order on elections, though it’s unclear what will be in it, and federal court rulings so far show the approach has limitations.

“The court is very clear that the Constitution gives no authority to the president to do any of these things, and that federal law doesn’t either,” said Derek Clinger, a senior staff attorney with the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative.

The president has also pushed for congressional action to change federal election laws, though federal legislation so far has stalled. He’s called on state lawmakers to advance his policy goals and some states, including Ohio, have repealed grace periods for mail ballots postmarked by Election Day but not received until afterwards.

In rulings in the two related elections executive order cases last year, federal judges struck down provisions of the order requiring those who registered to vote using the federal voter registration form to provide documentary proof of citizenship and requiring federal voter registration agencies to “assess” the citizenship of individuals who receive public assistance before providing them a voter registration form.

“It keeps getting worse for him,” David Becker, an election lawyer who worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and now leads the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research, said about Trump. “The more courts look at this executive order, the more they come to the conclusion that the president vastly exceeded his constitutional authority.”

Court ruling meant to ‘restore the proper balance of power’

In his Friday ruling, U.S. District Judge John Chun sided with the states of Oregon and Washington in his ruling against provisions of Trump’s order. He ruled against aspects of the order that require documented proof of citizenship on a federal voter form, call on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to revise certification guidelines to prohibit certain voting machines, and stop absentee ballots arriving after Election Day from being tallied, even if they are postmarked by Election Day.

He also struck down provisions of the executive order tying federal election funding to complying with the proof-of-citizenship provisions and the one banning ballots arriving after Election Day from being processed.

Chun, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, cited a long history of federal authorities — courts, politicians, and the Founding Fathers — recognizing the potential dangers in giving the president unilateral presidential powers of elections.

The intent of his decision, he said, was to “restore the proper balance of power among the Executive Branch, the states, and Congress envisioned by the Framers.”

Chun specified that his rulings blocking provisions denying election funding and banning ballots arriving after Election Day would apply only to Oregon and Washington, states that primarily rely on mail voting and which brought the lawsuit. But he barred the U.S. EAC from altering the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship and altering the agency’s Voluntary Voting System Guidelines to exclude machines that tally ballots using barcodes or quick-response codes.

The Department of Justice didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Executive order fails in court but inspires some action elsewhere

There are just two available constitutional paths for people in the federal government to change election policy in the states, Becker said: an act of Congress or persuading a state Legislature to change state election law.

Outside of some Republican-majority states banning mail-voting grace periods, he added, Trump’s desire to change state-level voting policy has been largely ineffective — states have hardly changed their practices.

Clinger said that the executive order is having a more tangible impact within the federal government.

For example, he said, the order instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to prioritize violations of election laws. The agency has filed 23 lawsuits so far against states unwilling to provide unredacted voter data to the government, which the Justice Department said it needs to make sure federal election laws are properly followed, and many of those lawsuits cited Trump’s executive order.

“Even if the executive order isn’t accomplishing its goals, it does come off as marching orders to the rest of the federal government to pursue related goals,” he said.

Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University who advised President Joe Biden’s administration on democracy and voting rights, said Trump’s election agenda boils down to “project power that he doesn’t have,” in hopes that the public will lose confidence in election results “even if the rules don’t change one bit.”

Levitt said doesn’t think the public will buy the hype, mostly because Trump and his allies don’t appear to have an actual plan for advancing their agenda. As he has in the past, he likened it to a South Park episode in which gnomes steal underpants as part of a three-step scheme — except they can’t explain the step between collecting the underpants and turning a profit.

A strategy missing the middle, Levitt said, “encapsulates quite a bit of the Trump administration’s approach to elections.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Accused double voter in 2020 isn’t covered by broad Trump pardon, judge rules

2026-01-13T15:25:03+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

Matthew Laiss, a man accused of double voting in the 2020 election, is not covered by a pardon President Donald Trump issued to allies who attempted to overturn his 2020 election loss, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

“This Court finds that Laiss has not yet applied to the Office of the Pardon Attorney, or received a certificate of pardon, which the plain language of the Pardon requires him to do,” U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson Jr. wrote.

Federal prosecutors charged Laiss in September with voting twice in the November 2020 election, alleging that he moved from Pennsylvania to Florida in August of that year and voted both in person in Florida and via mail ballot in Bucks County. Both votes were allegedly for Trump.

Trump issued the pardon in November to 77 people who were involved in efforts to subvert the election outcome in 2020, including members of his legal team and the so-called fake electors who attempted to submit alternative slates of electoral votes to Congress on Trump’s behalf. But the proclamation further said the president was granting “a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all United States citizens” for conduct related to the 2020 election.

Laiss’ attorney sought to have the charges dismissed on the grounds that the “plain language” of Trump’s broadly worded pardon applied to his client. He argued that others specifically named in the pardon had committed far more egregious acts.

“To read the Pardon Proclamation to intend such an outcome would be outrageous, particularly in light of its sweeping language,” Laiss’ attorney argued.

One of the arguments the U.S. attorney’s office made was that the pardon was targeted at activity that occurred after Election Day, whereas Laiss’ alleged crime occurred on or before Election Day.

At a hearing in early December, prosecutors also argued that the proper way for Laiss to make the claim that the pardon applied to him was to petition the U.S. pardon attorney.

Leeson agreed that it was beyond his authority to determine whether the pardon applied to Laiss.

“The Pardon Attorney can then determine whether the individuals are ‘eligible’ for a certificate of pardon—a decision initially to be made by the Pardon Attorney, not the courts,” he wrote in his decision. “This language is clear; therefore, this Court defers to and enforces the plain text of the Pardon.”

Laiss’ attorney argued that Trump’s January 2025 blanket pardon of those charged in connection with the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, showed that Trump has a habit of issuing broad pardons that needed to later be interpreted by the courts. But Leeson noted that pardon didn’t mention the U.S. pardon attorney as part of the review process, and his November pardon does.

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Postmarks, interference, physical threats: Election officials brace for the 2026 elections

2026-01-12T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

Election officials from around the country gathered at a conference in Virginia this week, giving us — and one another — a chance to hear what they’re thinking and worrying about as they plan for the midterm elections this year.

One of their most pressing concerns: the mail.

Updated guidance from the U.S. Postal Service about how it processes mail and when postmarks are applied has sparked widespread concern in recent weeks about whether more mail ballots will be at risk of ultimately not being counted.

Fourteen states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands count mail ballots received within a certain period after Election Day, as long as they’re postmarked by Election Day. In a notice in the Federal Register that took effect Dec. 24, the Postal Service announced that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it, which could affect ballots dropped in mailboxes on Election Day, for instance.

Speaking at the conference, which was organized by the Election Center, a nonprofit association of election officials, U.S. Postmaster General David Steiner acknowledged the new regulation had sparked “a lot of confusion,” and said it was meant to clarify existing postmarking practices.

Adjustments to the Postal Service’s transportation operations mean that some mail won’t arrive at a processing facility on the same day it’s mailed, according to an agency fact sheet. That means postmarks applied at the processing facility may not match the date the mail was given to a letter carrier or dropped off, the agency said, which is what’s raising concerns about whether some ballots mailed by the deadline could still not get counted.

Earlier in his career, Steiner was a tax accountant, he told the gathering, “and anyone that ever practiced tax accounting knows that there’s only one way to make sure that that tax return that has to be postmarked by April 15 is actually postmarked on April 15”: lining up at the post office and requesting a manual postmark.

Steiner urged the election officials in attendance to inform voters that they can request manual postmarks at post offices with a date that reflects when the ballot was mailed. He promised that the agency would continue to take steps to prioritize the timely delivery of election mail, but said voters need to mail ballots at least a week before the receipt deadline. “We want to make sure that every ballot is delivered, and mailing early is a big part of that,” he said.

Election officials in recent years have repeatedly voiced frustrations with mail delays and urged voters to cast their ballots earlier, so the current questions aren’t entirely new.

But they’re occurring now against a backdrop of rising concern over the federal government’s role in elections, and especially President Donald Trump’s repeated attacks on mail ballots. Trump has suggested he might attempt to curb their use through an executive order.

If Trump, or any president, issues such an executive order, “have you gamed out what you’ll do?” Judd Choate, Colorado’s state elections director, asked a panel of postal officials following Steiner’s address. Colorado is one of several states where people vote primarily by mail.

Panelist Adrienne Marshall acknowledged she was asked the same question at a different event over the summer.

“Of course, by the Constitution … we are required to deliver the nation’s mail,” she noted.

Marshall said that, without her legal team there, she was “not sure” how exactly her agency would respond to a theoretical executive order, but said she believes any executive order on mail ballots would likely be aimed more at election officials than the Postal Service.

The Colorado Department of State said it’s prepared for various scenarios that might affect the 2026 election cycle, but a spokesman wouldn’t comment on specifics.

Another session at the conference aimed to prepare election officials for potential election interference, covering a range of scenarios from how to handle Justice Department and congressional observers to the implications of placing polling sites or ballot drop boxes on federal property.

At a session with an FBI representative, election officials raised questions about the threats against them and election workers, a constant refrain since the 2020 presidential election.

And at a session with two members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Vice Chair Thomas Hicks, a Democrat, told election officials to take every opportunity to educate members of Congress about election needs. He noted that two long-serving members of Congress who were instrumental in passing the landmark Help America Vote Act of 2002 — Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican — are retiring after this year, leaving what he described as “a huge, huge void, and that’s a bipartisan void.”

Election officials’ list of worries, in other words, remains long.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Texas shares entire voter registration list with the Trump administration

2026-01-09T11:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

Texas officials have turned over the state’s voter roll to the U.S. Justice Department, according to a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, complying with the Trump administration’s demands for access to data on millions of voters across the country.

The Justice Department last fall began asking all 50 states for their voter rolls — massive lists containing significant identifying information on every registered voter in each state — and other election-related data. The Justice Department has said the effort is central to its mission of enforcing election law requiring states to regularly maintain voter lists by searching for and removing ineligible voters.

Alicia Pierce, a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, told Votebeat and The Texas Tribune that the state had sent its voter roll, which includes information on the approximately 18.4 million voters registered in Texas, to the Justice Department on Dec. 23.

The state included identifiable information about voters, including dates of birth, driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, Pierce said.

Experts and state officials around the country have raised concerns over the legality of the Justice Department’s effort to obtain states’ voter rolls and whether it could compromise voter privacy protections. The Justice Department has said it is entitled to the data under federal law, and withholding it interferes with its ability to exercise oversight and enforce federal election laws.

The department has now sued 23 states and Washington, D.C., for declining to voluntarily turn over their voter rolls. Those states, which include some led by officials of both political parties, have generally argued that states are responsible for voter registration and are barred by state and federal law from sharing certain private information about voters. In an interview with “The Charlie Kirk Show” last month, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said 13 states, including Texas, had voluntarily agreed to turn over their voter rolls.

In a letter to Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson, dated Friday and obtained by Votebeat and The Texas Tribune, the Democratic National Committee said the move to hand over the voter roll could violate federal election law.

DNC Chair Ken Martin said the turnover of such data is tantamount to a “big government power grab” and would invite privacy violations and could result in eligible voters being kicked off the rolls. The DNC, he said in a statement, “won’t stand idly by as the Trump DOJ tries to get access to Texas voters’ sensitive information.”

In its letter, Daniel Freeman, the DNC’s litigation director, requested records related to the Justice Department’s request, and warned the party could take further action.

Some election officials and voting rights watchdog groups have raised concerns about what the Justice Department intends to do with the information provided by the states, with some suggesting it may be used to create a national database of voters.

Votebeat and The Texas Tribune have asked the Texas Secretary of State’s Office for a signed copy of the agreement between the state and the Justice Department, known as a memorandum of understanding, governing how the sharing of the voter data would work and steps the state has agreed to take in response to any questions about voter eligibility raised by the Justice Department. The state has not yet released it.

In a proposed memorandum of understanding sent to Wisconsin officials last month and publicly released by state officials, the Justice Department said that upon receiving the state’s voter data, it would check the state’s voter roll for “list maintenance issues, insufficiencies, anomalies or concerns.” The department would then notify the state and give it 45 days to correct any problems. The state would then agree to resubmit the voter roll to the department. Wisconsin declined the agreement, and the Justice Department has since sued the state.

In his letter to Nelson, Freeman identified two potential legal violations associated with some of those clauses, though acknowledged he didn’t yet know whether Texas had signed such an agreement and asked for records.

Freeman wrote that the 45-day removal period as laid out in the public versions of the memorandum would run afoul of a provision in the National Voter Registration Act that lays out specific conditions, such as having missed two elections after receiving a notice from the state, for states to remove registered voters from the rolls.

Freeman also wrote that federal law also bars states from doing systemic voter removals from the rolls within 90 days of a primary or general election. Because Texas has an upcoming March 3 primary, May 26 runoff and Nov. 3 general election, the state cannot conduct such list maintenance until after the runoff, Freeman wrote. The 90-day moratorium would then kick in again on Aug. 6, ahead of the November election.

Texas agreed to the memorandum of understanding and released the data, but told the department that it did so with the understanding it wouldn’t “limit or affect the duties, responsibilities, and rights” of the state under either the NVRA or other federal laws, according to two letters the Texas Secretary of State’s Office sent the Justice Department in December and released to Votebeat and The Texas Tribune.

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Dallas and Williamson counties switch to precinct-level voting for primary election day

2026-01-09T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

In an about-face, Dallas County Republicans last week decided against hand-counting ballots in Texas’ March primary, saying they weren’t able to line up enough workers, among other hurdles.

That leaves just two counties where Republicans will hand-count their primary ballots: Gillespie County, west of Austin, and Eastland County, southwest of Fort Worth.

But Republicans in Dallas and Williamson counties are planning another major change for the March 3 primary election that will also require more election workers, and will affect how voters cast their ballots: They intend to eliminate the use of countywide voting sites on Election Day.

That means voters in these counties — Republicans and Democrats — would be required to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood polling places instead of at more centralized polling locations that can accommodate any voter from anywhere in the county.

Under state law, the parties have wide authority to decide how to run their primaries, but they must agree on whether to use countywide voting. If the Republicans don’t want to offer it, Democrats can’t offer it either.

Michelle Evans, the chair of the Williamson County GOP, said that having voters cast ballots at their assigned polling location brings “a higher level of confidence that the people that are coming in are people that are registered voters in that area, because that is their community.”

Democrats in those counties say they’re struggling to find enough locations to support neighborhood-level voting. “We don’t even have all the locations locked down,” said Kim Gilby, the Democratic Party chair in Williamson County. “To me, this is going to be a nightmare.”

Democrats also worry the change will confuse voters from both parties who have for years been used to countywide sites on Election Day. The move, they say, could potentially disenfranchise voters who go to the wrong location and aren’t able to cast a ballot.

In response to questions, Dallas County Republican Party Chairman Allen West said all voters receive registration cards that list their precinct. “I would hate to believe that we have devolved to a point where we feel the voting electorate is too incompetent to read their own voter registration card,” West told Votebeat in a text message.

Here’s why the shift is happening, and what you need to know:

Who decides where voters can cast ballots on Election Day during a primary election?

Under state law, for Election Day voting, it’s up to political parties to determine whether voters should cast ballots at their assigned neighborhood precinct or at a countywide vote center.

This applies only to primaries. For general elections (which include any election called by the governor), that decision is made at the county level by the county commissioners’ courts.

What about early voting during a primary election?

County officials, not the political parties, manage the two weeks of early voting. Under state law, during early voting, voters can cast ballots in person at any polling location available in their county.

Can’t Democrats split with Republicans and stick with countywide vote centers on Election Day?

No. In order for a county to offer countywide polling places in the primary election, under Texas law, both parties must agree to use them. So the Republicans’ decision to use assigned polling locations in some counties requires Democrats in those counties to do the same, even if the party prefers countywide polling sites.

Why do Republicans favor assigned neighborhood voting sites over countywide voting?

Republican critics of countywide voting claim it makes elections less secure because it could allow people “to double or triple vote,” though there’s no evidence that this can happen. Texas election officials have procedures in place to prevent double voting, including the use of voting equipment that helps officials know in real time who has voted and where.

Some Republicans also say countywide voting makes it easier to pierce ballot secrecy by allowing the public to piece together different pieces of data from public records to figure out what choices certain people made on their ballots.

Votebeat and the Texas Tribune last year reported that it was possible, in limited instances, to link some ballots to the voters who cast them, but the problem wasn’t just tied to voters using countywide voting sites and eliminating it doesn’t fix risks to ballot secrecy. The problem with linking ballots stems from Texas’ push to make almost all election records public, which allowed researchers, in some cases, to cross-reference different public records and find a specific voter’s ballot image.

Republican lawmakers have proposed eliminating the use of countywide voting across the state.

What are Democrats’ concerns with assigned neighborhood-level polling locations?

Using assigned precincts requires, in some cases, twice as many polling locations as countywide voting. Each polling place has to be staffed with workers and furnished with materials and equipment. Texas law requires each polling location to have a minimum of three election workers, who must be paid at least $12 per hour.

Party and county officials say it’s difficult to find enough election workers and enough polling locations that comply with security and accessibility requirements.

Although some public buildings are free to use, they’re not always available, which requires leasing of spaces, at an additional cost.

The countywide polling place program eased some of those costs by allowing officials to use fewer, and more centralized locations, while offering voters flexibility on where to cast ballots.

Democrats are also worried that voters who show up at the wrong polling location on Election Day may be turned away without casting a ballot. Although a voter can ask to cast a provisional ballot if their name is not on the precinct’s voter list, if it’s found to have been cast at the wrong voting location, it won’t ultimately be tallied.

Who pays for the primary elections in Texas?

The costs of primary elections are covered mostly by taxpayers, as well as candidate filing fees.

Political parties in each county have funds generated from local candidate filing fees, fundraisers, and donations that they can use to pay for primary elections and their own administrative costs. The costs for the primary are then reimbursed by the state.

The Texas Legislature allocated about $21 million for the 2026 primary, and the state expects an additional $5 million from candidate filing fees. However, those funds also help cover expenses such as postage for voter registration, operational costs at the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, and other administrative costs.

How can voters in Dallas County and Williamson County find out their assigned polling location?

Every registered voter should receive their voter registration card this month from the county elections office. That card has voters’ precinct information.

Voters can also visit their county’s elections website or reach out to their voter registrar to find their assigned precinct.

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Madison’s defense in missing-ballot case: Absentee voting is a ‘privilege,’ not a right

2026-01-08T21:06:12+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

The city of Madison, Wisconsin, and its former clerk are arguing in court that they can’t be sued for failing to count 193 absentee ballots in the 2024 presidential election, in part because a Wisconsin law calls absentee voting a privilege, not a constitutional right.

That legal argument raises questions about how much protection absentee voters have against the risk of disenfranchisement — and could reignite a recent debate over whether the law calling absentee voting a privilege is itself unconstitutional.

That law, which appears to be uncommon outside of Wisconsin, has been cited repeatedly in recent years in attempts to impose more requirements and restrictions on absentee voting, and, at times, disqualify absentee ballots on which the voters have made errors. It does not appear to have been invoked to absolve election officials for errors in handling correctly cast ballots.

Nonetheless, the law has become central to the defense presented by Madison and its former clerk, Maribeth Witzel-Behl, in a novel lawsuit seeking monetary damages on behalf of the voters whose ballots went missing.

The suit, filed by the law firm Law Forward, names the city and the clerk’s office as defendants, along with Witzel-Behl and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick in their personal capacities, and cites a series of errors after the 2024 election that led to the ballots not being counted in alleging that they violated voters’ constitutional rights.

In defending against that claim, attorneys for Witzel-Behl argued in a court filing that by choosing to vote absentee, the 193 disenfranchised voters “exercised a privilege rather than a constitutional right.”

Witzel-Behl’s filing argues that the 193 disenfranchised voters did, in fact, exercise their right to vote, but chose to vote absentee and therefore place the ballots into an administrative system that “can result in errors.”

“The fact that Plaintiffs’ ballots were not counted is unfortunate,” the filing states. “But it is the result of human error, not malice. And that human error was not a violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to vote.”

Matthew W. O’Neill, an attorney representing Witzel-Behl, declined to comment.

The city’s attorneys have now adopted the same argument, filings show.

Asked about the city’s legal defense, Madison’s current clerk, Lydia McComas didn’t address the argument directly but told Votebeat that the city is committed to counting all eligible votes “regardless of how they are cast.”

Phil Keisling, a former Oregon secretary of state, said he wasn’t aware of other states with similar laws. He said he found the city’s argument wrong and offensive.

“The right to vote, if there is a state constitutional right to vote, should have nothing to do with the form that a voter chooses,” he said.

Law passed to clarify absentee voting requirements

The law that Madison cites in its legal defense was enacted in 1985, long before absentee voting became widespread. The stricter language about the regulation of absentee voting came after judges in a series of Wisconsin court cases called for more liberal interpretation of those regulations.

The law states that while voting is a constitutional right, “voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place.” A subsequent provision states that absentee ballots that do not follow required procedures “may not be counted.”

The law appears similar to a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that drew a distinction between the right to vote and the right to receive absentee ballots. That decision has since been interpreted — and misinterpreted — in a “number of ways by a number of people wanting to trim back mail voting,” said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University.

After the Wisconsin law was enacted, the state election board clarified the Legislature’s position that failing to comply with procedures for absentee ballot applications and voting would result in ballots not being counted. The board did not suggest the law could be used to excuse municipalities that improperly discard legally cast ballots.

Absentee voting has long been available in Wisconsin but surged in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and has been extensively litigated since then.

The law calling absentee voting a privilege was central to a lawsuit that resulted in a 2022 statewide ban on ballot drop boxes; another lawsuit to prohibit voters from being able to spoil ballots and vote a new one; and President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election outcome in Wisconsin.

A later lawsuit led to the reinstatement of drop boxes in 2024. In that case, plaintiffs argued that the law “unconstitutionally degrades the voting rights of all absentee voters by increasing the risk of disenfranchisement.” The court, then led by liberal justices, declined to overturn the statute but disagreed with an earlier interpretation that absentee voting requires heightened skepticism.

Experts say Madison’s defense misinterprets the law

Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA Law School and expert on election law, said he didn’t think the law itself was problematic, adding that states have various laws controlling absentee voting. The U.S. Constitution, he noted, doesn’t require any state to offer absentee voting.

But “once the state gives someone the opportunity to vote by mail,” he said, “then they can’t — as a matter of federal constitutional law — deprive that person of their vote because they chose a method that the state didn’t have to offer.”

The city and Witzel-Behl’s use of the law in this instance “seems to be wrong,” said Hasen.

Attorneys for Law Forward in a court filing called Witzel-Behl’s argument a “shocking proposition.”

“There is no right to vote if our votes are not counted,” Law Forward staff attorney Scott Thompson told Votebeat. “And this is the only case I’m aware of where a municipal government has argued otherwise.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Pennsylvania disputes claim that it’s in talks to share voter rolls with Ohio

2026-01-08T20:55:20+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

Pennsylvania officials say they’re not in discussions to hand over private voter information to Ohio, where officials are trying to identify voters who are double-registered following the state’s departure from a bipartisan voter data sharing program.

In December, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, announced a “multi-state election integrity network” called EleXa that will share its voter rolls with 10 other states to “identify people who try to vote illegally, often by having more than one active voter registration and then casting multiple ballots in the same election.”

The press release also said that Pennsylvania was “finalizing an agreement” to join the program.

But officials in Pennsylvania say that is not the case. Amy Gulli, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of State, said the two state agencies spoke last summer about a possible information-sharing agreement, but the conversation ultimately fizzled out.

“In September, our Department provided Ohio with revisions to a proposed agreement that would accomplish that objective while protecting voters’ private information,” she said in a statement. “We never received a response, and we never engaged in any discussions about joining any larger election-data-sharing initiative with Ohio.”

Pennsylvania is still a member of the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, a longstanding multi-state voter roll maintenance program that pools voter lists and other data sets to identify voters who should be removed from the rolls, as well as those who may be eligible but unregistered. The program has faced a wave of pushback from conservatives who argued that the program was too focused on finding potentially eligible voters and not enough on identifying ineligible voters.

Voters often fail to cancel outdated registrations when moving, leading to duplicate registrations across state lines that programs like ERIC and EleXa are aimed at addressing. Double-voting itself, however, is rare.

Several Republican-led states have withdrawn from ERIC in recent years, including Ohio, which pulled out in early 2023 at LaRose’s direction. Since then, Ohio and the other states that left ERIC have been entering into data-sharing agreements with each other to try to replace its services.

In response to Pennsylvania’s pushback to the claim it was joining the EleXa program, Ben Kindel, a spokesperson for the Ohio secretary of state’s office, said Pennsylvania had shared its voter file with Ohio and that they were “obviously negotiating the terms of an ongoing agreement to share additional non-public data.”

“We’ve had productive conversations with them and are optimistic we’ll be able to reach a final agreement, as we hope they share the same goal of ensuring election integrity,” Kindle said.

Pennsylvania said the only data that it shared with Ohio is the public version of the voter roll, which can be purchased online for $20 and does not contain the partial Social Security or driver’s license numbers needed to reliably match voters across state lines.

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

How the U.S. Postal Service’s new guidance on postmarks could affect mail voters

2026-01-07T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

Mail voters in 18 jurisdictions may need to take extra care to ensure that their ballots aren’t rejected under new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service about how it processes mail.

In a notice in the Federal Register that took effect Dec. 24, the Postal Service announced that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. The change could affect thousands of people who vote by mail in places that allow mail ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day but postmarked by Election Day.

Those policies are in effect in 14 states — Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia — along with the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The new guidance means that, even if a voter delivers their ballot to the Postal Service by Election Day, it may nevertheless be rejected if it is not postmarked that day.

However, voters in these places who mail their ballots on Election Day can still try to ensure that their ballots will count by bringing it to a post office and requesting a manual postmark indicating when it was dropped off.

States move to educate voters

States are already taking steps to educate voters so they aren’t disenfranchised. For instance, Oregon updated its guidance in November to tell voters to mail their ballots a week ahead of time, or else to use a drop box.

“I’m deeply concerned that USPS is doubling down on making it harder for Oregonians, especially rural Oregonians, to vote,” Secretary of State Tobias Reed said. “We’re already taking action, providing updated guidance to make sure every legal vote gets counted, and we’ll continue to sound the alarm: This is a threat to Oregonians’ right to hold government accountable.”

In response to criticism, the Postal Service clarified that the new rule “does not change any existing postal operations or postmarking practices” but rather codifies how postmarks have long been applied. The announcement said that mail is postmarked once it reaches a processing facility, which may not be the same day that it’s dropped off at a mailbox or post office. It noted, however, that these lags have become more common since the implementation of the Regional Transportation Optimization initiative in 2025. Under that initiative, mail that is dropped off more than 50 miles away from a regional hub is collected the next day rather than the same day.

“As explained in the Proposed Rule, postmarks applied at originating processing facilities have never provided a perfectly reliable indicator of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece, and this fact will become more common under RTO,” the Postal Service wrote in the Federal Register. “Therefore, to the extent that customers currently have this view of the postmark, it does not reflect the realities of postal operations.”

The Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy research organization, found that under USPS’ new Regional Processing and Distribution Center network, nearly 50% of post offices are more than 100 miles from their processing center, meaning the mail dropped off at those post office is subject to getting postmarked at least one day late.

According to the Brookings report, some of the 14 states that accept properly postmarked ballots after Election Day, such as California, carry a low risk of postmark delays, but in more rural states such as Mississippi and West Virginia, more than 95% of ZIP codes are at a high risk of postmark delays.

Trump opposes accepting ballots after Election Day

President Donald Trump has long railed against mail voting for what he sees as its susceptibility to fraud. In August, he said in a social media post that he would “lead a movement” to get rid of it.

And he’s taken particular issue with the practice of allowing mail ballots to be received after Election Day. In March 2025, he issued an executive order that asserted in part that federal law prohibited ballots from being counted if they arrived after Election Day. While the president does not have authority over how elections are run, several states changed their statutes following that executive order. The Republican National Committee is also arguing in a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court that accepting mail ballots after Election Day violates federal law.

Jennifer Morrell, CEO of The Elections Group and a former election official, agreed that the new rule is just a clarification of current practices and said that, to an extent, election officials have always had to contend with postmark issues or late-arriving mail.

She noted that postmark issues can affect not only ballots, but also other election-related mail, such as voter registration applications. For instance, Tennessee allows voters to register so long as the postmark on their mailed application shows it was sent by the deadline.

“I think the main thing for election officials is going to be where do we get the resources, where do we get the expertise, to do more voter outreach and communication,” she said. “How are we going to inform voters of what they need to do so that their registration form arrives on time, so that their mail ballot arrives on time, so that their ballot can be counted? To me, that’s the bigger question.”

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

U.S. Justice Department sues Arizona, Connecticut for access to unredacted state voter rolls

2026-01-06T23:38:48+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

The U.S. Justice Department sued Arizona on Tuesday after Secretary of State Adrian Fontes declined to turn over the state’s unredacted voter list, the latest in a series of such lawsuits the Trump administration has filed against states around the country.

The Justice Department also filed a similar lawsuit against Connecticut. The agency has said it is asking every state for its unredacted voter lists — unprecedented requests for versions of the voter rolls that contain personally identifying information such as voters’ full birthdates, full or partial Social Security numbers, and driver’s license information — as part of a Trump administration effort to exercise new oversight over the maintenance of state voter rolls.

Many states, led by officials of both political parties, have refused the Justice Department’s request, generally arguing that states are responsible for voter registration and are barred by state and federal law from sharing certain private information about voters. Election officials and voter watchdog groups have said the effort also appears to represent an attempt to build a national voter roll.

Fontes said on Dec. 19 that he had rejected a request from the Justice Department for the data, the third request he said he had received. Arizona voters “have important privacy rights that cannot be infringed because they choose to exercise their constitutionally protected voting rights,” he said.

The Justice Department has said it is entitled to the data under federal law, and withholding it interferes with its ability to exercise oversight and enforce federal election laws.

“Accurate voter rolls are essential to ensuring that American citizens’ votes count only once, and only with other eligible voters,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement announcing the lawsuits against Arizona and Connecticut.

The agency said in the statement that it has so far sued 23 states that have declined to turn over the lists. It has also sued Washington, D.C.

In an interview with “The Charlie Kirk Show” last month, Dhillon said 13 states are voluntarily turning over their voter rolls.

In the suit against Arizona, the department cited the Civil Rights Act’s requirement for states to turn over certain voting records to the Justice Department upon the attorney general’s request, and also cited the requirement for states to comply with two federal election laws, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

Fontes posted a video on social media responding to the lawsuit and social media posts from a Justice Department lawyer, telling the lawyer to “pound sand.” In a statement Tuesday, Connecticut Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas said the state follows the law to ensure voters can participate “without fear that their information will be misused or exposed.”

This story has been updated.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

The legal fights, policy battles, and elections that could define 2026

2026-01-05T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

The 2026 midterm elections are coming up quickly — primaries start in March.

We’re expecting a busy year of election news, and it could be shaped by the major legal fights still working their way through the court system. Those include lawsuits over President Donald Trump’s executive order on elections. Judges have so far blocked major provisions of it from taking effect, but the litigation continues, and the results could shape the administration of the midterm elections in important ways.

The U.S. Department of Justice is also in court, fighting for unprecedented access to state voter rolls and suing Fulton County, Georgia, in connection with the seemingly endless 2020 election. And the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide several election law questions, including whether states can count mail ballots received after Election Day and whether candidates have the legal right to sue over state election laws. Perhaps the biggest decision the high court will make, though, is in a case over redistricting in Louisiana that could dramatically reinterpret, or even strike down, what remains of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 law to prohibit racial discrimination in voting.

Election administrators must plan around those decisions while also following the legal and policy battles in their states. Here are some ongoing issues our reporters are watching in the states that they cover.

From Hayley Harding, Michigan reporter:

In Michigan, we’re gearing up for the granddaddy of all elections, with a host of major statewide races on the ballot. It’s nearly impossible to say this far out what the balance of power might look like when we swear in our next leaders a year from now, but the fight to be in charge is going to be an intense one. (Hope you missed election ads — you’ll be seeing quite a few this year.)

By far the biggest elections battle, though, will be to see who becomes the next secretary of state. That person is going to shape (at least) four years of policy on everything from how we consider absentee ballots to how poll workers get trained. We’ll know who the major players are after the party conventions in the late spring. After that, it’s a long, long march to the general election in November.

I’ll be watching closely to see how those candidates feel about election security, documentary proof of citizenship, and much, much more.

From Carter Walker, Pennsylvania reporter:

The federal government is keeping a very close eye on elections in Pennsylvania, and I expect that to continue in 2026. The Trump administration is suing Pennsylvania (and many other states) for access to its voter rolls. That lawsuit could resolve in 2026, but with Trump’s view that the state was stolen from him in the 2020 election, I expect even if it does that more conflicts will come.

And with Gov. Josh Shapiro rumored to be eyeing a presidential run, perhaps this will be the year we see some movement on election legislation in the state legislature. Shapiro has his own election legislation priorities, but the Republican state Senate has refused to take those up if they aren’t attached to voter identification. Voter ID itself is popular with voters in the state and nationally, so might he look to make a deal to boost his standing with moderate voters?

From Natalia Contreras, Texas reporter:

Even after one of the state’s largest jurisdictions abandoned plans this week to hand-count ballots in the March primary election, hand-counting is still a live issue in Texas.

Dallas County Republicans cited logistics and insufficient personnel as their reasons for not hand-counting, but Gillespie County Republicans are still planning to hand-count just as they did in 2024. The move could impact whether election results are reported on time. One of the races on the ballot includes a hotly contested and closely watched U.S. Senate primary for the seat currently held by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, and the hand count could inject an element of chaos.

The primary will also be an important test of TEAM, the state’s troubled voter registration system. Counties have reported numerous problems working with the system since it underwent a major update last summer. We’ll be watching all this closely in 2026.

From Alexander Shur, Wisconsin reporter:

2026 could be a transformative year for the balance of power in Wisconsin. That has major implications for election policy.

For over a decade, election officials and groups lobbying on their behalf have gotten used to Republican majorities in the Legislature, and the policies that majority passed into law: strict voter ID laws, banning private money in elections, and the inability to process ballots before Election Day.

Since 2019, they have also gotten used to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers being the reason a host of other GOP policies didn’t become law, from requiring noncitizens to disclose their inability to vote on their IDs to deactivating the voter registration of people with discrepancies between their Department of Transportation and voter data.

In 2026, this balance of power can change, but we don’t know in what direction. Democrats think they’re highly likely to put the Senate under their control for the first time since 2010. They hope that a big wave year could put the Assembly in contention, too. And the governor’s office is up for grabs.

While Democrats dream of a trifecta, Republicans hope to keep both chambers in their hands while flipping the governor’s office for the first time since 2018. I’m not in the forecasting business, so I can’t tell you what’s likeliest. But if the dynamic changes in any way, it’ll have big implications for election policy from 2027 onward.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

I love elections, but they’re under threat. That’s why I joined Votebeat.

2026-01-02T22:05:56+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat’s free national newsletter here.

If you want to know how I got to be Votebeat’s managing editor, you have to start with a weather map.

If you were alive and consuming print media during the 1990s (back when they used to print out the internet on big pieces of paper), you might remember the big, colorful weather map on the back page of USA Today. This map captivated me as a child. I would make my parents buy it for me whenever we went out. I dreamed of the faraway destinations it introduced me to, like North Platte, Nebraska, and loved seeing the colors — those temperature bands — ebb and flow with the seasons.

I think that, when a young Nathaniel first saw a map of the Electoral College vote after the 2000 presidential election, it probably reminded him of that weather map.

Regardless, I was hooked. It helped that that map lived rent-free in the entire country’s head for 35 days after Election Day as we waited to see what color the last state would turn. I followed every twist and turn from the vote count in Florida as the nation and I learned, together, about the differences between a machine and manual recount and why ballot design matters.

I admit, with some discomfort, that there was a certain sports-like appeal to the 2000 election drama. That contest, with all its lead changes and stressful moments, thrilled me the same way an extra-innings Red Sox game would have. (I don’t think it’s a coincidence that, in my experience, 80% of election junkies are also either baseball nerds or weather geeks.) But the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq were a sobering lesson that elections deeply and truly matter — and that just a few votes can have massive ramifications. By the time the 2004 presidential race rolled around, I was going to campaign rallies and hanging on every poll. I had fallen in love with elections.

When I graduated from college, I thought at first that I wanted to work on campaigns themselves, but the dogma and subjectivity of partisan politics turned me off. Soon I realized that I wanted to explain elections, not influence them, and promote democracy, not candidates. I started a blog and joined Twitter, where a like-minded community of map-loving election analysts had developed. I became a pollworker for a few cycles in my then-hometown of Somerville, Massachusetts. Eventually, I was hired to analyze elections for outlets like Inside Elections and FiveThirtyEight.

FiveThirtyEight was my home for seven great years — it’s where I did the most impactful work of my career, where I stepped into managing and editing, and where I learned more than I ever expected about the nuts and bolts of our democracy. Although FiveThirtyEight was best known for polling analysis and election forecasts, I was most proud of our coverage of election administration and voting rights. When the COVID-19 pandemic scrambled everything we thought we knew about the way Americans vote, we tracked all of the changes to election law and their effects on voters. When states redrew their congressional maps after the 2020 census, we analyzed the impacts of the new lines. And when President Donald Trump denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election, we researched how many Republicans running for Congress and state office agreed.

FiveThirtyEight is also where I learned the importance of rigor and care in journalism. We fact-checked every line we wrote, questioned every assumption, because we knew our reporting would only matter if people trusted it. We held entire meetings about how best to visually communicate our point in charts and interactive features, because we knew that otherwise people might misinterpret them — either out of honest confusion or willfully, because it suited their purposes. In the environment of mistrust in elections that emerged after 2020 in particular, we wanted to be part of the solution, not the problem.

This, of course, is why Votebeat was founded in 2020 as well — and why I was so eager to come work here next. I always viewed Votebeat as the gold standard of reporting on elections, and I’m not just saying that because I work here now. It has pioneered a journalistic model for a newsroom that focuses on changes to election law and their effects on voters, on combating election-related misinformation and conspiracy theories, and on explaining how elections actually work.

That type of work has always been important, but it has become especially so in the last five years, as American democracy has come under acute strain. After the 2020 election, Trump and his allies claimed without evidence that massive voter fraud had cost him the election and attempted to overturn the result, exposing vulnerabilities in the often-overlooked mechanisms between votes being cast and the winner taking office. The episode shone a harsh light on — and encouraged misunderstandings of — aspects of election administration that, frankly, are imperfect, even if they aren’t nefarious.

The ghosts of 2020 continue to haunt our politics. According to Gallup, 43% of Americans were not too confident or not at all confident that votes in the 2024 presidential election would be cast and counted accurately. (They were, just as in 2020.) In its fervent pursuit of evidence of voter fraud, the new Trump administration has tried to exercise an unprecedented amount of power over elections via executive order and lawsuits. In an effort to tilt the midterm playing field in their favor, Republicans and Democrats alike have cast aside norms and redrawn congressional districts to all but guarantee they’ll flip House seats before a single vote is cast. And it remains to be seen what, if any, new obstacles voters themselves may face in going to the polls in 2026 and 2028.

I became a journalist almost by accident, guided by an internal compass toward the subjects that interested me and the type of work I loved to do. Several years ago, that brought me to campaigns, polling, and horse-race coverage, but that no longer feels like the biggest story on the elections beat. Who wins elections matters — but not as much as how well the democratic system itself is working: whether every eligible voter is able to cast a ballot, whether their votes are faithfully counted, and whether the election outcome reflects the true will of the people.

So now, my internal compass is pointing straight at Votebeat. At this point in my career, at this moment in history, I’m more sure than ever what I want to be doing — and it’s working here.

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

Dallas County Republicans abandon plan to hand-count ballots in March primary

2025-12-30T22:22:13+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

After months of laying the groundwork to hand-count thousands of ballots in the March 3 primary, the Dallas County Republican Party announced on Tuesday it has decided not to do so, opting instead to contract with the county elections department to administer the election using voting equipment.

The decision spares the party the pressure it likely would have faced if a hand-count had delayed results beyond the state’s 24-hour reporting requirements in the state’s closely watched GOP primary for U.S. Senate, among other offices.

In a statement posted on social media, Dallas County Republican Party Chairman Allen West said he decided to work with the county to “conduct a precinct-based, community, separate Election Day electoral process.” The move, he said, “reduces the liabilities” of the party. “In this case, discretion is the better part of valor.”

The decision reverses months of statements suggesting the party was seriously preparing to count tens of thousands of Election Day ballots by hand — a move that would have affected all Dallas County voters, regardless of party.

Under Texas law, if one party hand-counts ballots, both parties must abandon countywide Election Day voting at vote centers and require voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts. Democrats had planned to use voting equipment to tabulate their results, but would have been forced into precinct-only voting if Republicans proceeded with a hand count. It’s unclear if the GOP’s intention to use precinct-based voting would lock Democrats into the same arrangement; the Dallas County Elections Department has not responded to requests for more information.

Republicans in Dallas County and elsewhere have pushed in recent years to count ballots by hand as President Donald Trump and others have decreased trust in voting machines by spreading unfounded claims about their reliability. However, election officials and voting experts have repeatedly warned that hand-counting ballots at scale is costly, labor-intensive, slower to produce results and more prone to human error than machine tabulation. State law also does not require audits of hand-counted ballots and severely limits public observation of the counting process.

In early December, West said the party had raised more than $400,000 toward a hand-count effort and recruited more than 1,000 workers. But there were still unresolved concerns about staffing, training, security, facilities, and funding, particularly as the Texas Secretary of State’s Office warned counties it may not have enough money to reimburse unusually high primary costs if many jurisdictions choose to hand-count.

Hand-counting would also have required significantly more polling locations and workers than recent primaries. In elections that are hand-counted, Texas law requires ballots to be cast and counted at assigned precincts, and in all elections, the law mandates that counting continue without interruption once polls close. Election workers must be paid at least $12 an hour, and large hand counts can stretch late into the night or beyond.

In an interview on Tuesday, West said the party would need at least 3,000 hand-counters but had recruited fewer than half that number. “We cannot take that risk of not being able to have the appropriate amount of counters because it would put our election judges in an untenable legal position,” he said. “We’ve got 63 days to go — early voting will start the 16th of February.”

Under Texas law, political parties control how ballots are counted in primaries but must report results within 24 hours after polls close. Party chairs have been warned that court orders could be required if hand-counts delay reporting.

By contracting with the county, Dallas County Republicans would avoid those logistical hurdles and allow both parties to continue using voting equipment and established election procedures. According to West, the Dallas County GOP is currently working on a contract with the county and expects it to be signed on Wednesday.

Managing Editor Nathaniel Rakich contributed reporting.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Hamtramck’s 37 mishandled ballots shouldn’t be counted, judge rules

2025-12-23T23:14:23+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

A judge ruled Tuesday that 37 untabulated ballots in Hamtramck’s disputed municipal election should not be counted, affirming Adam Alharbi’s controversial and narrow victory in the race for mayor.

However, the decision is likely only the starting gun for a legal race against the clock before the city’s new mayor is sworn in at the beginning of January.

In her written decision Tuesday, Judge Patricia Perez Fresard of the Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan said that the Wayne County Board of Canvassers “exercised its discretion” when declining to count the 37 ballots after the city clerk “failed to comply with mandatory requirements imposed to protect the integrity of ballots.”

Fresard had initially ordered the parties to meet to see if they could come to a resolution. That failed, attorneys said, leading to just over 20 minutes of courtroom debate Tuesday, primarily between lawyers for Alharbi and his opponent in the mayoral race, City Council member Muhith Mahmood, who finished 11 votes behind.

Mark Brewer, representing Mahmood as well as the 37 disenfranchised voters, said that to not count the votes would be to violate a number of election-related constitutional protections. Nabih Ayad, representing Alharbi, argued that there was “absolutely no viable path” to count the ballots, and that doing so would effectively disenfranchise other voters.

“The arguments of both counsel are that the court should protect voter rights,” Fresard said Tuesday morning at the end of the hearing. “In some circumstances, it’s very difficult to protect the rights of every single individual voter.”

The dispute has brought weeks of uncertainty to Hamtramck and its nearly 28,000 residents. It all started when, due to human error, 37 absentee ballots were left in their envelopes and went uncounted on election night. Election officials discovered them a few days later and immediately delivered them to Wayne County officials.

But at some point between the end of election night and when the ballots were discovered, a number of unauthorized city officials had walked into the office where the ballots had been, breaking the chain of custody. That led county officials to question whether they should be counted, and the Wayne County Board of Canvassers ultimately deadlocked on whether to include them in the final tally. That meant that the ballots would not be counted, and Alharbi was certified as the winner by just six votes; a recount later determined his actual winning margin was 11 votes.

Mahmood then sued to have the 37 mishandled ballots counted. Brewer argued Tuesday that, otherwise, the 37 unnamed voters’ constitutional right to vote was being invalidated.

“Plaintiffs have no other remedy, other than to have their votes counted, as is their right,” he told the court. Allowing those voters to cast a new ballot would also be sufficient, he said.

But Fresard disagreed. Michigan law “does not support … that the City had a clear legal duty to tabulate the 37 votes,” she wrote. State law requires absentee votes to be tabulated according to the law, she wrote, but the board has the discretion to not count ballots it has questions about.

Brewer, in an email before the decision came down Tuesday, said he would be appealing “immediately” to the Michigan Court of Appeals “and on to the Michigan Supreme Court if necessary.”

Tuesday evening, he confirmed they had already appealed.

Hamtramck has been embroiled in election-related scandals for much of 2025. City Clerk Rana Faraj was put on leave shortly after the election, which Amer Ghalib, the city’s outgoing mayor, said was partially because her office mishandled the 37 ballots. Earlier this month, Faraj sued the city and several of its officials, alleging she was being retaliated against for reporting election fraud.

Two City Council members were charged in August with forging signatures on absentee ballots during the 2023 council race. Four others, including two other council members and an incoming council member, were named in an April document from Attorney General Dana Nessel seeking a special prosecutor for the case. No one else has been charged.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

After 2024 incident, Maricopa County examines hiring process for temporary election workers

2025-12-22T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here.

A search of Walter Alphonso Jamel Ringfield Jr.’s last name on the Maricopa County Superior Court website in May 2024 should have revealed he had been charged with theft eight months earlier.

But a Maricopa County vendor conducting background checks on hundreds of temporary election workers searched his name as “Jamel Ringfield, Walter Alphonso” according to his county employee file, which was included in a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office investigative report obtained by Votebeat through a public records request.

The report shows no records were found with that version of his name.

Ringfield, now 29, was hired. He was employed for fewer than 30 days in June 2024 when a surveillance camera captured him swiping a security fob used to access ballot tabulation machines and keys from a work station in the tabulation room of the Maricopa County Elections Department, according to the report and what officials said at the time.

Officials reported the theft to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, which investigated. On March 5, Ringfield pleaded guilty to attempted computer tampering, and a Superior Court judge sentenced him to three years of probation and six months in jail, according to court documents. He has since been released, records show. He did not respond to a request for comment.

Since the incident, the county has faced questions about how it screens temporary election workers. It included a review of hiring practices of temporary employees as part of a comprehensive audit of its election processes that is underway.

Jason Berry, Maricopa County director of communications, in a Nov. 21 email said the county is limited in the information it can provide about a human resources matter. But “the name used for Mr. Ringfield’s background check did not match the court’s database and, therefore, did not produce his court-ordered diversion record,” Berry said. “We’ve had extensive conversations with our background check vendor and have identified steps to prevent this anomaly from happening again.”

Berry said he could not elaborate on those specific steps, though he did confirm that since April, the county has required two reference checks for every temporary employee who works in the ballot tabulation center. In a subsequent email, he said the name was searched as Ringfield had provided it, and “that information is used to run the criminal background check.”

AccuSourceHR said in an emailed statement that it had “reviewed the background screening process for this individual and determined proper procedures were followed and no error was made in the processing of this report.” A representative for the company did not respond to follow-up questions.

Maricopa County needs thousands of temporary workers for elections

Every two years, Maricopa County hires 3,000 to 4,000 temporary employees to help with the primary and general elections, most of whom are poll workers, but 500 to 600 work inside the Tabulation and Election Center, Elections Department spokeswoman Jennifer Liewer said.

There are an assortment of temporary jobs such as working in the mailroom, operating tabulation machines, warehouse drivers, technology technicians, ballot couriers, and serving on bipartisan teams to adjudicate ballots the tabulator could not read.

Many of the temporary employees have returned for years, and temps can eventually gain permanent employment with elections or other county departments, Liewer said.

Each of these temporary employees undergoes a background check.

AccuSourceHR’s one-page report on Ringfield, included with the investigative report from the sheriff’s office, shows the vendor did a county criminal records search and a state criminal court search on the name “Jamel Ringfield, Walter Alphonso,” and also under a second name, Alphonso Sundevil, as well as by date of birth.

The results of all the searches were “No Reportable Records Found,” according to the report.

According to court records, Ringfield was a cashier at a grocery store chain when he stole $1,800 from his drawer on Sept. 30, 2023.

Ringfield’s county employee file does not list that employer, but it says he was self-employed beginning May 1, 2022, and his responsibilities and accomplishments in that time were “Getting a job.”

The Maricopa County Superior Court docket shows prosecutors filed the theft charge against Ringfield on Oct. 3, 2023, and the prosecution was suspended about five weeks later so Ringfield could enter a two-year diversion program, and he was not convicted at that time.

Ringfield’s court record would not have automatically disqualified him from county employment if the county had known about it. Maricopa County is a “second chance employer,” so it is up to department heads to decide whether to hire on a case-by-case basis, Berry said.

County elections audit will examine hiring and training of temporary employees

Liewer said the Elections Department must strike a balance between the need for election security and being properly staffed.

“How do you achieve both of those goals is one of the things we’re constantly striving to improve and reach with every election that we do,” Liewer said in an October interview.

Liewer said the department doesn’t allow any temporary worker to be in the tabulation room, which is under constant surveillance, without a full-time staff member.

The comprehensive elections audit, by the firm BerryDunn, is also supposed to look at the hiring and training of temporary employees, according to the request for proposal and a June 25 press release. The press release said the review will examine the processes for chain of custody, physical security, candidate filing compliance, ballot drop boxes, and vote center selection and setup.

BerryDunn has a one-year contract, and the county expects to have some findings to share next year, Berry said.

Contact Votebeat at az.tips@votebeat.org.

The biggest voting stories in 2025 could shape important aspects of the midterm elections

2025-12-22T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

From Carrie Levine, editor-in-chief:

The Trump administration moved to exert unprecedented federal authority over elections this year in ways that continue to raise important constitutional questions. Federal judges have blocked major provisions of the president’s sweeping executive order on elections, but that court fight isn’t over yet, and the administration has already said it is working on a second such order. What will be in it? It isn’t clear.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department is suing a slew of states in a bid to obtain personal information on millions of voters in what appears to be a new attempt to build an unprecedented national voter database, and the federal government is quietly planning a more muscular role for itself in vetting people trying to register to vote. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major voting rights case. All of this has big implications for this year’s midterm elections and beyond.

From Jessica Huseman, editorial director:

As we head into 2026, I’m struck by how many of this year’s problems will continue unsolved: Redistricting is somehow still underway, election funding isn’t getting better, and election conspiracy theories continue. All this means election administrators are still struggling — a challenge made sharper by Trump’s renewed attacks and early claims that next year’s results can’t be trusted. Their job satisfaction worries me, even as I’m encouraged by how steadily the field is professionalizing.

From Nathaniel Rakich, managing editor:

Is it too obvious if I say redistricting? Dare I say the biggest electoral story of 2025 was the unprecedented rush — mostly, but not exclusively, by red states — to redraw their congressional districts in the middle of the decade for partisan gain. Six states, representing over a quarter of the nation’s House seats, enacted new maps this year, and a few more (lookin’ at you, Florida and Virginia) may do so in the months to come.

And of course, all of 2025’s fights over lines on a piece of paper will become very real in 2026, when those lines will actually dictate the terms of the elections to one-half of an entire branch of government. The results could include voter confusion, extra work for election officials, less competitive elections, and a U.S. House of Representatives that is less representative of the will of the voters.

From Natalia Contreras, Texas reporter:

Although it’s true that Texas’ redistricting battles took up most of the news cycle this year, Republicans’ ongoing push to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls will continue to affect Texans’ access to the polls in 2026.

During the regular legislative session earlier this year, Texas lawmakers tried to pass a law that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. Voting rights advocates warned the move could disenfranchise eligible voters. The proposal ultimately failed, but the Texas Secretary of State’s office’s use of a federal database to verify registrants’ citizenship prompted it to flag 2,724 potential noncitizens on the rolls. Election officials raised questions about the accuracy of the data. U.S. citizens were among those flagged by the state in multiple counties, and election officials are still identifying more. In addition, the use of the federal database is being challenged in court, and a ruling may not land until next year.

From Hayley Harding, Michigan reporter:

As we gear up for the mega-election here in Michigan — the governorship, the secretary of state, every statehouse seat, an open U.S. Senate seat, and much, much more — I expect we’ll continue to see a battle between Jocelyn Benson and the GOP.

She remains the Democratic frontrunner in the gubernatorial race, which means attacks on her are an easy way for Republicans to shore up their own base. But will that hurt her with her fellow Democrats too, as her reputation is called into question? And what does that mean for her successor in the secretary of state’s office, regardless of their party?

Every political decision will have direct implications on at least the next four years of election administration in the state. Legislators from both parties feel like they’re struggling to make headway on their election priorities, and a reset of partisan power in any direction could make that even more difficult.

From Alexander Shur, Wisconsin reporter:

Ahead of every election year, Wisconsin clerks lobby the Legislature with the same request: pass a bill to let them count ballots on the Monday before an election. Time and again, they realize it’s easier said than done. This year was no exception.

Typically, legislators introduce a GOP or bipartisan Monday count bill, and it gets stalled somewhere in the Legislature. This year, after extensive infighting, there wasn’t even a GOP bill.

Why is this so important? Well, Wisconsin likes elections, and in 2026 there are four statewide ones. Barring sudden legislative action early next year, that means Wisconsin will remain among a select few states that can’t process ballots before Election Day.

From Carter Walker, Pennsylvania reporter:

Ballot dates. Ballot dates. Ballot dates. It is a perennial issue here in Pennsylvania: Should voters be required to handwrite a date on their ballot return envelope?

But we may have finality before the midterms. A case before the state Supreme Court could finally resolve it. It has been fully briefed and argued, and now we are just awaiting a decision. That said, who is to say some new legal theory, challenge, or piece of legislation won’t change the playing field again for 2026?

Wisconsin town will use accessible voting machines after federal lawsuit

2025-12-19T19:10:45+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

A small Wisconsin town whose leaders chose not to use federally required accessible voting machines in two federal elections in 2024 has agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice to use that equipment going forward, the agency announced on Dec. 12.

The town board of Thornapple, a town of 700 people in northern Wisconsin’s Rusk County, made the decision in 2023 but previously declined to elaborate on the reasons behind the decision. Distrust of voting machines, which has grown on the right following false claims about the 2020 election, has fueled a movement to ban them. The Thornapple case, however, shows that municipalities still have obligations under federal law to allow voters with disabilities to cast ballots on electronic machines.

The Justice Department, under then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, sued the town in September 2024, arguing that its decision violated the Help America Vote Act. The law requires accessible machines be available in every precinct, allowing voters with disabilities to hear the options on the ballot and use a touch-sensitive device to mark it.

The town initially fought the case, arguing that it wasn’t subject to the federal law’s accessibility provision because its use of paper ballots didn’t constitute a “voting system.”

Thornapple officials lost an appeal in July, after the court heard testimony from Thornapple Chief Inspector Suzanne Pinnow about a blind woman who relied on her daughter’s assistance to fill out a ballot, and from a man who had a stroke and who needed Pinnow to guide his hand so he could mark a ballot.

The town settled the case by agreeing to use an accessible voting machine in every federal election. The town also agreed to certify to Justice Department officials after each election that it continues to follow the settlement agreement.

Since President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the DOJ has withdrawn from multiple voting-related cases and shifted its priorities to suing states, including Wisconsin, for access to unredacted versions of their voter lists, which it has said it needs to ensure compliance with federal law. The department remained in the Thornapple case, however.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Provisional ballot rejections are down in Pennsylvania after state redesigns envelope

2025-12-19T17:09:05+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

The Pennsylvania Department of State rolled out a redesigned envelope for provisional ballots earlier this year, and it appears to have helped reduce the number of ballots rejected for errors.

The use of provisional ballots, a special type of ballot used when there are questions about a voter’s eligibility, has been on the rise in recent elections, as has the number of ballots rejected because of issues with the outer envelope, known as the affidavit envelope. The redesign was intended to help reduce those rejections.

Data from the Department of State on the number of rejected provisional ballots in the 2025 municipal election suggests that the redesign accomplished its goal. Still, at least one election director questioned whether the state’s limited system for coding issues meant the data could actually be used to come to a firm conclusion.

Fifty-eight counties opted to use the new envelope, and nine didn’t. In the counties that used the new envelope, only 2.9% of provisional ballots were rejected for incomplete envelopes, down from 3.7% in those counties in the 2023 municipal election and 4.2% in the 2021 municipal election. Counties that did not use the new envelope had a 1.8% provisional ballot rejection rate for incomplete envelopes in 2025, but that was little changed from their already low rejection rate of 1.9% in 2023 and 1.8% in 2021.

The Department of State used a different method of analysis but reached the same overall conclusion.

“Our goal remains ensuring every registered voter in our Commonwealth can cast their vote and have it counted in every election,” Al Schmidt, Secretary of the Commonwealth, said. “As with the changes to mail ballot materials two years ago, these improvements resulted in more registered voters being able to make their voices heard in November’s election.”

Provisional ballots are meant as a fail-safe for voters at the polls, a way for them to cast a ballot if they think they are entitled to, and a way for election officials to keep that ballot separate from those of unchallenged voters. There are several reasons why a voter might need to use a provisional ballot. A first-time in-person voter who lacks identification, or a voter who isn’t registered when they think they are, may have to cast a provisional ballot. Absentee and mail voters who lose their ballots and show up to vote in person also must vote a provisional ballot.

Each provisional ballot is placed in a separate envelope, giving election officials a chance to verify that the ballot should be counted before it is added to the tally. But they can also be rejected for technical reasons, such as the voter not signing the affidavit on the envelope or the ballot lacking an inner secrecy envelope.

Since Pennsylvania introduced no-excuse mail voting in 2020, more and more voters have had to cast provisional ballots. A total of 26,468 provisional ballots were cast in the 2016 presidential election, according to data tracked by the Pennsylvania Department of State. In the 2024 election, that number was nearly four times as large at 98,032.

As that number increased, a greater share of those ballots were also being rejected for technical errors on the affidavit envelope. Pennsylvania election officials said this was likely due to a combination of factors, including inadequate poll worker training and voters’ unfamiliarity with a process that was once rarely used.

In the 2024 general election, 4.9% of provisional ballots, or 4,820, were rejected for affidavit envelope errors, up from 0.9% in 2016.

After Pennsylvania introduced redesigned mail ballot return envelopes in 2024, leading to fewer rejected mail ballots, the Pennsylvania Department of State, in consultation with county election officials, announced in July 2025 that they had developed a new design for provisional ballot envelopes. Although the design was optional for counties to adopt, most did.

The new design makes it clearer where voters must sign the envelope, one of the most common reasons for envelope-related rejections. It more clearly delineates which section is to be filled out by the voter or poll workers, and it provides clearer instructions on when to fill out each section.

Nine counties decided not to adopt the new design. One was Lycoming County.

The elections director there, Forrest Lehman, said the state offered only a “paltry” sum to replace his stock of envelopes, an added expense he didn’t feel was justified. Lehman felt better poll worker training could also help lower the rejection rate, and Lycoming County already had a low rate of provisional ballot rejections for envelope errors.

He also said he is skeptical of the data the state, and Votebeat and Spotlight PA, are using to evaluate the envelope change. The state’s ballot management software, SURE, has a limited number of codes that can be used to indicate why a provisional ballot was rejected. For instance, there is no “missing identification” or “missing secrecy envelope” code, so counties often use the “incomplete provisional ballot affidavit envelope” code for these issues, even though they aren’t related to the affidavit envelope.

“The amount of noise in the data, I don’t think you’re likely to see any signal,” he said.

The data said Lycoming rejected two provisional ballots this year for affidavit envelope issues, but Lehman said those rejections had nothing to do with the envelope. He said election directors have raised this issue with the state in the past but received no response.

Asked whether it is or would consider expanding the rejection codes, a spokesperson for the department said it is “constantly evaluating ways to improve the administration of elections.”

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Here’s why Milwaukee elections are always viewed with suspicion

2025-12-19T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

For nearly two weeks following Election Day in 2024, former U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde, a Republican, refused to concede, blasting “last-minute absentee ballots that were dropped in Milwaukee at 4 a.m., flipping the outcome.”

But, just as when Donald Trump blamed Milwaukee for his 2020 loss, Hovde’s accusations and insinuations about the city’s election practices coincided with a surge of conspiratorial posts about the city. Popular social media users speculated about “sabotage” and “fraudulently high” turnout.

Hovde earlier this year told Votebeat that he believes there are issues at Milwaukee’s facility for counting absentee ballots, but he added that he doesn’t blame his loss on that. He didn’t respond to a request for comment in December for this article.

In Wisconsin’s polarized political landscape, Milwaukee has become a flashpoint for election suspicion, much like Philadelphia and Detroit — diverse, Democratic urban centers that draw outsized criticism. The scrutiny reflects the state’s deep rural-urban divide and a handful of election errors in Milwaukee that conspiracy theorists have seized on, leaving the city’s voters and officials under constant political pressure.

That treatment, Milwaukee historian John Gurda says, reflects “the general pattern where you have big cities governed by Democrats” automatically perceived by the right “as centers of depravity [and] insane, radical leftists.”

Charlie Sykes — a longtime conservative commentator no longer aligned with much of the GOP — said there’s “nothing tremendously mysterious” about Republicans singling out Milwaukee: As long as election conspiracy theories dominate the right, the heavily Democratic city will remain a target.

Milwaukee voters and election officials under constant watch

Milwaukee’s emergence as a target in voter fraud narratives accelerated in 2010, when dozens of billboards in the city’s predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods showed three people, including two Black people, behind bars with the warning: “VOTER FRAUD is a FELONY — 3 YRS & $10,000 FINE.”

Community groups condemned them as racist and misleading, especially for people who had regained their voting rights after felony convictions. Similar billboards returned in 2012, swapping the jail bars for a gavel. All of the advertisements were funded by the Einhorn Family Foundation, associated with GOP donor Stephen Einhorn, who didn’t respond to Votebeat’s email requesting comment.

Criticism of Milwaukee extends well beyond its elections. As Wisconsin’s largest city, it is often cast as an outlier in a largely rural state, making it easier for some to believe the worst about its institutions — including its elections.

“One of the undercurrents of Wisconsin political history is … rural parts versus urban parts,” said University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee political scientist and former Democratic legislator Mordecai Lee. As the state’s biggest city by far, “it becomes the punching bag for outstate legislators” on almost any issue.

“People stay at home and watch the evening news and they think if you come to Milwaukee, you’re going to get shot … or you’re going to get run over by a reckless driver,” said Claire Woodall, who ran the city’s elections from 2020 to 2024.

Election officials acknowledge Milwaukee has made avoidable mistakes in high-stakes elections but describe them as quickly remedied and the kinds of errors any large city can experience when processing tens of thousands of ballots. What sets Milwaukee apart is the scrutiny: Whether it was a briefly forgotten USB stick in 2020 or tabulator doors left open in 2024, each lapse is treated as something more ominous.

Other Wisconsin municipalities have made more consequential errors without attracting comparable attention: In 2011, Waukesha County failed to report votes from Brookfield when tallying a statewide court race — a major oversight that put the wrong candidate in the lead in early unofficial results. In 2024, Summit, a town in Douglas County, disqualified all votes in an Assembly race after officials discovered ballots were printed with the wrong contest listed.

“I don’t believe that there is anywhere in the state that is under a microscope the way the City of Milwaukee is,” said Neil Albrecht, a former executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission.

Black Milwaukeeans say racism behind scrutiny on elections

Milwaukee grew quickly in the 19th century, built by waves of European immigrants who powered its factories and breweries and helped turn it into one of the Midwest’s major industrial cities. A small Black community, searching for employment and fleeing the Jim Crow South, took root early and grew substantially in the mid-20th century.

As industry declined, white residents fled for the suburbs, many of which had racist housing policies that excluded Blacks. That left behind a city marked by segregated schools, shrinking job prospects, and sharp economic divides. The split was so stark that the Menomonee River Valley became a shorthand boundary: Black residents to the north, white residents to the south — a divide Milwaukee never fully overcame.

The result is one of the most segregated cities in the country, a place that looks and feels profoundly different from the overwhelmingly white, rural communities that surround it. That contrast has long made Milwaukee an easy target in statewide politics, and it continues to feed some people’s suspicions that something about the city — including its elections — is fundamentally untrustworthy.

The Rev. Greg Lewis, executive director of Wisconsin’s Souls to the Polls, said the reputation is rooted in racism and belied by reality. He said he has a hard enough time getting minorities to vote at all, “let alone vote twice.”

Albrecht agreed.

“If a Souls to the Polls bus would pull up to [a polling site], a bus full of Black people, some Republican observer would mutter, ‘Oh, these are the people being brought up from Chicago,’” he said. “As if we don’t have African Americans in Milwaukee.”

After former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes — a Black Milwaukeean and a Democrat — lost his 2022 U.S. Senate bid to unseat U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, Bob Spindell, a Republican member of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, emailed constituents saying Republicans “can be especially proud” of Milwaukee casting 37,000 fewer votes than in 2018, “with the major reduction happening in the overwhelming Black and Hispanic areas.”

The message sparked backlash, though Spindell rejected accusations of racism. Asked about it this year, Spindell told Votebeat he meant to praise GOP outreach to Black voters.

Milwaukee organizer Angela Lang said she finds the shifting narratives about Black turnout revealing. “Are we voting [illegally]?” she said. “Or are you all happy that we’re not voting?”

History of real and perceived errors increases pressure on city

The scrutiny directed at Milwaukee falls on voters and the city employees who run its elections.

Milwaukee’s most serious stumble came in 2004, when a last-minute overhaul of the election office contributed to unprocessed voter registrations, delayed absentee counts, and discrepancies in the final tally. Multiple investigations found widespread administrative problems but no fraud.

“It was hard coming in at that low point,” said Albrecht, who joined the commission the following year, saying it gave Milwaukee the reputation as an “election fraud capital.”

In 2008, the city created a centralized absentee ballot count facility to reduce errors at polling places and improve consistency. The change worked as intended, but it also meant Milwaukee’s absentee results — representing tens of thousands of votes — were often reported after midnight, sometimes shifting statewide margins.

That timing is largely a product of state law: Wisconsin is one of the few states that prohibit clerks from processing absentee ballots before Election Day. For years, Milwaukee officials have asked lawmakers to change the rule. Instead, opponents argue the city can’t be trusted with extra processing time — even as they criticize the late-night results all but unavoidable under the current rule.

That dynamic was on full display in 2018, when former Gov. Scott Walker, trailing in his reelection bid, said he was blindsided by Milwaukee’s 47,000 late-arriving absentee ballots and accused the city of incompetence.

Proposals to allow administrators more time to process ballots — and therefore report results sooner— have repeatedly stalled in the Legislature. The most recent passed the Assembly last session but never received a Senate vote, with some Republicans openly questioning why they should give Milwaukee more time when they don’t trust the city to handle the ballots with the time it already has.

“The late-arriving results of absentee ballots processed in the City of Milwaukee benefits all attempts to discredit the city,” Albrecht said.

Without the change, to keep up with other Wisconsin municipalities, Milwaukee must process tens of thousands of absentee ballots in a single day, a herculean task. “The effect of not passing it means this issue can be kept alive,” said Lee, the UW–Milwaukee political scientist.

Some Republicans acknowledge that dynamic outright. Rep. Scott Krug, a GOP lawmaker praised for his pragmatic approach to election policy, has long supported a policy fix. This session, it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere.

Krug said a small but influential faction on the right has built a kind of social network around election conspiracy theories, many focused on Milwaukee. Because the tight counting window is part of the fuel that keeps that group going, he said, “a fix is a problem for them.”

2020 marked the shift to ‘complete insanity’

Albrecht said that while Milwaukee had long operated under an unusual level of suspicion, the scrutiny that followed 2020 represented a shift he described as “complete insanity.”

That year, in the early hours after Election Day, Milwaukee released its absentee totals, but then-election chief Woodall realized she’d left a USB drive in one tabulator. Woodall called her deputy clerk about it, and the deputy had a police officer take the USB drive to the county building. The mistake didn’t affect results — the audit trail matched — but it was enough to ignite right-wing talk radio and fuel yet more conspiratorial claims about the city’s late-night reporting.

The scrutiny only intensified. A joking email exchange between Woodall and an elections consultant, taken out of context, was perceived by some as proof of fraud after Gateway Pundit and a now-defunct conservative state politics site published it. Threats followed, serious enough that police and the FBI stepped in. Woodall pushed for increased security at the city’s election office, saying that “there was no question” staff safety was at risk.

Paulina Gutiérrez, the city’s election director, has faced conspiracy theories over some Milwaukee voting practices.

A similar dynamic played out again in 2024, when workers discovered that doors on absentee tabulators hadn’t been fully closed. With no evidence of tampering but anticipating backlash, officials zeroed out the machines and recounted every ballot. The fix didn’t stop Republicans, including Johnson, from suggesting something “very suspicious” could be happening behind the scenes. Johnson did not respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, errors in other Wisconsin communities, sometimes far more consequential, rarely draw similar attention. Take Waukesha County’s error in 2011 — a mistake that swung thousands of votes and affected which candidate was in the lead. “But it didn’t stick,” said UW–Madison’s Barry Burden, a political science professor. “People don’t talk about Waukesha as a place with rigged or problematic elections.”

In recent years there was only one substantiated allegation of serious election official wrongdoing: In November 2022, Milwaukee deputy clerk Kimberly Zapata was charged with misconduct in office and fraud for obtaining fake absentee ballots.

A month prior, she had ordered three military absentee ballots using fake names and sent the ballots to a Republican lawmaker, an effort she reportedly described as an attempt to expose flaws in the election system. Zapata said those events stemmed from a “complete emotional breakdown.” She was sentenced to one year of probation for election fraud.

“We didn’t hear as much from the right” about those charges, Woodall said.

More recently, the GOP has raised concerns about privacy screens — a curtain hung last November to block a staging area and, earlier this year, a room with frosted windows. Republicans seized on each, claiming the city was hiding something.

Paulina Gutiérrez, the city’s election director, told Votebeat the ballots temporarily kept behind the curtain “aren’t manipulated. They’re scanned and sent directly onto the floor,” where observers are free to watch the envelopes be opened and the ballots be counted.

But the accusations took off anyway. Even Johnson, the U.S. senator, suggested the city was “making sure NO ONE trusts their election counts.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

U.S. Justice Department sues WEC for not providing unredacted voter list

2025-12-18T22:42:28+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission on Thursday after it refused to turn over the state’s unredacted voter list.

The Justice Department has said it is asking every state for its unredacted voter lists — versions of the voter rolls that contain personally identifying information such as voters’ full birthdates, full or partial Social Security numbers, and driver’s license information.

The Justice Department has so far sued 21 of the states, along with Washington, D.C., that have declined to turn over the lists, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, which is tracking the lawsuits.

“States need to give us this information, so we can do our duty to protect American citizens from vote dilution,” Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement, referring to the federal government’s ongoing efforts to find noncitizens on the voter rolls.

In that statement, the DOJ announced that three more states — Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee — agreed to provide the federal government with their full voter lists, joining Indiana and Wyoming.

The lawsuit alleges the election commission and Meagan Wolfe, its administrator, are violating the Civil Rights Act’s requirement for states to turn over certain voting records to the DOJ upon the attorney general’s request.

WEC met on Dec. 11 in response to the federal government’s request for the state’s data, ultimately voting not to provide it. Election officials nationwide, including WEC appointees, have said that providing that information would violate state law.

The Justice Department has said it is entitled to it under federal law, and withholding the data interferes with its ability to exercise oversight and enforce federal election laws.

In a letter WEC sent to the Justice Department Dec. 11 after voting against providing the unredacted voter rolls, election commissioners pointed to a state law that explicitly bans election officials from disclosing information like driver’s license numbers to most people who aren’t election officials.

The commissioners also pointed out that one of the laws that the federal government cited in its request — the National Voter Registration Act — doesn’t apply to Wisconsin, one of six states exempt from it. The letter further argues that the other federal laws that the federal government cited don’t justify the request for confidential voter information.

The lawsuit, unlike the DOJ’s letter to Wisconsin, doesn’t cite the NVRA, solely asking the court to find the refusal to release the list is a Civil Rights Act violation and require the state to release it.

Officials in both Republican and Democratic states have pushed back on the DOJ’s request for unredacted voter data, saying it could put voters at risk. They also say the DOJ hasn’t provided enough information on how the data would be used.

Dhillon said on a podcast that the states were withholding that information because states are embarrassed that their voter rolls were not sufficiently cleared of inactive or unlawful registrants.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Michigan ranked choice voting group ends effort to put amendment on 2026 ballot

2025-12-18T21:15:06+00:00

This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. To get regular coverage from Bridge Michigan, sign up for a free Bridge Michigan newsletter here.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

A group seeking to bring ranked choice voting to Michigan is ending its effort to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot for the 2026 election, but organizers say they may try again for 2028.

In a Monday evening email to volunteers, Rank MI Vote’s statewide field co-directors Kate De Jong and Kate Grabowsky said the group is “pausing signature gathering efforts, but we aren’t pausing the campaign to bring ranked choice voting to Michigan.”

Organizers needed to collect 446,198 valid voter signatures in a 180-day window to make the 2026 general election ballot, but it appears they were falling short. Earlier this month, WLNS News reported the group was more than 200,000 signatures short of their goal.

“We can’t depend on a triggering event that would super-charge our petition drive,” De Jong and Grabowsky wrote in the email to campaign volunteers.

Instead, they said they would prepare for “a second launch in April 2027” to make the 2028 ballot.

In a statement to Bridge Michigan, Rank MI Vote executive director Pat Zabawa acknowledged the group is “pausing” signature collection but didn’t elaborate on the organization’s future plans.

“We are leaving all options on the table for the future of our movement,” Zabawa said in the statement. “Our over 2,500 volunteers are fully committed to lowering the temperature of our politics while increasing voter turnout through ranked choice voting.”

Rank MI Vote had begun planning and organizing years before beginning a ballot drive, but the group faced significant political headwinds from the onset of their campaign.

The Michigan Association of County Clerks, which represents many local election officials, came out in opposition to the proposal earlier this year, as did a number of conservative election-related organizations.

Voters had rejected similar proposals in several other states in 2024 and conservative groups opposed to the reform appeared poised to spend heavily against its passage in Michigan.

Ranked choice voting, sometimes called instant-runoff voting, allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference.

Initially only voters’ top choice is counted, but if no candidate has an immediate majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated.

All the voters who chose the eliminated candidate then have their second-place votes distributed to the remaining contestants. The process repeats until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.

Rank MI Vote’s proposal summary language had been approved by the Michigan Board of State Canvassers in June and they spent months collecting signatures statewide. Unlike some other ballot proposals in recent years, they were a volunteer-driven effort and didn’t utilize paid petition circulators.

Zabawa pledged that the group’s “work is just getting started.”

Texas flagged some voters as ‘potential noncitizens’ but they had already provided proof of citizenship

2025-12-18T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

Texas officials have now determined that 11 registered voters in Travis County flagged as potential noncitizens actually provided proof of citizenship while obtaining a driver’s license or state ID at the Texas Department of Public Safety, according to county leaders.

Votebeat earlier this month reported that hundreds of individuals the Texas Secretary of State’s Office identified as potential noncitizens had registered to vote at DPS, which requires proof of citizenship or legal presence.

State officials generated the list of potential noncitizens by checking the state’s voter roll — more than 18 million registered voters — against a federal database used to verify citizenship. The Trump administration overhauled the database, known as SAVE, this year, making it free for states to use and easier to search, and it has urged election officials around the country to use it to search for potential noncitizens on their voter rolls.

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office said it had not initially checked the list of 2,724 potential noncitizens flagged by the federal database against DPS records. State officials in October sent the list to county officials and directed them to investigate the citizenship status of those flagged registrants.

Many election officials and advocacy groups have questions about the accuracy of the results SAVE cross-checks generate. Advocacy groups including the League of Women Voters have sued over the changes to SAVE, and the lawsuit is pending in federal court.

Celia Israel, the Travis County’s tax assessor-collector and voter registrar, said the verification that the 11 Travis County registrants had already provided proof that they were U.S. citizens is “confirmation that SAVE is not a reliable resource.”

In an emailed statement that stressed the need to “ensure that only eligible citizens participate” in elections, Alicia Pierce, a spokeswoman for the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, described SAVE as “the preeminent data source on citizenship.” She noted that it is “a new tool for us. We are treating it as we would any data source, incorporating our normal checks and balances.”

DPS and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that oversees the SAVE database, did not respond to requests for comment.

Israel and her staff had for weeks asked both state agencies for help in verifying the flagged registrants’ citizenship status, hoping to prevent the removal of eligible voters from the rolls.

Earlier this month, DPS confirmed to Votebeat that the Secretary of State’s Office had requested information on 97 voters, matching the number flagged in Travis County, and Christina Adkins, the state’s elections division director, recently forwarded the results to county officials.

Adkins also told Israel that her office will run the list of 97 Travis County registrants initially identified as potential noncitizens through the SAVE database again “to see if there have been any updates to any individual statuses,” according to emails Votebeat obtained in response to a public records request.

“It would have made sense to have this from the beginning,” Israel said in an interview with Votebeat on Tuesday.

The Secretary of State’s Office did not respond to a question from Votebeat about whether it plans to check the entire list of 2,724 potential noncitizens against the DPS records.

Election officials are worried database is flagging eligible citizens

Votebeat sought information from 24 counties and to date, election officials who have responded confirmed they have collectively identified at least 33 U.S. citizens on the list. At least 218 people flagged, and potentially more, registered at DPS and should have been required to provide proof of citizenship that the agency should have on file, according to officials from 11 counties.

Israel said the new findings from the state raise questions about the accuracy of SAVE but also about DPS’s voter registration processes.

Her office initially found that 26 out of the 97 individuals had registered to vote at DPS. But the new information provided by the state shows that only eight out of the 26 who registered at DPS provided proof of citizenship to the agency.

The three other registrants on the Travis County list who had documented proof of citizenship on file with DPS had not registered to vote through the agency, Israel said, and 18 people who had registered through DPS nonetheless did not have documented proof of citizenship on file.

Israel said it’s not clear from the findings, when the registrants provided proof of legal presence to DPS. There’s a chance that some may have naturalized since. She said she is now seeking more details from the state, including dates of when the individuals provided their documents to DPS.

In October, when the Texas Secretary of State’s Office sent each county a list of voters it had identified as potential noncitizens, election officials were required to mail out notices to them seeking additional proof of citizenship. After 30 days, if there was no response, the registrations would be canceled. However, if proof is provided later to county officials, by law the registration must be reinstated immediately.

Responses to counties have been sparse, and at least one county official said that reports of arrests of U.S. citizens by federal immigration officials across the country could be a factor.

Remi Garza, the election administrator in Cameron County in the Rio Grande Valley, said he got a call from a family member of a registered voter who was hesitant to walk into a county building to turn in proof of citizenship documentation, even though they are an American citizen.

“They were afraid that there were going to be federal officers that would approach them while they were trying to resolve this,” Garza said.

The state flagged 68 potential noncitizens in Cameron County. Garza said multiple individuals had registered at DPS but declined to say exactly how many, citing his office’s ongoing investigation about the registrants’ eligibility. Garza said he plans to reach out to the Texas Secretary of State’s Office to ask for help confirming whether any of the individuals flagged have already shown proof of citizenship.

His office is also sending out additional notices to the individuals that were flagged in the county who have yet to respond, he said.

“We’re going to do everything we can to restore an eligible voter’s right to cast a ballot,” Garza said. “Hopefully, if they see that we’re working diligently on their behalf, that they’ll understand that we’re there to facilitate the process, not to become a barrier or obstacle.”

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Why does Luzerne County keep having election problems?

2025-12-17T20:31:43+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

A Pennsylvania county that has drawn congressional scrutiny for the way it runs elections continued to experience problems in 2025, despite a stabilization in leadership and changes aimed at preventing errors.

For Luzerne County, the most populous county in northeastern Pennsylvania, the issues this year started in October with a mix-up with mail ballots that resulted in the county mistakenly sending 31 voters two ballots.

The county quickly canceled the duplicate ballots and blamed the mishap on a state-run software program.

“It’s not a specifically Luzerne County issue,” Emily Cook, the county’s election director, told the local NPR affiliate. “It’s not something that we did ourselves.”

The state, however, said the error was on Luzerne’s end.

Despite improvements made after a 2022 ballot paper shortage drew national attention, the county has continued to experience consistent election administration errors, raising questions about whether the county has moved beyond the high-profile mistakes of its past.

Election administration is an almost entirely human-run process, so mistakes occasionally occur. In Chester County, a pollbook printing error this November resulted in thousands of independent and third-party voters being forced to cast provisional ballots.

But Luzerne’s duplicate ballot mix-up was only the first of four issues to vex the county’s election this fall. Furthermore, these four issues came on the heels of several other problems that have plagued the county’s elections since 2020.

Some of those issues — like misspelled candidate names — have been relatively serious and threaten to undermine the public’s trust in elections. But others — like issues with items in poll workers’ bags of materials needed to run a voting location — have been more routine, and local officials say the county gets disproportionate criticism for them because of its checkered past.

Luzerne has a history of election problems

Following the turbulent 2020 election, many election offices around the country experienced a high rate of staff turnover. A 2023 analysis by Votebeat and Spotlight PA found that, in Pennsylvania, the more turnover there was in a county’s election director and deputy election director positions, the more the county experienced errors such as ballot misspellings or equipment issues.

That was certainly true in Luzerne County. The cumulative years of experience for the top two officials in the office dropped drastically ahead of the 2020 election. Marisa Crispell, who had served as election director for several years, resigned in 2019 amid ethics questions, and the department’s long-time deputy left just before the 2020 election. A string of roughly half a dozen directors and deputy directors followed, many with little to no election administration experience.

A series of missteps ensued: Ballots were labeled for the wrong party in the 2021 primary; mail ballots transposed the candidate lists for two offices in the 2021 municipal election; and mail ballots listed the wrong number of candidates that fall as well. The county said their election equipment vendor was to blame for all three issues.

The flubs culminated in a dramatic scene during the 2022 midterm elections, when nearly one-third of the county’s precincts ran short on ballot paper on Election Day, and the county scrambled to find more of the specific type of paper needed.

The incident spawned unfounded conspiracy theories that specific precincts had been given less paper because of their political leanings, and a congressional committee later held a hearing on the Luzerne paper shortages.

Luzerne County District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce investigated the cause of the shortage and told Votebeat and Spotlight PA at the time that there was “no question” staff turnover was primarily to blame. No handbook was in place to teach new election directors how to do the job, and the director at the time had spent just one month as deputy director before being promoted, meaning she hadn’t spent much time learning the ropes from her superior.

Luzerne’s problems persisted after turnover stopped

After the paper shortage, leadership in the department somewhat stabilized.

A previous director, Eryn Harvey, came back and led the department for the 2023 primary and general election. Then Cook, who first joined the department in 2021 and served as deputy director during the paper shortage, moved into the director’s role in early 2024 after Harvey departed. That means Luzerne County’s top election official now has more than four years of experience working in election administration, more than many of the other directors since 2019.

However, Luzerne County’s election administration problems have persisted, albeit to a lesser degree than the paper shortage.

During the 2023 municipal elections, mismatched data files resulted in the county needing to void and reissue some mail ballots. Other mail ballots were sent without secrecy envelopes. In the 2024 general election, a candidate’s name was misspelled on ballots sent to nearly 7,000 voters.

This year, beyond the duplicate ballots, Luzerne also had issues with a ballot question being incorrectly worded, poll workers having issues with the cards needed to activate ballots on their voting machines, and mock ballots intended for pre-Election Day equipment testing being discovered in the county’s final results.

The county’s election equipment vendor, the company known as Dominion Voting Systems before it was purchased by Liberty Vote this October, has taken responsibility for some of the mistakes, such as the 2024 misspelling and the mislabeled ballots in 2021.

Cook said in October that this year’s ballot had gone through multiple rounds of proofreading, yet the mistake in the wording of the ballot question went unnoticed. The county has still not provided a complete explanation of how the state’s voter management system resulted in duplicate mail ballots being sent, although the Department of State did say similar issues occurred in other counties.

Neither Cook nor Luzerne County Manager Romilda Crocamo responded to a request for an interview or detailed questions about these and other errors.

Luzerne’s election issues could be a structural problem

Apart from staff turnover, Luzerne County officials pointed to a different possible culprit for the county’s election woes: its unique form of government.

Luzerne is a home-rule county, meaning instead of setting up county government the way most other Pennsylvania counties do, voters in Luzerne opted to create their own governing structure. Instead of putting three elected county commissioners in charge of elections, Luzerne splits election oversight duties between the county council and a board of elections with four members appointed by the council and a fifth selected by the other four members.

John Lombardo, who currently chairs the Luzerne County Council, said that the stress caused by this unusual structure may also be weighing on election officials and affecting their work.

“I think that’s one of the drawbacks of the home-rule style of government we have,” he said

“In many cases [for] the employees of the county, they know who their boss is. But if a council member comes to them and asks them a question, they don’t know what the end result of that is going to be, a policy change or what.”

Daren Williams, the judge of elections for Ashley Borough’s second ward, agreed. “I wouldn’t want to be involved with that,” he said. “No one with two eyes could say they don’t think there’s some pressure involved there.”

More importantly, Lombardo said, the arrangement can be confusing for the public because it’s unclear where the ultimate responsibility for election administration lies.

This fall, voters considered a referendum that would have changed the structure of the Luzerne County Board of Elections, but it was rejected.

Officials say Luzerne’s problems get outsized attention

Luzerne County has garnered an outsized number of bad headlines for its election administration since 2020. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it has had more problems than other counties.

Lombardo said he thinks Luzerne County gets a disproportionate amount of media attention, in part due to its past problems, which he thinks contributes to a lingering perception that Luzerne County is error-prone.

“Is all this news reporting on Luzerne because there’s so many problems in Luzerne, or is it because it is Luzerne?” he asked. He added that he has heard of similar errors in other counties that didn’t make the news.

“I don’t want to say it’s unfair, but to some extent I think a lot of the scrutiny is due to the past issues that we had, not necessarily whether the issue is serious or not.”

At least three newspapers or online outlets, two TV stations, and one radio station regularly cover Luzerne County, making for a higher volume of coverage than many other counties receive. Luzerne County’s position in the politically important northeast part of the state means it often attracts national media coverage as well.

For his part, Williams said he thinks the department has done a good job and resolved issues quickly when they do pop up. He said the consensus among other Luzerne County election judges he speaks with is that the county’s ballot-marking devices are responsible for the most common issues that arise — so he’s happy that the county decided this summer to switch to hand-marked paper ballots.

Lombardo also said that, following the paper shortage, the county implemented changes to hopefully avoid similar mistakes in the future. One was to create a checklist of what needs to be done and when, which the elections bureau staff, county manager, and even council members can see.

He said he has been pleased with Cook’s management of the department as director, and he hopes she will remain in the job.

“Is everything going to be perfect all the time? I don’t know,” he said. “But is it better than it was before? Yes, definitely.”

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

With Trump orders tied up in court, congressional Republicans could take up an elections bill

2025-12-15T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, have had a lot to say about the rules and laws that govern our elections. Changing them, though, is harder.

House Republicans are signaling plans for legislation to inscribe at least some of the party’s election-administration wish list into federal law, including changes to the landmark National Voter Registration Act that would make it easier to remove ineligible voters from the rolls.

Republicans have long accused states of failing to appropriately clean their voter rolls, and the U.S. Justice Department has filed a host of lawsuits seeking access to unredacted state voter rolls in what government lawyers have said is an effort to make sure states are complying with their obligations under federal law.

Trump issued a sweeping executive order on elections in March, and the White House said last month he is working on a second. But major provisions of the March order have so far been halted by the courts after federal judges found the president lacked the constitutional authority to enact them.

Congressional legislation would be on far firmer constitutional footing, but so far, efforts have stalled. Republicans’ highest-profile election bill — the SAVE Act, which would require documented proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote — passed the U.S. House in April but has languished in the Senate.

Trump has repeatedly urged senators to eliminate the filibuster, a legislative procedure that effectively requires bills to secure the support of 60 senators rather than a simple majority, in order to pass voter ID requirements and what he described as “voter reform.” So far, though, senators have shown no interest in doing so, meaning election legislation cannot reach Trump’s desk without at least some Democratic support. (Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, including two independents who caucus with Democrats.)

Witnesses at a congressional hearing on potential updates to the NVRA on Wednesday suggested a different approach that lately has seemed somewhat out of vogue: bipartisanship.

“There was a time when election laws were viewed as an area of cooperation” between the political parties, said Mark Braden, an election lawyer with the firm BakerHostetler who is also a former chief counsel to the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Election Commission. That cooperation, he said, “is vital to the confidence in the process.”

Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, echoed the sentiment, though the two weren’t advocating for the same policies. “I urge Congress to return to its bipartisan tradition of strengthening our voting system by advancing measures that expand access and improve accuracy,” such as same-day and automatic voter registration and more federal funding for election administration, she said.

Despite those calls, there have been no signs of an emerging bipartisan bill on elections. Rather, Republican members of Congress at the hearing repeatedly highlighted what they said is the need to clarify and tighten the standards election officials around the country use to remove ineligible voters from voter rolls.

“Election officials benefit from clear and unambiguous laws which will help them to carry out their duties and to ensure voter lists are accurate and up to date,” said Rep. Laurel Lee, a Republican and former Florida secretary of state who chairs the election-focused House subcommittee that held the hearing.

Another witness, Michael Morley, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law and the faculty director of the FSU Election Law Center, brought up potential changes to the NVRA that could eventually wind up in legislation.

While many people exaggerate the extent to which noncitizens vote, he said, “it is reasonable for the public to expect steps to be taken to ensure noncitizens are not inadvertently added to the voter registration rolls.” The NVRA could be amended to allow states to request information reasonably related to confirming an applicant’s eligibility, he said. He also suggested that states could be required to use a database maintained by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to search for potential noncitizens on voter rolls. Although several states have taken advantage of the database, which the Trump administration recently overhauled and made easier to use, they are not currently required to do so, and some election officials have raised questions about its accuracy and privacy protections.

The NVRA currently prohibits state election officials from systemically removing ineligible voters within 90 days of a federal election. Morley said that between the primary and general elections, that restriction adds up to a considerable portion of time and could potentially be shortened.

Witnesses also touched on a host of other things, including the importance of clean voter lists in states that use mail ballots, and it isn’t clear what might ultimately make it into legislation. Or, without the bipartisan support that witnesses talked about, law.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Wisconsin Elections Commission refuses to send Justice Department unredacted voter list

2025-12-12T00:10:17+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission on Thursday declined to send the state’s unredacted voter rolls to the federal government, joining more than a dozen states pushing back against disclosing sensitive voter information.

The commission’s move comes as the U.S. Department of Justice has asked all 50 states for their voter files — massive lists containing significant personal information on every voter in the country — claiming they are central to its mission of enforcing election law.

“The U.S. DOJ is simply asking the commission to do something that the commission is explicitly forbidden by Wisconsin law to do,” said Don Millis, a Republican appointee on the Wisconsin Elections Commission. “There’s a clear consensus that personally identifiable information is to be protected.”

While pieces of these lists are public, election officials typically redact voters’ Social Security numbers, driver’s license information, and dates of birth before issuing them in response to records requests. The DOJ, in many cases, has asked for information not traditionally made public. That was also the case in Wisconsin: The DOJ requested voters’ partial Social Security numbers, license numbers, and dates of birth.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission — which is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans — ultimately voted in closed session to send the DOJ a letter declining the request for unredacted voter information. Republican commissioner Bob Spindell appeared to be the only member in favor of cooperating with the federal government and said Wisconsin will likely face a lawsuit as a result of the commission’s choice.

The letter, signed by every commissioner except Spindell, says state law “explicitly prohibits” sending the unredacted voter list.

Officials in both Democratic and Republican states have pushed back on disclosing their voter rolls in response to these requests. On a podcast with conservative talk radio host Joe Pags, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said these states were refusing to cooperate because they were embarrassed that their voter rolls were not sufficiently cleared of inactive or unlawful registrants.

Rather, many states, like Colorado, have said the federal government isn’t entitled to unredacted voter information that could put voters at risk. The DOJ, they say, has not provided sufficient explanation for how the data will be used.

In early December, after receiving a memorandum of understanding similar to the one sent to Wisconsin, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold told the DOJ to “take a hike,” adding that she “will not help Donald Trump undermine our elections.” The DOJ sued Griswold just over a week later.

All 50 states were asked to turn over their voting rolls, Dhillon said on the podcast: Four states have voluntarily cooperated, 12 are in negotiations, and 14 have been sued by the DOJ over their refusal.

Wisconsin election officials have repeatedly said that federal officials can obtain the publicly available, and therefore redacted, voter roll the same way anybody else can: by purchasing it available online for $12,500.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

A big question looming over future redistricting: Who should count?

2025-12-11T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

The impacts of the latest fight over Texas’ political maps are still reverberating around the state, but there are other debates on the horizon.

Future political representation could hinge on President Donald Trump’s renewed push to exclude at least some noncitizens from the population counts that help determine how political power is distributed in the U.S.

In Texas, where Republicans pushed through a rare midcycle redistricting this year to try to maintain their advantage in Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, experts say that excluding noncitizens when drawing districts could open another way for the GOP to tighten its grip on the state Legislature and congressional delegation.

In addition, many experts and critics worry it could ultimately place some Texas communities into larger, less cohesive districts, while diluting the political influence of Latinos and other minority groups who have accounted for much of the state’s population gain in recent decades. Adding questions about citizenship to the U.S. census could also lead to more undercounting of Latinos, they warn, a problem that has plagued previous censuses.

Read the full story.

Hamtramck clerk alleges she was retaliated against for reporting election fraud

2025-12-10T17:37:36+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

Amid a contested mayoral election marred by revelations of insecure ballots, the top election official in Hamtramck is suing several city officials, alleging they retaliated against her for trying to expose the city’s “ongoing election integrity issues.”

City Clerk Rana Faraj has been on leave since Nov. 10, days after 37 ballots cast in the 2025 municipal election were initially misplaced in her office. Faraj’s lawsuit alleges that she was put on leave as a way to satisfy city officials who had a grudge against her “after being falsely accused of meddling with the election.”

The lawsuit also provides more alleged details about the circumstances that led to the 37 ballots not being counted. The ballots may have been decisive in Hamtramck’s nonpartisan mayoral race, which was separated by only 11 votes after a recount last week.

Faraj’s suit, filed Monday in Wayne County, underscores the degree to which the relationship between city leadership and election officials has deteriorated in one of Michigan’s most prolifically troubled cities for voting. The suit names the city, its outgoing mayor, all six members of the city council, and the interim city manager as defendants.

Tensions flare between clerk and city officials

Allegations of unscrupulous actors and illegal tactics have plagued elections in Hamtramck for years. In the lawsuit, Faraj alleges that the campaign against her started after she attempted to report “serious violations of Michigan election law” in the city.

In March, Faraj wrote a letter to Attorney General Dana Nessel alleging repeated examples of election fraud in the city. In it, she wrote that an unnamed council member, who she later confirmed to reporters was Mohammed Hassan, had “a long, documented history of obstructing the election process.” That included undermining her work as clerk and intimidating election workers.

After that letter, Faraj says she started to feel bullied and harassed by Hassan’s colleagues on the City Council. The lawsuit alleges that council members told her, “we’re watching you,” and began tracking the hours she worked.

The suit goes on to say that, over the summer, Faraj was “repeatedly warned by multiple individuals, including a ranking member of city leadership, that the City Council was preparing to retaliate against her” for her letter to the attorney general. An unnamed council member told her the council was “trying to find something to hold against” Faraj, the lawsuit says.

But Amer Ghalib, the city’s outgoing mayor and one of the people named in the suit, told Votebeat the city had no problems with Faraj’s letter to Nessel. “When she reported some election issues to the AG office earlier this year, (the) city did not even give her a verbal warning for doing that,” he wrote in an email. “We considered that as part of her job and nothing was wrong with it, and no one took any action against her.”

The city did take action against Faraj, however, after last month’s mayoral election, in which 37 absentee ballots were mistakenly left in their envelopes and not counted on election night. The ballots were later found in Faraj’s office, she told the Wayne County Board of Canvassers last month, whereupon she immediately notified the necessary officials and delivered the ballots to the county.

However, after learning that non-election officials had accessed Faraj’s office while the ballots were there, the county canvassers did not include them in the final count amid concerns about their chain of custody.

According to Ghalib, Faraj was put on leave “due to multiple issues that took place in the clerk office” in the election, including mishandling the 37 ballots but also allegedly allowing unauthorized people — including a former city clerk and a former city attorney — in the office on Election Day.

Meanwhile, Faraj’s suit alleges those ballots were simply a pretense to put her on leave. She argues the city made it seem to the public that she was on leave for wrongdoing, whereas she was told it was for her “physical protection.”

In an interview Monday, Faraj’s attorneys, Jonathan Marko and Reno Arabo, told Votebeat that this was “yet another chapter of city dysfunction” in a community that has seen a lot.

Four members of the City Council, plus one incoming member just elected last month, were named in an April petition by Nessel for allegedly taking unvoted absentee ballots from newly naturalized citizens and filling them out themselves. Two council members, Hassan and Muhtasin Sadman, were charged in August, although felony charges were later dropped against Sadman after two subpoenaed witnesses didn’t show up to court. No others have been charged, although they may be in the future.

“I’ve never seen such a corrupt and dysfunctional governmental entity that continues to do things that defy belief,” Marko said.

For the time being, Faraj is still on leave from the clerk’s office. Ghalib said the city was prepared to welcome her back — until recently.

“The plan was to give her a warning and ask her to come back to work, but her attorney (sent) a request letter asking for $500,000 by the end of that day, or they will file a lawsuit,” he wrote in his email. “The city decided not to be exploited or blackmailed by anyone.”

Ghalib expressed confidence that Faraj’s lawsuit will not succeed. “We think our legal position is … strong in this case.” He did not provide evidence of the request letter, while Faraj’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment about it.

New revelations about the 37 uncounted ballots

Faraj’s lawsuit also sheds new light on the events that ultimately disenfranchised 37 absentee voters in last month’s election.

Faraj had said previously, and repeated in the lawsuit, that her staff had noticed a discrepancy on election night between the number of ballots tabulated and the number of ballots received; the 37 ballots later discovered in her office had somehow been separated from the others. The lawsuit offered a potential explanation for how this happened: “The issue apparently arose because workers had cut open these ballot envelopes but accidentally mixed them with the tray of emptied envelopes.”

The ballots remained unaccounted for until Nov. 7, when they were sealed and delivered to the county under police escort. Such issues “are common and occur regularly in Wayne County,” Faraj’s suit says, insisting she handled the discrepancy “professionally, transparently, and in accordance with all guidance from Wayne County officials.”

Tammy Patrick, chief program officer of the National Association of Election Officials, agreed that it’s not uncommon for election workers to misplace ballots, although steps can and should be taken to limit these occurrences. For instance, she said, states like California and Virginia have designed absentee ballot envelopes with a small hole in them that allows anyone to see whether a ballot is in the envelope without seeing the way they’ve voted.

“After (election workers) empty the envelope, they put a zip tie through it, so you know it’s empty, and put them in bundles,” Patrick said. This may help avoid a situation where the ballots get mixed in with empty envelopes.

When ballots are misplaced, though, it’s often a solvable problem. Such problems are usually quickly caught and fixed, Patrick said. But in Hamtramck, people walking into the clerk’s office changed the calculus.

Originally, Faraj and others said that Interim City Manager Alex Lagrou and two other city employees who were not election officials walked into the sealed clerk’s office on election night. But the lawsuit says five people — Lagrou, City Assessor Konrad Maziarz, and three other unnamed employees — walked in, and that they did so on the Wednesday night after the election.

It’s still unclear why city officials entered Faraj’s office, although the suit says it was for “non-election reasons.” The lawsuit also says Faraj had warned city officials for years that the physical setup of her office was insecure; the municipal mailroom is located inside her office, for instance. The only security measure the city agreed to was to install a keycard access lock on the clerk’s office, the suit alleges — but it “failed to enforce the keycard access restrictions during election season.”

Despite these security concerns, however, Faraj’s lawsuit also states that none of the five people who entered the office were aware that the ballots were there, and that “the 37 ballots … were never spoiled, altered, duplicated, or tampered with.” It is not clear how they arrived at that conclusion.

Patrick said it might have been possible for officials to conduct forensic testing on the ballots to see if they may have been tampered with — comparing ink colors, for example — but Lisa Capatina, the chair of the Board of Canvassers, argued during canvassing that an investigatory step like that would be outside the board’s powers.

Muhith Mahmood, the losing candidate in the mayoral race, has since sued to have the ballots considered. Judge Patricia Perez Fresard on Friday ordered the involved parties to talk to each other to try to reach a resolution.

“At this point, it’s good that it will go to a court to be adjudicated,” Patrick said. “They’re the best ones to determine how to treat those ballots.”

That case is set to come before the judge next Friday. It’s not clear when Faraj’s case will be considered. Court records indicate Judge Adel Harb has been assigned to the case.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Wisconsin clerks hope new law can alleviate statewide election official shortage

2025-12-09T20:47:26+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Wisconsin clerks say two decisions on legislation this week — a new law expanding towns’ ability to hire clerks and a veto that blocks broader standing to sue election officials — will help ease mounting pressure on local election offices, which have faced record turnover and increasing legal threats.

The new law allows small towns to more easily hire clerks that live outside of municipal limits, a change clerks say is urgently needed as finding small-town clerks has become harder in recent years amid increased scrutiny, new laws and ever-evolving rules. As the new law moved through the Legislature, some small towns ran elections with no clerks at all.

“There are lots of townships that will benefit from this,” said Marathon County Clerk Kim Trueblood, a Republican. “It’s going to help tremendously.”

In the past, towns with fewer than 2,500 residents had to hold a referendum to authorize appointing clerks instead of electing them. That took time and the election requirement restricted who could serve, since elected clerks — unlike appointed clerks — must live within municipal boundaries.

The new law allows towns to switch to appointing clerks after a vote at a town meeting.

It also eliminates another hurdle: In the past, even if a town approved the switch, it couldn’t take effect until the end of a term. The law lets towns make the change immediately if the clerk position is vacant or becomes vacant.

That could be critical: Between 2020 and 2024, more than 700 of Wisconsin’s municipal clerks left their posts, the highest churn in the nation, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. Trueblood said this proposal won’t be a complete fix to the clerk shortage, but will go a long way toward easing it by allowing municipalities to recruit more broadly.

Likely beneficiaries of the new law include the Town of Wausau, whose longtime clerk retired late last year. Town supervisors then appointed a town resident, who quit after two weeks, forcing supervisors to collectively assume the clerk’s duties for the April election.

In that election, the town put forth a referendum to permanently switch to appointing clerks, but voters rejected it by a narrow margin — something that Town Supervisor Sharon Hunter said was a matter of people not understanding why the measure was critical. The town also elected a clerk, but that same clerk quit in September and the town is once again without a clerk.

“There’s just a lot of different responsibilities,” Hunter said. “And I don’t think people realize that it’s not like in the olden days.”

Hunter added that she’s “very excited” about the new law.

“Elections are coming,” she said, “so we really need to find someone very quickly.”

Veto maintains high bars to appealing complaints

Clerks also welcomed Evers’ Friday veto of a bill that would have made it easier to sue election officials by expanding who has standing to appeal Wisconsin Elections Commission decisions in court.

The Democratic governor’s veto preserves a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year that limits who can appeal WEC decisions to those who “suffer an injury to a legally recognized interest.” Republicans wrote the bill to expand standing to any eligible voter who files a complaint, regardless of whether they suffered harm — a change clerks warned would overwhelm election offices and the courts

In his veto message, Evers echoed clerks’ concerns, saying the proposal would “open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits that not only burden our courts, but our election systems as well.”

But Republicans said that despite clerks’ objections, the veto will make it difficult or even impossible to hold election officials accountable for breaking the law.

State Sen. Van Wanggaard, the Republican who wrote the bill, said it could stop a wide variety of complaints from going to court.

“The little guy gets screwed again,” he said in a statement. “This veto makes WEC an unanswerable body whose judgment can never be questioned by anyone.”

In the past, many lawsuits against clerks and other election officials began as administrative complaints filed with WEC before being appealed to court. Filing a complaint with the agency is the legally required first step for most election-related challenges, unless they are brought by district attorneys or the attorney general.

Democrats and liberals have filed complaints over concerns about towns that switched to hand-counting ballots and alleged inaccuracies on candidate nomination forms. Republicans and conservatives have filed complaints over allegedly being denied poll worker positions. Other complaints have involved allegations that clerks refused to accept ballots at polling places, and unproven accusations of ballot tampering.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that prompted the bill halted a lawsuit that challenged the legality of a mobile voting van in Racine. The court did not settle the underlying issue, instead dismissing the case because the liberals who hold a majority on the court determined the plaintiff had no standing.

Given the veto, that situation could recur, with legal questions about elections being left open because cases seeking to resolve them are ultimately dismissed over standing.

At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year heard oral arguments in an Illinois case over the legal standard political candidates must meet to challenge state election laws. A decision is pending.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Dallas County Republicans’ plan to hand-count primary ballots moves forward

2025-12-09T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

Dallas County Republicans say they’re planning to go ahead with hand-counting tens of thousands of Election Day ballots cast in the upcoming March 3 primary after raising more than $400,000 towards the effort.

The county GOP party also said more than 1,000 people have signed up to count the ballots in an effort that would make the county the largest jurisdiction in the country to hand-count results on Election Day. Other large jurisdictions in the country have hand-counted ballots, but they’ve done so after an election and to verify the accuracy of machine counts, including as part of an audit.

“Not only are the eyes of Texas upon us, but the eyes of America,” said Dallas County Republican Party Chairman Allen West, a former congressman, in a social media statement Friday. West said the effort is meant to “restore confidence in our electoral process.”

That decision means all Dallas County voters will have to cast ballots at their assigned precinct rather than at countywide vote centers on Election Day. By law, if one party wants to use precinct-based voting, then the other must do the same. And by law, any hand-count of ballots has to be done at each of the county’s polling locations. During the 12-day early voting period, voters will still be able to cast ballots anywhere in the county.

In Texas, political parties have the authority to decide how they’ll administer primary elections and how they want to count ballots on Election Day. State law requires the party to report election results within 24 hours after polls close. Failure to do so could result in a misdemeanor charge.

The Republican primary ballot in 2026 will include a hotly contested and closely watched U.S. Senate primary for the seat currently held by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.

The Republican party has yet to sign a contract with the Dallas County Elections Department locking in the plan, something West said he now plans to do this week.

Voters in the Democratic primary will still use voting equipment to cast their ballots. But Dallas County Democratic Party Chairman Kardal Coleman said the requirement to vote in precincts rather than countywide vote centers means the party will now need to secure more than the usual 450 locations for Election Day and the additional workers to staff them.

“Not just for Democratic voters, but this is going to adversely affect every voter who may show up in the wrong location,” Coleman said. “It’s already causing chaos and confusion.”

The county Republican party also must secure a minimum of 360 polling locations with the required space needed to conduct the hand count — fewer than the Democrats because Republicans are the minority party in Dallas County. The GOP will have to find enough money for all needed supplies, including everything from ballot boxes to printing tally sheets to the tables and chairs needed for counting. It isn’t clear how much of that has been done.

In a brief text message Monday, West clarified the party does not plan to hand-count absentee ballots or ballots cast early in person — only Election Day ballots.

According to a 2024 primary election final cost report Votebeat obtained from the Texas Secretary of State Office through a public records request, Dallas County Republicans employed more than 1,400 workers on Election Day at a cost of more than $248,000. Polling place rental fees cost nearly $50,000. Those costs are certain to increase, because hand-counting requires more people to count and additional locations.

Limited transparency with a hand count

In September, Dallas County Republicans voted to hand-count the primary ballots if they could raise enough money and recruit enough workers. A similar effort by the party in 2023 was shut down after the party failed to raise the expected $1 million it would need.

In 2024, the Dallas County parties conducted a joint primary. Voters were able to cast ballots anywhere in the county because both parties agreed to use the state-approved countywide polling place program. The program is aimed at reducing the costs of conducting an election for counties and easing voter confusion.

The method of hand counting has proven to be inaccurate and costly. In Texas, hand-counting has fewer transparency requirements than other methods.

The only people permitted in the area where the hand count is happening are precinct judges, who are in charge of supervising the polling locations, the election clerks counting ballots, and poll watchers appointed by candidates or political action committees.

And unless a candidate requests a recount or the party decides to do so, no provision in state law requires a recount or an audit of hand-counted election results to check for accuracy.

When Republicans in Gillespie County hand-counted more than 8,000 ballots during the March 2024 primary, the party days later found they’d made errors in the tally of 12 out of 13 precincts’ totals.

And they spent more than double of the costs of the 2020 primary, public records show.

Taxpayers foot some of those costs. After the primary, the state reimburses local parties for some of their primary election expenses, including administrative costs, election worker hourly rates, and election supplies. The Texas Secretary of State’s Office has already warned party officials that it won’t cover higher-than-normal costs for the primary compared with previous years.

According to the 2024 primary final cost report, Republicans in Gillespie paid more than $40,000 for 355 workers who spent nearly 24 hours counting. In the 2020 primary, when the party used the county’s voting equipment to tabulate results, the party employed 45 workers at a cost of nearly $7,000. Gillespie County Republicans plan to hand-count ballots again in 2026.

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Judge hears argument in Pennsylvania voter fraud case where Trump pardon at issue

2025-12-08T22:06:48+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

A judge overseeing a criminal double-voting case in Pennsylvania appeared open to the defendant’s argument that a pardon from President Donald Trump should apply to him.

The defendant, Matthew Laiss, is accused of voting for Trump twice in the 2020 election — once in person in Florida and once via mail in Pennsylvania. At a hearing Monday in federal court, he argued that Trump’s Nov. 7 pardon of allies who attempted to overturn his 2020 loss should also apply to his alleged crimes.

While Trump did not directly name Laiss in the pardon, his attorneys argued it covers his case because of its broad language. The Department of Justice argues the pardon does not apply to Laiss, a view it says is shared by the U.S. pardon attorney.

“The pardon lays out how people not named in the pardon might get relief,” said Katrina Young, an assistant federal defender representing Laiss.

The defense’s argument

Young pointed out that the pardon said it applied to “all United States citizens for … voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any State or State official, in connection with the 2020 Presidential Election.” Laiss, she argued, is a U.S. citizen, and his alleged crime is voting for a slate of electors, meaning he is covered by the plain language of the pardon.

Prosecutors argued in a filing late last month that the phrase “following the 2020 presidential election” in the pardon’s preamble means it applied only to post-election conduct of the type the 77 named individuals had engaged in. But Young said the fact that the pardon specifically mentioned voting “for” a slate of electors means it applied to Election Day and pre-Election Day conduct as well, since that is when voting for electors occurs.

If Trump had intended only to pardon the voting his electors did when the Electoral College convened, she said, he would have just said voting “of” electors.

In response, U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson Jr. posed a hypothetical: Would Young’s argument mean, in theory, that if there had been enough fraudulent voters to change the 2020 election result, Trump’s pardon would apply to all of them, even if they numbered in the millions?

Young responded that it would, and that it is not uncommon for Trump to issue broad pardons, pointing to his pardon of hundreds of people charged with crimes in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The prosecution’s argument

Meanwhile, Mark Dubnoff, an assistant U.S. attorney, argued that if Laiss believed the pardon applied to him, he needed to petition the U.S. pardon attorney for relief.

“What the law is clear on is that the courts have very limited authority here,” he said.

Leeson asked if that administrative step was established by some rule, law, or case law. Dubnoff conceded it was not but insisted this was the way the process worked. Leeson appeared skeptical of that argument.

“You’re talking about an administrative process for which I don’t see a legal basis, other than that ‘It is so because I say it is so,’” Leeson said.

Dubnoff responded that it is the president’s prerogative to decide how the pardon process is handled and pointed out that page 4 of the pardon says the attorney general, through the pardon attorney, shall “administer and effectuate certificates of pardon to eligible applicants.”

But Young argued that language pertains only to issuing certificates of pardon, not making determinations of eligibility. She also said that the government had dropped its prosecution of individuals covered by the Jan. 6 pardon for crimes not directly related to the Capitol riot if the evidence of those crimes had been discovered as part of the investigations into their Jan. 6 cases. In those instances, the government had not required defendants to apply to the U.S. pardon attorney for relief, she said.

Leeson asked Young if she had applied to the pardon attorney on Laiss’ behalf. She responded she had sent the pardon attorney a copy of the filing in which she argued that the pardon applies, but the pardon attorney’s website made applying directly difficult.

Dubnoff said that, even if the pardon did apply because Laiss was voting for a slate of electors, it would apply only to the second count in the indictment, for double-voting, and not to the first one, for voter fraud, since that does not require voting for a presidential slate in order for a crime to be committed.

Leeson will rule on the applicability of the pardon in time, but he did not indicate on Monday when he will make his decision.

“This is a very interesting case,” Leeson said. “We’re going to take the matter under advisement and get a decision out.”

Clarification, Dec. 9: This article was clarified to reflect that the U.S. Attorney’s office is arguing that voting for a presidential slate does not need to occur for count one of the indictment to be charged.

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

How the unprecedented redistricting war is harming election officials, politicians, and voters

2025-12-08T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

The redrawing of states’ congressional districts typically happens only once per decade, following the release of new U.S. Census data. But we’re now up to six states that have enacted new congressional maps for the 2026 midterms; that’s more than in any election cycle not immediately following a census since 1983-84. Even more are expected to join the fray before voters head to the polls next year. Ultimately, more than a third of districts nationwide could be redrawn, threatening to confuse and disenfranchise voters.

The truly unusual thing, though, is that four of those states passed new maps totally voluntarily. Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina all redrew their districts after President Donald Trump urged them to create more safe seats for Republicans to help the GOP maintain control of the House of Representatives next year, and California did so in order to push back against Trump and create more safe seats for Democrats. (The other two states redrew for more anodyne reasons: Utah’s old map was thrown out in court, and Ohio’s was always set to expire after the 2024 election.) To put that in perspective, only two states voluntarily redistricted in total in the 52 years from 1973 to 2024, according to the Pew Research Center.

So the current “redistricting wars” are truly unprecedented in modern politics — and that’s had some chaotic consequences. In Texas, for instance, voter advocacy groups sued over the new map, arguing that it discriminated against Black and Latino voters. They scored a temporary win on Nov. 18 when a panel of federal judges struck down the new map and reinstated the old one. That ruling, though, came less than three weeks before Texas’ Dec. 8 filing deadline, sending candidates and election officials scrambling to readjust their plans.

But that wasn’t even the end of the story: The state appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which for two weeks left Texans hanging about which map would be in force. Finally, on Thursday — four days before the filing deadline — a majority of the justices stayed the lower-court ruling, putting the 2025 map back in place for the midterms.

Meanwhile, in Indiana, lawmakers are considering whether to pass their own new map under the less than ideal conditions of threats to their physical safety. A proposal to eliminate the state’s two Democratic-held seats passed the state House on Friday, but there’s genuine suspense over whether the plan can pass the state Senate, where at least 14 Republicans are against mid-decade redistricting. (Sixteen Republicans would need to join with the chamber’s 10 Democrats to block it.)

The pressure on these GOP holdouts has been intense, with Trump calling out several of them by name on social media and threatening to support their primary challengers. But in the last few weeks, things have gotten much darker: 11 state senators — most of them redistricting opponents or fence-sitters — have been the targets of swatting attempts, bomb threats, or other threats. Although it’s not confirmed that the threats were motivated by redistricting, many of the lawmakers receiving them have decried them as intimidation tactics meant to make them toe the line.

Finally, of course, the push to draw more congressional districts scrupulously engineered to vote a certain way threatens to make Congress less representative of the electorate.

Last week, on the day before Thanksgiving, a panel of federal judges declined to issue a preliminary injunction against North Carolina’s new congressional map, clearing the way for its use in the 2026 election. Although the judges did not find sufficient evidence that the Legislature had drawn the map with the intent to racially discriminate, they did come away convinced that the map would have a “disparate impact on black voters.”

That’s because the map’s goal is to flip the 1st District from the Democratic to the Republican column, and since race and partisanship are so closely correlated in the South, that meant watering down its Black population. Since 1992, the northeastern North Carolina-based 1st District has been configured to enable Black voters to elect the candidate of their choice, but the new map decreases the district’s Black share of the voting-age population from 40 percent to 32 percent. As a result, there are no longer enough Black voters in the district to reliably pull their candidates over the finish line. A political scientist attested in the case that Black voters’ preferred candidate would have carried the new 1st District only seven times in 63 recent statewide elections.

None of this, though, may run afoul of the law. Federal courts have set a very high bar for proving racial gerrymandering claims — and in 2019, they decided to stop trying to umpire partisan gerrymandering altogether. That, as much as anything else, has opened the door to the rash of mid-decade redistricting we’re currently experiencing. Virtually all of the states that have taken the plunge so far have drawn maps with extreme partisan biases that make congressional elections less responsive to the will of voters. For an unprecedented arms race that has caused no shortage of angst, that could be the most indelible impact.

Nathaniel Rakich is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Nathaniel at nrakich@votebeat.org.

Supreme Court lets Texas keep new congressional map while legal battle continues

2025-12-05T01:01:19+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

Texas can use its new, GOP-friendly congressional map while a legal challenge plays out, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, temporarily pausing a lower court ruling that had blocked the map from going into effect.

With the Dec. 8 candidate filing deadline fast approaching, the high court’s decision likely means Texas’ new map will be used for the 2026 midterm elections.

Justice Samuel Alito ruled that it was “indisputable” that Texas’ motivation for redistricting was “pure and simple” partisan advantage, which the court has previously ruled is permissible. A federal judge had previously ruled that the state likely engaged in racial gerrymandering, a claim Alito rejected. The three liberal justices dissented.

The ruling is a major win for Republicans in Texas and nationally. President Donald Trump had pushed Texas to redraw its map over the summer, hoping to secure five additional GOP seats to shore up the party’s narrow majority in the U.S. House through the midterms.

Earlier this month, two federal judges barred Texas from using the new map for 2026, saying there was evidence state lawmakers had racially gerrymandered in redrawing the lines. Galveston District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, authored the opinion ordering Texas to return to its 2021 map, while 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith vociferously dissented.

The state asked the Supreme Court to overturn Brown’s ruling entirely, but that could take weeks or months to proceed through the court system, especially if the justices decide they want to hear arguments in Washington, D.C. With Thursday’s ruling, the justices have temporarily paused Brown’s ruling while that longer legal process can play out.

The new map, approved by the Texas Legislature and signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in August, is engineered to give Republicans control of 30 of the state’s 38 congressional districts, up from the 25 they currently hold under the 2021 map. Numerous Republican candidates have stepped forward to run in the newly favorable districts, while several Democratic incumbents were pushed into nearby districts already occupied by another Democrat, forcing them to contemplate primaries or retire.

Brown’s ruling upended those calculations. But in restoring the new map, the Supreme Court likely ensured that Republicans running for redrawn districts will get to campaign under the new lines in 2026.

Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrated the ruling, saying it was a win for Texas and every conservative who is tired of watching the left try to upend the political system with bogus lawsuits.”

Texas Democrats, meanwhile, condemned the outcome, with House Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Gene Wu of Houston saying the high court had “failed” Texans.

“This is what the end of the Voting Rights Act looks like: courts that won’t protect minority communities even when the evidence is staring them in the face,” Wu said.

Pennsylvania’s unique system of electing poll workers comes with downsides

2025-12-04T20:24:55+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

For this November’s election, no candidate was listed on the ballot for judge of elections in Scranton’s Ward 6, Precinct 1. So the poll worker on duty allegedly wrote her own name on the ballots.

According to the Lackawanna County district attorney, Kathie Sico, who was serving as the precinct’s judge of elections that day, decided to write herself in for the position on the ballots before handing them to voters.

Sico — who has been charged with multiple violations of election law, including felony fraud by election officials and interference with elections — “stated that she knows it looks like voter fraud, but she has had so much going on the past couple weeks with her medical condition that she didn’t even think,” a detective with the county wrote in a criminal affidavit, according to WVIA.

Outright fraud by an elected poll worker, such as Sico is accused of, is rare. But the case highlights one of many issues that have arisen from Pennsylvania’s unique system of selecting the people who run voting locations — and some argue it’s time for change.

Unlike most states, which use some variation of an appointment-based system, Pennsylvania elects its poll workers. Each polling place has at least five workers, including three who are elected: the judge of elections, a minority inspector, and a majority inspector. There are over 9,000 voting precincts in the state, meaning the state needs to elect more than 27,000 workers.

Pennsylvania is the only state that still elects poll workers

Pennsylvania has been electing poll workers since 1799. And according to data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, it’s the only state in the country that still directly elects the workers who run voting precincts. The other longtime holdout, Rhode Island, did away with the practice in 2009.

Former Rhode Island state Rep. Michael Marcello, a Democrat who wrote the bill that ended those elections, told Votebeat and Spotlight PA in May that the goal was to prevent these positions from being politicized. But his co-sponsor, former Democratic state Rep. Scott Pollard, recalled a more practical reason: It was tough to find people to run for the positions, especially when they needed to fill out paperwork to appear on the ballot.

The same is true in Pennsylvania. This year, thousands of poll worker positions went without named candidates on the ballot.

“There’s something about the emotional hurdle of having to be on the ballot,” said Sean Drasher, election director for Lebanon County. “They don’t want to be seen as a politician.”

In Allegheny County, which needs nearly 4,000 judges and inspectors to staff its precincts, only 439 candidates for those offices were on the ballot this fall.

But not having your name on the ballot is not much of a barrier to being elected to the positions, as even a single write-in vote can be enough to win. In Lebanon County, write-in candidates won roughly half of the judge positions this year, along with about 70% of the inspector positions.

However, write-ins can create problems of their own.

Because it is possible to win with just a single vote, these races frequently result in ties that election officials have to spend time and money resolving through a process called the “casting of lots” — essentially a game of chance equivalent to a coin flip.

More than 200 poll worker races tied in Westmoreland County this year, and in Lancaster County, election director Christa Miller estimated that 95% of the ties the county dealt with this year were for poll workers.

If no one wins through the election, the county appoints people to fill the vacant spots.

The downsides of electing poll workers

Drasher has a unique and personal connection to the elected poll workers system. His first job in election administration was as a poll worker, a position he won through a tied write-in election. He got the job when his daughter pulled the winning marble during the casting of lots.

“So I have a soft spot for it,” he said. “But now that I’m sitting in the chair, there are some big downsides to it just from an (operations) point of view.”

Drasher said that, on paper, the idea of having an elected judge along with two inspectors who — ideally — come from different political parties makes sense. If operating properly, it would ensure a bipartisan group of poll workers selected by members of their own community.

But in practice, the system fails to meet that standard, both because so many positions go without candidates and because the way the law is written is possible for both inspectors to come from the same party.

Under Pennsylvania law, the inspector candidate with the most votes becomes the majority inspector, and the candidate with the second-most votes becomes the minority inspector. In theory, since each political party can nominate only one candidate in the primary, this should produce inspectors from different parties. But with the ease of winning through write-in votes, it is not uncommon for the “minority” inspector to simply be a second member of the other inspector’s party.

The system can also produce winners who don’t want the job. Election officials say many people have their names written in by friends as a joke. Drasher said that can be OK if the unwitting electee is someone who will take the job seriously, but it often results in positions becoming vacant (winners can decline the job if they don’t want it) or experienced appointed poll workers getting pushed out.

“I hate to see it go, but I have to admit that if something came up, if the legislature said, ‘Hey, do you want to change it?’ I would lean toward changing it to become more in line with the way the other states do it,” he said.

That change could be on the horizon. Earlier this year, state Sen. Lisa Boscola (D., Northampton) said she would be introducing a bill to move to an appointment-based system.

In an interview this week, she said the current system is outdated and, “sadly,” at times laughable.

She said her bill, which hasn’t yet been introduced, will simply move the process from an election to an appointment by the county board of elections.

“It’s antiquated,” she said. “Us being the last state, that should say enough.”

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Hundreds of Texas voters flagged as potential noncitizens may have already proven their citizenship

2025-12-02T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

County election officials investigating the eligibility of 2,724 Texas voters flagged as potential noncitizens have so far found that hundreds of the voters registered through the state Department of Public Safety, which requires proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote while obtaining a driver’s license or state ID.

DPS keeps copies of the proof of citizenship that registrants provide, such as birth certificates or passports. The agency also keeps copies of proof of lawful presence in the U.S., such as green cards, provided by immigrants.

But the Texas Secretary of State’s Office told Votebeat and The Texas Tribune it did not check the voters flagged as potential noncitizens against DPS’ records before sending the list to county election officials to verify citizenship.

And at least one county election official has asked Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson and DPS for help checking DPS’ records but has yet to obtain access to them, according to documents obtained by Votebeat through a public records request and an interview.

When Celia Israel, who oversees voter registration for Travis County, asked the state for help determining voters’ citizenship, Nelson’s office directed her to DPS, according to a letter Israel sent Nelson’s office last month. But that agency said it couldn’t help her directly, citing state law, records show.

Israel then wrote to Nelson and DPS officials, asking for help obtaining the records. Nelson responded to Israel Nov. 21 saying her office would “continue collaborating” with DPS.

Nelson’s office did not respond to a request for comment from Votebeat Monday asking whether it would seek to obtain DPS’ proof-of-citizenship records. But on Monday, DPS responded to a request for comment from Votebeat and said it had “recently received” a request from Nelson’s office for information on 97 people — also the number of potential noncitizens the state had asked Travis County to investigate. The agency didn’t confirm whether the request concerned those voters.

In an interview with Votebeat on Monday, Israel said she believes officials have a responsibility to check that data before placing a burden on voters. “These are tools that are at our disposal to ensure accuracy, and I think it’s our responsibility to use those tools before we ask a voter to demonstrate citizenship,” she said.

SAVE flagged several voters who registered at DPS

State officials generated the list of potential noncitizens by checking the state’s voter roll — more than 18 million registered voters — against a federal database used to verify citizenship. The Trump administration overhauled the database, known as SAVE, this year, making the database free for states to use and easier to search.

But experts and election officials have raised concerns about the SAVE database’s accuracy and reliability, and advocacy groups have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the changes and how SAVE is being used.

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office in October forwarded the results of the SAVE check to county election officials and instructed them to investigate the eligibility of the flagged voters.

Votebeat contacted 24 counties regarding the results of their investigations, and counties that responded said they have so far collectively confirmed the citizenship of 16 voters.

Several counties also reported significant numbers of voters who registered via DPS. In Collin County, 59 of the 109 people flagged by the state had done so. In Bexar County, the state flagged 201 voters; 39 had registered at DPS. And in Brazoria County, nearly half of the 48 flagged had registered at DPS.

In Denton County, the state flagged 84 registered voters. Frank Phillips, the county’s election administrator, told Votebeat that 12 of the flagged voters have confirmed their citizenship. Of the remaining flagged voters, 14 were registered by county officials in error, even though they had disclosed they were noncitizens and ineligible on the voter registration form. None of those individuals had voted, and their registrations have been canceled, he said.

Phillips said 37 of the flagged voters registered via DPS. Phillips also confirmed that the county has now canceled the registrations of 58 flagged voters who either failed to respond to the county’s notices or had the notices returned as undeliverable. Under state law, county officials must immediately restore the registrations if the voters later provide proof of citizenship, even if they do so at the polls on Election Day.

State officials want counties to investigate matches

In her response to Israel’s letter, Nelson said the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ SAVE database “is the most current and accurate data set available to states when it comes to determining a voter’s citizenship.” Nelson said her office searched the SAVE database using voters’ first names, last names, dates of birth, and full Social Security numbers.

“Even though the data we received from SAVE is considered a strong match, we directed counties to treat them as weak matches in order to ensure that counties conducted their own investigation,” Nelson wrote, according to a copy of her letter obtained by Votebeat.

Alicia Pierce, a spokeswoman for the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, said an example of a strong match that would result in county officials removing someone from the rolls without further investigation or notice would be a confirmed death record. In contrast, she said, in instructing the counties to treat the SAVE results as weak matches, the state is ensuring further investigation before voters’ registrations are canceled.

Texas is one of more than two dozen states, including Alabama, Louisiana, and North Carolina, using or planning to use the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ overhauled SAVE database to check voters’ eligibility. The USCIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Texas has struggled to identify noncitizens before

Every year, millions of Texans register to vote or update their voter registration information while obtaining a driver’s license or ID at DPS. In 2024, 3 million people registered to vote through the agency.

DPS began requiring proof of citizenship and lawful presence to obtain a driver’s license or state ID beginning in 2008. In 2011, Texas legislators made the requirement state law.

Israel and other election officials have raised concerns about the accuracy of the list of potential noncitizens forwarded by the Texas Secretary of State, citing issues in the wake of the state’s past attempts to flag noncitizens on the voter rolls.

Last year, months before the November 2024 election, Gov. Greg Abbott announced that 6,500 noncitizens had been removed from Texas voter rolls. A joint investigation by Votebeat, The Texas Tribune, and ProPublica later found Abbott’s numbers were inflated and, in some instances, wrong.

In 2019, the Secretary of State’s Office announced that it had identified 95,000 registered voters as potential noncitizens and said that more than half of them had previously cast ballots. But many of the voters in question turned out to be naturalized citizens flagged due to outdated data, and the state ultimately settled a related lawsuit by agreeing to new procedures.

Those new procedures, which were codified into law in 2021 through the sweeping Senate Bill 1, require that DPS share data monthly with the Texas Secretary of State’s Office in connection with individuals who provided proof that they were not U.S. citizens — such as a green card or work visa — when obtaining a driver’s license or state ID.

State officials run that data against the voter roll and identify individuals “who registered to vote before they presented documents at a DPS office indicating their non-citizenship,” according to a 2021 advisory from the office to counties.

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Losing candidate in Hamtramck mayoral race sues to have 37 untabulated votes counted

2025-12-01T22:12:49+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

Despite being certified last week, the election for mayor of Hamtramck may be far from over.

City Council member Muhith Mahmood, the candidate who lost the Nov. 5 mayoral election by just six votes, is suing both the City of Hamtramck and the Wayne County Board of Canvassers to have more than three dozen uncounted votes included in the final total. The case has the potential to reverse the outcome of the election, a victory by engineer Adam Alharbi.

Due to what election officials have said was human error, 37 absentee ballots in Hamtramck were separated from the others and not counted on election night. When the ballots were discovered — opened, but still in their envelopes — in the city clerk’s office the following day, they were immediately sealed and taken to the county elections department.

But Hamtramck Clerk Rana Faraj later said three non-election officials had walked into the clerk’s sealed office on election night before the ballots were discovered, effectively breaking the chain of custody for those ballots and raising questions about their security. The Wayne County Board of Canvassers ultimately deadlocked on whether to count the ballots, resulting in their exclusion from the official results.

Not counting those ballots is “unconstitutional disenfranchisement,” Mahmood’s attorney, Mark Brewer, wrote in the lawsuit filed last week in the Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan, arguing that either the ballots should be counted or the 37 voters should be allowed to cast new ballots. The lawsuit is also filed on behalf of the 37 voters, whose names have not been made public.

Michigan election law requires absentee ballots to be tabulated, wrote Brewer, a former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party (the Hamtramck mayoral election, however, is nonpartisan). To bolster his other proposed remedy, Brewer cited cases in Hawaii and North Dakota in which judges allowed voters to cast new ballots after their original ballots were challenged. According to Brewer, and Votebeat’s initial review of Michigan case law, it does not appear that Michigan has ever let voters recast ballots after an election.

“The vote margin in the Hamtramck mayor’s election is currently 6, far less than the 37 votes not tabulated,” the lawsuit noted. “Thus, not only are the constitutional rights of those 37 voters affected but those 37 votes could determine the outcome of the mayoral election thereby affecting every resident of Hamtramck.”

The goal, Brewer told Votebeat, is to ensure that all votes are counted — even if that means his client still doesn’t win the election.

“It’s all the principle here,” he said in an interview on Monday. “My client agrees that every vote should be counted, no matter what the ultimate outcome is. We’ll let the chips fall where they may.”

Hamtramck City Attorney Odey Meroueh didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. Wayne County canvassers also did not immediately respond to requests. Nabih Ayad, the attorney for Alharbi, Hamtramck’s mayor-elect, did not respond to Votebeat but told the Detroit Free Press he opposed counting the votes.

In its canvassing meeting the week before Thanksgiving, the Wayne County Board of Canvassers debated extensively on whether to count the 37 ballots in question. Republican members Lisa Capatina and Toni Sellars expressed concern over the broken chain of custody, while Democratic members Richard Pruess and Edward Keelean said they felt that the ballots should be counted and that further investigation was warranted.

Because the ballots had not been included in the unofficial tally, at least three of the four canvassers would have needed to vote to count them in order for them to be included.

The lawsuit asks for immediate consideration, but it is not clear when the case will be heard or resolved. Hamtramck’s new mayor is scheduled to take office Jan. 1.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.

Man accused of double voting in 2020 election says Trump pardon applies to him

2025-11-25T18:10:36+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

UPDATE Dec. 1: On Friday, federal prosecutors responded to the motion, arguing the president’s pardon did not apply to Laiss’ case and urging the judge to dismiss his motion. This story has been updated with information from that filing.

A man charged with voting twice in the 2020 election has adopted a novel legal argument: that he’s covered by the pardon that President Donald Trump granted to allies who attempted to reverse his 2020 election loss.

Federal prosecutors charged Matthew Laiss in September with double voting in the November 2020 election. The U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleged that Laiss moved from Pennsylvania to Florida in August of that year and voted both in person in Florida and via mail ballot in Bucks County. Both votes were allegedly for Trump.

Early this month, Trump issued a pardon to 77 people, including members of his legal team and the so-called fake electors, for their conduct in connection with the 2020 election. However, the pardon proclamation was written broadly, saying in part that Trump was granting “a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all United States citizens” for conduct related to the 2020 election.

Laiss’ attorney argued in a motion to dismiss filed last week that the “plain language” of the pardon meant it extended to Laiss.

Beyond that, the motion cited “the unequivocal absurdity of the notion that individuals like John Eastman, Rudolph Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and Sidney Powell … are explicitly pardoned for their exponentially more egregious alleged conduct, while a then-26-year-old man who cast two votes for President Trump in the general election is not.”

“To read the Pardon Proclamation to intend such an outcome would be outrageous, particularly in light of its sweeping language,” Laiss’ attorney argued.

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney declined to comment. The White House Press office did not respond to a request for comment.

In a Nov. 28 filing, prosecutors urged the judge to dismiss the motion, arguing the pardon was not intended to apply to Laiss. It said it had consulted with the Office of the Pardon Attorney and could “explicitly confirm” that “in the view of the executive branch, Laiss is not covered by President Trump’s November 7 pardon proclamation.”

Legal scholars warned when Trump issued the pardon that the broad language could have unintended consequences for the administration.

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in California and a former Justice Department official, said he wasn’t surprised to see a defendant making this argument.

The pardon was so broad and poorly written, Levitt argued, that it could conceivably apply not just to the allies Trump intended to pardon, but also to people accused of voting illegally in 2020, like Laiss, and to election officials Trump has implied should face prosecution for “cheating.”

The caveat is that the pardon applies only to federal crimes, and election-related crimes are generally prosecuted at the state or local level.

There are other federal cases that may be covered by the pardon. Earlier this year, a Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, man pleaded guilty to multiple counts of election law offenses, one of which occurred during the 2020 election.

Derek Muller, an election law professor at Notre Dame Law School who first noted Laiss’ motion on the Election Law Blog, said it makes sense that Trump issued a broadly worded pardon, given that his allies’ conduct in 2020 and early 2021 spanned a long time frame, crossed multiple states, and involved many individuals. Typically, pardons are tailored to specific people or circumstances.

Even when former President Joe Biden issued broadly worded pardons to his son and members of Congress who served on the committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Muller said, he narrowly tailored the pardons to specific people.

Trump’s pardon “does name individuals, but it does speak to anyone, and it also speaks to a wide range of conduct,” Muller said. “It’s a little sloppier language. With that broad of language, it allows for unintended consequences.”

The U.S. attorney’s office has until Friday to respond to the motion. Ultimately, it will be up to the judge in the case to decide if the pardon applies, Muller said.

Correction, Nov. 25: A previous version of this story misstated the other cases this pardon may apply to. It only applies to citizens, not noncitizens.

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

Why marbles, playing cards, and ping pong balls decide so many local Pennsylvania races

2025-11-24T15:11:11+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Pennsylvania’s free newsletter here.

At the Lancaster County Government Center on Friday, 26 clear-plastic bowls sat in front of blue index cards on a table, each card corresponding to a candidate for Mountville Borough tax collector.

Christa Miller, the county’s election director, shook a leather-wrapped bottle filled with red, numbered marbles, and tipped it upside down until one of the marbles fell into her hand. Down the line of bowls she went, adding a marble to each and calling out the number. When she got to the 19th bowl, with Keith Tarvin’s card behind it, she drew the lowest numbered marble, one.

And so it was decided: Tarvin, who wasn’t there to witness the process, would be the borough’s next tax collector.

The elaborate production was necessary because Tarvin and the other 25 candidates represented by a plastic bowl had all gotten the same number of votes in the Nov. 5 municipal election: a single write-in vote.

Under Pennsylvania law, if an election is tied, the contest goes to a process called the “casting of lots.” This is effectively a game of chance to determine the winner.

Counties use a variety of methods to cast lots, but it typically involves drawing a numbered object — a piece of paper, ping pong ball, playing card, etc. — out of a box or bag. Depending on the county, whichever candidate draws the higher or lower number wins the election.

How often do elections end in a tie?

Tied elections aren’t as rare as one might think. This year alone, Miller said, Lancaster County had about 150 tied races, 95% of which were for inspectors of elections — a type of polling place worker. Lycoming County featured a tie for a Williamsport City Council race and a 13-way tie in a school director election. Westmoreland County, near Pittsburgh, had hundreds of tied poll worker races.

Data from the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit legal group based in Virginia, shows there have been at least 468 tied races in Pennsylvania since 2017, though it cautions the data is not comprehensive.

According to PILF data and current and former election officials, ties are most common for positions at the smallest political subdivisions — precincts, boroughs, school districts, etc. Because of the small number of voters in these jurisdictions, and the fact that often no one files to run for low-profile offices such as poll worker, political party committee member, or tax collector, it often just takes one write-in vote to win, leading to frequent ties.

“Most of our ties are multi-way ties, because someone wrote their name down, or their neighbor wrote their name down,” Lycoming County Election Director Forrest Lehman said. “They wrote their own name down as a lark or someone else wrote it down because they thought it was funny.”

That was the case in Lancaster Friday as well. Many candidates were there because they, their spouse, or a friend had written in their name in a blank spot on the ballot.

“I had a guy who emailed me this morning and said, ‘I have told my son to never write me in again,’” Miller said to laughs from the crowd.

In elections for higher office, though, the odds of multiple candidates getting the same number of votes are infinitesimally small. In all of U.S. history, there has never been a tied U.S. Senate race, and no U.S. House races have tied since at least 1898. A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of State said they were unaware of a tie having ever happened in a statewide race in Pennsylvania.

An entertaining way to decide elections

The casting of lots can be a festive affair. Jeff Greenburg, a former election director who now works for the government watchdog group Committee of Seventy, said he used to use red, white, and blue drawing bags and tablecloths to make the event feel more patriotic.

Lehman said Lycoming County puts numbered slips of paper in 1-by-2-inch envelopes, which candidates drew out of a holiday-themed tin, hoping to get the lowest number.

In Lancaster, the candidates who showed up for their drawings seemed to get a kick out of the experience. Miller kept the event lighthearted; winners cheered when the lowest number was drawn for them, and losers cursed with a laugh when they did not.

“This is as exciting as it gets,” Miller joked as she drew marbles for the tax collector race. “Sorry it’s not super exciting.”

Daniel Lyons, a resident of Manheim Township, was there because three friends had written him in for inspector of elections. That was apparently enough to tie him with another candidate, Daryll Benn. Miller drew an 11 for Lyons and a two for Benn, meaning Benn was the winner.

“I had no idea what the casting of lots was,” Lyons said when he received a letter from the county telling him his race was tied and would be decided Friday. But he said the process was “interesting” to watch, and efficient.

Each race took about a minute or less to decide. Only about 20 races had candidates in attendance Friday, which Miller said is typical. Most candidates don’t show up at all.

But even after all the in-person candidates had left, Miller kept shaking her bottle, calling out high and low numbers, determining winners and losers by the flick of the wrist.

Tied elections can be a headache

The casting of lots may seem like just a fun quirk of democracy, but it is also a time- and resource-consuming process for counties. Since a single write-in can win a race, staff have to sort through and record all of the write-in votes. They also have to determine if a candidate is eligible to hold the office, which an out-of-state resident written in by their friend as a joke, or Mickey Mouse, would not be.

Election officials then also have to spend time and money contacting the candidates to let them know about the drawing. (Some decline to participate, as was the case for an additional six candidates in the Mountville tax collector race.) And in the event they win and don’t want the office, staff has to get a written acknowledgment of that from the candidate.

“Many times the winner is someone who has no interest in holding the office at all, so you have wasted a lot of time and effort,” Greenburg said.

Lehman, the Lycoming County elections director, argued the high number of ties in local elections illustrates “why write-in reform is so badly needed in this state.”

As Greenburg explained, if a candidate wants to run a write-in campaign in the primary to get their name on the November ballot, they need to get as many write-in votes as signatures they would be required to get on a nominating petition. So, for example, if a candidate for judge of election needs 10 signatures to get on the primary ballot, a write-in candidate would need to get at least 10 votes, and more than all the others, to win the primary. But that requirement doesn’t exist in the general election, meaning just one write-in vote can be enough to win, or tie, an election.

Creating some threshold for the fall election would help reduce the number of ties, though Greenburg worries that this could make it difficult for anyone to win the smallest, precinct-level races. Another option, Greenburg suggested, would be implementing a policy other states have adopted: requiring write-in candidates to acknowledge ahead of Election Day that they are interested in the office.

“Those are two (reforms) that cost no money but would save counties a lot of time and grief, no doubt,” he said.

Carter Walker is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with Spotlight PA. Contact Carter at cwalker@votebeat.org.

A GOP request pushes the limits on federal interference in elections

2025-11-24T10:00:00+00:00

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.

Earlier this month, a group of Republican state lawmakers in Michigan sent a letter asking the U.S. Justice Department to “deploy official election monitors and provide comprehensive oversight for Michigan’s 2026 primary and general elections.”

Besides election monitors, which the Justice Department for years has deployed around the country to observe elections, the letter isn’t clear on what the Republican lawmakers mean by “comprehensive oversight,” or exactly what legal authority they believe would allow such an intervention. In interviews with Votebeat Michigan reporter Hayley Harding, two of the letter’s signatories did not go into specifics about what they were envisioning; you can read our full report on the letter here.

President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly pushed for more federal oversight of elections. In March, he issued a sweeping executive order that would overhaul the way elections are administered in many states, though federal courts have since blocked many of its provisions on the grounds that the Constitution doesn’t grant him such authority. His administration is appealing at least some of those decisions.

In August, Trump asserted in a social media post that “the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes” and “must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt earlier this month said the administration is working on a second executive order on elections. Some conservative allies have suggested Trump could assert emergency powers; many experts have said he cannot.

Historical precedents for such federal oversight or authority aren’t easy to come by. Alexander Keyssar, a professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of “The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States,” could only think of a few times — such as during Reconstruction or after the passage of the Voting Rights Act — when the federal government asserted authority to step in and administer an election.

Keyssar (who notes that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was once his student) told Votebeat there was almost no federal involvement in elections before the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution. They included the 15th Amendment, which said the right of citizens to vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Congress passed the Enforcement Acts to protect those rights, though Keyssar in his book describes their passage as Congress “stretching the limits of its constitutional powers.” For a few years, Keyssar notes, the federal government was actively intervening to protect the rights of Black voters in the former Confederate states against entities such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Federal enthusiasm for such enforcement dwindled after that. Big swaths of the Enforcement Acts were either modified or repealed over the years, and the federal government didn’t do much more about elections until the Civil Rights Movement, Keyssar said. In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act — the subtitle of which, Keyssar points out, is “an act to enforce the fifteenth amendment.”

However, some parts of the Enforcement Acts are still on the books. Joseph Nunn, a counsel for the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program who focuses on issues surrounding the domestic activities of the U.S. military, said that includes a provision of what is currently known as the Insurrection Act.

The provision, designed for civil rights enforcement, allows the president in some circumstances to federalize the National Guard and deploy it, or the active-duty armed forces, in a state where a group of people are being deprived of a constitutional right that state authorities are either unable or unwilling to protect, he said.

The provision was used by President Ulysses S. Grant during Reconstruction, Nunn said, and a handful of times during the Civil Rights Movement, including the Little Rock, Arkansas, school integration crisis, but not since that period. Nunn said he believes the Insurrection Act grants dangerously broad powers but wouldn’t allow a president to take over an election.

“The question would be what legal authority does the president have to unilaterally go in and seize control over an election,” he said, adding, “That’s not something the president can do.”

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.