Votebeat

Could voter confusion affect the outcome of a key Senate race in Alaska? Probably not.

2026-11-02T22:32:18+00:00

Get insider knowledge about how elections are run across the country. Sign up for Votebeat’s free weekly newsletter and never miss an update.

The unsettled controversy over dueling Dans running for the U.S. Senate seat in Alaska overlooks one underlying truth in the race: there are very few scenarios in which voter confusion over the two candidates with the same name could decide the outcome.

The winner of the Alaska race is expected to be pivotal to which party controls the U.S. Senate. Democrats are looking to flip the seat and topple two-term Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan. Polls show Sullivan in a tight race with Democrat Mary Peltola, the former congresswoman who became the first Alaska Native elected to Congress in 2022.

Republicans assert a third candidate, retired teacher Dan Sullivan, could act as a spoiler and confuse voters who intend to vote for the incumbent with the same name. The Justice Department filed a lawsuit that seeks to block certification of the U.S. Senate race if the incumbent senator loses because of votes cast for the second Dan Sullivan on the ballot. It sought to block certification of the election if the incumbent narrowly lost, and requested a court order requiring the state to segregate ballots cast for the non-incumbent Dan Sullivan and permitting the federal government to investigate the intent of those voters.

A federal judge threw the case out on Sunday and said the federal government had failed to outline a realistic way to address the problems it said existed, or to investigate voter intent without violating ballot secrecy. U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason also warned that setting aside ballots for a federal investigation just days before Election Day could confuse voters and depress turnout.

The swirl of legal challenges obscures the underlying fact that there are very narrow circumstances in which voter confusion in this race could affect the outcome. Part of that is because Alaska is one of two states, along with Maine, to use a ranked choice voting system in federal races.

That means voters can rank their preferences. If a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote on the first ballot, they win the election. If no candidate wins an outright majority, Alaska election officials will turn to the ranked choice voting process. In that case, the candidate with the smallest number of votes will be eliminated and their votes will be reapportioned to the other candidates based on the voter rankings. The process continues until one person wins a majority.

The ranked choice process means that if any potentially confused voters rank the Dans as their top two choices, their vote will likely ultimately favor the incumbent senator. The way the non-incumbent Dan has a major impact is if voters decline to use the ranked choice process and he earns more votes than the gap between the incumbent senator and his Democratic challenger — and that assumes voters didn’t intend for that to happen.

Sarah John, a ranked choice voting researcher and executive director of the nonprofit Doctors of Democracy, said it was extremely unlikely that the second Dan Sullivan on the ballot would impact the final outcome.

“I’d say that there’s less than a 1% chance of Decoy Dan being a spoiler” if Republicans rank their preferences, John said.

The Alaska ballot seeks to distinguish the two Sullivans. The incumbent is listed on the ballot as Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent. The second Sullivan is listed as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., and includes no party affiliation or other identifying information.

Alaska election officials initially threw the retired schoolteacher off the ballot, but the state Supreme Court rejected that effort and put his name back before voters this past summer.

The ranked choice voting process gives voters who may be confused by the two Sullivans on the ballot a chance to make sure their choices aren’t wasted. If voters rank the retired school teacher first and the incumbent senator second, their votes will shift to the two-term Senator if, as expected, the former teacher is eventually eliminated from consideration.

John said the best Republican strategy would be to “encourage their voters to rank candidates and perhaps delight in ranking Peltola last.”

In that case, she said, “if the race is tight, every single exhausted ballot for Daniel J. Jr. that was intended for Dan S. has the potential to flip the result” in the incumbent’s favor.

The scenario where the second Dan Sullivan would make the most difference would be if Republican voters who meant to vote for the incumbent senator mistakenly cast their ballot for the retired schoolteacher without ranking any other candidates.

In the 2024 November general election, 60% of voters chose only one candidate and did not use the ranked choice voting system.

To make a case for voter confusion affecting the outcome, the number of Alaskans who cast a vote only for the retired schoolteacher would have to top the margin of a narrow Peltola victory.

John Lindback, who oversaw elections in Oregon and Alaska, said widespread attention on the two Dans should neutralize most voter confusion.

“I’m not seeing any evidence thus far that the second Dan Sullivan is going to have a big impact on this race, in part because there’s been so much publicity about it,” he said. “All of that just suggests to me that this will be not as great a factor as people suggest it will.”

In addition to the Justice Department lawsuit, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy and federal prosecutors have launched eleventh-hour criminal investigations into Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy following a New York Times story last week that reported operatives working with Peltola’s campaign and Democratic leadership worked to recruit the second Dan in an effort to dilute the Republican vote for the incumbent Alaska senator.

“Anyone who tries to illegally deceive voters and interfere with the election will answer for it,” U.S Attorney Michael Heyman, Alaska’s top federal prosecutor, said.

Alaska’s embrace of ranked choice voting created problems for any kind of voter dilution scheme.

“Assuming Republican voters use RCV then, yes, the plan was doomed to fail,” John said.

Efforts to split the Republican votes were premised on key flaws, John said, including a dubious belief that Sullivan voters would be prone to confusion.

“The plan was pretty stupid and risks undermining confidence in elections,” she said.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Los grupos de derechos electorales, por temor a sanciones penales, redujeron la ayuda a algunos de los votantes más vulnerables de Texas.

2026-11-02T22:22:43+00:00

Votebeat es una organización de noticias sin fines de lucro que informa sobre el acceso al voto y la administración electoral en todo EE. UU. Regístrese aquí para recibir el boletín gratuito de Votebeat Texas.

Este artículo se produjo con el apoyo del Pulitzer Center.

Lea este artículo en inglés aquí.

Read this article in English here.

ALAMO, Texas – Eustorgia Santos de Torres vive aquí desde hace cuatro décadas. El año pasado, acudió a una organización sin fines de lucro de confianza en el Valle del Río Grande para recibir ayuda con el proceso de solicitud de ciudadanía. Esa misma organización, La Unión del Pueblo Entero (LUPE) posteriormente la ayudó a registrarse para votar, y ella emitió su primer voto como ciudadana en las elecciones primarias de marzo pasado.

Santos de Torres, de 67 años, está jubilada después de haber trabajado durante años limpiando casas y como auxiliar de atención médica. Habla principalmente español y es la cuidadora principal de su esposo, Nemorio, que es ciego. “Yo soy sus ojos”, dijo Santos de Torres.

Pero el mes pasado, Santos de Torres, una nueva votante, tuvo dificultades para ayudar a Nemorio, un ciudadano nacido en los Estados Unidos, a entender y completar su boleta de votación por correo para las elecciones de noviembre. Toda la información de la boleta está en inglés, señaló, y las letras son pequeñas.

Eustorgia Santos de Torres, de 67 años, a la derecha, ayuda a su esposo Nemorio Torres, de 79 años, a entrar a su casa en Alamo, Texas, el 18 de octubre de 2026. Su esposo es ciego y requiere de su asistencia.

Por ello, Santos de Torres ayudó a Nemorio a subir al auto y recorrió, como tantas otras veces, los siete minutos de camino hasta la sede de LUPE, en la vecina localidad de San Juan, para pedir ayuda con la boleta de su esposo.

Esta vez, sin embargo, los trabajadores de LUPE, a su pesar, rechazaron a la pareja.

En 2021, la Legislatura estatal de Texas, dominada por los republicanos, aprobó una reforma integral y controvertida de las leyes electorales, conocida como SB1. Entre otros cambios, la SB1 prohibió que cualquier persona reciba una compensación por ayudar a los votantes a completar sus boletas electorales.

Esto no solo prohíbe que el personal remunerado de las organizaciones sin fines de lucro asista a los votantes, sino que también criminalizó algunas prácticas habituales, como cuando las organizaciones proporcionaban dinero para gasolina o estipendios a los voluntarios. Las infracciones constituyen un delito grave castigado con hasta 10 años de prisión y una multa de hasta 10.000 dólares.

A raíz de la ley, el fiscal general de Texas, Ken Paxton, un republicano que actualmente compite en la contienda por un escaño en el Senado de los EE. UU. —la cual es objeto de atención a nivel nacional—, investigó y procesó a grupos de defensa de los derechos de los votantes y a organizadores en comunidades predominantemente latinas en todo el estado.

Grupos como LUPE afirman que se han visto obligados a modificar o suspender algunas actividades de difusión electoral por temor a infringir la ley. LUPE solía enviar a sus trabajadores a recorrer las cuadras a pie para ayudar a los votantes. Ahora, en cambio, tiene que pedirle a voluntarios que realicen esas actividades de manera más limitada.

Los votantes latinos y otros que no hablan inglés serán clave para el resultado de las contiendas de alto perfil por escaños en el Senado y la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos de este año en el estado. Sin embargo, la ley significa que dichos votantes, así como aquellos que son mayores o tienen discapacidades, tienen menos opciones de ayuda.

Tania Chávez Camacho, directora ejecutiva de La Unión del Pueblo Entero, se dirige a los asistentes de una capacitación electoral en San Juan, Texas, el 9 de octubre de 2026.

LUPE es conocida por brindar asistencia personalizada a las personas de la comunidad latina, por lo que las restricciones a la asistencia electoral representan un problema importante para la organización, afirmó la directora ejecutiva Tania Chavez Camacho. Texas tiene reglas estrictas que limitan quiénes son elegibles para usar boletas por correo, pero las personas mayores de 65 años pueden hacerlo. LUPE ayuda a unas 30,000 personas al año, señaló, incluyendo a personas con discapacidades y a muchos adultos mayores que, cada año, “quieren votar por correo y vienen buscando ayuda”.

Ahora, según afirmó Chavez Camacho, cuando el grupo organiza reuniones comunitarias abiertas al publico para instruir a los residentes sobre cómo votar, si un votante saca su boleta por correo para pedir ayuda, los organizadores deben pedirle que se retire para que los empleados remunerados no estén cerca de la boleta.

Eustorgia Santos de Torres, de 67 años, posa para una foto con su esposo Nemorio Torres, de 79 años, en su casa en Alamo, Texas, el 18 de octubre de 2026. Su esposo es ciego y necesita ayuda para votar.

Y si los trabajadores del área de defensa de los derechos de LUPE están haciendo campaña puerta por puerta para los candidatos y un votante les muestra una boleta por correo y les pide ayuda para llenarla, los trabajadores han sido capacitados para decir que no pueden y retirarse, afirmó Chavez Camacho.

“Literalmente tenemos que rechazarlos”, expresó Chavez Camacho. “Hemos tenido que capacitar intensamente a nuestro personal durante los últimos tres años porque estaban muy acostumbrados a brindar asistencia personalizada a la gente, y ahora no pueden hacerlo”.

Santos de Torres hizo lo que pudo para ayudar a su esposo, quien envió su boleta por correo hace aproximadamente un mes.

“Pero no está bien que LUPE no nos pueda ayudar”, comentó. “Esa ley no está bien. Está excluyendo a las personas que necesitan ayuda”.

“¿Qué pasaría”, añadió, “si mi esposo no me tuviera a mí?”.

‘Una persona que no sabe leer tiene que hacerlo por su cuenta’

El Valle del Río Grande, donde tiene su sede LUPE, abarca aproximadamente 4.300 millas cuadradas a lo largo de los condados de Hidalgo, Cameron, Starr y Willacy, en la frontera con México, en el extremo sur de Texas. Es una comunidad diversa cuyos residentes hablan principalmente español. Las generaciones más jóvenes alternan con facilidad entre el inglés y el español en sus conversaciones.

Muchos hogares están integrados por familias cuyos miembros tienen distintas situaciones migratorias, incluidos algunos que han vivido en la región durante generaciones. El Valle también cuenta con un historial de activismo, al ser la cuna del movimiento de trabajadores agrícolas de Texas en la década de 1960. Los trabajadores agrícolas —quienes cosechaban algodón, verduras y frutas— se organizaron y marcharon cerca de 400 millas desde el Valle hasta Austin para exigir salarios justos y mejores condiciones laborales. En la actualidad, la mano de obra de los trabajadores agrícolas de origen mexicano-estadounidense sigue siendo fundamental para el crecimiento y la economía agrícola de la región.

Un vecindario en San Juan, Texas, el 23 de octubre de 2026.

Pero debido a la escasez de viviendas asequibles, los mexicano-estadounidenses compraron durante años terrenos que podían pagar en zonas rurales fuera de los límites urbanos, que a menudo carecían de infraestructura básica y servicios públicos. Esas comunidades se conocen hoy en día como las colonias.

Alamo, donde vive Santos de Torres, y San Juan, donde tiene su sede LUPE, son ciudades vecinas. El paisaje varía según la zona. En los sectores del sur de las ciudades, más cerca de la frontera con México, casas residenciales modestas con jardines delanteros verdes adornan las calles bordeadas de palmeras. Los centros comerciales, las cadenas de restaurantes, los estadios y los desarrollos comerciales se encuentran al norte de las ciudades, a lo largo de la Carretera Interestatal 2, lo que refleja la transición de lo que alguna vez fue una comunidad principalmente agrícola a un creciente centro metropolitano. El Valle ha dependido durante años de su comercio de bienes y servicios con México. Cuenta con una población de más de 1,4 millones de habitantes y el 90 % de ellos son hispanos o latinos, según datos del Censo.

Alrededor del 24 % de las personas en el Valle viven por debajo del umbral de pobreza, lo que representa más del doble de la tasa nacional. Asimismo, cerca del 30 % de los residentes del Valle no tienen seguro médico, una de las tasas de personas sin seguro más altas del país. La región también registra una de las tasas de diabetes más altas de la nación; la ceguera de Nemorio Torres es una complicación de esta enfermedad.

Un mural que anuncia a La Unión del Pueblo Entero en San Juan, Texas, el 10 de octubre de 2026.

LUPE y otras organizaciones de defensa de derechos han trabajado durante mucho tiempo con los residentes de las colonias y de todo el Valle, brindando recursos para encontrar viviendas asequibles y tratamiento médico, o ayudando con procedimientos complejos como la declaración de impuestos. La educación de los votantes y el alcance electoral para fomentar la participación electoral eran parte de su misión.

Ahora, en lugar de brindar asistencia personalizada, LUPE organiza sesiones grupales con un proyector de pantalla que muestra cómo son las solicitudes de voto por correo y las boletas electorales. Los facilitadores señalan la pantalla para indicar lo que dicen las instrucciones y explicar cómo se deben completar los formularios.

Las limitaciones son frustrantes, señaló Chavez Camacho, especialmente “si una persona no sabe leer”. “No importa que estemos haciendo esas sesiones porque una persona que no sabe leer tiene que hacerlo por su cuenta y no podemos ayudarla a saber dónde marcar”, explicó.

En cambio, los trabajadores y voluntarios de LUPE se enfocan ahora en informar a la gente que se aproximan fechas límite clave. También cuentan con menos voluntarios dispuestos a orientar y servirles de intérpretes a los votantes en los centros de votación, afirmó, porque la ley ahora exige que estas personas declaren bajo juramento que el votante cumple con los requisitos para recibir ayuda por tener una discapacidad o necesitar un intérprete, además de detallar su relación con el votante. También deben declarar bajo juramento que no reciben un pago por parte de un candidato o comité político, lo cual sería ilegal. Los voluntarios temen que cualquier error al asistir a los votantes podría meterlos en problemas, concluyó Chavez Camacho.

“Realmente sentimos que las personas no están recibiendo el apoyo que necesitan”, expresó Chavez Camacho.

Un cactus en San Juan, Texas, el 23 de octubre de 2026.

Los expertos en derecho electoral y del voto señalan que los tribunales han interpretado que la “compensación” prohibida para los voluntarios según la ley SB1 incluye cualquier tipo de beneficio. Esa interpretación es tan amplia que dificulta a las organizaciones de participación electoral saber si están violando la ley, afirmó Zachary Dolling, director de litigios del Proyecto de Derechos Civiles de Texas, el cual trabaja con agrupaciones para diseñar capacitaciones de participación electoral que cumplan con la legislación.

Dolling mencionó que, históricamente, algunas organizaciones proporcionaban a los voluntarios no remunerados cena, camisetas o bolígrafos, mientras que otras otorgaban créditos universitarios por su labor.

“Todas esas cosas son cosas que tienen valor” y podrían considerarse una compensación, advirtió.

Defensores alertaron a los líderes estatales sobre las cargas adicionales para personas con discapacidad

Los republicanos de Texas aprobaron la SB1, la reforma radical de la ley electoral, respondiendo en parte a afirmaciones falsas y teorías de conspiración sobre las elecciones de 2020.

Los republicanos afirmaron que la ley aumentaría la confianza pública en las elecciones. Los demócratas argumentaron que la legislación perjudicaría de manera desproporcionada a los votantes de color y a las personas con discapacidades, y abandonaron el pleno en dos ocasiones y llevaron a cabo un filibusterismo de 15 horas en el Senado en su intento fallido por derrotar el proyecto de ley.

Un timbre para solicitar asistencia para votar en un centro de votación en el primer día de votación anticipada en Alamo, Texas, el 19 de octubre de 2026.

A pesar de las demandas de organizaciones de derechos al voto, incluidas LUPE, la Liga de Ciudadanos Latinoamericanos Unidos y agrupaciones que representan a tejanos con discapacidad, un tribunal federal de apelaciones ratificó finalmente las disposiciones clave de la SB1, incluidas las restricciones a la asistencia al votante.

Mientras tanto, otros intentos de ampliar la ayuda para votar a las personas con discapacidades no tuvieron éxito.

En 2023, el gobernador Greg Abbott, republicano, vetó un proyecto de ley bipartidista que habría ampliado el acceso al voto por correo para personas con discapacidades, específicamente personas ciegas o paralizadas que necesitan ayuda para marcar su boleta, al permitir que dichos votantes soliciten una boleta electrónica y usen una computadora para marcar sus opciones. Alternativas similares en Texas ya están disponibles para votantes militares en el extranjero y astronautas, pero no para votantes con discapacidades.

Los desafíos que han enfrentado Santos de Torres y su esposo son un ejemplo de lo que preocupaba a los defensores bajo la SB1, señaló Lydia Nunez Landry, coordinadora estatal de REV UP Texas, una organización que trabaja para promover la participación electoral de las personas con discapacidad.

Eustorgia Santos de Torres, de 67 años, celebra después de votar durante las elecciones de mitad de término mientras miembros de La Unión del Pueblo Entero la animan afuera de un centro de votación en Alamo, Texas, el 19 de octubre de 2026.

“Ese era nuestro peor temor y ahora está sucediendo”, dijo. Nunez Landry tiene distrofia muscular, utiliza una silla de ruedas motorizada y necesita ayuda para realizar tareas básicas como abrir el refrigerador.

“El estado ha hecho que votar sea sencillamente tan imposible y tan arduo para la gente, y ahora las personas también tienen pánico de ayudarnos”, dijo.

Una mayor ‘sensación de ansiedad’

Los grupos en todo el estado han estado modificando sus labores de captación de votantes para cumplir con la SB1.

Asian Texans for Justice realiza actividades de participación electoral en comunidades asiáticas, enfocándose en San Antonio, Houston, Austin y el norte de Texas.

Las reglas más estrictas asociadas con el voto por correo bajo la SB1 han creado “una sensación de ansiedad” en esas comunidades, afirmó la directora ejecutiva Nabila Mansoor. Ella señaló que el proceso es ahora mucho más complicado para los votantes de edad avanzada, quienes deben proporcionar una de las dos formas de identificación permitidas en su solicitud y prestar mucha atención a páginas de instrucciones que están escritas en un tipo de letra que es pequeño y difícil de leer para ellos. Además, un error podría obligarlos a reiniciar todo el proceso de solicitud de una boleta.

“Esa ansiedad proviene de esta clase de miedo a hacer algo mal”, afirmó Mansoor. “Cada vez que tienes ese tipo de miedo, es una barrera más para que esa persona realmente vaya a votar”.

Ahora que Asian Texans for Justice ya no puede brindar ayuda personalizada, han pasado a proporcionar listas de verificación para los votantes, señaló ella, lo cual considera menos efectivo cuando algunos votantes pueden necesitar ayuda para leer y entender la boleta y las instrucciones.

Mansoor afirmó que considera que el objetivo de la SB1 era hacer que fuera más difícil para la gente votar.

María Gómez, de 78 años, "Doña Mary", a la izquierda, y su amiga Teresa Corona Garza, de 80 años, conversan en la casa de Corona en San Juan, Texas, el 9 de octubre de 2026.

“Significa que tenemos que ser más cuidadosos. Significa que tenemos que cuidar hasta el más mínimo detalle. Significa que tenemos que llevar buenos registros. Significa que tenemos que ser muy minuciosos en lo que respecta a la capacitación de nuestros voluntarios”, afirmó ella, agregando que la organización también formó un equipo legal para defenderse de los cuestionamientos a su trabajo.

Mientras tanto, los voluntarios de LUPE y de otras agrupaciones afirman que están haciendo todo lo posible para cubrir ese vacío.

María Gómez, mejor conocida como Doña Mary, de Pharr, fue trabajadora agrícola durante años en el condado de Hidalgo y ha sido miembro de LUPE desde que se fundó la organización. Gómez, de 78 años, estuvo involucrada en el movimiento de trabajadores agrícolas hace años. Ahora se asegura de que sus amigos y vecinos de la tercera edad estén al tanto de los plazos electorales, sepan dónde votar y tengan transporte a las urnas si lo necesitan.

Después de dejar a sus nietos y bisnietos en la escuela, hace sus rondas por las colonias de San Juan en su pequeña camioneta SUV roja. Conversa con sus vecinos y les pregunta en qué necesitan ayuda o si necesitan recursos o transporte. Siempre está atendiendo llamadas.

“La gente no vota porque a veces no pueden salir de su casa y porque puede que no tengan acceso al papel que necesitan firmar para que les llegue su boleta”, dijo Gómez, refiriéndose a los formularios de registro de votantes y a las solicitudes de voto por correo.

Una de sus amigas, Teresa Corona Garza, de 80 años de San Juan, ha dependido de Gómez para que la lleve a las urnas desde hace algún tiempo. Corona Garza tiene dificultades para estar de pie por largos períodos de tiempo y no puede ver muy bien de su ojo izquierdo. A pesar de que califica para votar por correo, prefiere ir a las urnas en persona.

María Gómez, de 78 años, camina desde un centro de votación con los hijos de familiares y amigos en Alamo, Texas, el 19 de octubre de 2026.

“Hay mucho que tienes que llenar ahí, y las letras están muy chiquitas”, dijo Corona Garza. “No, yo mejor voy, yo quiero ver que mi voto cuenta”, expresó.

Las leyes se han vuelto tan complicadas y estrictas que a Gómez le preocupa que los líderes estatales puedan incluso intentar evitar que los voluntarios como ella lleven a las personas a votar.

“No sé qué va a pasar, no se si van a seguir haciendo esto más difícil para la gente”, manifestó, “pero me gustaría ver que las personas que quieren votar puedan votar”.

Natalia Contreras cubre la administración de elecciones y el acceso al voto para Votebeat en colaboración con el Texas Tribune. Natalia reside en Corpus Christi. Puedes comunicarte con ella a través de su correo electrónico: ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Election officials express fears and anxiety amid wave of federal threats, court filings show

2026-11-02T20:14:15+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.

Election officials heading into Election Day describe widespread stress and anxiety over the Trump administration’s ongoing threats against election officials and efforts to challenge state voting laws amid the key midterm contest.

The Justice Department’s flurry of legal actions in the waning days of the campaign have created a climate of fear in election offices around the country, causing additional stress as they prepare for a highly-charged midterm election this week.

“The federal government’s conduct has had and continues to have a severe chilling effect on my staff and me,” said Matt Moreles, the registrar of voters in Santa Clara County, home to Silicon Valley, in a declaration filed as part of a lawsuit filed against the Justice Department by a union representing California election workers and its allies. “They and I are worried about retaliation and harassment—including through civil litigation and criminal prosecution—for simply carrying out our jobs.”

That lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in northern California, asked the courts to stop the Trump administration from threatening election officials. In response, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson issued an extraordinary nationwide restraining order over the weekend that says federal officials cannot “threaten, intimidate or coerce” election workers “to demand that they halt processing the ballots of any registered voter solely on the basis that the ballot belongs to an individual alleged by Defendants to be ineligible to vote.”

It also bars the federal government from threatening election workers with criminal prosecution for failure to comply with such demands.

“In the lead-up to the election, high-ranking DOJ and DHS officials have engaged in a campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local officials and employees who are engaged in administering the ongoing midterm 2026 election,” Thompson wrote in directing Trump administration officials to stop.

The order comes as the Justice Department has been actively pressuring officials in California to set aside ballots of up to 20,000 individuals who the administration claims may be noncitizen voters. The department this weekend also mailed letters to officials in all 50 states warning of criminal prosecution for violating election record-keeping laws

The Justice Department is expected to ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to lift Thompson’s order, arguing that describing the law isn’t a threat. In court filings, the Trump administration lawyers said the ban could impede lawful investigations of the unfolding election.

“An order that places a civil court in supervision of grand jury subpoenas, search warrant applications, and prosecutors’ public statements inflicts a structural injury that cannot be remedied after the fact,” Justice Department lawyers wrote.

California governor says he has ‘grave concerns’ about federal interference

The widespread anxiety comes as election officials are dealing with attempted intimidation efforts and all the normal pressures of administering the closely watched midterm elections under intense White House scrutiny.

Ahead of Election Day, California Gov. Gavin Newsom sent off an unusual alert warning federal judges that federal prosecutors might request authorization to seize ballots or voting equipment after Election Day.

“I have grave concerns federal agents will seek search warrants to seize ballots and ballot materials before the election results are certified,” Newsom wrote to the four U.S. District Courts that cover California. “The tactics and rhetoric federal officials are using strongly suggest that, having lost repeatedly in federal civil proceedings thus far, they will quickly pivot to the criminal forum.”

Newsom’s concerns come as the Trump administration is trying to compel California election officials to set aside as many as 20,000 ballots in the ongoing midterm race. Two courts have already ruled against the Justice Department in that case, but election officials say that federal agents have been turning up at their offices to try and get them to set aside ballots.

Kristin Connelly, clerk-recorder for the San Francisco Bay Area’s Contra Costa County, said in a court declaration that two Department of Homeland Security officials turned up unannounced at her office on Oct. 23 with a demand that she set aside as many as 407 ballots they said might be from suspected noncitizens. The Trump administration gave Connelly 48 hours to comply.

“I had never had an interaction like this with federal officials before,” Connelly said. “In my experience, federal threats have been a substantial distraction for California election officials.”

Connelly said she felt trapped.

“The stress of being asked by the federal government, under threat of prosecution, to potentially violate federal civil rights law by not tallying presumptively lawful votes weighs heavily on me as a registrar,” she said.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on election administration, said in a court declaration that election officials across the country are anxious about the federal threats.

“Election officials report being scared and exhausted by the onslaught of threats,” Becker said in the filing. “They are caught between, on the one hand, following state and federal legal requirements regarding maintaining voter rolls, ensuring every registered eligible voter has their vote counted, and maintaining the chain of custody over election records, and on the other hand, placing themselves in the crosshairs of federal prosecutors, putting themselves in personal jeopardy as they simply seek to do their jobs.”

Tammy Patrick, chief program officers at the Election Center, told Votebeat that election officials across the nation have been voicing such concerns for months.

“It should surprise no one that, in this moment, they have grave concerns about what is happening, but they have a job to do, and they will do it while drowning out the noise and distractions to the best of their ability,” Patrick said.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Election Day is upon us. Now the real work begins…

2026-11-01T12:00:00+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 Day is upon us. Now the real work begins.

For months, election officials, politicians, lawyers, law enforcement leaders, journalists, professors and armchair pundits have been wrestling with a big unknown: What will happen on Election Day? And what comes after?

The list of worries is long, and Votebeat has been reporting on them for months. Will Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents disrupt voting? Will federal agents attempt to seize ballots? Will hackers attempt to infiltrate sensitive election systems? Will voting machine failures create widespread problems? Will the Trump administration’s accusations of noncitizen voting feed post-election court challenges?

We will finally get some answers in the week ahead. The Votebeat newsroom will be keeping an eye on key races stretching from Alaska to Maine, and every state in between.

On the national level, I will be looking out for potential friction between the Trump administration and states President Donald Trump has put in his crosshairs, including California, Washington, and Alaska. We will be watching for any problems with voting to see if there are serious issues. And I will be working with my Votebeat colleagues across the country, who all have a full plate. Here’s a look at what each of them will be watching.

Arizona

As everyone knows, there’s rarely a quiet election in the saguaro-dotted deserts of Arizona. In recent weeks, an old feud between top election officials in populous Maricopa County has again reared its ugly head, and I’ll be watching to see if the situation impacts voting or ballot tallying processes.

Statewide, I’m waiting to see whether the popularity of a new voting option designed to speed up counting holds among general election voters. I’m also eagerly awaiting results for key races and monitoring stories in rural areas of the state, including how a new type of ballot paper plays in Mohave County and whether voting will run smoothly after a disastrous 2024 election in Apache County.

- Sasha Hupka

Michigan

In Michigan, I’m watching the federal response to our Senate race. The seat is critical for both parties to have control of the Senate, but a Democratic victory could come with accusations of voter fraud in a race that has already been packed with racism and Islamophobia. The federal government has shown it has its eye on Wayne County, and it looks like Detroit is of special interest as the DOJ is sending federal monitors there for the second consecutive election.

Accusations from the president and others could have a trickledown effect on trust in the other critical races on the ballot. Michigan is voting in a new governor, a new secretary of state, the entire state legislature and a slew of other key races. I’m also curious to see what Michiganders might expect from their election policy if either party is able to claim a trifecta. `

- Hayley Harding

Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania, I’m focused on three things headed into Election Day. First, we all know the U.S. Department of Justice has been taking an aggressive approach on voting issues. While it’s by no means uncommon to have Justice Department monitors at the polls, given that context — and the reports of their activity in Wyoming earlier this year — I’ll be keeping an eye out for reports on any issues here. Second, we have some closely watched (and close, polling-wise) congressional races. I’ll be watching the margin with a keen eye toward the possibility of recounts or questions about the results. Finally, Democrats have a path to take trifecta control of state government this year. If it happens, that could mean movement in a number of policy areas, including the all-but-dead push for election reform.

- Carter Walker

Texas

In Texas, polls show statewide races are expected to be closer than they have been in decades, and voter turnout so far has been high. I’ll be watching whether any voters who may have been caught in the state’s backlog of thousands of voter registration records are having trouble casting a ballot.

In Tarrant County, voters are turning out in record numbers but local officials there earlier this year cut nearly half of available polling locations on Election Day. The long lines for voting in Tarrant have eased in the past few days, but I’ll be keeping an eye on whether the reduction of polling sites has an impact on Tuesday.

On election night, as officials across the state prepare to report results, I’ll be monitoring any problems that may pop up with the functioning of the state’s voter registration and election management system, known as TEAM. For more than a year, election officials have reported the system is slow and prevents them from completing essential tasks, and as a result, they’ve had to find time-consuming workarounds.

- Natalia Contreras

Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, my primary focus will be how Milwaukee administers elections after a couple high-profile snafus in recent years. I’ll be at the city’s absentee ballot processing center, where most of those errors have taken place. From Milwaukee, I’ll also be monitoring two potential issues that clerks and voters have been fretting over this election: mail delays and the potential for federal interference in elections. But I’ll also keep my eyes peeled for other issues that may come up across the 1,850 municipalities running elections here.

- Alexander Shur

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Voting rights groups, afraid of criminal penalties, cut back on helping some of Texas’ most vulnerable voters

2026-10-30T10:55:00+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.

This story was produced with support from the Pulitzer Center.

Lea este artículo en español aquí.

Read this article in Spanish here.

ALAMO, Tex. – Eustorgia Santos de Torres has lived here for four decades. Last year, she turned to a trusted Rio Grande Valley nonprofit for help navigating the citizenship application process. The same nonprofit — La Unión del Pueblo Entero, or LUPE — then helped her register to vote, and she cast her first ballot as a citizen in the primary election last March.

Santos de Torres, 67, is retired after years cleaning houses and working as a healthcare aide. She speaks mainly Spanish and is the primary caretaker for her husband, Nemorio, who is blind. “Yo soy sus ojos,” Santos de Torres said — I am his eyes.

But last month, Santos de Torres, a new voter, struggled to help Nemorio, an American-born citizen, understand and cast his mail ballot for the November election. All the information on the ballot is in English, she said, and the letters are small.

Eustorgia Santos de Torres, 67, right, helps her husband Nemorio Torres, 79, get in their home in Alamo, Texas on Oct. 18, 2026. Her husband is blind and requires her assistance.

So Santos de Torres helped Nemorio to the car and made the familiar 7-minute drive to LUPE’s headquarters in the neighboring town of San Juan to ask for help with her husband’s ballot.

This time, though, LUPE workers reluctantly turned the couple away.

In 2021, Texas’ GOP-dominated state Legislature passed a sweeping and controversial overhaul of election laws known as SB1. Among other changes, SB1 made it illegal for anyone to receive compensation for helping voters fill in their ballots.

That not only makes it illegal for paid nonprofit staff to help voters, but also criminalized common past practices, such as organizations giving volunteers gas money or stipends. Violations are a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

In the wake of the law, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican currently running in the state’s nationally watched U.S. Senate race, investigated and prosecuted voting rights advocacy groups and organizers in heavily Latino communities across the state.

Groups such as LUPE say they have been forced to alter or stop some voter outreach as they worry about running afoul of the law. LUPE used to send workers out walking blocks to help voters. Now it has to instead ask volunteers to do more limited versions of that work.

Latinos and other non-English speaking voters will be key to the outcome of the state’s high-profile U.S. Senate and House races this year. But the law means such voters, as well as those who are disabled and elderly, have fewer options for help.

Tania Chavez Camacho, executive director of La Unión del Pueblo Entero, addresses attendees of a poll training in San Juan, Texas on Oct. 9, 2026.

LUPE is known for providing one-on-one assistance to people in the Latino community, so the restrictions on helping with voting are a real pain point for the organization, Executive Director Tania Chavez Camacho said. Texas has strict rules limiting who is eligible to use mail ballots, but people over 65 may do so. LUPE helps around 30,000 people a year, she said, including people with disabilities and many older people who, each year, “want to vote by mail and they come in wanting help.”

Now, Chavez Camacho said, when the group holds public town halls for residents to instruct them on how to vote, if a voter pulls out their mail ballot to ask for help, organizers must ask the voter to leave so paid employees aren’t near the ballot.

Eustorgia Santos de Torres, 67, poses for a photo with her husband Nemorio Torres, 79, at their home in Alamo, Texas on Oct. 18, 2026. Her husband is blind and needs help to vote.

And if workers for LUPE’s advocacy arm are canvassing for candidates and a voter shows them a mail ballot and asks for help filling it out, workers have been trained to say they can’t and walk away, Chavez Camacho said.

“We literally have to turn them away,” Chavez Camacho said. “We’ve had to do a lot of training with our staff for the past three years because they were so accustomed to helping folks one-on-one and now they can’t.”

Santos de Torres did what she could to help her husband, who mailed back his ballot about a month ago.

“But I don’t think it’s right that LUPE can’t help us,” she told a reporter in Spanish. “That law is not right. It’s excluding people who need help.”

“What if,” she added, “my husband didn’t have me?”

‘A person who doesn’t know how to read has to do it on their own’

The Rio Grande Valley, where LUPE is based, covers roughly 4,300-square-miles across Hidalgo, Cameron, Starr, and Willacy counties along the Mexico border at Texas’ southern tip. It’s a diverse community with some residents who primarily speak Spanish. Younger generations of residents easily switch between English and Spanish in conversation.

Many households are made up of families whose members have mixed legal statuses, including some who have lived in the area for generations. The Valley also has a history of activism as the birthplace of the Texas farmworker movement of the 1960’s. Farmworkers – who harvested cotton, vegetables and fruits — organized and marched for roughly 400 miles from the Valley to Austin to demand fair wages and better working conditions. Mexican-American farmworker labor today remains key to the area’s growth and agricultural economy.

A neighborhood in San Juan, Texas on Oct. 23, 2026.

But due to the lack of affordable housing, Mexican Americans for years purchased land they could afford in rural areas outside of city limits, often lacking basic infrastructure and public services. Those communities are known now as the colonias.

Alamo, where Santos de Torres lives, and San Juan, where LUPE is based, are neighboring cities. The landscape varies depending on the side of town. In the southern parts of the cities, closer to the border with Mexico, modest residential homes with green front lawns adorn along palm tree-lined streets. Shopping centers, chain restaurants, stadiums, and commercial developments lie to the north of the cities, along Interstate Highway 2, reflecting the transition from the once primarily agricultural community to a growing metropolitan hub. The Valley has for years relied on its trade of goods and services with Mexico. It has a population of more than 1.4 million people and 90% of them are Hispanic or Latino, according to Census data.

About 24% of people in the Valley live below the poverty line, which is more than double the national rate. And about 30% of Valley residents don’t have health insurance – one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. The area also has one of the highest rates of diabetes in the country; Nemorio Torres’ blindness is a complication of the disease.

A mural advertising La Unión del Pueblo Entero in San Juan, Texas on Oct. 10, 2026.

LUPE and other advocacy groups have long worked with residents in the colonias and all over the Valley, providing resources to find affordable housing and medical treatment, or helping with complex procedures such as filing taxes. Voter education and outreach was part of the mission.

Now, instead of providing one-on-one assistance, LUPE hosts group sessions with a screen projector showing what mail ballot applications and mail ballots look like. Facilitators point at the screen indicating what the instructions say and explaining how the forms should be filled out.

The limitations are frustrating, Chavez Camacho said, especially “si una persona no sabe leer” — if a person can’t read. “It doesn’t matter that we’re doing those sessions because a person who doesn’t know how to read has to do it on their own and we can’t help them to know where to mark,” she said.

Instead, LUPE’s workers and volunteers now focus on letting people know key deadlines are coming up. They also have fewer volunteers willing to guide and interpret for voters at the polls, she said, because the law now requires such people to sign an oath affirming the voter is qualified to receive help because they are disabled or need an interpreter, and detail their relationship with the voter. They must also affirm they are not being paid by a candidate or political committee, which would be illegal. Volunteers fear any misstep while assisting voters could get them in trouble, Chavez-Camacho said.

“We really feel that the people are not getting the support they need,” Chavez Camacho said.

A cactus plant in San Juan, Texas on Oct. 23, 2026.

Election and voting law experts say the courts have interpreted “compensation” prohibited from going to volunteers by SB1 as any type of benefit. That interpretation is so broad that it makes it difficult for voter outreach organizations to know whether they are violating the law, said Zachary Dolling, litigation director at Texas Civil Rights Project, which works with groups to design trainings in voter outreach that comply with the law.

Dolling said some organizations historically provided unpaid volunteers dinner, T-shirts, or pens, and others have given volunteers college credit for their work.

“All of those things are items of value” and could be considered compensation, he said.

Advocates warned state leaders of added burdens for people with disabilities

Texas Republicans passed SB1, the sweeping overhaul of election law, in part responding to false claims and conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

Republicans claimed the law would increase public trust and confidence in the elections. Democrats argued the legislation would disproportionately burden voters of color and people with disabilities, and staged two walkouts and a 15-hour Senate filibuster in their failed attempt to defeat the bill.

A bell to call for voting assistance is seen at a polling site on the first day of early voting in Alamo, Texas on Oct. 19, 2026.

Despite lawsuits from voting rights organizations including LUPE, the League of United Latin American Citizens and organizations representing Texans with disabilities, a federal appeals court ultimately upheld key provisions of SB1, including the restrictions on voter assistance.

Other attempts to expand voting help for people with disabilities were meanwhile unsuccessful.

In 2023, Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have expanded vote-by-mail access for people with disabilities — specifically people who are blind or paralyzed and need assistance marking their ballot — by allowing such voters to request an electronic ballot and use a computer to mark their choices. Similar options in Texas are already available for military overseas voters and astronauts, but not for voters with disabilities.

The challenges Santos de Torres and her husband have faced are an example of what advocates worried about under SB1, said Lydia Nunez Landry, statewide coordinator for REV UP Texas, which works to get out the vote among people with disabilities.

Eustorgia Santos de Torres, 67, celebrates after voting during the midterm elections as La Unión del Pueblo Entero members cheer her on outside of a polling location in Alamo, Texas on Oct. 19, 2026.

“That was our worst fear and now it’s happening,” she said. Nunez Landry has muscular dystrophy, uses a power wheelchair, and needs help doing basic tasks such as opening the refrigerator.

The state has made voting “just so impossible and so arduous for people — and now people are also terrified of helping us,” she said.

An increased ‘sense of anxiety’

Groups across the state have been changing their voter outreach work to comply with SB1.

Asian Texans for Justice conducts voter outreach in Asian communities, focusing on San Antonio, Houston, Austin, and North Texas.

The stricter rules associated with voting by mail under SB1 have created “a sense of anxiety” in those communities, Executive Director Nabila Mansoor said. She said that the process is now much more complicated for elderly voters, who must provide one of two forms of ID on their application and pay close attention to pages of instructions that are written in font that is small and hard for them to read. In addition, an error could force them to restart the whole process of applying for a ballot.

“That anxiety comes from this kind of fear that they’re going to do something wrong,” Mansoor said. “Whenever you have that kind of fear, it is one more barrier for that person to actually go out and vote.”

Now that Asian Texans for Justice can no longer provide one-on-one help, they’ve turned to providing checklists for voters, she said, which she believes is less effective when some voters may need help reading and understanding the ballot and instructions

Mansoor said she believes that SB1’s goal was to make it harder for people to vote.

Maria Gomez, 78, “Doña Mary,” left, and her friend Teresa Corona Garza, 80, talk to each other at Corona’s home in San Juan, Texas on Oct. 9, 2026.

“It means that we have to be more careful. It means that we have to dot our i’s and cross our t’s. It means that we have to take good records. It means that we have to be very thorough in terms of our training of our volunteers,” she said, adding that the organization assembled a legal team to defend against challenges to their work as well.

In the meantime, volunteers for LUPE and other groups say they are doing their best to fill the gap.

Maria Gomez, better known as Doña Mary, of Pharr, worked as a farmworker for years in Hidalgo County and has been a member of LUPE since the organization was founded. Gomez, 78, was involved in the farmworker movement years ago. She now ensures her elderly friends and neighbors are aware of election deadlines, know where to vote, and have a ride to the polls if they need one.

After she drops off her grandkids and great-grandkids at school, she makes her rounds around the Colonias in San Juan in her small red SUV. She chats up her neighbors, and asks them what they need help with or if they need resources or a ride. She’s always fielding calls.

“People don’t vote because sometimes they can’t leave their home and because they might not have access to that piece of paper that they need to sign to receive their ballot,” Gomez said in Spanish, referring to voter registration forms and ballot-by-mail applications.

One of her friends, 80-year-old Teresa Corona Garza of San Juan, has relied on Gomez for rides to the polls for some time now. Corona Garza struggles to stand for long periods of time and can’t see very well out of her left eye. Even though she qualifies to vote by mail, she prefers to go to the polls in person.

Maria Gomez, 78, walks from a polling site with the children of family and friends in Alamo, Texas on Oct. 19, 2026.

“There’s so much on there you have to fill out, and those letters are small,” Corona Garza said in Spanish. “No, I prefer to go, quiero ver que mi voto cuenta,” she said – I want to see that my vote is counted.

The laws have gotten so complicated and strict that Gomez worries state leaders may even try to prevent volunteers like her from providing rides to the polls.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen, if they’re going to keep making this harder for people,” she said, “but I would like to see people who want to vote to be able to do it.”

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.

Last minute legal maneuvering by the Trump administration creates new uncertainty around midterm election

2026-10-29T19:54:17+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.

Less than three weeks before Election Day, the Trump administration filed an election lawsuit against the state of California, claiming the state has ineligible voters on the rolls. Then came a lawsuit against Alaska last week, alleging potential voter confusion. And on Monday, another legal threat against Washington state.

The Trump administration’s aggressive legal strategy in the runup to Election Day seems more likely to encourage public uncertainty over the midterm elections than succeed in court, experts say. It also fuels their concerns that the White House could try to challenge election results President Donald Trump does not like.

“This is new, in the closing weeks of an election, to be bringing these kinds of claims and doing it in a way that sort of threatens to disrupt the process as it’s unfolding,” said Rebecca Green, a law professor at William and Mary Law School who co-directs the Election Law Program. “Once people start voting, it becomes a new phase that it’s dangerous to venture [into].”

The Trump administration’s legal threats against Democratic-run California and Washington allege election officials are not doing enough to keep suspected noncitizens off the voter rolls. Both states predominantly rely on mail ballots.

There are few competitive congressional races in either state. But Trump has a long track record of repeating false claims about elections, and has especially targeted both mail ballots and California’s elections, frequently suggesting they cannot be trusted.

In a very different kind of case, which Trump said he personally ordered, the U.S. Department of Justice has sued in Alaska to block certification of that state’s pivotal U.S. Senate race if the incumbent, Republican Dan Sullivan, loses by a narrow margin. Sullivan is in a tight race with Democrat Mary Peltola. The Trump administration alleges that the presence of another candidate named Dan Sullivan on the ballot could cause voter confusion that taints the results.

White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said Trump was focused on ensuring the election is free and fair.

“Radical Democrats refuse to implement basic election security measures like voter ID and citizenship verification, to ensure only Americans are electing America’s leaders,” Bis said. “No one has done more than President Trump to ensure we have free and fair elections.”

Legal challenges face blistering judicial pushback

The California litigation is farthest along, and has so far drawn scathing responses from federal courts.

The Justice Department launched the legal challenge two weeks ago when it sent California officials a demand that they set aside as many as 20,000 ballots from potential noncitizens in the ongoing midterm election to check and see if they are eligible to vote. It quickly filed a lawsuit when California officials pushed back on the demands, and a federal appeals court issued a swift ruling on Monday that challenged the Trump administration’s central claims.

California officials who have begun examining the lists of voters provided by the Justice Department say it is flawed. Several county officials said it includes voters who aren’t currently on the rolls, and others who list U.S. birthplaces, a factor that makes them very likely to be citizens.

“Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” Judge David O. Carter wrote in his ruling. “In bringing this lawsuit, the Executive would have this Court believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign. But California and its people are sovereign, too.”

In Alaska, the federal judge handling the case has expedited action as he considers the Trump administration lawsuit. The state of Alaska has asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that the federal intervention could “gravely threaten the integrity of the electoral process.”

At issue in Alaska is the presence on the ballot of the second Dan Sullivan, a retired schoolteacher and one of four candidates voters will consider for the Senate seat. Alaska is one of two states to use a ranked choice voting system in federal races, which allows voters to rank their preferences and for election officials to reorder the votes until one candidate wins a majority.

The Trump administration says confused voters may cast ballots for the wrong Dan Sullivan, though the Republican is labeled as the incumbent on the ballot. It is asking federal courts to block certification of the race if the incumbent senator loses by a narrow margin that can be traced to the presence of the second Dan Sullivan on the ballot.

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that Democratic operatives tied to Peltola’s campaign helped recruit and support the retired schoolteacher in an effort to dilute the vote for the incumbent senator. In response to the story, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, said he ordered an investigation.

“Mary Peltola should suffer the Legal and Political consequences for what she has done,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “A FRAUD ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, and Dan Sullivan should be allowed to run without either Mary Peltola or FAKE Dan Sullivan on the Ballot.”

The Justice Department also took aim this week at Washington state, directing officials to separate as many as 400 ballots that it said could be cast by alleged noncitizen voters. The Justice Department’s letter bore indications it was hastily prepared, including incorrectly listing the date of Election Day. It gave officials until Wednesday afternoon to comply.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs rebuffed the request after an initial check by his office determined that the list contained the names of U.S. citizens.

“Without individualized proof of ineligibility, it would be both irresponsible and illegal for election officials to decline to process a registered voter’s ballot,” Hobbs wrote in a response to the Justice Department.

Michael Alvarez, a political science professor at the California Institute of Technology, said his biggest concern is that the Trump administration is trying to lay the groundwork for post-election disruption.

“What I’m most worried about is that they might be setting the stage for ultimate interference later on as we get through Election Day,” Alvarez said Tuesday during a Votebeat panel.

“My biggest concern is that after the election, we’re going to hear concerns about slow counting, we’re going to hear concerns about glitches, we’re going to hear concerns about other kinds of problems that people claim happened, and unless they get debunked quickly, a lot of those are going to spiral out of control,” Alvarez added.

“This Department is following the facts and the law, not anyone’s political timetable,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kiersten Pels said in response to the concerns.

Pels noted that the Biden administration had sued Alabama and Virginia before the 2024 presidential election to stop them from removing suspected noncitizens from their voter rolls.

“To the legacy media, that’s called protecting democracy,” she said. “When this Department acts to keep noncitizens from voting, it’s called election interference. That’s a double standard. Enforcing election law right before an election is exactly when it matters most and voters deserve to know their elections are being protected.”

The challenges in court have coincided with a highly publicized series of arrests of alleged noncitizens accused of illegally voting, or registering to vote. The Justice Department has announced criminal charges against 48 people in five states this month as part of “Operation Protect the Vote.” The Trump administration notified journalists of some of the arrests so they could cover the operations in real time.

“Every illegal vote cancels out the vote of a lawful American citizen,” said Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

How Wisconsin’s gubernatorial candidates differ on election administration

2026-10-29T15:07:51+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 election is underway for Wisconsin’s first open gubernatorial race in over 15 years, as voters decide between two candidates who offer strikingly different views and rhetoric on election administration.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, a Republican, has supported many of President Donald Trump’s election goals, including efforts to overturn the 2020 election, while his opponent, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley has backed many Democratic election priorities and denounced Trump’s efforts to undermine elections.

Here’s how the gubernatorial candidates’ views differ and — in one instance — align.

2020 election

Six years later, the 2020 election continues to be front and center in Wisconsin’s election discourse and a recurring topic on the campaign trail. The FBI this year probed Milwaukee officials about the election as an ongoing lawsuit seeks to obtain Milwaukee County’s 2020 Ballots. A criminal case against 2020 false electors is ongoing.

Tiffany in 2020 voted not to certify the 2020 election, and has expressed support for the FBI probe into how the election was conducted in Milwaukee. During his campaign, Tiffany dodged questions about the legitimate winner of the 2020 election, before conceding in August that “Joe Biden won.”

David Crowley, who currently serves as Milwaukee County Executive, has vehemently denounced the 2020 probe. He said the 2020 election was properly conducted, adding that “no amount of fear and intimidation from the Trump administration will change that truth.”

Voter registration and identification

Tiffany has been a consistent supporter of federal legislation that would require voter registrants to provide proof of citizenship. He also told Votebeat he would sign legislation comparing state transportation records with the voter registration database to identify ineligible voters.

In 2011, while serving in the State Assembly, Tiffany co-authored the legislation that established Wisconsin’s photo ID requirement for voting, one of the strictest in the nation.

Crowley has criticized Wisconsin’s voter ID law, which requires voters to present an acceptable form of photo identification when casting a ballot, rather than when registering. In 2020, Crowley called voter ID an “extreme barrier” in low-income communities and communities of color, likening it to “what was going on in Jim Crow days with the literacy test.”

During his time in the Wisconsin Legislature, Crowley was the lead author of a bill to establish automatic voter registration, which would allow eligible residents to be registered during interactions with state agencies. The bill never received a public hearing or floor vote.

Ballot processing

Unlike many states, Wisconsin election officials cannot begin processing absentee ballots until Election Day. It’s a restriction that can delay the reporting of results in communities with large numbers of mail ballots, particularly Milwaukee. A bipartisan proposal would allow clerks to begin processing absentee ballots on the Monday before an election, without counting or releasing results until Election Day.

Crowley’s team told Votebeat that he supports the proposal.

Tiffany didn’t respond to a request for comment. He acknowledged the Monday processing bill at an August press conference but didn’t say whether he supports it.

Wisconsin Elections Commission

In 2015, while serving in the state Senate, Tiffany voted to create the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which replaced the Government Accountability Board as the agency overseeing the state’s elections.

But, at a recent debate, Tiffany said he was open to dismantling or making significant changes to the agency, arguing that it needs greater accountability. He said he would only eliminate the agency if lawmakers could agree on a better replacement.

Crowley’s team told Votebeat that he wants to keep the Wisconsin Elections Commission in charge of elections. At the debate, Crowley acknowledged that the agency isn’t perfect but defended its resistance to the Trump administration’s efforts to obtain unredacted Wisconsin voter information.

Both would certify 2028 presidential winner

The next governor’s ability to reshape Wisconsin election laws will depend in part on who controls the Legislature. Both legislative chambers have been controlled by Republicans for over a decade, but Democrats hope to flip at least one chamber in November.

The governor can sign or veto election legislation, giving the office significant influence over which policies become law. The governor also plays a part in certifying presidential results. At an October debate, Crowley questioned whether Tiffany could be trusted to certify the 2028 election, citing his efforts to overturn the 2020 results.

But Tiffany said, “I will certify the election in 2028, regardless of who the winner is.”

Crowley, asked whether he would certify the results, answered: “Absolutely.”

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

Trump administration asks appeals court to set aside ballots and investigate the citizenship of as many as 20,000 voters in ongoing California election

2026-10-26T00:11:42+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, Oct. 26, 6:05 p.m.: On Monday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, rejected the Trump administration’s appeal and sent the case back to the lower court, which is scheduled to hold its first hearing on the matter on Tuesday. The majority found the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. In a concurrence, Judge Mark Bennett wrote that there was a “real risk” that ruling for the Justice Department “would result in disenfranchisement.” In his dissent, Judge Patrick Bumatay said the Trump administration was pursuing a valid objective. “None of California’s counterarguments prevent the federal government from stepping in and seeking to stop California from burying its head in the sand while aliens may be voting in federal elections,” Bumatay wrote.

A panel of federal judges on Sunday appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s position in its extraordinary effort to compel California to set aside as many as 20,000 ballots in the ongoing election and investigate the voters’ citizenship.

In a 105-minute hearing, two of the three 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges hearing the case voiced clear concerns about the Justice Department’s request that the court immediately force California to segregate ballots cast by voters on a list of suspected noncitizens the Trump administration produced earlier this month.

Judge Mark Bennett, who was appointed to the court by President Donald Trump in 2018, grilled Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly about the federal government’s request, citing language in the U.S. Constitution referred to as the Elections Clause, which gives states authority to set the rules for congressional elections, subject to congressional oversight.

“It seems to me that under the Elections Clause, [the state legislature has] the right to determine the manner of the elections, including sorting out non-citizens,” Bennett said to Donnelly. “And Congress has not directly changed what the legislature has adopted, which they had the right to do, and it seems to me you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause. How can we do that? Why doesn’t the Elections Clause foreclose the relief you are requesting here?”

The lawsuit, along with a separate Justice Department action unfolding in Alaska, represents extraordinary efforts by the Trump administration to intervene in the conduct of the ongoing midterm elections.

Even as voting is underway, the Trump administration is demanding that state officials change the way they are handling and counting ballots from registered voters, in California’s case, and has filed a separate lawsuit preemptively trying to block certification of election results in some potential circumstances in Alaska’s U.S. Senate race.

The results of elections in California, which has 52 House seats, could play a key role in deciding which party will control the U.S. House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate race in Alaska will be crucial to Democratic efforts to gain control of the upper house.

On Sunday, the judges pressed Donnelly to explain why the Justice Department asked the appeals court to act when the lower court has yet to even hold a hearing on the federal government’s appeal.

“The District Court has said it’s going to rule expeditiously. It gave you the timing you wanted” for a hearing, Bennett said. “I don’t see how we have jurisdiction.”

The judges also asked a series of questions about the analysis the federal government relied on to produce its list of potential noncitizens, which state officials have said isn’t reliable.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, appeared more sympathetic to the Justice Department’s argument and asked California’s attorneys’ pointed questions.

California officials say list of potential noncitizens on the voter rolls is flawed

The legal showdown started on Oct. 13 when the Justice Department sent Los Angeles County election officials a thumb drive it said contained the names of 20,000 potential noncitizens on state voter rolls. It gave California 48 hours to check the names and commit to segregating ballots from any of the people on that list until it investigated and confirmed whether they were eligible voters. California officials questioned the timing of the action and noted that they had already started sending out mail ballots and opened early voting centers on Oct. 5.

California officials also said the federal government’s list was “deeply flawed.” In its court filings and public statements, Los Angeles county officials said 7,035 of those names had Los Angeles County addresses. It compared a sample of 200 of those voters with county voter records, and found fewer than half were active voters, more than 70% had never voted, and a quarter said they were born in the U.S., a strong indicator of citizenship.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California on Oct. 15, demanding that it segregate ballots returned by any voter on its list until their eligibility was confirmed. Before the District Court even ruled, the Department of Justice asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to take swift action, setting up Sunday’s emergency court hearing in San Francisco.

With early voting underway in California, the Trump administration argued that urgent action was needed to compel the state to segregate the ballots.

“Every minute of processing that occurs without segregating the ballots of suspected ineligible voters causes untraceable disenfranchisement and dilution of the votes of United States citizens,” the Justice Department told the court in its motion to the Court of Appeals. “Once illegally cast ballots are counted and commingled with lawful votes, the resulting harm is impossible to remedy.”

In court filings, Los Angeles’ registrar-recorder, Dean Logan, pointed out that the federal government had the voter data underlying its list earlier this year, but waited until the election was already well underway and ballots had been mailed out to send the list to California officials, and the list could contain outdated and incorrect information. He also said the difficulty of complying with the federal government’s demands “cannot be overstated.”

“This is an incredibly complex system involving thousands of workers and changes of this magnitude simply cannot be effectively completed overnight without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the system as a whole,” his lawyers wrote in a court filing.

California officials asked the appeals court to block the Trump administration request and warned that the lawsuit could set the stage for further intervention by the federal government.

“This litigation is a precursor to further interference here in California. The Court must not be drawn into this chilling degradation of democratic values and constitutional principles,” the state said in a court filing.

The Justice Department is aggressively suing California and Alaska as voting is underway

Sunday’s hearing comes amid a flurry of actions by the Trump administration to inject itself into states’ administration of the midterm election. On Friday, the Justice Department sent letters to local election officials across California warning them that they would “risk significant federal scrutiny” if they did not set aside ballots cast by potential noncitizens.

In a statement Saturday, San Benito County Clerk-Recorder Francisco Diaz said two federal agents hand-delivered an official demand letter Friday, with a list of 33 suspected noncitizens.

Diaz’s statement said that “not all listed individuals” were currently registered with the county and that the federal government’s letter demanded Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and other nonpublic information. The county is reviewing the letter with legal counsel, Diaz said in the statement, and, “we will not be intimidated by agents with guns for simply doing our jobs.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Saturday also accused the Trump administration of “waging a campaign of intimidation against elections officials, voters, and our democracy” and expressed confidence the state would prevail in court.

The legal fight in California comes in tandem with a White House attempt to prevent certification of the U.S. Senate race in Alaska if it results in a narrow loss for the incumbent, Republican U.S. Sen Dan Sullivan.

The Trump administration is arguing that the presence on the ballot of a second Dan Sullivan — a retired teacher who is one of four candidates in the U.S. Senate race — could confuse voters who intended to vote for the incumbent. Trump said he personally directed the Justice Department to file the lawsuit and accused Democrats of covertly backing the retired teacher in a deliberate attempt to divert the Republican vote.

Polls show Sen. Sullivan in a tight race with Democratic challenger Mary Peltola.

The expansion of Trump administration’s legal attacks on the ongoing election process has raised concerns that the White House could be laying the groundwork to challenge election results the president does not like, as polls suggest that Republicans are likely to lose control of the House of Representatives and that they could also lose their Senate majority. Many legal experts have questioned the Justice Department’s authority to bring the California and Alaska cases. The outcome of Alaska’s race is seen as central to determining control of the Senate.

On Sunday, Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the Alaska lawsuit and dismissed any concerns that Trump would try to overturn the results of a legal election.

“President Trump is not trying to take over a state election in any way, shape or form,” Blanche said on CNN. “What we are trying to do is make it clear that, if it is obvious after the election that confusion led to an improper and illegal result, that the Alaskan system should be able to address that.”

Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who worked as a senior voting rights adviser in the Biden White House, said the Trump administration lawsuits were unlikely to pave the way for any credible challenges to the results.

“I don’t think the cases in either Alaska or California meaningfully further the likelihood that a post-election challenge succeeds, because neither of the cases in Alaska or California are reality-based,” he said. “There’s no law there. And just waving your hands in a document filed with a court doesn’t do anything other than just waving your hands in a press conference.”

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Trump orders lawsuit to block U.S. Senate results in Alaska if Republican incumbent loses

2026-10-23T20:00:36+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.

Correction, Oct. 24: An earlier version of this story misstated how long it has been since a Democrat represented Alaska in the Senate. Former U.S. Sen. Mark Begich left office in 2015.

The U.S. Department of Justice late Thursday filed an unusual lawsuit against the state of Alaska seeking to block certification of its U.S. Senate race if the Republican incumbent loses.

With early voting underway in the contest that could determine partisan control of the Senate, and polls showing a tight race between incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan and Democratic challenger Mary Peltola, the Trump administration is laying the groundwork to challenge the Alaska results in some circumstances.

The lawsuit centers on the participation of a second candidate named Dan Sullivan on the ballot, something that the Justice Department said is likely to confuse Alaska voters.

Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher and former member of the Alaskan Independence Party who switched his registration to Republican shortly before entering the Senate race, is one of four candidates for the seat.

Alaska election officials disqualified Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot in June, but the former teacher challenged the decision. Sullivan rejected any suggestion he was working with Democrats to dilute the vote for Sen. Sullivan and said he ran because he was dissatisfied with the incumbent’s track record. The Alaska Supreme Court ultimately sided with the former teacher and cleared the way for him to be on the ballot.

Alaska’s ballot includes the word “incumbent” next to Sen. Sullivan’s name, but the Justice Department filing argues that the other Dan Sullivan’s presence on the ballot “threatens to mislead Alaskan citizens who want to vote for Senator Sullivan.”

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department said results may be tainted by voter confusion “if: (1) Senator Sullivan does not win the election; and (2) had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast instead for Senator Sullivan and Alaska’s rank-choice process played out accordingly, Senator Sullivan would have won the election.”

In such a case, the Justice Department wants a federal judge to stop election officials from certifying the election “pending an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan.”

Legal scholars said the lawsuit appears to have little chance of succeeding.

“It arises from real, valid, recognized concerns about a bad-faith sham candidate, potential confusion, and effective disenfranchisement,” Michael Morley, an election law expert at Florida State University said in an email. “But this particular lawsuit is frivolous and will be quickly dismissed.”

Morley said “any concerns about the sham candidacy could have been raised before the election, before votes were cast,” and that the Senate itself could challenge the results and refuse to seat Peltola if she wins.

Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University and scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, also said the lawsuit appeared to be baseless.

“Any law suppressing candidates based on potential voter confusion would violate the First Amendment,” he said in an email.

“As to why DOJ waited so long, I don’t know,” he said. “Maybe this is one of those politically motivated cases they brought only after pressure from on high overruled line attorneys.”

President Donald Trump took credit for the lawsuit on Friday.

“I’m the one that said do it,” Trump told reporters.

Alaska uses ranked choice voting, which means results could take time

The lawsuit is part of a concerted Justice Department effort to inject more federal control over elections, which are the responsibility of state and local officials. Last week, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit in California that seeks to compel the state to segregate as many as 20,000 ballots it says could be cast by noncitizens. California officials say that lawsuit is based on flawed assertions that some registered voters are noncitizens, and legal scholars have said that the Trump administration is unlikely to succeed.

If Peltola wins in Alaska, she would be the first Democrat in more than a decade to represent the state in the Senate. The race is expected to be close.

In addition, Alaska is one of two states — the other is Maine — using ranked choice voting to select a winner in a Senate race this year. In Alaska, voters will rank the four U.S. Senate candidates by preference. If none of them win more than 50% of first-choice votes at the outset, Alaska will then shift on Nov. 18th to the ranked choice voting process.

At that point, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their supporters’ votes will be redistributed to those voters’ second choices. That means that if Daniel J. Sullivan is eliminated, his votes could then go to Sen. Sullivan, depending on how the voter ranked the candidates.

The process continues until one candidate secures a majority.

Even if the Justice Department lawsuit fails, members of the U.S. Senate could try to prevent Peltola from taking the seat. There are some precedents for that.

In 1975, the Senate declined to seat either candidate in a disputed New Hampshire election, eventually declaring the seat vacant and paving the way for a new election. In another case, the Senate overturned the results of a 1924 Iowa election and seated the losing candidate nearly two years later.

“If Senator Dan S. Sullivan loses, and Daniel J. Sullivan’s vote tally exceeds the margin of victory, then the senator’s best bet would be to file an election contest with the U.S. Senate, which is the sole judge of its members’ elections and returns,” Morley said.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Dane County at odds with WEC on whether unarmed ICE, FBI agents can show up at the polls

2026-10-22T17:35:33+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 election officials are divided over how to handle the possibility of unarmed federal immigration or law enforcement agents arriving at polling places this November and asking to observe voting.

The disagreement centers on a passage in new Wisconsin Elections Commission guidance intended to help local election officials navigate encounters with law enforcement at the polls. Among other instructions, the guidance says that agents from ICE, the FBI and other federal agencies who want to observe voting must follow the same rules as other election observers.

But officials in Dane County, home to Madison and one of Wisconsin’s most Democratic strongholds, warn that the language could lead poll workers to admit federal agents in violation of federal law. Federal law bans U.S. officials from sending troops or armed agents to the polls except under extremely limited circumstances, and a different law bans voter intimidation.

In an Oct. 15 email to the commission, the county’s attorney argued that the guidance could be read as permitting armed ICE agents to observe voting, despite federal restrictions.

Dane County officials have spent months preparing for the possibility of federal interference in the election. The commission, meanwhile, approved its guidance less than three weeks before Election Day, after receiving what it said was hundreds of questions from local clerks seeking clarity about federal law enforcement at the polls.

Clerks and attorneys interviewed by Votebeat were divided over whether the guidance provides the clarity they need. Some praised it as helpful and others said it came too late or warned that its language could lead election inspectors to misunderstand the limits of federal law.

On page three, the guidance instructs election officials to contact their clerks and the commission if federal agents arrive to observe voting. If federal officials are present “just to observe, they still have to check in like regular observers and are subject to the observer rule,” it states. The guidance does not, at that point, distinguish between armed and unarmed federal agents.

It then discusses circumstances in which armed, uniformed local officers might observe voting.

Only two pages later does the commission explain the federal law restricting armed personnel in federal service from polling places.

The structure of the advice, Dane County attorney David Gault told Votebeat, “creates the implication it’s okay for ICE to be there and observe, and I just don’t think that’s the case.”

“If they’re armed, it’s clearly prohibited,” he said. “If they’re unarmed but still in some kind of a uniform designating them as a federal agent, I think the law is still pretty clear they’re not supposed to be there.”

Dane County officials object to commission guidance

Election officials across Wisconsin have been preparing for months for the possibility of federal law enforcement at the polls, but the concern is particularly acute in the state’s largest, heavily Democratic counties. In Dane County, the state’s second-largest, officials say listening to the commission’s guidance could complicate their efforts to keep federal agents from interfering with voting.

The guidance lays out steps for election officials to take when federal agents appear. Chief inspectors are instructed to immediately notify their municipal clerk, who must then contact the county clerk and commission staff. Agents carrying out legitimate law enforcement duties, rather than observing voting, are treated differently. In those cases, election officials are told to request identification and any warrants, document the encounter and ask officers to conduct their business outside the voting area when possible.

The commission also tells election inspectors they can remove observers if they have a reasonable basis to believe they are, or are about to, intimidate or disrupt voters. In its instructions addressing local law enforcement officers who insist on observing while armed and in uniform, the guidance leaves inspectors to determine whether their presence crosses that line.

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell took issue in particular with the statement that if federal agents wish to observe, they can check in like regular observers.

“It’s inaccurate,” said McDonell, a Democrat. “It’s confusing. It doesn’t reflect what the law is.”

If a back-office ICE employee who’s unarmed wants to observe, that might be fine, McDonell said. “But that’s not how I think anyone would read that,” he said, saying clerks may assume the sentence is referring to armed federal agents.

Sharing McDonell’s concerns, Gault, the Dane County in-house attorney, sent an email to Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe on Oct. 15, the same day the commission finalized the guidance.

Gault said that while armed ICE agents are clearly banned from the polls under federal law, a separate federal law bars a person acting under the color of law from intimidating voters. Gault argued that it would ban even an unarmed but uniformed ICE agent from observing at the polls.

“There is no legitimate reason for ICE to be at a polling place,” he told Wolfe. “Everyone there is presumptively a US citizen. I don’t think WEC’s guidance should imply that an ICE agent can be a legitimate observer.”

Commission attorney supervisor Angela O’Brien Sharpe disagreed, saying federal law doesn’t address every situation that may bring federal agents to the polls. “If federal law enforcement wishes to observe an election, then they are permitted to do so,” she said, adding that they would be subject to Wisconsin observer rules.

She emphasized that the guidance does not authorize armed federal observers, and was intended to help pollworkers “manage how to respond to varying situations like these” including deciding whether an officer’s presence constitutes intimidation or a disturbance.

Gault was unsatisfied, calling the guidance “confusing at best.”

“If asked, this office will advise election officials and law enforcement in Dane County that armed federal agents should not be at a polling place under any circumstances,” he wrote. “If they are there legitimately to vote they should at a minimum be unarmed.”

Local attorneys can offer advice to city and county election offices that contradicts the commission’s, Sharpe said.

Little precedent for federal agents observing elections

Federal election monitors from the Justice Department have observed voting for decades, but the prospect of ICE or FBI agents arriving at polling places specifically to monitor voting presents a largely untested legal question.

Justin Levitt, an election law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who worked in the White House under President Joe Biden on voting rights issues, said the commission’s guidance is “legit and accurate,” adding that it’s “straight down the middle of providing lawful advice without picking a fight.”

“I understand why Dane County wants a different emphasis,” Levitt said. “I don’t think that means they were right and the state was wrong. I think that just means they’ve got different interests here.”

He said the commission and Dane County agree more than they disagree: They both agree that armed agents are banned at the polls, and that chief inspectors can kick out anyone intimidating voters.

Had the commission gone further and said ICE was banned from the polls entirely, he said, “That would actually be getting Wisconsin in trouble because you cannot single out federal officials for special treatment.”

Sterling Knoche, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School-based State Democracy Research Initiative, similarly said the guidance provides clerks with good instructions for minimizing disruptions at the polling place while instructing them to consult the people who could seek a court injunction if necessary.

Knoche said the commission may not have had a sound legal basis to categorically prohibit unarmed federal agents in uniform from observing. Whether their presence is lawful would depend on their conduct and the circumstances, he said.

In Milwaukee on Monday, Wolfe drew a similar distinction. She said that federal and state law prohibits armed federal agents from showing up at the polls, but said the legality of unarmed agents observing is less clear. In that case, she said, chief inspectors and poll workers must determine whether their presence intimidates or disturbs voters.

How clerks are preparing to apply the guidance

Local officials offered differing assessments of how useful the guidance would be, even as some agreed that federal agents in uniform could intimidate voters.

Marathon County Clerk Kim Trueblood, a Republican, said the guidance was “fine.” She said county clerks have been coordinating with their local sheriffs, who would be their first call if federal agents do show up at the polls. If she were an inspector, she said, she would not allow federal law enforcement agents to register as observers if they’re in uniform, even if they were unarmed.

“We would be on a very strong legal footing to say, ‘You standing there in your FBI vest is intimidating to voters, and so we’re not going to allow that,’” she said.

In an interview, Green Bay Police Chief Chris Davis told Votebeat that the guidance was quite helpful and would be instructive in the unlikely situation that federal agents show up at a city polling place.

“We have to make a decision about what to do fairly quickly,” he said, “so any time we can get guidance like this from an authority, it helps us do that.”

Green County Clerk Arianna Voegeli, a Democrat, said the commission’s guidance came late but was consistent with the guidance that she already had given to local election officials. She agreed that the mere presence of federal officers in uniform could constitute voter intimidation, though she said it’s a legal gray area if they’re unarmed.

“I’m not too concerned about issues here in Green County, just because we’re a smaller county,” she said, though she’s discussed the issue with law enforcement and feels prepared. Larger counties, she said, have likely developed their own plans already.

McDonell, the Dane County clerk, said this guidance might add to the confusion for some clerks instead of taking away from it.

“It would have been better if they hadn’t sent this out,” he said. “It’s at minimum badly worded.”

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

Trump administration stokes concerns about Chinese-made parts in voting equipment, but experts say risks remain low

2026-10-22T09:00:00+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.

The Trump administration and some conservative election activists argue that foreign-made components in voting machines present a national security risk, and believe the federal government should take steps to mitigate it for the midterm elections. They worry another county could try to hack voting equipment to meddle in the election and some Trump allies want the president to ban voting machines altogether.

But voting equipment manufacturers say it’s impossible to build the equipment without Chinese-made parts — and they already take precautions to protect against sabotage and foreign interference.

Recent intelligence assessments suggest that America’s adversaries could run disinformation campaigns to try and sway the outcome of the elections, but that there is little evidence to suggest they will try to manipulate vote counts.

The three voting technology companies that serve around 85% of registered voters all confirmed they use some Chinese parts. The same Chinese-manufactured computer parts are used in critical infrastructure from ports and the electrical grid to telecommunications and water systems, said Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates for secure, reliable and verifiable elections.

“We cannot domestically source all of these parts,” said Sara Cutter, executive director of the American Council for Election Technology, a trade association representing many U.S. voting equipment manufacturers and election technology companies. “The Chinese have such a deep bench of supplies in all levels of electronic supplies for any number of critical infrastructure organizations, and it’s a reality of modern American life.”

The association understands the concerns about foreign parts and has a policy of not using components from America’s top adversaries – North Korea, Russia or Iran, Cutter said, but extending that policy to China would be impossible.

Cutter said manufacturers use a variety of safeguards to protect against sabotage, including physically inspecting parts, tracking serial numbers, testing components, and using certified shipping partners.

Elections a ‘critical’ subsector

The outgoing Obama administration in 2017 designated election infrastructure as a critical infrastructure subsector, joining others including manufacturing, financial services, dams, and emergency services. The designation is meant to make federal resources available to support those sectors and ward off threats, including foreign intervention.

At the time, then-Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged bipartisan concerns from election officials around the country about any increased federal role in elections, which are run by states and localities.

“It is important to stress what this designation does and does not mean,” Johnson said in a statement. “This designation does not mean a federal takeover, regulation, oversight or intrusion concerning elections in this country. This designation does nothing to change the role state and local governments have in administering and running elections.”

But the Trump administration has nonetheless sought to increase its oversight of elections, though federal courts have blocked key prongs of its effort. And current Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has asserted that foreign adversaries could hack voting machines.

“Foreign adversaries have parts that are vital pieces in our voting machines,” Mullin said in a July press conference. “We know that they can access what they consider the key to the back of these machines. We know that they can change voter registration and your vote. We know it’s possible. There’s not a question. It’s not even for debate.”

Mullin also raised the issue in an August letter in which he acknowledged the voting-system industry “is impacted by the fact that some necessary components cannot be sourced from domestic manufacturers, so vendors are dependent on foreign suppliers.”

Still, “voting machines with components manufactured by foreign adversaries introduce significant security risks,” he wrote. “These vulnerabilities mean that malicious actors could potentially compromise election infrastructure at any stage of the supply chain, even before the machines are assembled or deployed.”

Mullin threatened to withhold 20% of Homeland Security counterterrorism grants if states didn’t embrace Trump administration election security measures, including manual audits of paper ballots and citizenship checks of voter rolls. But a federal judge struck down the conditions in September, ruling that the agency had exceeded its authority.

Manufacturers and experts say voting equipment is protected by a series of layered precautions to keep anyone from obtaining improper physical access. Also, it isn’t connected to the internet.

Jeb Cameron, the senior vice president of customer and government relations at Election Systems & Software, said the company operates “under a healthy sort of paranoia” with its supply chain.

“We treat all components of our voting systems with high scrutiny, regardless of their country of origin,” Cameron said. “All our vendors are subject to the same supply chain securities, regardless of where they are located.”

Cameron also said it’s important to reality check the concerns.

“Just because a vulnerability may exist that doesn’t mean it can or has been exploited when you put it within the context of elections and elections administration,” he said.

Another major question is whether countries such as China, Russia or Iran are willing to take the risks of trying to overtly meddle in the administration of a U.S. election, or the results.

A declassified 2024 National Intelligence Council assessment concluded that the three countries had the “technical capability to access some U.S. election-related networks and systems,” but that they would “probably refrain from disruptive attacks that seek to alter vote counts because they almost certainly would not be able to tangibly impact the outcome of the federal election without detection.”

The assessment also noted that “there is no indication they attempted such attacks during the past two election cycles.”

Rather than working to directly change results, the assessment concluded that the countries were more likely to carry out disinformation campaigns to try and cast doubt on the results.

Perhaps more importantly, nearly all voting equipment across the country now has paper trails to ensure that results compiled by computer can be checked against paper copies. (Louisiana is the only state that still uses paperless voting systems statewide.) Every state now requires some form of post-election audit in which election officials check samples of paper ballots to verify that computerized vote counts are accurate, though the percentage of ballots or precincts audited varies from state to state.

Smith, from Verified Voting, said companies and election officials work to develop what she called “defensive depth,” a system of safeguards to protect against any attempts to manipulate results.

“You may have a risk inherent in your supply chain, but that does not mean you won’t end up with a legitimate, correct, accurate, fully verified result at the end of the day,” Smith said.

Smith cited a quote from Verified Voting founder Dave Dill: “If we do it right, the devil himself could build the voting machines, and we could hold an honest election.”

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Trump lawsuit against California over noncitizen voters heads for uncharted territory

2026-10-20T13:48:06+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 Trump administration’s latest legal assault on California’s elections is raising new concerns about whether the White House is laying groundwork for attempts to challenge the results of the rapidly approaching midterms.

Less than three weeks before Election Day, the Justice Department filed an unusual lawsuit against California that asks a federal judge to set aside as many as 20,000 ballots the federal government claims could be cast by ineligible noncitizen voters. The Trump administration followed up with a letter threatening to prosecute election officials who count votes from potential noncitizens for being “aiders and abettors to a federal crime.”

“This is the first time the Trump administration has tried to take action to sequester ballots that are live ballots — and that’s unusual,” said Stephen Richer, a former Republican registrar in Arizona who now works as a legal fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute. “The fact that this action was taken while this election is underway charts new territory for this administration.”

The move has raised alarms among voting rights groups, but several legal experts questioned whether courts would be willing to support the federal government’s request to segregate the ballots.

Michael Morley, an election law expert at the Florida State University College of Law, predicted that the lawsuit would get no traction and that the Justice Department would be unable to intervene in the normal counting process in California.

“If the Trump Administration were attempting to weaponize federal law in an effort to steal an election, California seems like one of the last places that would occur, since you’re not going to be able to challenge or reject enough votes to swing federal races to Republican majorities,” he said.

The dispute centers on the Trump administration’s repeated claims that California’s voter rolls contain tens of thousands of noncitizens who are ineligible to vote. In July, federal officials said they had found more than 190,000 potential noncitizens on California voter rolls and directed the state to scrub any ineligible people from the system.

The Trump administration never provided the state with the list of 190,000 potential noncitizens on the voter rolls. State officials and voting right advocates questioned the administration’s numbers and noted that a check of the administration’s estimated noncitizen voter numbers in other states, such as Nevada, had proven that few, if any, of the names on the list turned out to be noncitizens and raised questions about the administration’s methodology.

Earlier this week, the Justice Department sent Los Angeles County election officials an unusual package: an unsolicited thumb drive said to contain the names of 20,000 people the Trump administration claimed were noncitizens on California voter rolls. It isn’t clear why they sent the information to Los Angeles County, or how the administration’s number of potential noncitizens on the state’s rolls fell from more than 190,000 to 20,000.

The thumb drive came with letters to county and state officials demanding that California investigate the names within 48 hours or face legal action. And, most unusually, the Los Angeles letter contained a baby blue sticky note with the password to access the thumb drive — not a particularly secure way for government officials to share sensitive information.

California officials, who are in the midst of overseeing early voting across the state, rebuffed the Justice Department request.

Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan said he did not consider the thumb drive a secure medium and told the Justice Department that privacy and information security protocols made it impossible for his office to access the information. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber also pushed back on the Trump administration effort. The Justice Department followed up last week by providing Los Angeles County with a spreadsheet containing the names, dates of birth, and addresses of the 20,000 people, which Los Angeles officials said appeared to include names from residents across the state, not just Los Angeles County.

On Thursday, almost as soon as the 48-hour deadline had passed, the Justice Department filed its lawsuit. Federal officials are asking a federal judge to compel California to segregate the ballots of any of the 20,000 people on the list who vote in the November election.

Along with the lawsuit, Trump administration officials launched into a public feud with California officials. U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, castigated the state for not heeding its demands.

“Make no mistake,” Essayli wrote on X. “California has no interest in protecting the integrity of its elections.”

In a statement, California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the lawsuit “a totally unprecedented request that should scare the hell out of every American,” and expressed confidence the federal lawsuit would be rebuffed.

“The courts have made clear that the federal government has no role in how a state carries out its election process, and now, in the middle of Californians voting, they have asked local officials — who do a damn good job defending democracy — to violate federal law,” Newsom said.

Dispute will play out in court

The issue will now play out in the courts. On Monday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to move quickly to order California election officials to separate any ballots cast by the 20,000 people on the list, a rush effort to get the court to act before Election Day.

In parallel, the Justice Department announced the arrests Monday of 28 green card holders in California accused of illegally registering to vote and, in most cases, voting. The arrests were part of a new campaign dubbed “Operation Protect the Vote,” which involves U.S. attorneys’ offices across California.

“Every illegal vote cancels out the vote of a lawful American citizen,” said Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter. “Each of the 28 defendants charged today appears on the list of more than 20,000 likely noncitizen registrants we provided to California election officials last week. California refused to look at that list. Today’s charges show exactly what that refusal puts at risk. California must verify the citizenship of those more than 20,000 registrants before mail-in ballots are counted.”

The White House and Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. The Trump administration has prioritized prosecuting noncitizen voters, though experts say, and audits have found, that such cases are rare.

Over the weekend, “60 Minutes” ran a piece on election concerns featuring Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, who said that the Justice Department would not try to nullify any election based on a potential noncitizen voter.

Pressed by correspondent Lesley Stahl, Dhillon said a potential noncitizen vote “would lead to the person’s vote being challenged, but not the entire election,” and said that “absent some shocking contingency that is unexpected, there should be no interruption in the usual course of counting and certifying (election) results in the states. ”

David Becker, a former Justice Department voting rights attorney who now leads the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the Trump administration lawsuit cut against a longstanding practice of avoiding election-related investigations immediately before an election, particularly when those actions could disrupt voting or undermine public confidence.

“It should trouble most of us,” Becker said. “They appear to have intentionally gamed the system to wait until the last minute to cause the most chaos in California.”

Richer said the Trump administration’s actions opened a Pandora’s box of concerns, such as whether the federal government could secure a warrant or subpoena to seize ballots during the counting process, a move election officials fear could invalidate the votes and throw the results into question.

Richard Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA and director of its Safeguarding Democracy Project, predicted that the courts would rebuff the Trump administration effort. He said it was possible the White House could ultimately try to seize ballots, but thought that seemed unlikely to go anywhere.

“I continue to believe that the biggest variable on how aggressive the Justice Department will be is whether control of either house of Congress is at stake,” he said.

On Friday, three U.S. senators, led by California Democrat Alex Padilla, a former secretary of state, asked Blanche to make an immediate public commitment not to seize ballots.

“The law is clear: neither the Department nor any other federal agency has the authority to disrupt the administration of an election, including by seizing ballots or other election materials in a manner that prevents state and local officials from carrying out their lawful duties,” the senators wrote in a letter to Blanche.

Richer predicted that courts would reject attempts by the Trump administration to seize ballots, but said the government was creating a lot of uncertainty in the run up to Election Day.

“Do I think there are noncitizens on California voter rolls?” he asked. “Yes. Do I think it is actually a decent number? Yes. Do I think that makes up a meaningful percentage? No. Do I think this is a productive way of going about having a conversation about that? No.”

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Threats of ICE at the polls could just be a fear tactic. Arizona is preparing anyway.

2026-10-20T10:00:00+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.

On a recent weeknight, standing at the head of a small room in a nondescript office building, Karime Rodriguez projected a map of metro Phoenix onto the wall.

The green dots, she explained, represented voting sites. The red ones were reports of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity that her organization, Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, had vetted and verified over the last year and a half.

In some areas, the green and red dots overlapped. That was the inspiration for LUCHA’s event — a training for those interested in keeping an eye out for federal agents at voting locations in November.

It’s a possibility that has loomed large in Arizona since earlier this year, when some of the state’s farthest-right lawmakers proposed now-dead legislation that would have forced counties into agreements with federal agents to monitor voting sites during this year’s elections.

And, in May, when asked whether he would deploy ICE or the National Guard to voting sites, President Donald Trump said he would do “anything necessary” to ensure “honest elections.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security told Votebeat that ICE does not plan to patrol polling places. But they left open the possibility that agents could respond to threats or serve warrants nearby.

Leomar Ibanez (left), Brenda Simental, and Ray Caldera attend a Loteria-themed observer training at the LUCHA offices in Phoenix on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026. They are among hundreds of people trained by the organization to watch for ICE at the polls this fall.

Experts and election officials broadly say that deploying armed federal agents or military troops to the polls is clearly barred by federal law and would likely be abruptly slapped down in court. Arizona law also prohibits a wide range of behavior that could intimidate voters, and experts say armed agents at the polls would likely violate those statutes.

But even the possibility of such a deployment — or immigration enforcement activity near, but not at, voting sites — could discourage people from voting. As a result, election officials and voting rights groups across Arizona are preparing for such scenarios, even though they may not materialize.

That includes LUCHA. Though only a handful of people attended its recent training, the organization says it has trained hundreds of poll observers — more than ever before — to respond if they see ICE or other federal law enforcement at the polls, primarily by documenting the incident and reporting it to community groups. Rodriguez described the efforts as preparing to meet “a serious moment.”

“The threat is just so great,” said Alejandra Gomez, the group’s executive director, adding that “anything, unfortunately, is possible to stop people from being able to vote.”

Voting rights groups are readying to respond to feds at the polls

Some have questioned what Trump and his allies would gain by sending ICE to the polls and suggested that the idea is merely an intimidation tactic.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, said he believes the threats aim to “diminish voters’ motivation to vote.” Ben Ginsberg, a longtime GOP election lawyer, agreed, adding that ICE or troops at voting sites is “a really unlikely scenario.”

“You drop the rumors and the innuendo and that does, they hope, have a suppressive effect on who goes out to the polls,” Ginsberg said. “I think it is a whole lot tougher, just as a practical matter, to actually put people at the polls … not only the legal problem with it, but I really do think there’d be a huge political backlash, and it would potentially taint the elections.”

LUCHA staff handed out informational pamphlets at an observer training at their offices in Phoenix on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026. This year, observers will be watching for federal interference at the polls, alongside more mundane voting issues like equipment glitches.

Voting rights organizations say even intimidation is a huge problem. They’re scrambling to respond through observer programs, lawsuits, and more.

One such group, Mi Familia en Acción of Phoenix, joined eight others last month in filing a preliminary complaint in federal court that aims to block officers from the polls.

Others are laying the groundwork for a swift legal response. The ACLU of Arizona sent a letter to each of the state’s counties outlining applicable federal and state laws that prohibit the presence of troops or armed federal agents at the polls.

“Because it has never been categorically ruled out, and because the administration has floated the idea repeatedly, counties should not treat this as a remote or hypothetical concern,” the letter read. “Preparation and clear policy now will prevent a crisis later.”

Katelynn Contreras, a policy strategist at the ACLU of Arizona and one of the authors of the memo, said it aimed to ensure counties, particularly those with few resources, had a clear outline of voter intimidation statutes and weren’t “caught on the back foot” if federal agents showed up.

“Some of the smaller counties perhaps don’t have the capacity or have the legal know-how of how all of these inner workings with federal statutes, state statute, and the various voting rights constitutional amendments interplay,” she told Votebeat. “So we wanted to provide that resource to them.”

LUCHA staff provide a Loteria-themed training for potential election observers at their offices in Phoenix on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026.

Meanwhile, LUCHA and its partner groups are tracking immigration enforcement already occurring in heavily Latino communities across the state. Rodriguez told those assembled for observer training that the organization has repeatedly seen immigration enforcement activities near schools, churches, and other places that serve as community institutions — and, during election season, as neighborhood polling sites.

There was at least one sighting of ICE agents near a voting site on the day of the state primary. The agents were spotted near 67th Avenue and Indian School Road in Maryvale, a heavily Latino and largely residential neighborhood in Phoenix.

About a half-mile down the street — past a grocery store, a pediatric dentist, an elementary school, a YMCA, and a Boys & Girls Club — voters cast ballots at the Cartwright School District Annex. Rodriguez said the reports indicated that agents were “circling” neighborhoods near the voting site.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson declined to explain what ICE agents were doing in the area, citing “operational security” and officer safety concerns.

“Every day, DHS enforces the laws of the nation across the country, including in Arizona,” the spokesperson said. The agency also provided a short list of individuals arrested in Arizona by ICE agents, complete with mugshots.

It’s unclear if ICE’s presence deterred anyone from voting that day. But Rodriguez said her group has used the incident as an example of what observers could see in November.

“It was a reminder that this work is not theoretical, it is a response to what is actually happening on the ground,” she said.

Karime Rodriguez of LUCHA poses for a portrait before the organization's poll observer training at its offices in Phoenix on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026.

Officials are skeptical they’ll see interference, but are bracing regardless

Most of Arizona’s election officials have been preparing for an array of potential federal interference scenarios since before the state primary.

Those include ICE or the National Guard appearing at the polls, federal civil rights monitors — a routine part of elections since the 1960s — interfering with voting, or federal agents showing up at counties’ election centers with warrants.

At the state level, Fontes said he wouldn’t “speculate” about how his office would respond to federal interference scenarios, and he doubted one would arise in November. But he acknowledged that he and Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes planned to be “well enough prepared to be able to present the appropriate information to courts, if it becomes necessary.”

“Obviously, we’re going to have, and we’ve already had, and we will continue to have, conversations about those possibilities,” he said.

Officials have been weighing how to respond at the county level, too — particularly in Arizona’s larger jurisdictions. Pima County Attorney Laura Conover, a Democrat, told reporters earlier this year that her office was “going to protect our community.” Her remarks suggested that she had already drafted litigation to handle federal agents, rogue federal monitors, or armed vigilante groups at the polls in the county, the second-most populous in the state and home to bright-blue Tucson.

“It doesn’t matter what uniform you’re wearing or what agency you claim, you cannot violate state law,” she said on July 10, weeks before the state primary, which appeared to run uneventfully in Pima County. “We expect anyone who visits us from a national level to do any kind of observing, which the law does allow, we expect them to follow the law. That will be the expectation. Should they not, then we are prepared to go straight into court with that information.”

Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly confirmed at a conference last month that local prosecutors “already have all the paperwork ready.” She said she was not expecting to see federal agents at the polls, but if they appeared, a staffer would “literally run to a judge who will issue a restraining order.”

“We have had the meetings,” Cázares-Kelly, a Democrat, said. “We have a plan in place.”

In neighboring Pinal County, a tabletop exercise last month simulated what might happen if a federal officer showed up at the deep-red county’s election headquarters in Florence, a small town roughly halfway between Phoenix and Tucson.

One elections staffer noted that the county had a new, formal policy for such situations. Under its provisions, he would immediately contact county attorneys and await their guidance. One attorney noted that even if the agent had a warrant, they’d still want to see it and ensure its legitimacy.

Recorder Dana Lewis, a Republican, told Votebeat that the new guideline was put into place following the FBI’s search of an elections office in Fulton County, Georgia, earlier this year.

“Most people are good, godfearing, law-abiding citizens — they wouldn’t know what to do if a federal agent showed up and said, ‘Hi, I’m here to speak with the recorder,’” she said. “So we had to establish that.”

Lewis added that she didn’t expect to see federal law enforcement at her voting sites on Election Day. After all, she said, “there’s nothing here that could possibly be of concern.”

“But it’s one of those things,” she said. “I never know what’s going to happen.”

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

Voters face flurry of ballot measures that could transform elections across the country

2026-10-19T10:00:00+00:00

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

As a former longtime California voter, I used to spend lots of time poring over the pros and cons of the ballot measures I was being asked to consider — and there were lots! One year, there were 20 initiatives on the ballot. I’ve been asked to decide whether farm animals should live in more humane conditions, whether to ban certain animal traps used by hunters, and whether to allow slot machines at race tracks.

This year, California voters will be asked to weigh the fate of 14 initiatives, which puts the state on par with Colorado for the most on the ballot this November. And quite a few of them center on election-related issues.

Other states have them, too. There are 145 ballot measures before voters in 39 states this November, including 39 focused on election issues, a new record high, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“The amount of election-related measures appearing on the ballot has escalated pretty steadily for more than the last 10 years,” said Helen Brewer, senior policy specialist on elections and redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The measures this year run the gamut from endorsing redrawn congressional maps to a new high of six voter identification measures.

Between 2004 and 2025, voters approved 10 of 13 voter ID ballot measures, said Nicole Fisher, a staff writer at Ballotpedia, the nonpartisan online political encyclopedia and election site. Thirty-six states now have some kind of voter ID law.

One of the most closely watched such initiatives this year is in California, where voters are considering a Republican-backed change to the state constitution that would require voters to provide ID. The measure would also require people voting by mail to provide the last four digits of a government ID number, such as a driver’s license.

Polling on the proposal shows that the measure faces an uphill battle.

Voters in Arizona are showing much stronger support in polls for a similar measure, Proposition 144, which would change the state constitution to require people to provide voter ID before casting a ballot in person or by mail.

The measure leaves it up to state lawmakers to figure out how to write the law if it passes. Various voting rights groups, including the ACLU of Arizona, warn that the measure could make it harder for Arizonans to vote by mail, which is the main way most residents cast ballots.

Meanwhile, a ballot measure in Alaska asks voters to toss out their current system for choosing political candidates, which puts the top four candidates on the general election ballot and uses ranked choice voting to choose the winner. Measure 2 would replace the system with a traditional partisan primary. Alaskans rejected a similar proposal in 2024 by 743 votes.

Alaska’s ranked choice voting process has been in the spotlight this year because incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, a Republican, is facing a challenger with the same name. Republicans tried — and failed — to force the lesser-known Dan Sullivan off the ballot. President Donald Trump just flew to Alaska to campaign for the senator, who faces a tight race against a Democratic candidate, former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, who is narrowly leading in the polls.

Unlike voter ID proposals, ballot measures to overhaul primary elections have fared poorly in recent years. In 2024, 11 states and the District of Columbia had measures that would have revamped their systems for choosing candidates; only the District of Columbia approved one, said Fisher.

Fisher said the spike in election-related ballot measures may be an extension of the attention such issues are getting from Trump, his supporters, and those challenging his preferred policies.

Trump has made election reforms a cornerstone of his second term. He has unsuccessfully pushed Congress to enact nationwide voter ID laws. He’s signed two election-related executive orders that have largely been neutered by the courts. And he pushed Republicans across the country to take the unusual step of redrawing congressional maps.

“We definitely do see some partisanship on both sides related to these measures,” Fisher said.

Voters in three states — Missouri, Colorado and Maryland — will be deciding the fate of redistricting proposals next month. Of the three, Missouri’s has followed the most tortured path to the ballot, involving multiple state and U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Missouri’s measure asks voters to approve or reject new congressional lines drawn last fall by the Republican-controlled legislature that weakened Democratic chances in the state. The messy litigation meant the new lines were used for the primary election, but won’t be in place for the general.

Polling shows voters are evenly split on the measure, Proposition A.

Voters in six states will face measures explicitly restricting voting to U.S. citizens, continuing a trend that has seen voters approve every such proposal since 2018. Noncitizen voting is already prohibited in federal elections, and none of the six states with ballot measures currently allows it in statewide elections.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Mayoral election result from 2025 overturned after 37 disputed ballots are finally counted

2026-10-16T22:36:21+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.

Nearly a year after voters cast their ballots in a local mayoral election, a new candidate has taken the lead after 37 disputed ballots were finally counted.

Adam Alharbi became the mayor of Hamtramck, a Detroit suburb of about 28,000, after last year’s election results showed him defeating Muhith Mahmood by just 11 votes. But those results did not include 37 absentee ballots that were mistakenly excluded from the initial count.

Now, after a prolonged court battle, those ballots have been counted and it appears Alharbi will have to leave office — although he says he will contest the new result. He is also challenging if Mahmood can hold office at all, alleging his opponent doesn’t live in city limits.

The new count, conducted at a meeting of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers on Friday, shows that Mahmood won 2,089 votes while Alharbi won 2,077. One of the 37 questioned ballots was for a write-in mayoral candidate.

The Wayne County Board of Canvassers counted 37 missing ballots in Hamtramck’s 2025 mayoral race on Oct. 16th, 2026 in Detroit, Michigan.

Cheers erupted during the meeting when Mahmood, who it is believed would be the city’s first Bangladeshi mayor (Hamtramck has a significant Bangladeshi population), was named the unofficial winner.

“It’s not about the winning and fighting for the win,” Mahmood told the canvassers, thanking the board for its work. “It’s about the democracy in this country and voter rights.”

He encouraged Alharbi, who is a member of Hamtramck’s large Yemeni American community, to work with him to unify the city.

Addressing the board, Alharbi said he was not surprised by the result, alleging malfeasance. He claimed that a number of ballots had originally been filled out for him before being “erased” and his opponent chosen instead.

He also referred to past allegations of ballot harvesting in the city.

“Election integrity in Hamtramck is not trustworthy,” he said, adding that he would request a recount.

Hamtramck Mayor Adam Alharbi watches while the Wayne County Election committee counted 37 missing ballots flipping the results of the 2025 Hamtramck mayoral race.

Friday’s tabulation was months in the making. It all started after Election Day 2025, when election officials discovered the 37 ballots in question, sitting open (but still in their envelopes) in the clerk’s office. At the time, canvassers expressed concerns over whether the ballots were still valid after learning that a number of city officials had walked into the clerk’s office while the ballots were there. That entry broke the ballots’ chain of custody, leading canvassers to deadlock on a vote to count them. As a result, the ballots were excluded from the certified results.

But last December, Mahmood sued to get the disputed ballots, which remained sealed until Friday, counted. A circuit court judge initially ruled the ballots should not be counted, and Alharbi took office in January. But in March, an appeals court overturned that decision, and the Supreme Court of Michigan declined to take the case in August. That laid the groundwork for Friday’s tabulation, although it took nearly two more months for the case to make its way back through the lower courts before the final order to tabulate the ballots finally came through Oct. 9.

It’s not immediately clear how Hamtramck might go about switching leaders or what restitution, if any, might be in store for Mahmood’s lost year as mayor. His attorney, Mark Brewer, said he would be speaking with Mahmood before making any additional decisions.

It’s also not clear if there will be a challenge to the legitimacy of the actions Alharbi took as mayor. Hamtramck has a weak mayor system, meaning the city manager handles most of the daily operations of the city and the city council makes many major decisions, but the city has implemented a number of new ordinances in the 10 months Alharbi has been in office.

Greg Mahar, Wayne County Director of Elections, speaks to the Wayne County Board of Canvassers as they counted the ballots Friday.

It’s also unknown when, or even if, Mahmood could take office. Becki Camargo, a lawyer for Wayne County, said the mayoral results could not be certified Friday due to a pending court case regarding Mahmood’s residency and whether he is eligible to take office. Alharbi asserts that Mahmood lives in Troy, not Hamtramck.

Other races on the ballot — none of which were close enough for 37 votes to change the final result — were certified.

The pending residency case is expected to be heard next week, Camargo said, but a decision may not be issued right away. Camargo suggested the certification for the mayoral election could stretch into the canvassing for the November midterm election.

Michigan election law dictates that recounts cannot be requested until certification is complete, meaning the resolution is likely to take at least a few more weeks.

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

Experts say the midterms could face challenges, but are less concerned than in the spring

2026-10-15T09:00:00+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.

President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about voter fraud, attempts to reshape U.S. election law, and efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election have left plenty of people worried that his administration will try to interfere with the 2026 midterm elections. But what threats are worth taking seriously, and what is just doomerism?

To answer that question with certainty, we’d need a crystal ball — which, unfortunately, is not in our arsenal. But we do have the next best thing: the educated guesses of more than 30 experts in election law and administration.

Last spring, we asked them to assess the likelihood of over two dozen potential scenarios that could upend the midterms — from new voting rules, to troops at the polls, to widespread voter fraud, to an overturned election. Now, with just weeks remaining until the midterms, we recently went back to them and asked for their final answers to the same questions.

In broad strokes, their opinions were unchanged. While they believe the election is likely to face challenges — such as federal agents interfering with the voting process — they ultimately do not expect a significant number of voters to be disenfranchised or the final results to be illegitimate. If anything, fewer things are keeping them up at night now than in the spring.

Experts do not expect election laws to change at this point

One of the least likely midterm scenarios, in the eyes of the experts, is that new voting laws or regulations will be put in place before the election. At least 26 of the 31 experts who filled out the questionnaire said it was unlikely that states would pass laws restricting mail voting, strengthening voter ID requirements, requiring new registrants to prove their citizenship, cutting access to in-person voting, or limiting or eliminating the use of tabulators to tally ballots.

This was a mild shift from the spring, when all of these scenarios (except limiting voting machines) were considered at least somewhat likely by a substantial minority of experts.

The reason for the change is pretty clear: Although some states might have passed new election laws in the spring and summer, by the fall, there was no longer time to enact any new laws. Mitchell Brown, a political science professor at Auburn University who was one of the experts who shifted her answer, explained that most legislatures had adjourned by the time of the second survey. “Unless something extraordinary happened it wouldn’t have been possible” to change the laws, she said.

Likewise, experts thought it was unlikely that the federal government would change election rules in any of those ways. That was largely unchanged from the spring, when our respondents were similarly skeptical that Trump would be able to get Congress or the courts to go along with his proposed election law changes, such as the SAVE America Act or his executive orders on elections.

Experts were much more emphatic about federal action than state action, with at least 24 saying it was not at all likely that federal law would affect four of these five aspects of voting. The exception, though, was mail voting. Twenty-five experts still thought it was unlikely that the federal government would restrict it, but only 11 said it was not at all likely, and four experts thought it was somewhat likely.

This is probably because most of our respondents (23 out of 31) filled out the questionnaire before the Supreme Court blocked the U.S. Postal Service’s proposed rules restricting the delivery of some mail ballots for the 2026 election. In a separate question, 16 of the 23 thought it was unlikely that the courts would allow the Postal Service rules to take effect, but there was plenty of uncertainty: Only eight said it was not at all likely.

With the Postal Service question resolved, though, experts are pretty sure the federal government won’t restrict mail voting in the midterms. Seven of the eight experts who answered that question after the Supreme Court’s ruling said further limits on mail voting were unlikely.

In general, experts are still very aware of the possibility that court rulings could significantly alter election rules shortly before the midterms. Almost half (13) of the 31 people surveyed thought that was at least somewhat likely. Notably, the share of experts saying so was roughly equal before and after the Supreme Court’s mid-September decisions on the Postal Service and Missouri’s congressional map, suggesting that their concerns were broader rather than tied to specific cases pending at the time.

Fewer experts than in the spring expect physical disruption at the polls

One of the biggest questions looming over the midterms is whether federal agents, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, will physically disrupt the voting process. It’s illegal to send armed troops to polling places absent a violent threat, but the Trump administration has sent mixed messages about whether it might do so — saying they have no plans to but declining to rule it out entirely.

Experts, though, consider this a serious possibility. Nineteen of the 31 thought it was at least somewhat likely that the federal government would deploy some form of military or law enforcement personnel at or near polling places during the midterms. That said, the share was notably smaller than in the spring; on net, four experts who took the survey both times switched from likely to unlikely.

Pam Smith, the president and CEO of Verified Voting and one of the experts who changed her answer, offered a number of reasons for her reevaluation. She noted that, since the spring, several primaries took place without any armed federal intervention, and several states (such as California) have passed laws to strengthen existing prohibitions on voter intimidation. She added that, paradoxically, the Trump administration’s rhetoric hinting about federal agents at polling places “also has given rise to robust pushback, including several lawsuits seeking to prevent this kind of scenario in advance.”

Brown, the Auburn professor, also switched her answer to this question between the two surveys. “There simply aren’t enough ICE agents out there, nor are there enough National Guard troops, to flood everywhere,” she explained.

Relatedly, a majority of experts (18 of 31) thought it was at least somewhat likely that Trump would ask federal agents to seize voting equipment or ballots after the election. However, that was significantly fewer than in the spring, with six experts, on net, changing their answers from likely to unlikely.

Experts were less concerned about seizures during voting itself. Most experts now think Trump probably will not ask federal agents to seize materials during the election, with only 13 of 31 saying that was likely. In the spring, a majority said that was at least somewhat likely.

Former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican who has broken with Trump on election issues, said he changed his mind on both questions after watching the president over the past few months. “While I am certainly troubled by much of the rhetoric and many actions, the administration has generally respected court decisions,” he wrote in an email. “Also, at key points - such as the President’s much ballyhooed election integrity address in July that ended up being a mostly nothingburger -- they have either stood down, or their actions did not rise to the level of their rhetoric.”

Another expert who changed his mind, Western Carolina University political scientist Christopher Cooper, noted that Republicans are starting to resign themselves to the idea that they will lose seats in the midterms. “It just seems that Trump has moved on,” he said. “After all, there’s an arch to be built.”

In general, experts still believe there will be physical threats to voters or polling places in 2026. Almost three-quarters (22 of 31) thought this was likely, roughly matching their spring responses. But, encouragingly, only nine of the 31 experts thought it was likely that a significant number of voters would decide not to vote in the midterms because of those threats.

Experts anticipate claims of fraud — but don’t think they’ll lead to an overturned election

One thing that hasn’t changed since the spring is our experts’ confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections. Virtually all of them (30 of 31) believe it is unlikely that a significant number of ineligible voters will cast ballots in the midterms, including 27 who believe it is not at all likely. The same number of experts believe it is unlikely that voter fraud could influence the outcome of a 2026 congressional race, including 26 who believe it is not at all likely.

Of course, politicians don’t all share this confidence — and experts expect them to question the election as a result. Three-quarters of experts (23 of 31) said they thought it was at least somewhat likely that a significant number of losing candidates would claim fraud influenced the outcome of the midterms. And every single expert thought it was likely that at least one congressional or statewide election result in 2026 would be legally challenged.

But an election being legally challenged isn’t the same as an election getting overturned — and experts are confident that the final midterm results will reflect the will of the voters. The vast majority (26 of 31) said that it was unlikely that any congressional or statewide election results from 2026 would be overturned.

Overall, our survey found that election experts are cautiously optimistic that the 2026 midterms will be administered fairly — even in the face of significant challenges. But they are also keeping a watchful eye out for a handful of serious and unprecedented threats. And even if the election goes smoothly, they warn not to discount the psychological impact of the perception that democracy is under threat.

Cooper, the Western Carolina University professor, summed up the thoughts of many of his peers. “Even though I think the odds of successfully pulling most of this off is low, the effect on distrust in the system is real and concerning.”

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

Wisconsin officials call for prompt ballot return after court rules against proposed backup plan

2026-10-14T20:24:03+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.

Election officials are again urging Wisconsin voters to return their absentee ballots as early as possible after an Oct. 6 court ruling blocked a plan that would have allowed voters with late-arriving mail ballots to cast provisional ballots on Election Day. That decision led officials to double down on their long-standing advice for voters to submit absentee ballots well in advance, whether by mail or through alternative return methods.

Voters should not mail back their ballots if Election Day is less than two weeks away, Rock County Clerk Lisa Tollefson told reporters on a call Tuesday. Instead, she said, “We want them to actually deliver it to the clerk directly, use a drop box, find an alternate method, because if we don’t have it by 8 p.m. we can’t count it.”

Two-thirds of Wisconsin clerks observed issues with absentee ballot mail delivery in the April election, a Wisconsin Elections Commission survey showed. Clerks like Tollefson worry delays could happen again and would be exacerbated by voters mailing ballots late.

So far, clerks haven’t seen many issues with mailing ballots, Chetek City Clerk Mark Eby, the vice president of the Wisconsin Municipal Clerks Association, told reporters Tuesday. Ballots began going out in mid-September, and voters have already returned over 142,000. It’s the late returns clerks worry about.

Mail delays pose a significant risk to Wisconsin voters because it is one of 35 states that do not accept late-arriving mail. Unlike the 15 states that allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to arrive late, Wisconsin requires all absentee ballots to arrive at the polls by 8 p.m. on Election Day to be counted.

The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit in July to allow voters whose mail ballots would likely arrive late to cast a provisional ballot in case the mail one doesn’t show. The lawsuit is still pending in Dane County court, but Judge Rhonda Lanford ruled last week against a motion for a temporary injunction that would have allowed the provisional ballot relief in the upcoming election.

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

Wisconsin officials can count ballots that arrive late over official errors, judge rules

2026-10-13T19:26:30+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, Oct. 14, 9:45 a.m.: This story has been updated to include comments from Wisconsin Elections Commission chair Don Millis.

Wisconsin clerks can count ballots that are in a municipality’s possession by 8 p.m. on Election Day but don’t arrive at polling places until after that time because of election official errors, a Dane County judge ruled Tuesday.

The decision comes months after Dane County Circuit Judge Everett Mitchell first ruled that Madison was correct to count 23 ballots that the city had in its possession before Election Day in April but didn’t reach the polls until after the 8 p.m. deadline, a delay city officials say was caused by election administrator error.

“Where a qualified elector has complied with every statutory requirement, and the ballot was in the custody of the municipal clerk in time for delivery to the polling place, the failure of election officials to deliver it by 8:00 p.m. is not a lawful ground for rejecting the ballot,” Mitchell said in his Tuesday order.

Wisconsin law says that ballots must be “delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m.” on Election Day.

The lawsuit was filed by Margaret and Robert Honig, two of the 23 voters whose ballots in the state’s April Supreme Court race were delayed, and whose ballots the Wisconsin Elections Commission ordered not to be counted before Mitchell reversed the agency’s decision in May. It alleges that discounting properly cast votes over election officials’ errors would deprive voters of their constitutional voting rights.

The commission argued that a plain reading of Wisconsin law states that ballots arriving after 8 p.m. may not be counted. Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell disagreed, saying that state law can’t be reasonably interpreted to punish voters over election officials’ mistakes.

Ann Jacobs, a Democratic appointee on the Wisconsin Elections Commission, said she was delighted by the Tuesday decision.

“The errors of the clerk should not be visited upon innocent voters,” she said. “This is the right outcome.”

Don Millis, the Republican chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, said he doesn’t believe Mitchell’s decision should be appealed. But he questioned the logistical hurdles and potential liabilities this decision could create for clerks in certain scenarios, like whether a clerk would be responsible if a voter returned a ballot to a clerk’s office — rather than a polling place — just before polls close.

Mitchell clarified that the decision doesn’t extend deadlines for voters who return ballots late, nor does it allow officials to count late-arriving ballots if the voter was even partially responsible for the late arrival.

“Today’s decision is a cause for celebration, a major victory for voting rights in Wisconsin,” said Law Forward staff counsel Scott Thompson, who represents the Madison voters in the case.

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

‘Mail early’: Election officials urge people to get ballots in pronto amid Postal Service slowdowns

2026-10-12T10:00:00+00:00

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

The U.S. Postal Service had enough problems even before President Donald Trump tried to transform the agency into a de facto election regulation hub that would have had the power to reject ballots heading to voters this November.

That plan was quashed by the Supreme Court after a tumultuous legal battle. But that hasn’t taken the spotlight off the Postal Service, which is still facing a lot of questions about how prepared it is to handle the massive flow of ballots moving around the country over the next four weeks.

The Postal Service has lost money for decades. Since 2007, the agency has lost $118 billion. Despite a mantra that “neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night” would keep the mail from getting through, the Postal Service is charging customers more and delivering some mail more slowly. Things are so bad that the Postmaster General has warned that the agency could run out of cash early next year.

The problems are a concern for tens of millions of Americans expected to vote by mail in this November’s elections. This year, the challenges could be compounded by belt-tightening measures that could lead to more ballots being rejected if voters aren’t paying attention.

The so-called Regional Transportation Optimization plan the agency rolled out last year has reduced pickup times at more than 15,000 post offices that are more than 50 miles from a regional processing center. That means a ballot could sit in a local post office and not get a postmark until the following day.

For people dropping off their ballots at the last minute, that could mean the difference between their votes being counted or rejected. The problems are likely to have the biggest impact on rural areas, which tend to be more likely to vote for Republicans.

Oregon has been an early case study in how the system works — or doesn’t. Oregon, which was the first state to shift to voting entirely by mail in 1998, was part of the Postal Service pilot project testing the consolidation process. The results were not encouraging. The Postal Service’s own audit found that performance declined and complaints increased.

Most importantly for voters, Oregon has seen an increase in ballots being rejected because they weren’t postmarked as required by Election Day. During the primary election this past May, more than 7,300 ballots that might have been counted when they came in after Election Day were rejected because they didn’t have a proper postmark, amounting to a 13% rejection rate, up from 9.5% in 2024.

That set off some alarm bells in Oregon, which is trying to address the problems and ensure that fewer ballots are rejected this November.

Leading the charge is Secretary of State Tobias Read, a Democrat who has worked to expand the state’s ballot drop box system, which operates independently of the Postal Service. Oregon has more than 320 drop boxes. More than 60% of all Oregon voters used drop boxes in 2024, but it’s much easier for people in urban areas to use them than those in rural areas, where it can take an hour or more to reach one. Read just got state lawmakers to add another 20 for the November election to help expand the system’s reach.

Read is so worried about postal delays that he’s encouraging people to send ballots back a week before the election or instead plan to secure a postmark or vote another way.

“We can’t count on it,” said Read, referring to the Postal Service. “It might work, but I don’t want anyone to be taking a chance with their ballot.”

Voters who send their ballots back close to Election Day should go into the post office and ask workers to manually postmark the ballot, Read said.

“It’s not that the Postal Service is something you should avoid,” he said. “Just do it early if you’re going to use the mail.”

The Postal Service itself is also encouraging voters to send their ballots back well before Election Day to ensure they are counted. The agency has a 90-second public service announcement on its website urging people to “mail early.” For some voters, the agency suggests that people send their ballots in at least a week before the deadline.

In Washington, Secretary of State Steve Hobbs is going further and urging people to send in their ballots 10 days before the deadlines to ensure that they aren’t rejected. The problem with ballots being rejected because of late postmarks skyrocketed in some Washington counties by more than 300% between the 2024 primary and the 2026 primary.

Like Read, Hobbs, a Democrat, is encouraging people to use a drop box to return their ballots - and make sure they make a plan to ensure their vote is counted.

“If you’re going to mail, you better do it right away,” he said. “Don’t wait.”

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Everything you need to know about voting in Wisconsin’s November election

2026-10-05T10:00:00+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.

This story was adapted from an article originally published July 28, 2026.

Wisconsin’s Nov. 3 midterm election is a month away, and absentee voting is already happening.

Voters will choose a governor, members of Congress and the state Legislature, statewide officials and local candidates, while also deciding three proposed constitutional amendments.

Whether you plan to vote early in person, by mail, or on Election Day, here’s everything you need to know about how to make your voice heard in November.

When is Wisconsin’s midterm election?

Election Day across the nation and in Wisconsin is Nov. 3, and polls will be open from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m.

You can also vote early in person beginning as soon as Oct. 20, depending on your jurisdiction.

What offices are on the ballot?

The governor’s office is up for grabs, along with every Wisconsin Assembly and U.S. House district in the state, 17 state Senate seats, attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer, plenty of local offices and three constitutional amendments.

Click here for a full list of what’s on your ballot.

Who can vote in Wisconsin’s November election?

Any registered voter can cast a vote in the November election. You can click here to find out whether you’re registered.

What if I’m not registered to vote yet? Is it too late?

You still have time.

The deadline to register online or by mail is Oct. 14. After that, you can register at your local clerk’s office or at an early voting location through Friday, Oct. 30.

If you miss that window, you can also register at your polling place on Election Day.

Where is my polling place?

Click here to find your polling place. On Nov. 3, you must vote at the polling place assigned to your address. Your early voting location may be different.

Early voting schedules and locations vary by municipality, and you can contact your municipal clerk here to learn more. The League of Women Voters has also assembled a list of early voting sites in dozens of Wisconsin’s biggest municipalities.

What should I bring to vote?

If you’re already registered to vote, all you need to bring is an acceptable photo ID. That can include a driver’s license, passport, military identification card, a free Wisconsin ID issued for the purposes of voting, and several other options. Click here to view all acceptable IDs.

If you are registering to vote at the polling place, you’ll need to bring a proof of residence showing your name and current mailing address. That could include a Wisconsin driver’s license or other government ID, a residential lease, or a utility bill.

How does early voting work?

In Wisconsin, early voting is technically in-person absentee voting. It allows you to cast an absentee ballot before Election Day at your municipal clerk’s office or another location designated by your municipality.

The availability of early voting varies widely across the state. Some clerks offer it only by appointment. Some cities, including Madison and Milwaukee, operate multiple early voting sites that are open several hours a day. But by law, early voting can’t be offered later than the Sunday before the Nov. 3 election. After that, you must vote on Election Day.

Once you arrive at an early voting site, you must first request an absentee ballot and show an acceptable photo ID. You can then mark your absentee ballot in private. Let an election official know if you require assistance.

Your ballot is sealed in an absentee envelope, which must be signed by the appropriate election official, and is kept until it is counted on Election Day.

Can I vote absentee by mail?

In Wisconsin, you can also request that an absentee ballot be sent to you by mail.

The deadline to request absentee ballots is Oct. 29 by 5 p.m. for regular and overseas voters, and Oct. 30 by 5 p.m. for indefinitely confined and military voters. For your absentee ballot to count, it must arrive back at the clerk’s office by Nov. 3 at 8 p.m.

Don’t request and return your ballot by mail last minute if you have any other options. Mail delays have recently led to hundreds of absentee ballots getting delivered too late to count. If Election Day is approaching, clerks recommend dropping your ballot off at your local election office, a drop box, or an early voting location instead of mailing it.

What if I return my absentee ballot and then wish to change my vote?

Under current guidance from the Wisconsin Elections Commission, you can’t void an absentee ballot after you return it to an election official. That guidance is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court, but spoiling remains prohibited in the meantime.

That means — at least for this election — that your absentee votes are final once your ballot is in the hands of election workers. If you make a mistake while casting the ballot, though, or spill something on it, you can request a replacement from an election official prior to submitting it.

Who should I contact if I have trouble voting or have any questions?

Please contact your municipal clerk, whose information you can find here. Votebeat would also like to hear about any problems you notice and answer any questions you have. You can contact us at wisconsin.tips@votebeat.org.

If you have disability-related voting questions or concerns, you can also contact the Disability Rights Wisconsin Voter Hotline at 844-347-8683.

If you run into a problem at the polls on Election Day or during early voting, legal assistance is available at 1-866-OUR-VOTE.

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

Are Trump’s claims the 2020 election was stolen losing steam?

2026-10-05T10:00:00+00:00

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

Sometimes it seems like the 2020 presidential election never ends.

Trying to prove that he actually won that race has been an animating feature of President Donald Trump’s second term, even though audits, investigations, and court cases have all found that he lost to former President Joe Biden.

Trump’s obsession has famously become a litmus test within the Republican Party. But a new analysis shared first with Votebeat suggests that, six years later, the issue may be losing some of its animating power for candidates.

States United Action, a nonpartisan nonprofit that supports state officials in protecting elections, examined the number of people running for statewide office or Congress who backed President Donald Trump’s false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, refused to certify the legitimate results of that election, or attempted to overturn those results. The group categorizes those candidates as “election deniers.”

The group found that the number of such candidates fell by about 30% between 2022 and 2026, dropping from 285 to 197.

The candidates this year on the States United Action list includes contestants for governor in key swing states, attorneys general, U.S. senators, members of the House of Representatives, and, perhaps most importantly, secretaries of state. If they win, it would give them expanded control over the levers of electoral power for what is expected to be a contentious 2028 presidential election.

Right now, according to States United Action, 27 current statewide officeholders on their list have some oversight of elections. This November, 33 candidates for statewide office are on the ballot across the country.

If history is any guide, most of them are likely to lose. Since 2021, according to the group’s analysis, fewer than one in four of such candidates have won a statewide office.

“We know that election denial is a losing campaign strategy and that Americans are tired of hearing the same old lies,” said Joanna Lydgate, CEO of States United Action. But, she added, “the threat they pose to our elections and the rule of law is very real: The candidates who win in 2026 will run our elections in 2028 and serve as a check on Trump’s power in the meantime.”

Such candidates are on the ballot in almost all of the swing states expected to be pivotal to the 2028 presidential race, including Arizona, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

One of the most closely watched races is the one for Arizona secretary of state, where incumbent Democrat Adrian Fontes faces Alexander Kolodin, an attorney who helped bring unsuccessful lawsuits challenging Arizona’s 2020 election results and was later disciplined by the State Bar over election-related litigation.

Kolodin, who did not respond to a request for comment, rejects the “election denier” label. On the campaign trail, he has sought to highlight his work in the Arizona Legislature, noting that several of his election reform bills have passed with bipartisan support, though those largely came out of negotiations around must-pass pieces of legislation.

Meanwhile, Kolodin would not say at a recent debate whether Arizona’s elections were safe and secure.

The persistent attacks on America’s electoral system are starting to take a toll on voter confidence. Recent polls have shown shrinking confidence in the country’s elections. For example, a recent University of California, San Diego survey found that less than half Americans — just 49% — thought the November election would be free and fair.

Pew found less of a partisan gap than in the past, though cautioned that Democrats and Republicans have different reasons for their dwindling confidence.

Thad Kousser, a UC-San Diego political science professor, said that electing election skeptics to office doesn’t necessarily mean that they will throw a wrench into the process.

“The real question is not what people have said about past elections but whether the elections that they run are going to be rooted in reality, informed by the experts in their teams,” he said. “If people come into office and take an open and honest look, that’s going to be very different than if they came in with their mind made up, ignored the evidence and pushed for policies that are not rooted in reality.”

One recent case of that arose in South Dakota, where outgoing Secretary of State Monae Johnson entered office as a skeptic of the electoral office and is leaving as a defender of its integrity. Johnson, a Republican, is endorsing a Democrat to replace her in the fall election after feuding with her party over the issue.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Voters in multiple Michigan counties still don’t have absentee ballots after clerks miss mailing deadline

2026-09-29T23:17:15+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.

Several Michigan clerks missed the deadline to mail absentee ballots, despite state laws that require them to be sent to voters at least 40 days before the election — which, for the 2026 midterms, was Sept. 24.

As of Tuesday, voters in Antrim and Presque Isle counties are still waiting on their ballots, officials in both counties confirmed. A number of other communities also missed the deadline but have since gotten their ballots mailed. Waterford Township and Grayling, for example, mailed their ballots Sept. 25, while Farmington Hills, Commerce Township, Chocolay Township, and Klacking Township had ballots available for pickup by the deadline but did not begin mailing them until this week.

In Michigan, counties are in charge of getting ballots printed and distributing them to municipal clerks, who then work with their staffs to get the ballots into the hands of voters.

It’s not unheard of for counties to miss the 40-day deadline, state officials said. Typically, there is no penalty if counties have a plan in place to get ballots to voters as soon as possible.

Antrim County Deputy Clerk Annette Marcus told Votebeat on Monday that her county started getting ballots to municipal clerks on Tuesday, then the clerks will send them out to voters. In Presque Isle County’s Ocqueoc Township, Clerk Pamela Shaedig said Tuesday that she expected to receive her ballots Wednesday.

Those with outstanding ballots blamed printers and the tight deadlines to turn ballots around. There are a limited number of print companies approved to produce ballots for Michigan’s elections, and all clerks typically send their final orders within a relatively short window.

“I don’t know how, honestly, to get it out any faster,” Marcus said.

She said it would be helpful if the August primary, in which candidates for partisan races are selected for the November ballot, were held earlier. Antrim County finalized its primary results only about a week before Marcus was preparing to send ballots to the printer, she said.

The state legislature would have to approve moving the primary date. It has been considered in the past, but the Senate and House have been unable to agree on a new date.

Other election officials agreed the 40-day deadline is “hard to meet,” in the words of Trena Somers, the Alcona County deputy clerk.

In Grand Traverse County, Clerk Sam Gedman said his ballots came in from the printers on Sept. 23. His team was able to get them to municipal clerks in time for them to make the state deadline, but “it was stressful,” he said.

“We’re fortunate to be able to get them out by the deadline,” he said. “Everybody works real hard to make it happen, and it’s just a hurry. We always rush, no matter how prepared we are, and it’s frustrating, but that’s just part of the gig, I guess.”

Jennifer Morrell, CEO and co-founder of The Elections Group, noted that the popularity of absentee voting in Michigan is a new phenomenon compared with most other states with mail voting options. Michigan’s no-excuse absentee voting system as it currently exists only came into effect after voters approved it via constitutional amendment in 2018. It skyrocketed in popularity particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and now more than 1.9 million voters are on the state’s permanent mail ballot list.

It makes sense, Morrell said, that there are still some hiccups to work through — particularly when compared to states that have voted primarily by mail for years, like a number of Western states. Those states have more experience, but the lessons they have learned could be useful to officials in Michigan.

“If I were advising counties… I would want to see their absentee ballot production plan,” said Morrell, who has served as an elections official in both Colorado and Utah. “What tasks are being done? Who’s doing them, and by what date? If you don’t have a plan, well, there you go. That’s where you start.”

Having dedicated plans won’t eliminate every problem, she said, but it can help. For example, it can show officials when vendors may be overpromising or where in-house inefficiencies are wasting time.

Sometimes, though, the factors that delay ballots are completely out of a clerk’s control. Hamlin Township, in Mason County, was set to meet the state’s deadline but is getting its ballots reprinted after the death of a trustee who was facing recall, according to a notice from the township. Reprinted Hamlin ballots will be mailed starting Oct. 1.

Clerks who missed the state’s deadline were instructed to notify voters, and many did through social media and township pages. The majority, though, appeared to have gotten their ballots into the hands of voters on time.

The work is hard, but getting absentee ballots on time “is a commitment we make to the voters,” Gedman said. “We don’t want to break that.”

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

Everything you need to know about voting in Michigan in 2026

2026-09-28T22:59:00+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.

This story was adapted from an article originally published June 25, 2026.

It’s time to vote once again, Michigan.

The 2026 midterms may feel millennia away, but it’s only a few short weeks. Ballots are already in the hands of voters around the state, and they’re chock-full of critical races — the kind that will decide what Michigan looks like for years to come.

Here’s everything you need to know about how to vote.

When is Election Day?

The general election in Michigan (and every other state) is Nov. 3. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time.

But you can vote earlier if you choose. Absentee ballots are already available and can be returned anytime before 8 p.m. on Election Day. Your community is also required to offer early in-person voting — you can check when and where that will be for your city or township at the Michigan Voter Information Center, which is maintained by the state.

Who can vote in the midterm elections?

All registered voters are eligible to vote. To register to vote in Michigan, you need to be 18, a U.S. citizen, and a resident of the state.

How do I check if I’m registered to vote?

Some communities may send you a notice with your polling place and districts on it, but the fastest and most efficient way is to look yourself up with the Michigan Voter Information Center. There, you can see if you’re registered — and if you’re on the list to automatically receive an absentee ballot by mail.

How do I register to vote in Michigan?

Registering to vote in Michigan is relatively easy and very quick.

If you have a Michigan driver’s license, the fastest way to do it is to register online. You’ll need to affirm you’re a U.S. citizen, a Michigan resident, and at least 18 years old (although those 16 or older can pre-register to vote). You’ll need to authorize the secretary of state’s office to use your stored signature — usually in the system from when you got your driver’s license — for your registration.

From there, the hardest part is pulling out your wallet to input your driver’s license number. You’ll affirm your information as it appears on your license, input the last four digits of your Social Security number, and then answer a few more questions.

Any eligible voters can also register by mail by printing and mailing in the forms here, which are available in a variety of languages. And finally, you can register in person by bringing a photo ID to your local clerk’s office. You can look up your local clerk here.

The deadline to register online or by mail is 15 days before the election — which, for the upcoming general election, is Oct. 19. But you can still register in person at your clerk’s office after that as late as Election Day itself.

Where is my polling place?

Your polling place may have moved since you last voted. A number of communities have consolidated their precincts in recent years in response to changes in state law.

You can look up where to go on the Michigan Voter Information Center. It will have the addresses and hours of your polling place, as well as all of your early voting locations and mail ballot drop boxes.

What offices are on my ballot?

This ballot is a long one, so don’t be concerned if it takes you a little while to fill it out. A complete list of what’s on your ballot, including candidate names, parties, and related Votebeat coverage, is available here.

To check specifically what’s on your ballot, visit the Michigan Voter Information Center, click “What’s on the ballot?” and then put in your jurisdiction. You can also see it on your own voter information page, which you can access by putting in your driver’s license number or other identifying information at this link.

Unlike in the primary election, you can vote for multiple parties in the general election. You have a constitutional right to a private ballot in Michigan, and no one will know how you voted.

What should I bring to vote?

If you choose to vote in person, the process will go fastest if you bring a photo ID. That can be a driver’s license, a passport, a tribal card with photos, or a student ID — a number of things can work as long as the identification comes from a government institution and has a photo attached. You can find a list of acceptable IDs here.

But photo ID is not required to vote in Michigan if you don’t have one or forget to bring it with you. State law allows you to instead fill out an affidavit confirming your identity. On that form, you’ll confirm your name and address. Lying on the form is considered perjury, which comes with the potential for fines or jail time.

If you need help voting, you have a right to bring someone along. That person cannot be your employer or someone acting on the behalf of your union, but otherwise they can help you cast your ballot.

Can I vote early in person in Michigan?

Yes! State law requires that any election with federal or statewide races — think U.S. senators or the governor — has at least nine consecutive days of early in-person voting, starting on the second Saturday before the election (which, for this year’s election, is Oct. 24).

Communities are also allowed to offer additional days of early voting, although not all of them do. Early voting requires money and staff resources that are difficult for some smaller communities to wrangle.

This year is the first that communities across the state are allowed to offer early voting on the Monday before the election. Detroit, Lansing, and a number of other cities will be taking advantage. Other communities, such as Ann Arbor, will go even further — voters there will be able to vote early starting Oct. 21 at the city’s satellite voting centers. Grand Rapids voters can start casting early in-person ballots starting Oct. 20.

You can check your community’s specific hours and locations by putting in your information here.

How do I vote by mail in Michigan?

In Michigan, any voter can choose to vote by mail, for any reason, by requesting an absentee ballot. You can do so online here. Voters with disabilities can request an accessible ballot here.

Michigan voters have the right to be on what is referred to as the permanent absentee list, which means their local clerks will automatically send them a ballot for every election. If you’re on that list, your clerk should have already mailed your ballot no later than Sept. 24. You can check if you’re on the permanent absentee list by putting your information in here — look for a box in the top corner labeled “Absentee Ballot.” You can check your status by seeing if it says “yes” or “no” under “Permanent Ballot List.” If you’re not already on the list, you can request to be added to it when you request your absentee ballot.

The deadline to request an absentee ballot is 5 p.m. on the Friday before the election, which for this election is Oct. 30. Your clerk’s office will do their best to get it to you by Tuesday, but if it doesn’t arrive in time, you can still show up to your polling place on Election Day, ask them to cancel the absentee ballot, and vote in person.

In order for your absentee ballot to count, it must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day; postmarks don’t count. If you’re returning it by mail, most experts recommend putting it in the mail no later than a week before the election to give it time to make it back to your clerk. If you’re running later than that (or want to ensure it arrives in time), it’s recommended to use a drop box instead. Each community is required to set up drop boxes where voters can return their absentee ballots. You can look up drop box locations by putting your information in here.

It’s worth noting that drop boxes don’t function like mail boxes — you can’t drop your ballot just anywhere and expect it to make it to your clerk. Make sure you return it in a drop box designated for your specific city or township.

Are there new rules around mail voting this year?

President Donald Trump did try to put new restrictions on voting by mail this year, but the U.S. Supreme Court blocked them from going into effect for the midterms. The Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks has gotten notices from the U.S. Postal Service confirming that “USPS processes and procedures will remain consistent with previous election cycles,” as MAMC President Michael Siegrist wrote in an email to members. Election mail is expected to be “business as usual.”

Who can I ask if I have more questions on voting in Michigan?

Your first stop is probably your clerk’s office. Your clerk and their staff are extensively trained in election administration, and they can probably answer your questions. You can find your clerk here.

You can also reach out to Votebeat if you see something strange or run into problems. We’d love to hear from you — reach out at mich.tips@votebeat.org.

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

Monae Johnson questioned vote-counting machines. Running elections changed her mind.

2026-09-28T09:00:00+00:00

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

Four years after far-right Republicans helped elect Monae Johnson as South Dakota secretary of state, she’s backing a Democrat to replace her.

The cross-party endorsement is unusual. But the more interesting story is how Johnson got to this point.

Johnson ousted a GOP incumbent in 2022 with support from activists who distrusted electronic vote-counting machines and wanted South Dakota to rely more heavily — or entirely — on hand-counting. Her own rhetoric was plenty skeptical too.

In a fundraising letter that spring, Johnson wrote that “all across America we’ve seen questionable results in national, state, and local elections.” Asked that fall whether Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election, she would not say yes: “I’m not going to acknowledge that.” After she won, she said “anything can be hacked,” citing warnings from “IT people, military people,” and floated restricting the use of vote-counting machines.

But once Johnson became responsible for running elections herself, her views started to change. By 2024, she was publicly expressing confidence in tabulators and saying South Dakota’s election system had safeguards “built in throughout the process.” And this summer, Johnson told Republican convention delegates, “I trust the county auditors to do their jobs, and I fully support the use of secure, tested ballot tabulators.”

Former Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, said she has seen the same evolution play out among poll workers and county officials: People sometimes get involved in elections because they are skeptical of how they work. Then they discover that the problems they expected to find are not there and that some of the fixes they imagined are not workable.

“It’s a brave thing to admit,” Boockvar said. She said she could not recall another example of a statewide election official doing so.

More common are local versions of the same story.

For example, Michelle Burchill — a Republican and supporter of President Donald Trump — went to work for Yavapai County, Arizona, in 2020 after absorbing many of Trump’s claims about rigged elections. On her first day, she watched workers stop when two parts of the operation were off by a single ballot, then search until they found two ballots stuck together. “I was an election skeptic, for sure,” she told Governing Magazine last month. Watching the process “very humbly woke” her up. Today, she serves as one of the county’s top election officials.

In Pennsylvania, registered Republican Jay Schneider signed up to work elections after 2020, still suspicious that there had been “shenanigans.” After serving as a poll worker and training to become a judge of elections, he told Votebeat that seeing the safeguards firsthand changed his view.

In California’s Shasta County, Tom Toller took over an elections office that had spent years at the center of post-2020 conspiracy fights. He arrived with no election experience, skeptical of voting machines and willing to consider hand-counting — or even undertake a legal fight with the state over it. Four months later, after “getting underneath the hood” of the system, he said his views had changed: Hand-counting was slow and expensive, while properly run machines were fast and accurate.

These stories are not about people changing their politics. They are about what happens when a campaign promise becomes an administrative problem.

Johnson appears to have confronted that gap early.

One of Johnson’s first major projects was turning her campaign promise of post-election audits into something counties could actually carry out. She chose Jennifer Morrell, who runs The Elections Group, to help lead the work, despite criticism from some of the conservative activists who had helped put Johnson in office.

Johnson also assembled a team of people who had already taken opposing sides on election policy. For example, activist Vicky Buhr had testified in favor of banning ranked-choice voting, while Democratic state Rep. Kameron Nelson was one of just five House members who voted against the ban. Over three meetings, the group worked out how the audits would function and eventually conducted a mock audit.

The system they helped implement required counties to hand count ballots in 5% of precincts and compare them with machine results. When counties carried out those audits in 2024, the results repeatedly corroborated the tabulators. “The accuracy and transparency demonstrated by this process highlight the strength of our election system,” Johnson said in a statement announcing the results.

Hand-counting had become a way to corroborate the machines rather than an argument for eliminating them.

Many of the activists who helped elect Johnson in 2022 remained unconvinced. This summer, they backed state Rep. Heather Baxter, whose campaign had called for hand-counted paper ballots and eliminating machines, for secretary of state instead. Republican convention delegates chose Baxter over Johnson, 59% to 41%. Johnson is now backing Democrat Terrence Davis in the general election, who says he trusts South Dakota’s current election system and opposes statewide hand-counting as the primary method of tallying ballots.

In explaining her endorsement, Johnson wrote that she now knows “the difference between campaigning for this office and carrying the responsibility of leading it.” The job, she wrote, requires “the humility to listen to professionals” and “a willingness to review new information and change course when the evidence supports doing so.”

Nearly 200 candidates who have promoted false or unsupported claims about elections are on the ballot this fall for Congress or statewide office, reports Wired. Some are seeking jobs that would put them much closer to the machinery of elections themselves.

Johnson’s story suggests that proximity can do something an argument sometimes cannot: replace assumptions with the tedious, technical reality of how elections actually work.

We’re about to get more chances to see whether others will be as willing to change course when the evidence demands it.

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

Across the country, election officials are preparing for the possibility of federal intervention

2026-09-24T16:36:17+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.

Each year, election officials prepare for the worst: A bomb threat at a polling place, power outages, natural disasters.

But this year, they are wrestling a potential threat they have never before considered: the possibility that the federal government might disrupt the administration of November’s elections.

It’s not clear what action, if any, the Trump administration may take to interfere with the 2026 midterms, but election officials from jurisdictions large and small are preparing for everything from immigration officers at the polls to federal attempts to seize ballots. They’re also acknowledging that most standoffs with the federal government would likely end in court, and they’re talking to lawyers and preparing legal filings in case they prove necessary.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, head of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, said he is assembling “the Mad Libs of legal filings” in preparation for any and all election problems.

“You leave the plaintiff and the defendant blank, and the jurisdiction blank,” he said. “But as soon as we have a real situation, we can immediately put the information in there and file in the courts at a moment’s notice.”

President Donald Trump has repeatedly attempted to assert unprecedented authority over election administration, though many of his initiatives have stalled in the courts or in Congress. His administration is actively investigating the 2020 election, which he continues to falsely assert he won, and has seized years-old ballots and election materials from Fulton County, Georgia. Trump has also said he regrets not sending the National Guard to seize voting equipment after the 2020 election.

And he is carrying those sentiments forward into the 2026 midterm elections.

Last year, Trump said Republicans should take over running elections in some heavily Democratic jurisdictions. Senior members of his administration have stopped short of saying they would not send federal agents to polling places, though experts warn that would break federal and state laws. And Trump delivered a rare primetime address to the nation in July where he warned of a “crisis in election security” and said the nation’s systems fell “catastrophically short” of ensuring free and fair elections.

All of that has contributed to the growing concerns of election officials, especially in Democratic or closely contested jurisdictions.

“The only limit is our imagination,” said Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat. “To some extent, all of us are really shadowboxing here. We don’t know when – or if – the blow is going to land from whom, or under what circumstances.”

Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, said that Democrats are conjuring up irrational concerns that are undermining efforts to improve election security.

“The only ‘fears’ Americans have about our elections are being fueled by extreme liberal Democrats who refuse to support commonsense legislation that ensures Americans, and Americans only, decide our elections,” Bis said.

Aggressive federal actions spark local concern

It’s not just top state officials like Aguilar who are making sure their legal ducks are in a row. Around the country, local election administrators are working with experts, their attorneys, and one another to plan for a possible visit from the feds.

Earlier this month, county election directors from around South Carolina gathered in the Charleston County elections building, tucked away in a marsh next to the Ashley River, to game out responses to any scenario that could threaten a smooth midterm election.

Disruptive social media influencers could show up. Election officials might have to contend with bomb threats, like the more than 200 called into polling places in 2024, or cybersecurity attacks. What to do about drones buzzing over polling places on Election Day?

“Pull,” one director joked in response to the drone scenario, referencing the signal to release a clay pigeon at a shotgun range. He earned laughs from some of the dozens of other county election officials clustered in the training room.

But the conference wasn’t limited to preparing for the type of disruptions which have, unfortunately, become somewhat routine. The officials also heard from experts on preparing for and responding to federal investigations.

“The big thing that we wanted them to take away from this is that they need to contact their local government attorney and start that conversation now,” said Brenda Cabrera, a former election director in Virginia and one of the presenters.

County lawyers often handle a wide range of legal issues and may need to lean on the expertise of local elections officials, she said.

Gary Restaino, a former US attorney in Arizona, suggested having legal motions “already sketched out” in the event that the county officials get served a subpoena.

Restaino said election directors asked him whether counties must comply with search warrants, even if they believe a warrant goes beyond what is allowed under law. The answer, Restaino said, is yes — at least until a court intervenes.

“Sticking your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich and hoping that none of those things are going to happen, that’s just not realistic,” Amy Sams, a former educator turned election director for Pickens County, South Carolina said. “But waiting until you hit a crisis point to say ‘Oh, hi, by the way I’m the director of elections. I understand you’re the county attorney. Let’s work together on this crisis situation’ is really not a feasible plan either.”

Sams said she knows her county, nestled in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains on the North Carolina border and home to roughly 80,000 mostly Republican voters, is less likely to face subpoenas or other challenges from the federal government than larger, more diverse jurisdictions. But she said she’d be “remiss” if she didn’t prepare.

“I can’t say never because you just don’t know,” she said.

All hands on deck

Preparations to take the Trump administration to court if it tries to interfere in the election are taking place at all levels of government.

In the past two weeks, two separate lawsuits — one filed by the city of Denver and voting rights groups, the other by unions and civil rights groups — have targeted the Trump administration in federal court, seeking to block it from deploying federal agents at voting locations.

Local district attorneys and state attorneys general are also preparing and coordinating with each other and local election officials.

“We have known this was going to be a legal fight from the beginning,” said Jose Garza, the district attorney in Travis County, Texas, home to the state capital, Austin.

“It’s going to be a fight about whether or not the legal framework that has fostered peace in this country for the last 150 years, relatively, still holds up under a Trump administration that is eager to shed all the legal standards and protections that we’ve come to rely on.”

Garza said he is working closely with local elections officials to prepare for any legal action that may be needed. He recently took part in a countywide exercise to strategize a coordinated response to a variety of potential problems that could arise in November.

Local prosecutors, district attorneys, and county attorneys “have not historically been accustomed to needing to challenge federal orders on behalf of their community, but we are, routinely at this point,” said Laura Conover, the attorney for Pima County, Arizona.

Congressional Democrats are also preparing to push back.

U.S. Sen. and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.) launched the Senate Democrats’ Election Protection Task Force, which has held a series of simulated election scenarios that have wrestled with many of the most extraordinary fears: National Guard troops intimidating voters at polling places, federal officials seizing ballots, foreign countries carrying out disruptive disinformation campaigns.

Tina Barton, co-chair of the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections and a former Michigan election official, has been leading tabletop exercises like the one in Charleston for months. By the end of the year, she will have visited more than 40 states, some more than once.

She said that the prospect of “external interference” from entities such as the federal government is a concern that some jurisdictions, particularly large, diverse cities, have brought up and wanted to practice.

Barton said election officials are most concerned about the prospect of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents showing up at polling places, and the potential for voter intimidation should that happen.

“We’re walking through what does that look like for voter intimidation, what does that look like for your law enforcement, how do you get your county attorneys involved in that moment, and what types of decisions are they going to need to make,” she said.

At an event in Washington, D.C. this week sponsored by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said her office will have special agents, as well as state police officials, well-versed in election law prepared to respond to any incident.

Like Aguilar, she said, she has briefs prepared “for virtually every set of circumstance we could think of. Except the zombie apocalypse. I don’t have that down yet.”

County election officials on the front line

County election officials control polling places and possess the physical ballots and equipment that would likely be at the center of any court dispute.

TJ Pyche, the vice president of Ready for Tuesday, a nonpartisan group that has conducted dozens of simulated election scenario exercises across the country this election cycle, said his goal is to help those elections officials prepare without creating unnecessary alarm.

“Most of the scenarios that we go through are not going to happen to all of the jurisdictions,” said Pyche, who worked for several years as an elections official in Florida. “We’re sensitive to the fact that we’re not there to scare them; we’re there to help them get prepared.”

In the group’s scenarios, Ready for Tuesday sometimes presents this dilemma: Two individuals identifying themselves as investigators with a federal agency arrive at the central count facility and say they have credible evidence of voting irregularities. They request immediate access to observe what’s happening inside. How do you respond?

Michael Siegrist, Canton Township clerk and president of the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks, said he is prepared to fight any attempt to seize voting equipment or ballots.

“Nobody is taking possession of any voting equipment,” said Siegrist, who expressed confidence that the courts would reject any illegitimate efforts to disrupt voting.

Of course, officials aren’t just worried about federal agents accessing equipment. In 2021 Republican commissioners concerned about fraud in Fulton County, Pennsylvania, allowed third party groups to access voting equipment, which the state later decertified.

In response to that incident, the Pennsylvania Department of State issued a new directive making clear that no federal, state or local officials should be given access to county voting equipment without a valid judicial warrant.

Elections officials in Texas are also seeking guidance about what to do if federal officials try to interfere with the election.

Celia Israel, the voter registrar in Travis County, described the prospect of federal intervention as “the biggest concern in my community” at a summer conference of election officials.

“How will you advise the secretary of state on if the federal government, who is threatening us as county officials, on whether and how you will engage with them should the outcome of the election not be what they want?” she asked Chuck Pinney, the legal director for the Texas Secretary of State’s Office.

Pinney said state law has specific procedures in place for election challenges.

But he didn’t directly say what his office would do if counties face federal pressure. His advice? Talk to your lawyer.

Votebeat reporters Sasha Hupka, Natalia Contreras, Alex Shur, and Hayley Harding contributed reporting.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

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

Election officials played key role in Supreme Court mail ballot decision

2026-09-21T09:00:00+00:00

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

Election officials exhaled when the Supreme Court on Monday night ended months of uncertainty by blocking the Trump administration from restricting mail ballots this November.

The Supreme Court decision clears the way for millions of Americans to vote by mail, just as they have in previous elections, though availability ranges widely from state to state.

“It’s a relief and it’s palpable,” said Marybeth Kuznik, the elections director for Pennsylvania’s Fayette County. “I honestly don’t know how we could have complied with (the Postal Service’s restrictions) at this point in the election cycle.”

But the administration’s efforts to tighten access and the chaotic legal battle that ensued left voters worrying that voting by mail could be disrupted or unreliable.

Now election officials are working to reassure them.

For months, people across the political spectrum voiced concerns about the new proposed U.S. Postal Service rules pushed by President Donald Trump. Election officials from both major political parties played a central role in the Supreme Court debate. More than 80 of them, including Kuznik, signed onto a brief warning that they wouldn’t have time to meet the new requirements before the November election. Several Republican secretaries of state, including officials from Kentucky, Georgia, and Kansas, urged the court to freeze the plans because of the chaos they would create for an election now less than 50 days away.

Those pleas appear to have been decisive for at least one justice, Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote a concurring opinion saying he thought there was a fair chance the rules would hold up to legal scrutiny, but applying them in the 2026 elections would be “arbitrary and capricious” because “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule.”

Now, election officials who have been for months raising concerns about an entirely new vote by mail system have to communicate to voters that the old one is safe to use, even as Trump continues to denounce it. Despite voting by mail himself last month in Florida, Trump attacked the process on social media as a “disaster” and “Nation Destroying SCAM” that made America the “laughing stock all over the World.”

Some election officials and experts said they are seeing fewer absentee ballot requests than expected.

“It has already caused all sorts of voter confusion, and even though the rule is not in place for this election, that’s not to say that there won’t be some voters that think that it is,” said Tammy Patrick, the chief program officer at the Election Center, a national nonprofit association for election administrators. “So it’s going to be incumbent on all of us to make sure that we just keep up the mantra that nothing has changed as a result of the rule.”

Patrick, who filed an expert declaration in the court cases challenging the Postal Service rules, said the best thing voters can do is get their ballots in as early as possible.

Dana Lewis, the recorder who oversees elections in Arizona’s Pinal County, joked that she wears six-inch heels so she can pivot on a dime, something that gave her the dexterity to keep up with this topsy-turvy election season.

Lewis, a Republican, has invested heavily in her county’s drop box system, which includes 24/7 video monitoring and GPS-locked ballot boxes for tighter security, something she believes should give voters confidence that their ballots will be kept safe. Roughly three-quarters of Arizona’s voters cast mail ballots in 2024, federal data show.

“Trust the system,” Lewis said.

But not everyone does. The court ruling came in parallel with a new poll showing a precipitous decline in public confidence in the nation’s electoral system. The University of California, San Diego survey found that just 55% of respondents trust that the vote would be counted fairly, compared to 71% in 2024.

The poll also found just 49% of Americans expect the upcoming election to be free and fair.

That’s in line with other polling, including a recent Pew Research Center survey in which 55% of respondents said they thought the upcoming election would be free and fair, an historic low for the question they have asked over the past six years.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Wisconsin election laws could change under a Republican or Democratic trifecta

2026-09-17T19:21:47+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.

Over the past several years, gridlock between the Republican Legislature and Democratic governor’s office means election legislation in Wisconsin has hardly seen the light of day.

Though Republican lawmakers have pushed for stricter voting rules, Gov. Tony Evers has blocked those efforts at several turns during his eight years in office, leaving election policy changes in a stalemate of bills and vetoes. Instead, courts have increasingly become the primary venue for election rules to be challenged and changed.

That dynamic could change after November’s elections. Democrats hope to retain the governor’s office and win control of both legislative chambers. Republicans are vying to hold the Legislature and flip the governor’s office. Either outcome would give one party unified control of state government — a so-called trifecta — and a much clearer path to enacting its election priorities.

The results could shape election rules over the next several years, including how voters cast ballots and have them counted in the 2028 presidential election.

Still, unified control would not necessarily produce dramatic changes to Wisconsin election policy. Some major election policies are now written into the state Constitution, and Republicans have already achieved many of their goals.

“I don’t see big changes coming in state law, almost regardless of what partisan configuration the state ends up with after the election,” said UW-Madison political science professor Barry Burden, who runs the school’s Elections Research Center. Republicans, he said, took advantage of a political trifecta from 2011 to 2018 to implement their biggest priorities.

Democrats would have difficulty undoing some of those policies, like voter ID and a ban on private funding for election administration, which are now enshrined in the state Constitution, making them harder to roll back.

Democrats would have limited room to change policy

If Democrats were to win a trifecta, Burden said, Republicans’ past success in putting major election policies into the state Constitution wouldn’t leave them much room to maneuver.

They could try to make the state’s voter ID law more accommodating, but eliminating it altogether would be difficult, he said. Democrats could turn toward other priorities, like enacting automatic voter registration and potentially allowing people with felonies to vote if they’re on parole.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer, a Democrat from Beloit, said that if Democrats win a trifecta they would immediately try to pass legislation allowing election officials to process ballots on the Monday before an election. That measure would give officials an extra day to process ballots, likely speeding up unofficial results at the end of the night.

Other priorities, he said, include codifying the legality of absentee ballot drop boxes, expanding absentee ballot tracking for voters, allowing voters to spoil an absentee ballot, creating standards for fixing mistakes on absentee ballots, and removing a requirement for officials to put numbers on certain absentee ballots that can risk the voters’ anonymity.

“These are very low hanging fruit that either Republicans were interested in but didn’t have unanimity on, or, in a couple of these cases like drop boxes and curing, we have a different perspective than they do,” Spreitzer said.

Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Crowley, the Milwaukee County executive, told Votebeat he would prioritize the Monday processing proposal.

“This common-sense change would help election workers process ballots more efficiently and reduce delays in reporting results, while maintaining the security and integrity of the election process in Wisconsin,” he said.

Crowley also said he would support better funding for local election officials, which has long been a concern for municipal and county clerks in Wisconsin. Spreitzer agreed.

Democrats could also revive some of the bills that have stalled under GOP leadership, including shortening the state’s residency requirement, banning firearms near polling places and establishing automatic voter registration.

Crowley himself was the lead author on an automatic voter registration bill during his brief tenure in the Legislature. Like most Democratic election bills under the GOP Legislature, his bill didn’t receive a public hearing or floor vote.

Republicans could prioritize noncitizen voting legislation

Republicans would also have limited room for broad policies if they won a trifecta, Burden said, largely because they enacted most of their policy priorities during their previous period of unified control. That includes one of the nation’s strictest voter ID laws and a requirement to reject absentee ballots missing a witness address.

One area where they could go further is citizenship verification. Republicans could pursue requirements that voters provide documentary proof of citizenship, Burden said, or revive efforts to audit the state’s voter rolls for potential noncitizens.

“That has just been a drumbeat coming out of the Trump administration: executive orders, lawsuits, DOJ actions, requests for data from the state, and other things,” he said. “So Republicans in the state will feel pressure, if nothing else, from the Trump administration to do something more about citizenship in such a key battleground state.”

Republican lawmakers have already pursued such measures. Earlier this year, Evers vetoed a bill that would have required a noncitizen voter audit. During legislative testimony in January, Rep. Dave Maxey, the GOP chair of the Assembly Elections Committee, said that he would prefer IDs used for voting to also clarify a person’s citizenship status. Maxey didn’t respond to Votebeat’s request for comment.

Republicans could also revive other election bills Evers vetoed, including legislation that would have banned those with felonies from voting until they paid certain court fees, and a proposal to eliminate the voter ID exemption for people who are indefinitely confined because of age or a disability.

Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany, a U.S. representative from northern Wisconsin, has also supported several election policies that could become relevant under unified GOP control. In Congress, he voted for the federal SAVE Act, which would have required people registering to vote in federal elections to provide documentary proof of citizenship. In his time in the state Legislature, Tiffany co-authored the bill that led to the state’s voter ID requirement.

Tiffany told Votebeat that he would approve legislation to identify ineligible voters by comparing Department of Transportation records with the statewide registration database, along with other “election integrity reforms that Governor Evers vetoed that I believe deserve another look.”

Tiffany tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which President Donald Trump lost. He told Wisconsin Watch recently that he thinks President Joe Biden won the race but welcomes investigations into the election.

He acknowledged the Monday ballot processing bill at a press conference in August, but didn’t signal whether he supported it. This specific policy priority may have more of a chance, Burden said, because it has broad support across the spectrum despite some GOP dissension.

Stalemate likely to continue under divided government

The stalemate that has been the status quo since 2018 would likely continue under any form of divided government, Burden said. Even if Republicans win a trifecta, Democrats have a backstop in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 liberal majority, Burden said. Republicans, meanwhile, could challenge Democratic priorities in federal court, where they may have the upper hand.

“With Evers and Republicans in power the last eight years, it’s been mostly stalemate: lots of vetoes, and very little actual lawmaking around elections,” Burden said. “If things were to flip with Tiffany in office and Democrats were to win both chambers — I think that’s unlikely — I would expect more stalemate.”

Spreitzer, the Democratic senator, said some proposals, like the Monday processing bill and deleting poll list numbers from the back of absentee ballots may still be viable under split control.

“Those are things we could very easily get done and demand in a split-government situation,” he said.

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

Texas and federal officials announce charges against 7 related to noncitizen voting

2026-09-15T23:31:25+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, Sept. 21, 6 p.m.: On Friday, Sept. 19, the U.S. Department of Justice announced an additional arrest made in Texas. Mexican national Monica Carzoli, 46, a lawful permanent resident, “admitted to registering to vote and then voting in the November 2024 election. Carzoli was arrested on criminal charges in Del Rio,” according to a news release by federal officials.

State and federal officials on Tuesday announced charges against seven people accused of voting in federal elections while not eligible citizens.

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office separately said it had referred 117 cases of potential noncitizen voting to the Texas Attorney General’s Office for investigation. It also confirmed that 578 other registered voters flagged last year as potential noncitizens by a federal database are, in fact, U.S. citizens.

The criminal charges announced Tuesday, all in Tarrant County, are the result of a collaboration between the Texas Attorney General’s Office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, the FBI, and Homeland Security Investigations, a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, according to a press release from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican. Six of the accused were indicted last week, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas said, and the seventh person was charged in a criminal complaint.

Those charged include Mexican citizen Carlos Salas Barrios, who was arrested for voting in the 2024 election, though his ballot was ultimately rejected, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice. Also charged was Nigerian national Joshua Nmelichukwu Akpom, who was arrested for making false statements in relation to naturalization, according to the release. Akpom voted illegally in the 2018 general election, but was not charged in relation to that due to the statute of limitations, according to the U.S. Department of Justice statement.

Nigerian national Helen Mayen Adams, Indian citizen Khalwinder Singh Bhengura, Mexican citizen Moises Anwar Arellano-Alba, Democratic Republic of the Congo national Celestin Katubadi, and Mexican citizen Rocio Thrasher were all charged with illegally voting in the 2024 election and false statements of citizenship to register to vote. Katubadi cast a provisional ballot that was ultimately rejected, the U.S. Department of Justice statement said.

Paxton’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, and no additional details were immediately available.

Votebeat on Tuesday could not immediately find reliable contact information for the people charged.

There are more than 18 million registered voters in Texas, and more than 11 million cast ballots in the November 2024 general election. Seven people make up a tiny fraction of that number.

Nonetheless, the charges come as President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to crack down on what it has asserted is an increase of noncitizens registered to vote in the country. His administration has reportedly surged resources into investigations connected to potential cases of voter fraud and noncitizen voting.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department charged five people in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Jersey with voting-related crimes.

State confirms citizenship for more than 500 flagged voters

In a separate news release Tuesday, the Texas Secretary of State’s Office said it had referred 117 potential cases of noncitizen voting to the Office of the Attorney General for investigation. The cases are not tied to a specific election. The referrals are part of “a larger update on Texas’ ongoing efforts to review voter citizenship ahead of the Nov. 3 election,” the news release said.

Texas officials last October sent counties a list of 2,724 potential noncitizens generated by checking the state’s voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters against a federal program used to verify citizenship, known as SAVE.

Soon after the state transmitted the names, counties began to investigate the flagged registrants, and quickly confirmed that at least some were citizens. In addition, county officials found that hundreds of the flagged voters had registered through the state Department of Public Safety, which requires proof of citizenship, such as a passport, and keeps copies of such documents on file.

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that it did not initially check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens against DPS records before sending the list to county election officials to investigate. That decision prompted a March lawsuit from voting rights groups and some Texas voters who said the state should have done so. The lawsuit is still pending in federal court.

In May, state officials confirmed they would check the DPS records. In July, Christina Adkins, the state elections director, told county officials the state had been able to confirm some of the flagged voters were citizens, and said county officials should immediately reinstate any incorrectly flagged voters who had been removed from the voter roll.

The Tuesday news release said officials were able to confirm citizenship for 578 voters, and of those, 506 were flagged because their passport information was not added to the federal SAVE program until after Texas had initially checked its list.

County voter registrars in Texas received a directive to reinstate the incorrectly flagged voters Tuesday, Kristin Miles, president of the Texas Association of County Election Officials, said in a statement. Miles said the registrars “are grateful that due diligence performed at the state level has brought resolution for impacted voters.”

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.

In blow to Trump, Supreme Court blocks mail ballot restrictions from taking effect in 2026

2026-09-15T00:45:05+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. Supreme Court on Monday night blocked the U.S. Postal Service from imposing new restrictions on voting by mail this November, delivering a fatal blow to President Donald Trump’s attempts to inject more White House control over the midterm election.

In a brief, unsigned ruling, the court kept in place a lower court’s freeze on the restrictions. “The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” to the lower court’s ruling, the justices wrote.

Under the proposed restrictions, the Postal Service would have been able to block delivery of ballots that weren’t on a prereviewed list or met specific design requirements. But as a result of Monday’s decision, mail voting in the 2026 election will largely function the same way it has in previous elections.

The ruling leaves open the question of whether the restrictions are legal overall and can be implemented in future elections. But the structure of the decision suggests that a majority of the justices are skeptical. Only two justices — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — joined a dissent arguing that the rules were likely to be upheld and should be allowed to proceed for the upcoming election.

In a concurrence with the main decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh also wrote that “there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority” but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”

How we got here

The Supreme Court ruling marked the culmination of a frenzied, monthslong legal battle over Trump’s effort to impose tighter restrictions on American elections, even though some states have already sent out mail ballots and people have begun to return them.

It began in March, when Trump issued an executive order meant to restrict mail voting. Trump’s order directed the U.S. Postal Service to set up a new system that would allow the agency to block delivery of mail ballots to voters not on a list presubmitted by state election officials.

It quickly prompted a slew of lawsuits by 23 Democrat-led states, voting rights groups, and Democratic organizations that temporarily put the brakes on the effort.

In June, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found that some of the order’s key provisions were unconstitutional and blocked them from going into effect for this year’s elections. The Trump administration fought Talwani’s decision and brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In late August, the Supreme Court lifted Talwani’s injunction against the order on narrow procedural grounds, finding it had been issued prematurely because the Postal Service had not yet issued the final rules when she blocked the agency from enacting its plan.

But shortly before the Supreme Court justices ruled, the Postal Service unveiled its final rules in a 95-page plan. The court’s order meant it would quickly go into effect, creating widespread confusion among election officials. But Talwani again put the Postal Service plans on hold.

The Postal Service rules require states to use a new online federal government system to send it a list of all voters who should receive mail ballots, though that portal is not yet available. The Postal Service would refuse to send ballots to anyone not on the list. Ballot envelopes would also have to meet new design standards, including unique barcodes that have to be checked by the Postal Service.

A bipartisan group of elections officials across the country have warned that they have neither the time nor money and resources to comply with the new rules if they were to be put in place for the November election. Some states said their laws would prevent them from following the Postal Service rules. Others said they didn’t have the time to redesign their ballot envelopes.

In court filings, the Trump administration argued that the Postal Service plan was a legal effort by the federal government to prevent voter fraud in the election.

The Postal Service defended its efforts as a nonpartisan attempt to ensure people could vote by mail if they wanted to this fall.

“Regardless of political party or perspective, we share a common goal: ensuring that Americans can have confidence that their election mail will be handled securely and delivered reliably should their election officials choose to use the mail for ballot delivery,” the Postal Service said in a statement.

A USPS whistleblower warns of disenfranchisement

The Trump administration rules created significant unease within the Postal Service. In early September, an anonymous whistleblower within the agency came forward to describe the system as “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed.”

The whistleblower warned that the Postal Service had not done proper testing on the system and that it could prevent millions of Americans from receiving mail ballots this November.

One of the biggest concerns raised by the whistleblower was the possibility that the Postal Service system could reject millions of mail ballots from reaching voters.

As planned, the Postal Service system would take a random sample of bulk mail ballots going to voters to make sure the envelopes all contained required information, including special bar codes tied to each voter. If the computers found that one ballot failed the check, even if it was a mistake, the Postal Service system would reject all the ballots in the mailing and send them back to the state.

That, the whistleblower account warned, could lead to a “catastrophic failure” that prevents millions of Americans from voting.

Voting rights groups and the coalition of states and the District of Columbia renewed their legal fight in Talwani’s court after the Postal Service issued its final rules at the end of August, arguing that the president had no authority to try and regulate mail ballots.

Talwani agreed. In her 11-page decision, she concluded that Trump’s proposals were an unconstitutional attempt to usurp powers from the states over elections.

“The court is unaware of, and no party has proffered, any delegation Congress has made that would permit the USPS to regulate election mail,” Talwani wrote.

Read more Votebeat coverage of Trump’s executive order on elections:

Trump issues second executive order on elections, giving U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail voting, March 31, 2026
Trump administration sued by states over mail voting executive order, April 3, 2026
One line in Trump’s order would reshape how long states have to store election records, April 6, 2026
We still have questions about Trump’s new executive order on elections, April 6, 2026
USPS proposal to carry out Trump’s executive order could create new barriers to mail voting, May 29, 2026
Trump’s moves to erect voting hurdles face race against the clock, June 15, 2026
Federal judge blocks key pillars of Trump executive order restricting mail voting in 2026 election, June 25, 2026
Trump administration asks federal judge to quickly lift ban on planned mail voting restrictions, July 2, 2026
Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow new mail ballot restrictions in the 2026 midterms, Aug. 3, 2026
Federal judge blocks Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting nationwide, Aug. 11, 2026
Supreme Court lifts 1 of 2 blocks on Trump’s mail-voting executive order, Aug. 24, 2026
Election officials wrestle with uncertainty amid legal battles over Trump mail ballot restrictions, Aug. 26, 2026

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Update: Supreme Court blocks Trump administration’s proposed mail-ballot rules for 2026 elections

2026-09-15T00:00:12+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, Sept. 14, 8:48 p.m.: The U.S. Supreme Court Monday night upheld a court order blocking the U.S. Postal Service’s proposed restrictions on mail ballots from going into effect for the November election. The brief unsigned ruling in response to an emergency appeal should be the final word in a legal battle that has raged for months across multiple federal courts. It found the Trump administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurrence saying he thought there was a “fair prospect” the agency has the authority to put such rules in place, but “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Read Votebeat’s full article on the decision here.

Update, Sept. 14, 9:47 a.m.: A second federal judge has blocked the U.S. Postal Service’s proposed restrictions on mail ballots from going into effect for the November election. U.S. Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling in response to cases brought by Democratic political organizations and nonprofit groups, found the agency had no authority to impose the new rules.

As detailed below, the restrictions had already been blocked by a federal judge in Boston as part of a separate case. The Trump administration has appealed the previous order, which is still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The government could also appeal Nichols’ order.

Update, Sept. 6, 12:04 p.m.: The U.S. Justice Department has appealed the preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s new mail-voting rules to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. This appeal replaces the previous appeal that had been pending before both courts.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on this appeal will determine whether the U.S. Postal Service’s proposed restrictions on mail ballots will go into effect for the November election. It’s unclear when the court will make a decision.

Update, Sept. 4, 5:54 p.m.: Judge Talwani issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. Postal Service from making its new rules mandatory. The injunction replaced her earlier temporary restraining order, which would have expired after 14 days.

The Trump administration had previously appealed the temporary restraining order to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, neither of which has yet acted. Plaintiffs had previously argued that those appeals would be moot if Talwani replaced it with a preliminary injunction, but the government can appeal the new order.

Original post, Aug. 27, 11:27 p.m.: A federal judge on Thursday imposed a new freeze on President Donald Trump’s mail-ballot restrictions, the latest move in a back-and-forth legal battle playing out just weeks before the November elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the U.S. Postal Service from moving ahead with plans to regulate mail ballots for at least 14 days while she weighs a more permanent ban on the agency’s new rules.

The temporary restraining order comes just four days after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted Talwani’s previous injunction against the order on narrow procedural grounds. However, voting rights groups and a coalition of two dozen states and the District of Columbia kept pressing their case against the order, arguing that the president had no authority to try and regulate mail ballots.

In her 11-page decision, Talwani agreed and concluded that Trump’s proposals were an unconstitutional attempt to usurp powers from the states over elections.

“The court is unaware of, and no party has proffered, any delegation Congress has made that would permit the USPS to regulate election mail,” Talwani wrote.

Talwani set a hearing for Sept. 3 on the request for a permanent injunction. The Trump administration is likely to quickly appeal her order, a move that will probably propel the case back before the Supreme Court.

In court filings opposing the temporary restraining order, the Trump administration argued that the Postal Service plan was an effort by the federal government to help ensure elections were run smoothly and that the agency was acting within its legal authority.

The monthslong, multicourt legal battle over Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting is taking on increasing urgency as the November election nears. Election officials preparing to send out ballots are faced with a whipsaw of directives.

Trump’s order, issued in March, directed the U.S. Postal Service to set up a new system that would allow the agency to block delivery of mail ballots to voters not on a list presubmitted by state election officials.

It quickly prompted a slew of lawsuits. In June, Talwani found that some of the order’s key provisions were unconstitutional and blocked them from going into effect for this year’s elections.

The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose Aug. 24 ruling paved the way for the U.S. Postal Service to roll out the new restrictions. But the Supreme Court’s ruling dealt only with the question of whether the injunction was premature, with the justices themselves acknowledging it didn’t address the legality or constitutionality of the plan. That set off a new and increasingly complex round of legal wrangling.

Earlier in August, the U.S. Postal Service unveiled its proposal to implement the administration’s mail-ballot restrictions in a 95-page plan that created widespread confusion among election officials.

The Postal Service rules require states to use a new online federal government system to send it a list of all voters who should receive mail ballots. The Postal Service would refuse to send ballots to anyone not on the list. Ballot envelopes would also have to meet new design standards, including unique barcodes that have to be checked by the Postal Service.

The states challenging the rules warned that they would not have the time, money, or people needed to comply in the short time between now and November. Talwani agreed and wrote that the Trump administration’s filings “offer no reply to Plaintiff States’ assertion that compliance for the 2026 midterm elections will be impossible for many of them.”

Democratic leaders across the nation have vowed a fierce fight to ensure that all voters that want to vote by mail are able to do so.

“Over my dead body is that rule going to go into effect,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said earlier this week, before Talwani’s latest order. “We are going to fight this tooth and nail in the courts.”

Read more Votebeat coverage of Trump’s executive order on elections:

Trump issues second executive order on elections, giving U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail voting, March 31, 2026
Trump administration sued by states over mail voting executive order, April 3, 2026
One line in Trump’s order would reshape how long states have to store election records, April 6, 2026
We still have questions about Trump’s new executive order on elections, April 6, 2026
USPS proposal to carry out Trump’s executive order could create new barriers to mail voting, May 29, 2026
Trump’s moves to erect voting hurdles face race against the clock, June 15, 2026
Federal judge blocks key pillars of Trump executive order restricting mail voting in 2026 election, June 25, 2026
Trump administration asks federal judge to quickly lift ban on planned mail voting restrictions, July 2, 2026
Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow new mail ballot restrictions in the 2026 midterms, Aug. 3, 2026
Federal judge blocks Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting nationwide, Aug. 11, 2026
Supreme Court lifts 1 of 2 blocks on Trump’s mail-voting executive order, Aug. 24, 2026
Election officials wrestle with uncertainty amid legal battles over Trump mail ballot restrictions, Aug. 26, 2026

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Homeland Security secretary steps to forefront of Trump’s election battles

2026-09-14T09:00:00+00:00

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

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin isn’t one to shy away from a fight.

The former professional mixed martial arts fighter once challenged the Teamsters president to a brawl in the middle of a Senate hearing and clashed with U.S. officials while unsuccessfully trying to mount his own rescue mission to Afghanistan during the chaotic 2021 American withdrawal.

Now Mullin is stepping to the forefront of the Trump administration’s battle to exert more control over the fast-approaching November elections.

Mullin has threatened to lock up elections officials and withhold federal dollars from states that don’t adopt the election security measures dictated by his agency. He’s suggested that ICE officers might enter polling places on Election Day if they are trying to arrest a suspect. And he’s directed agents to step up voter fraud investigations in nine states.

The cascade of tough talk has propelled Mullin into the heart of the Trump administration’s expansive efforts to remake America’s electoral system in President Donald Trump’s vision.

Justin Levitt, an election law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who worked in the White House under President Joe Biden on voting rights issues, said Mullin appeared to be driven by one overriding ambition: “Please the boss.”

“When the fourth grade soccer coach decides that everybody runs to the ball, everybody runs to the ball,” he said. “Regardless of what your actual job is.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.

Mullin took over as secretary in March after the tumultuous 14-month tenure of Kristi Noem, who was forced out by Trump after a series of controversies, notably on immigration enforcement.

“My goal in six months is that we’re not in the lead story every single day,” Mullin said during a confirmation hearing in March that barely touched on election issues.

Mullin emerged as a prominent public face of the Trump administration’s election overhaul in July when the president delivered a primetime address attacking the integrity of the nation’s voting system.

The next day, Mullin held a press conference at the White House complex, where he claimed his agency had found more than 250,000 noncitizen voters on the rolls in four states, challenged the integrity of voting machines, and threatened to jail election officials who didn’t do enough to prevent voter fraud. States have pushed back on those numbers.

Since then, Mullin has shifted more focus onto elections, declaring that “election security is national security.”

Last week, news broke that Mullin had directed hundreds of agents to focus their efforts on hunting down noncitizens on voting rolls across the country, even though there is no evidence of a widespread problem with noncitizens voting in U.S. elections.

Mullin also told reporters that he might send ICE agents into polling places on Election Day if they get reports of undocumented immigrants inside they are trying to arrest. That stirred up renewed concerns that the Trump administration would try to use federal forces to intimidate and deter voters from casting ballots — a federal crime, Levitt and others said.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson tried to calm fears by saying that “ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations,” but that did little to assuage concerns.

“We have to respond in a very calm, collected way” to the Trump administration, said Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, who leads the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State. “We cannot respond in a chaotic manner that creates angst among the voters because we already know the administration is creating enough chaos.”

So far, Mullin’s efforts have had a limited impact. The Department of Homeland Security has quietly walked back its claims of 250,000 noncitizens on voter rolls. In Nevada, for instance, the agency scaled back its estimate from 16,000 to 185.

The federal campaign to root out alleged noncitizen voting over the past month has led to the arrest of at least six noncitizens accused of voting.

Mullin has also asked the Justice Department to pursue an investigation into some voting equipment.

Levitt said Trump’s biggest leverage is the perception that he might seize ballots or send troops to polling places on Election Day, not that he would actually do so.

“My real fear is that people change their own behavior in response to the noise, rather than taking a breath and looking around and recognizing that the world outside their door doesn’t actually look like the communications world he’s trying to construct,” he said.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Proof-of-citizenship amendment won’t be on Michigan’s November ballot

2026-09-04T16:26:18+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 proposed constitutional amendment to require Michigan voters to prove their citizenship is dead for 2026 after the state’s Supreme Court declined to put it on the November ballot.

The Michigan Supreme Court late Thursday denied Americans for Citizen Voting’s request to order a state board to certify its effort for the ballot. A last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was also rejected earlier in the day.

It’s an abrupt demise for an effort that began with a lot of optimism early last year, when Republicans took control of the Michigan House of Representatives. But supporters expect it’s far from the end of the larger movement to require newly registering voters to prove their American citizenship in Michigan and across the U.S.

“For these voters, this was never an abstract legal argument,” Paul Jacob, chairman of ACV, said of the more than 700,000 people who signed the group’s petition. Jacob is also president of the Liberty Initiative Fund, the libertarian group behind ACV.

Organizers submitted signatures earlier this year to get the proof-of-citizenship proposal on the November ballot. In order to make the ballot, the measure required 446,198 signatures from registered Michigan voters, as verified by the state’s Bureau of Elections.

In a lengthy meeting last week, though, the Board of State Canvassers — the entity that certifies statewide ballot issues and constitutional amendments — did not agree that ACV had enough valid signatures. The two Republicans on the bipartisan board voted to put the amendment on the ballot, while the two Democratic members voted against. The tie meant no action was taken, so the proposed amendment was not put on the ballot.

In its 16-page ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that decision was within the canvassers’ discretion. There is no strict ministerial duty to certify the effort for the ballot, the court determined, so it could not force the canvassers to certify.

Instead, justices suggested that the state Legislature pass new laws clarifying the signature verification process to prevent such concerns from popping up again — for instance, setting new deadlines that make judicial review more practical.

Michigan voters could get the chance to weigh in on a proof-of-citizenship amendment in a future election. ACV leaders said in statements Thursday that they intend to try again in 2028.

For the 2026 election, though, the decision means Michigan will have only two proposals on the ballot. The first is a constitutional convention, which automatically appears on the ballot every 16 years. The second, known as Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, seeks to limit the donations that utilities and state contractors can make to politicians.

Noncitizen voting is a major concern for Michigan Republicans

Being a citizen is already a legal requirement to vote in Michigan, as well as to vote in federal elections anywhere in the country. But fears that significant numbers of noncitizens are voting anyway have gained purchase in recent years, particularly as President Donald Trump has spread false and unsupported claims about rigged elections.

Investigations and audits have found noncitizen voting is extremely rare. Of the more than 5.7 million Michigan voters in the 2024 election, officials have publicly charged six — 0.0001% of the electorate — with voting despite a lack of citizenship.

But proponents of proof-of-citizenship requirements argue that even a single noncitizen vote serves to disenfranchise those who are rightfully voting. Opponents, meanwhile, argue that the hoops people would have to jump through to verify their citizenship could themselves disenfranchise large numbers of rightful voters.

The push for a proof-of-citizenship requirement in Michigan specifically began in earnest during the 2024 presidential election, when a University of Michigan student was allegedly able to register and vote despite not being a U.S. citizen.

Republican leaders, including now-Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall, highlighted that incident to advocate for the SAVE Act — a federal proof-of-citizenship bill that has languished in the U.S. Senate. State Rep. Bryan Posthumus went a step further, introducing a proposal shortly after Republicans regained the state House to amend the Michigan constitution to require verification of citizenship.

The effort in the House failed along party lines last spring. Around the same time, though, Americans for Citizen Voting began its push to qualify a similar amendment for the ballot by collecting signatures from voters. The effort raised millions, according to state campaign finance records, and spent more than $3 million for “petition management,” a category that includes paid signature gathering.

ACV organizers collected signatures through the fall and winter before ultimately filing what the group estimated to be more than 750,000 signatures in March. Supporters said at the time that the huge number was a sign that Michigan voters supported a proof-of-citizenship requirement.

“This level of support shows that Michigan voters are paying attention and expect accountability,” state Sen. Ruth Johnson, a Republican who previously served as Michigan’s secretary of state, said in March.

A random sample of signatures analyzed by the Bureau of Elections and then challenged by an outside group ultimately found that not enough of the signatures came from registered voters or otherwise had problems with how they were submitted. A few signatures from ACV were added back in after additional information was provided, but not enough for the overall total to hit the threshold needed.

Voting rights groups and election administrators, though, were concerned about the amendment, which would have required both newly registering voters to prove their citizenship and existing voters to prove their citizenship if the state couldn’t independently verify it. The result would have been two separate voter rolls — one for those whose citizenship had been verified, allowing them to vote in all elections, and one for those whose citizenship was still up in the air, allowing for much more limited ballot access.

Michael Siegrist, the clerk of Canton Township and president of the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks, said Friday that clerks across the state are dedicated to making sure that voters are rightfully registered, but that many had concerns about how ACV’s proposed changes could have affected the work they do.

“We were really concerned about the impact to the overall election administration system,” he said. “If something like that were to pass, there’s a substantial amount of unintended consequences regarding the bifurcated election system, where you would have double the ballot styles, [have] two separate lists of registered voters.”

He hopes that election officials are more involved in future conversations about shaping what a proof-of-citizenship requirement could look like in the state.

“If they want to create a situation where we ensure there are only citizens voting, do it in a way that doesn’t ... [drop] a bomb in the system,” he said.

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

Thousands of Arizona voters received letters asking if they’d moved. Here’s why.

2026-09-03T22:30:00+00:00

This story was co-published with the Arizona Mirror, an independent, nonprofit news outlet that covers Arizona politics and government and is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization. Sign up for the Arizona Mirror’s free newsletter here.

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.

Kimberly Dorris wasn’t expecting to see a letter from the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office in her mailbox on Monday.

Dorris, 59, had just voted by mail in Arizona’s July 21 primary election from her Scottsdale address. So she was surprised to open the notice and read “HAVE YOU MOVED?” at the top. The letter went on to inform her that county officials had received information suggesting her address may no longer be current.

Dorris wasn’t alone. Thousands of Arizonans have received similar notices in recent days, even though many have not moved. More than a dozen told Votebeat and the Arizona Mirror that they were longtime voters who had lived in their homes for years or even decades.

Officials said the notices generally do not cancel a voter’s registration or impact voting eligibility. But anyone who received one should check to make sure their address is correct.

If it is, nothing needs to be done. If it isn’t, you should get in touch with local election officials to correct it.

The confusing mailing appears to have stemmed from flaws in state and some county officials’ implementation of a new state law. Here’s what to know.

What does the new state law say?

The law requires Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, to compare the state’s voter registration database to the state’s driver’s license database each month. His staffers are then required to inform county recorders if they find discrepancies in a voter’s residential address or citizenship status.

Supporters of the law, which passed as House Bill 2243 in 2022, said its purpose is to improve maintenance of the voter rolls and catch ineligible voters, including people who had moved to a new address. In a May 2022 letter to then-Gov. Doug Ducey, a coalition of conservative groups wrote that the law would ensure it was “easy to vote, and hard to cheat” in Arizona.

But opponents worried it could disenfranchise some voters and noted that the state already had voter list maintenance measures in place.

Ducey, a Republican, ultimately vetoed an early iteration of the bill, saying the wording was too vague and could lead to “bad actors” attempting to disqualify voters for discriminatory reasons. But a second attempt, penned by then-Rep. Jake Hoffman of Queen Creek, earned his signature at the very end of the 2022 legislative session. Hoffman, a Republican and a leader of the state legislature’s far-right Freedom Caucus, is now a state senator.

Democrats said the underlying bill was still “very problematic.” Several voting rights groups immediately challenged it in court, delaying its implementation until earlier this year.

I haven’t moved. Why did I receive a letter?

The issue comes down to what counts as a discrepancy between the state’s voter registration and driver’s license databases.

When staff at the secretary of state’s office compared the two data sets, the voter registration database flagged minor variations in voters’ addresses as potential changes that needed to be reported to local election officials.

For instance, a voter might have an address that includes an apartment or unit number. If that’s listed in one database as “Unit 1,” and in another as “# 1,” that voter would be flagged. Many voters whose addresses had not changed were therefore included in the report that the secretary’s office sent to county recorders.

Thousands of Arizona voters recently received notices such as this one, dated July 31, 2026. Some of the letters, which are linked to a new state law, went to voters who hadn’t moved because of flaws in state officials’ address comparison process, sparking confusion.

Judy Keane, a spokesperson for the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, said the report also caught voters with small address differences, such as “lane” versus “LN,” and abbreviated street directional prefixes, such as “N” versus “North.”

“The notices were not sent in error, nor were they the result of a mistake by the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office,” she said in a statement. Keane added that her office, headed by Recorder Justin Heap, a Republican, does not have access to the Motor Vehicle Division’s records and relies on the secretary’s office to provide address comparison information.

How many people got this notice?

At least 149,776 voters statewide received the letters, according to data gathered by Votebeat and the Arizona Mirror.

Nearly all of those notices were sent to voters by the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office. Keane said the letters were mailed to voters in the county between July 31 and Aug. 15.

Mohave, Greenlee, Graham, and Navajo counties said they had also recently mailed similar notices to voters. Graham and Navajo sent 33 and 114 letters, respectively. Mohave and Greenlee did not immediately provide counts.

Some other jurisdictions, including Gila County, said they were actively “processing” the data but had not sent out notices yet.

I got this notice. What should I do?

Keane said the notices generally will not impact a voter’s eligibility or cause their registration to be canceled.

“It simply advises the voter of the information provided to us so they can verify it and update their registration if necessary,” she said.

Voters should check the notice they received. Notices mailed as a result of the state law should be labeled “Confirmation Notice — MVD — In State Mover” in the bottom-right corner. (If you received a different notice, you might have different instructions to follow.)

Then, make sure your address is correct. If it is, no response is required. If not, you should contact your local election officials to update your address in your voter record.

Sometimes, election mail is marked undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service. Keane said that can lead officials to initiate the lengthy voter removal process. But if that happens to you, local officials will send another notice attempting to confirm your address before taking steps to alter your registration status.

If you’re concerned about your registration status, be sure to double-check it at My.Arizona.Vote by Oct. 5. That’s the state’s voter registration deadline for the general election.

If you have additional questions, reach out to your local election officials. Votebeat and the Arizona Mirror may also be able to help if you run into an issue. Reach us at aztips@votebeat.org and info@azmirror.com.

Were there ways around this problem?

Keane said her office sent the notices in two batches. About 142,000 notices went out between July 31 and Aug. 1, she said. Roughly 7,500 more were mailed on Aug. 14 and 15.

That second batch, she said, was “significantly reduced due to filtering performed by our office for that month.” But it’s unclear whether her office took steps to filter the first batch, too. Keane said in a statement that her office had generally “taken proactive steps to reduce unnecessary notices by removing repeats and false positives where we are able to identify them.” But she did not directly respond to questions about what that filtering process looked like or whether it was applied to the first, larger batch of notices.

The Arizona Mirror and Votebeat also reached out to counties across the state to gather information about how they handled the report from the secretary’s office. Those that responded largely said they had combed through the list to remove false positives or held off on sending notices at all because they lacked the bandwidth and staffing to do so ahead of the November election.

Yavapai County was among those that did not plan to immediately mail letters. Recorder Michelle Burchill, a Republican, said her office needed to manually compare the address discrepancies flagged by state officials before sending out the notices. She added that one of her staffers spent a whole day exclusively going over the 30,000-line spreadsheet from Fontes’ office and “got through about 10% of it.” A preliminary review of the list suggested that about half of the address changes reported to her office were false positives.

“This may end up being a useful endeavor, but initially it is a heavy lift for the counties,” Burchill said.

Keane said counties were “required” to send notices to voters on the list provided by the secretary’s office. But there’s no requirement in state law that the county recorders do anything with the address data. Still, Burchill said officials statewide would likely want to use it to ensure “good list maintenance.” Her office planned to process the report after the election, once it received “a workable list,” she said.

Gila County Recorder Wendy Mannigel-Smith, a Republican, said in an email that her office needed to “physically investigate each voter record.” She said recorders statewide felt they should be able to work with the state to “come up with a more efficient way of handling the data.”

Calli Jones, a spokesperson for the secretary’s office, said in a statement that recorders had specifically requested a “straight look” at the address changes, without any additional coding. After counties received their first report from the secretary’s office in May, she said, many began requesting improvements to the address comparison process, including Maricopa County.

Jones said her office had yet to make changes to the state’s voter registration database that could produce a more detailed and accurate report. But she noted that “most” counties were not processing the reports provided by her office before the general election — and, in a phone call, said it was “up to them” and “entirely” their decision whether to do so before improvements could be made.

“This is a new report and another possible source for list maintenance, but it is messy and counties need to work to come to [a] consensus about what they want the report to say and how they want it delivered to them,” she said.

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

Jerod MacDonald-Evoy is a reporter for the Arizona Mirror based in Phoenix. Contact Jerod at JerodMacEvoy@AzMirror.com.

Trump’s mail voting restrictions would create logistical nightmare for midterm elections

2026-08-31T09:00:00+00:00

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

It has been a dizzying week of legal challenges and rulings that have scrambled plans for the November election. The end result is… more uncertainty!

The legal drama spanned three different courts and created a legal tilt-a-whirl that ultimately ended up right where we started: a freeze on the Trump administration’s efforts to impose new restrictions on voting by mail and a likely Supreme Court showdown fast approaching.

The U.S. Supreme Court kicked things off on Monday with a narrow procedural ruling that gave the Trump administration hopes it could move ahead with its plans for the November election. New rules briefly went into effect midweek, but the ruling triggered a new round of legal maneuvering that led U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani to impose a new 14-day freeze on the plans while she considers a permanent ban on putting them in place for this election. The Trump administration has already appealed the temporary order.

The whiplash is creating headaches for election officials with the first mail ballots for the November election set to go out to voters in less than a week and more court action the only certainty.

Since the U.S. Postal Service this month unveiled its proposal to implement the administration’s mail ballot restrictions in a 95-page plan, election officials have been scratching their heads as they try to figure out whether, and how, they’ll have to follow the guidelines.

Tammy Patrick, the chief program officer at the Election Center, a national nonprofit association for election administrators, said there was no way that states would be able to successfully shift to the new system in time for the November election.

Patrick said the rules have created widespread confusion among elections officials who have to rush to meet what seems like an impossible timeline to comply with the regulations.

“The U.S. Postal Service has been a very collaborative partner in delivering democracy,” she said. “This rule is a dramatic shift in both how election officials conduct elections and how the Postal Service delivers democracy.”

The first challenge for election officials are rules that require them to follow new uniform mail ballot envelope design standards. The envelope going to the voter and the one the voter returns each have to have unique barcodes that link the mail to the person casting the ballot. The envelope designs first have to be reviewed by the Postal Service, something Patrick said seems logistically impossible to do before November’s election.

“We have more than 10,000 election jurisdictions and there are 40 mail design analysts at the Postal Service for the entire country,” she said. “They would not be able to accommodate everybody redesigning the envelopes.”

This change could potentially have the biggest impact on rural counties with small teams of elections officials that sometimes hand-write names and addresses on mail ballot envelopes. Finding a company that could quickly design and produce the new ballot envelopes at this late date seems implausible, Patrick said.

The first mail ballots are set to go out to North Carolina voters this Friday, and a host of other states will also begin sending them out in the coming weeks. And it’s unclear how the federal government would treat ballots that don’t comply with the new requirements but are sent out before the new system is up and running.

During the short window when the Trump plan was in place, North Carolina said that it rushed to comply by submitting its envelopes to the Postal Service for “review and approval.”

“Our office is confident that the county boards of elections plan to send out absentee ballots to North Carolina voters who have requested them for this election, starting September 4, as required by state law, will happen flawlessly and smoothly,” said Jason Tyson, director of external affairs for the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

The U.S. Postal Service did not respond to a request for comment on specific questions about how the new processes will work this year and pointed to an online FAQ that provides broad guidance about how the system is intended to work.

If and when election officials clear the envelope design hurdle, they would then have to compile a list of everyone who wants a mail ballot and help create a statewide list with detailed information — down to the barcode — for everyone eligible to vote by mail. The Postal Service says it will refuse to deliver a ballot to anyone who is not on the list.

Each state would have to submit its list to the Postal Service via a new online portal, and the rule says that would preferably be done 30 days ahead of the election, though that’s not a hard-and-fast deadline. The Postal Service has yet to unveil the new online portal.

Then, things get even more complicated. If a state sends out a large batch of mail ballots and one of them is sent to a voter who’s not on the list reviewed by the Postal Service, the Postal Service could reject all of the ballots in that batch, Patrick said. That could mean that one error might delay the processing of a huge number of ballots and create extra work for election officials. She emphasized that election offices in big counties routinely send out millions of ballots at a time. Election officials would have to check the rejected mail ballots and resend them once they address the problems.

On top of that, she said, the time it would take for the Postal Service to scan each barcode could overwhelm its staff as a flood of mail ballots come through the system.

“This is very, very difficult,” Patrick said. “All of this is untenable.”

The Trump executive order signed in March envisioned a much longer rollout period for the new system. But the legal challenges put the plans on hold until now, giving the Postal Service very little time to put the system into place. The Postal Service has expressed confidence that it can smoothly roll out the plans, but election officials are skeptical and wary.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Proof-of-citizenship amendment fails to make November ballot, for now

2026-08-27T21:55:13+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, Aug. 27, 5:55 p.m.: Americans for Citizen Voting has formally asked the Michigan Supreme Court to place its proposed amendment on the November ballot.

The Michigan Board of State Canvassers has denied ballot access to a state constitutional amendment that would require Michigan voters to prove they are U.S. citizens.

A long, tense meeting on Monday ended in a deadlock, meaning the effort won’t make the ballot without intervention from the Michigan Supreme Court. The decision — or lack thereof — means that despite the massive numbers of signatures the amendment’s supporters turned in, it will likely be the court that decides whether it makes the November ballot.

In March, the group Americans for Citizen Voting submitted 709,841 signatures to the state in support of the amendment — significantly more than the 446,198 valid signatures required to get on the ballot. To estimate whether the group surpassed that threshold, the Board of State Canvassers checked the validity of a random sample of 1,000 of the submitted signatures.

At least 629 of them needed to be valid to certify the proposal for the ballot. The board found 626 were valid, though it had not ruled one way or the other on a decisive number of the signatures by the end of the meeting.

Mary Ellen Gurewitz, a Democrat and the vice chair of the board, called the petition drive “sloppy,” saying that it put the board in a “bad position.” Paul Cordes, a Republican on the board, said he felt that if all signatures were considered, there would be more than enough to certify the effort for the ballot.

The bipartisan Board of State Canvassers isn’t allowed to approve or reject certification based on whether board members like the subject matter of the petition. Instead, they have an obligation to act only based on whether the number of signatures is valid.

It wasn’t entirely clear what the board would do after the Bureau of Elections released a report last week recommending denial. The board makes its decision independently of the bureau, but the two work in tandem on ballot measures, election results, and more.

In its analysis of the 1,000 signatures, the Bureau said that the effort had only 612 valid signatures. After a weekend of back-and-forths between Americans for Citizen Voting and Promote The Vote Action — a voting rights group that challenged some of the signatures — the number was 624. Much of Monday’s meeting was spent going through individual petition sheets to see if others should be added.

That effort ended when the board ran out of time and took a 2-2 vote along party lines both to certify the effort and to find it insufficient, falling short of the decisive majority needed to certify and put the amendment on the ballot.

Amendment’s rejection to be appealed

Americans for Citizen Voting doesn’t plan to let the canvassers’ decision go unchallenged, particularly given the narrow margin between certification and rejection.

Paul Jacob, president of Liberty Initiative Fund, the group behind Americans for Citizen Voting, called the meeting’s outcome a “travesty” based on partisan politics rather than the will of Michigan voters.

“People deserve a vote on this issue, and they’re going to get one,” Jacob said after the decision. “We’re going to go to every court we’ve got to go to. We’ll go to the Supreme Court of Michigan. We’ll go to the U.S. Supreme Court, wherever we have to go.”

According to Michigan law, organizers have seven business days — in other words, until Sept. 2 — to file their appeal, which will go straight to the Michigan Supreme Court.

The group spent more than a year building support for its effort, and in March it claimed to have submitted more than 750,000 signatures to the state. State Sen. Ruth Johnson, a former Republican secretary of state and a supporter of the amendment, said at the time that that number spoke to the popularity of the effort. Jacob reiterated that Monday, saying it was a sign that Michigan supported proof of citizenship.”

“You can’t cheat the people of Michigan and get away with it,” Jacob, who lives in Virginia, told reporters. “We’re going to be back.”

The Supreme Court will be up against a tight deadline: The earliest ballots go out to military and overseas voters by Sept. 19, and all absentees must be available for distribution no later than Sept. 24. That means the contents of the ballots need to be finalized ASAP to ensure clerks have time to print them.

What’s in the Americans for Citizenship Voting proposal?

If the proposed amendment does ultimately make the ballot, Michiganders would be weighing in on one of the strictest proof-of-citizenship requirements in the U.S.

New voters would have to prove their citizenship when registering, a requirement currently in place in four states. But the amendment would also require existing voters to prove their citizenship if the state can’t independently verify it. The ultimate result would be an Arizona-style system in which Michigan is required to maintain two voter rolls — one for voters who have proven their citizenship and can vote in all elections and a second for those who have not and who can only vote in federal elections.

It would also remove the option for voters without a valid photo ID to instead sign an affidavit verifying their identity under the penalty of perjury. It would instead implement a “hardship program” funded by the state to allow those who aren’t able to afford identification documents to get them for free.

Those who vote without their citizenship verified would have to vote a provisional ballot. They would then have six days after an election to show their documents to election administrators or else their vote will not be counted.

Proof-of-citizenship requirements enjoy broad public support; a YouGov/CBS News poll from earlier this year found that 66% of Americans support requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. Being a U.S. citizen is already a federal requirement to vote in U.S. elections, however, and opponents say putting up additional barriers would just serve to disenfranchise people who are citizens but lack the paper trail to prove it.

Noncitizen voting is extremely rare in Michigan and in the U.S. When it does happen, it is typically prosecuted. Six people have been publicly charged across the state for casting a ballot in the 2024 general election despite not having U.S. citizenship, a tiny fraction of the more than 5.6 million ballots cast in Michigan.

The topic has remained at the forefront of conservative talking points, though. President Donald Trump said without evidence last month that more than 270,000 noncitizens appear on voter rolls across the country. He has made a federal proof-of-citizenship requirement a priority, repeatedly pressuring Republicans in Congress to pass the SAVE America Act. The bill, however, lacks the support in the U.S. Senate to pass.

If the Michigan proposal makes the November ballot, it would need only a majority of the state’s voters to vote yes in order to be enshrined in the state constitution.

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

Election officials wrestle with uncertainty amid legal battles over Trump mail ballot restrictions

2026-08-26T16:00:19+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, August 26, 1:27 p.m.: This story has been updated with the fact that, shortly after publication, a federal judge lifted an order that was blocking the U.S. Postal Service from putting new rules on mail ballots in place for the November election.

Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict mail ballots via executive order is procedural and narrow, but it’s fueling broad confusion and uncertainty as the November election grows inexorably closer.

On Wednesday, in response to the high court decision, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani removed the last legal block preventing the U.S. Postal Service from finalizing its proposed changes for the 2026 elections, even though she warned that the move could create “chaos” as the election closes in.

On Wednesday, a coalition of Democratic states at the forefront of the fight filed a new federal lawsuit against the Postal Service asking the court to block the changes, a move that will likely put them on a fast track back to the Supreme Court and leave election officials contending with messy legal rulings for some time to come.

“Across the country, states are already deep into preparations for the 2026 elections,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in announcing the lawsuit. “Now, at the last moment, the federal government is attempting to meddle in those preparations and potentially threaten countless Americans’ right to vote.”

In a separate case, voting rights groups and Democratic leaders on Tuesday also asked federal courts to block the changes from going into effect for this November’s election.

“The 2026 election has already begun, and this is sowing chaos,” said Paul Gronke, a political science professor at Reed College in Oregon and a founder of the Elections & Voting Information Center.

Meanwhile, as the fight rages over how the U.S. Postal Service will handle mail ballots, North Carolina is preparing to send the first ones out next week.

Jason Tyson, director of external affairs for the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said the state is still planning to send out its ballots as expected.

“At this time, with so much left unresolved, we cannot comment on hypotheticals about what may or may not happen with the USPS and the executive order in the courts, as the situation is uncertain,” he said. “If it becomes necessary, we will do our best to comply with any court decisions.”

Monday’s high court ruling added to a messy snarl of court cases over Trump’s March executive order that sought to allow the U.S. Postal Service to reject delivery of mail ballots to voters in states that don’t meet new federal requirements.

The justices, who split along ideological lines, ruled only on a narrow legal argument and stressed their decision didn’t speak to the merits of Trump’s plan. While the case was pending, the Postal Service last week moved to finalize the new rules, action that a federal judge ruled Tuesday had violated a court order.

The Postal Service rules require states to use a new online federal government system to send it a list of all voters that should receive mail ballots. The Postal Service would refuse to send ballots to anyone not on the list. The envelopes would have to meet new design standards, including unique barcodes that have to be checked by the Postal Service.

Is it too late for changes?

While the matter works its way through the courts, states across the nation have already designed, ordered, and paid for ballots that don’t necessarily comply with the new design guidelines (though North Carolina’s Tyson says theirs do).

North Carolina’s ballots start going out Sept. 4. Seven other states, including New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, can start sending out their ballots the following week.

“I don’t know of a single state where this could be adopted and rolled out quickly, and that I think is a real problem,” she said.

Trump supporters who have been cheering his push to assert more control over elections hailed the court ruling but expressed concern that time was running out to set up the system for the November election.

Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of the conservative, Texas-based anti-voter-fraud group True the Vote, said she supports the effort but acknowledged the Trump administration faces a daunting challenge in trying to set up the new system with fewer than 70 days to go before Election Day.

“It’s a tall hill to climb, but somebody’s got to do it,” she said.

Even if the courts block the Trump administration from moving ahead with the new plan for November, some voting rights advocates predicted that the president would still look for other ways to impose his policies.

Jared Davidson, an election law attorney at Protect Democracy, said that the Trump administration continues to face legal setbacks in its efforts to impose federal regulations on elections because the Constitution gives states primary responsibility for running elections.

“In the days and weeks ahead I think we can all expect that this administration will throw all kinds of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks,” said Davidson. “But the law could not be clearer that this is an effort to take control over elections by an executive where there is no authority to do that whatsoever.”

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Hundreds of thousands of Arizonans could be removed from the mail voting list in 2027

2026-08-26T10:00:00+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.

Arizona could remove hundreds of thousands of voters from its automatic mail ballot list under the provisions of a state law coming to bear next year.

The 2027 removals will be the first under the law, signed in 2021 by former Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican. The statute requires county recorders to remove voters from the early voting list if they don’t cast their mail ballot in federal, state, or certain municipal elections for two consecutive cycles — a four-year period.

That means a voter who didn’t mail or drop off their early ballot in 2023, 2024, or 2025 could be at risk of being removed if they again don’t do so this year, even if they voted in person in one or more elections. But that clock restarts if they choose to cast a mail ballot this November.

The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office was unable to provide an estimate of how many voters statewide could be kicked off the list. Spokesperson Calli Jones said the office was working with INEXL Consulting, the developer behind the state’s voter registration database, to develop coding that would allow them to come up with a list of impacted voters, but did not expect the project to be complete before the general election.

A 2022 study from the Brennan Center for Justice found that about 340,000 Arizonans could have faced removal if the law were implemented at that time. That’s about 12% of the voters who were on the early voting list in 2021. The study also found that nonwhite voters were at higher risk of being removed.

There’s a difference between a voter being removed from Active Early Voting List, or AEVL, and having their registration canceled entirely. Those impacted by the new law will still be able to vote, and they can stay on the list by responding to notices sent by officials in advance of their removal.

Those who don’t take those steps and are ultimately removed from the state’s early voting list would no longer automatically receive a mail ballot for each election, although they still may request to rejoin the list, or make ad hoc asks for mail ballots in future elections.

But research suggests that similar laws in other states have caused voters to turn to other methods of voting, or to stop voting entirely.

For example, Texas’ Senate Bill 1, a sweeping voting law enacted in 2021 that made it harder for voters to apply to receive a mail ballot, changed voting patterns in the next election cycle, according to a report last year from the Brennan Center. In Arizona, where the vast majority of voters cast ballots by mail, those impacts could be amplified, potentially shifting more people to in-person voting and putting additional strain on election infrastructure.

“A policy like this is going to have those sorts of effects on voters, and it’s rooted in misinformation about the prevalence of mail voting fraud,” said Kevin Morris of the Brennan Center, adding that research and audits have consistently shown that voting fraud is extremely rare. “It is really troubling.”

Meanwhile, the law is also posing communications challenges for local election officials. Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly said it’s complicated to explain to voters that the law won’t remove them from the rolls.

“That is something that I think people are scared of,” said Cázares-Kelly, a Democrat, adding that some are referring to the early voting list removals as a “purge,” which is “creating more fear.”

How Arizona changed its early voting list

Arizona established its mail voting list — initially called the Permanent Early Voting List, or PEVL — in 2007.

As the name suggested, once on the list, voters generally stayed there unless they requested removal. Officials could also scratch them off if they moved, died, or their registration was moved to inactive status or canceled.

Then, Arizona Republicans began pushing for a plethora of election policy changes in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, which President Donald Trump falsely alleged was rigged. The law that changed PEVL to AEVL — Senate Bill 1485 — was introduced by former Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita of Scottsdale, who said it would help prevent fraud by reducing the number of mail ballots sent to people who had moved, died, or didn’t want them.

In Arizona, there are several other ways to ensure voter lists stay clean. Officials use information from the U.S. Postal Service, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and other agencies to flag voters who have moved or died, keeping the rolls up-to-date.

Still, Ducey, who signed the bill into law about an hour after the Arizona Senate passed it on a party-line vote, called it a matter of “election integrity.”

“Let’s be clear — despite all the deceptive and heated rhetoric being used by some partisan activists to lobby against this reform, not a single Arizona voter will lose their right to vote as a result of this new law,” he said in a video on May 11, 2021.

Meanwhile, Democrats described the law as a voter suppression tactic. Then-House Minority Leader Reginald Bolding of Phoenix called it “reprehensible” in a letter to the NFL, which he hoped would commit to pulling the 2023 Super Bowl from Arizona.

The move had been inspired by an incident in Georgia — after Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed a law that imposed several new voting restrictions, the MLB withdrew its All-Star Game from Atlanta.

What will happen to voters removed from the list?

Under the law, voters won’t be removed from the state’s early voting list without notice.

In odd-numbered years, county officials are required to send impacted voters a letter to inform them that they could be removed from the list. In 2027, that notice must be sent to voters on or before Jan. 15.

Officials can also opt to also try reaching voters by phone, text, and email, but are not required to do so. Cázares-Kelly said it was “the common understanding that everyone is going to send a notice to their voters,” but that she hadn’t determined whether her office would attempt any other outreach to individual voters impacted by the law.

“We’re focused on the upcoming election,” she said, adding that her staff were also creating “plain language resources” about the law to share broadly next year.

Once the mandated letters are sent, voters have 90 days to confirm in writing if they wish to remain on the list. To do so, they’ll also need to sign a form with their address and date of birth. If they don’t, they’ll be removed.

Still, Morris said there will almost certainly be voters who don’t notice that they’ve been removed from the mail voting list. Some may find out during the following election cycle, when their mail ballot doesn’t show up as usual. Others, he said, may not realize at all.

In Texas, officials were also required to send voters notice if their mail ballot application was rejected under SB 1. But Morris said those messages are “easy to miss in the mail.” His research found that many Texans didn’t reapply for a mail ballot in the general election that fall. He said those effects could be amplified in Arizona.

“The pool of voters that could be impacted by this is an order of magnitude larger than in some of the other states, where maybe only 10% of people are casting a ballot by mail,” Morris said.

He added that the law could ultimately have “downstream effects” at the polls.

“If all of these people suddenly aren’t getting the mail that they were expecting, they are going to start showing up at the vote centers,” Morris said, noting that could cause longer lines, voting materials shortages, and other complications that officials will have to handle moving forward.

Cázares-Kelly said she opposed the law as it made its way through the Arizona Legislature. But she said the version that resulted wasn’t “as terrible as most people think.” When asked if she would’ve opposed the law in its current form, she hesitated.

“I don’t know,” she said, adding that her “kneejerk reaction” was that she’d still be against it. As a voter, she said she’d want to receive her mail ballot “every time, whether or not I choose to use it by mail or if I vote in person.” A mail ballot, she said, also gives voters a chance to review contests in a simpler format than a sample ballot.

To give a fuller answer, Cázares-Kelly said she would need to see how many people the law could impact in Pima County and calculate its financial impact.

“We’re just going to have to wait and see what those numbers look like,” she said.

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

Supreme Court lifts 1 of 2 blocks on Trump’s mail-voting executive order

2026-08-24T22:37:11+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.

What happened?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday lifted one of two injunctions against President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting, but additional legal hurdles and practical considerations could make it difficult to implement it in time for the quickly approaching November elections.

The unsigned ruling, which cut along ideological lines, focused on a relatively narrow legal question: whether the lower court’s injunction was premature. The majority made it clear that it was not deciding on the legality of Trump’s order as a whole, which is certain to be quickly challenged again in court as the administration moves to put its provisions in place.

“The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful,” the majority wrote. “On that score, time will tell.”

The ruling, made in response to an emergency request, didn’t specify which justices had joined it. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented, warned that the ruling would create a “Kafkaesque nightmare” that “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate dissent, joined by Justice Elena Kagan.

What’s the dispute?

Shortly after Trump issued his executive order in March, states, nonprofit organizations, and Democratic Party committees filed multiple lawsuits seeking to block it. In June, in the case brought by states, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found that some key provisions of the order were unconstitutional and blocked them from going into effect for this year’s elections.

Talwani issued an injunction specifically preventing the federal government from enforcing those provisions of the order against the 24 jurisdictions (23 states and the District of Columbia) whose attorneys general and governors brought the lawsuit. The list included most Democratic-led and swing states, including Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The Trump administration appealed, arguing the judge’s order was issued prematurely, before the Postal Service and other relevant agencies had finalized their plans to carry out the order’s provisions. The administration also argued that the injunction prevented it from implementing the order in the unaffected states because of the logistical impossibility of a bifurcated mail-voting system.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Talwani’s order in late July, prompting the administration to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the order and allow the agencies to act in time for the November election. In filings, the states warned that “the consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to this fall’s elections would be extreme” and would disenfranchise voters.

On Aug. 11, Talwani issued a separate injunction against the order in the lawsuit brought by nonprofit groups, led by the League of Women Voters. The decision made it clear that her ban on implementing the law extended to all states, not just the 24 jurisdictions that brought the other lawsuit. That ruling again rejected the Trump administration argument that it was too soon to address the underlying issues.

The Trump administration again asked the Supreme Court to issue a ruling and make it clear that it would also apply to the Aug. 11 court order. If not, Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned in a court filing, it would require prolonged legal battles that would “effectively run out the clock” on the government’s ability to implement its plans.

On Friday, while the administration’s request was still pending before the Supreme Court, the Postal Service issued its final rules for implementing the order, which it said it would not put into effect for this November’s election unless and until the Supreme Court cleared the way.

The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed neither the second injunction nor the fact that the Postal Service had issued final rules, leaving observers to wonder about how those developments might affect what happens next.

“I expect that the trial court will now amend [the second] injunction and issue a new injunction that will stop USPS from implementing its now final rule. And that too may end up at the Supreme Court within a week,” wrote Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA, on the Election Law Blog shortly after the ruling.

What happens now?

The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday will not be the final word on Trump’s executive order. The question before the Supreme Court was a relatively narrow one about whether Talwani issued her order prematurely, before the government had taken final action to carry out the executive order. The states and voting rights groups are likely to go back to court quickly to challenge the Postal Service and the final rules it issued last week.

Talwani has also not yet ruled on whether the order can go into effect for future elections, which she found would be premature. A parallel case involving consolidated challenges brought by nonprofit groups and Democratic Party committees is pending in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Should Trump’s executive order go into effect, it would mandate the creation of a series of lists. The Department of Homeland Security would be required to send each state a list of citizens over the age of 18. States using mail ballots would be required to send the federal government a list of all registered voters to whom they are sending mail-in and absentee ballots in key federal elections. The Postal Service’s final rule states that it will decline to deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not provide that list.

The order would also create new design standards and ballot-tracking requirements for mail ballots. Creating such a complicated process before November presents a huge challenge for the cash-strapped Postal Service.

Read more Votebeat coverage of Trump’s executive order on elections:

Trump issues second executive order on elections, giving U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail voting, March 31, 2026
Trump administration sued by states over mail voting executive order, April 3, 2026
One line in Trump’s order would reshape how long states have to store election records, April 6, 2026
We still have questions about Trump’s new executive order on elections, April 6, 2026
Two reminders that the rules of the 2026 election are still in flux, May 11, 2026
Federal judge refuses to block Trump executive order on mail voting — for now, May 28, 2026
USPS proposal to carry out Trump’s executive order could create new barriers to mail voting, May 29, 2026
Trump’s moves to erect voting hurdles face race against the clock, June 15, 2026
Federal judge blocks key pillars of Trump executive order restricting mail voting in 2026 election, June 25, 2026
Trump administration asks federal judge to quickly lift ban on planned mail voting restrictions, July 2, 2026
Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow new mail ballot restrictions in the 2026 midterms, Aug. 3, 2026
Federal judge blocks Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting nationwide, Aug. 11, 2026

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

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

A state election law in Minnesota faces a surreal test

2026-08-24T11:00:00+00:00

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

Can Hamas members from the Gaza Strip walk in and vote in Minnesota elections?

A group of disguised conservative activists armed with hidden cameras set out to test that claim during the state’s recent primary election. The Election Day exploit put a spotlight on Minnesota’s election laws, and has now triggered investigations.

The furor centers on a Minnesota law allowing what is often referred to as “vouching.” It permits a registered voter to clear the way for up to eight other eligible voters to register and cast ballots on Election Day by signing a sworn statement affirming that those people live in their precinct.

The rarely used law has been on the books in Minnesota since 1973. It’s most typically used for residents of nursing homes who have moved out of their longtime houses but haven’t yet changed their addresses.

The activists decided to test the law at Minneapolis polling places during the August 11 primary.

One of the men, Cam Higby, dressed as a conservative Muslim woman with his face hidden by a black veil and said he misrepresented himself as a registered voter to see if he could game the vouching system. Another, James O’Keefe, dressed in traditional Muslim clothing, appeared to impersonate at least two registered voters at different polling places, and said he wanted to vouch for prospective voters. Another activist, Anthony Rubin, walked into a polling place saying he wanted to vouch for several people he claimed were newly arrived Hamas members from the Gaza Strip.

None of the activists said they went so far as to try to cast a ballot in the election. But they did release a series of carefully edited videos suggesting that the Minnesota vouching system is so lax that it makes it possible for virtually anyone to vote in an American election, creating a furor on social media.

What is vouching and how does it work?

So, how does the Minnesota law work, and is it unusual? To use the system, the person doing the vouching has to be either a registered voter in the precinct or an employee of a residential facility — such as a nursing home — vouching for a resident of that facility. That person must sign a sworn statement saying that they know that the people they are vouching for live in the precinct. This can serve as proof of residency for eligible voters looking to register to vote on Election Day, in lieu of documentation such as a state ID or utility bill.

The person being vouched for doesn’t have to show a physical ID to verify their identity, but must still fill out the standard voter registration application, which requires them to affirm that they are a U.S. citizen and eligible to vote in Minnesota. It also asks them to provide a Minnesota driver’s license number, a state ID number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number. That information is checked later by elections officials to make sure it’s legit. Lying on a voter registration form is a felony carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines.

In Minnesota’s 2024 general election, about 19,000 voters used the vouching system, about 0.6% of the 3.2 million people who cast ballots that year. Of that 19,000, the vast majority were already registered voters updating existing registrations on Election Day with information such as a new address. Around 5,500 people were voting for the first time.

Minnesota’s vouching law has become a prime target for conservative activists who say the process exposes the vulnerabilities of a system that doesn’t require voters to show an ID. A registered voter can vouch for up to eight people. Someone working in a nursing home can vouch for an unlimited number of residents.

“With tens of thousands of voters registering through vouching across recent cycles, without basic verification safeguards, the vouching policies and practices leave Minnesota’s elections vulnerable and risk Americans’ votes being canceled by fraudulently registered voters,” Will Scolinos, an attorney at conservative nonprofit America First Legal, said in May.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon has publicly defended the law. In a letter earlier this year to the U.S. Department of Justice, he pointed out that other states also allow some forms of vouching. For example, Alaska allows state voter identification requirements to be waived if the election official knows the identity of the voter, Iowa allows registered voters to vouch for someone from the same precinct without documentation on Election Day, and Arkansas permits staff members to vouch for residents of long-term or residential care facilities.

Simon denounced the activists’ Election Day operation as “outrageous and totally unacceptable.”

The videotaped incidents were reported by poll workers on Election Day and are under investigation by elections officials and local law enforcement, Simon said.

“The conduct was disturbing,” Simon told Votebeat. Simon said the law has long had bipartisan support in the state as a way to expand voter access, especially for elderly residents.

“This is America,” he added. “Do what you want. If you want to dress up as someone, look no further than Borat and Sacha Baron Cohen. But we have to draw the line.”

Could those people claiming to be newly arrived Hamas members from the Gaza Strip have voted?

To do so, the prospective voucher would have had to break several laws by impersonating a registered voter and signing an affidavit falsely claiming that the other people lived in the precinct. Then the fake Hamas members would have had to break the law by providing false information about their identity and their eligibility to vote in Minnesota.

It is unclear from the videos released by the activists if the poll workers detailed the other steps they would have to go through before they could vote. Anthony Rubin declined to comment or release the raw footage from the incidents. O’Keefe did not respond to a request for comment.

Higby said the group was trying to expose shortfalls in the state election system.

“The goal was never to vote, it was never to touch a ballot, it was never to obtain a ballot,” Higby told Votebeat. “It was simply to test the system and see if poll workers would be prepared to allow me to vote.”

But Simon said in his 11 years as Minnesota’s top elections official, he’d never seen a single case of someone trying to game the vouching system to illegally vote.

“Could someone scam the system?” he asked. “Anything is possible. But you have to look at what is probable.”

Simon said he’d also never before seen a case of someone impersonating a voter.

“There is no end to the creativity of people who are looking to do wrong,” he said. “You have to look at the track record and the incentive structure. There’s a high likelihood that someone is going to get caught.”

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

How Josh Shapiro and Stacy Garrity stack up on election issues

2026-08-20T10:00:01+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.

Two candidates with vastly different visions for elections are competing for Pennsylvania’s governorship this year.

On one side, incumbent Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has staked many of his policy stances on elections in opposition to President Donald Trump, while struggling to pass new election laws through the state legislature. On the other hand, state treasurer Stacy Garrity, Shapiro’s Republican challenger, has indicated she would defer to Trump’s election priorities, but her state-level legislative priorities are less clear.

And in the background, questions about Garrity’s views on the legitimacy of the 2020 election still loom.

Garrity has walked a fine line on the 2020 election

Garrity was first elected as state treasurer in November 2020, when Trump lost his first reelection bid and falsely claimed the contest was marred by fraud. Garrity went on to echo that rhetoric.

“The election from this November is tarnished forever,” she said at a Jan. 5, 2021, rally at the state capitol.

At a 2022 rally with Trump and Mehmet Oz, who was then a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, Garrity was more direct.

“We know that he won,” she said, referring to Trump’s 2020 race.

Since then, Garrity has attempted to walk back those and other comments, but she hasn’t ever fully refuted Trump’s claim that he lost the election due to fraud or acknowledged that Joe Biden was the legitimate winner.

When she was up for reelection in 2024, a campaign spokesperson said her January 2021 comments were not about Trump’s election, but rather only about “inconsistent application of ballot counting rules that directly affected the outcome of a state senate race in the 45th District.” However, rally organizers told reporters at the time that the purpose of the event was to ask state legislators to decertify Pennsylvania’s November 2020 votes.

As for her 2022 comments, Garrity said earlier this year those remarks were made at a Trump rally, which are “kind of fun things” that are “easy to get caught up in.”

During a recent sitdown interview with Dennis Owens, the ABC27 anchor asked Garrity if she believes Trump lost the 2020 election.

“Yeah, I mean, I won, and that’s what I’m most concerned about,” Garrity responded, though she added there were “irregularities” in the election.

In an interview with Spotlight PA earlier this month, Garrity said that her use of the word “irregularities” referred “very specifically” to guidance issued by then-Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar in 2020.

While Garrity told Spotlight PA she is “painfully aware” Biden was the president after the 2020 election and that she “agree[s] that he was the elected president,” Garrity has not said Biden won legitimately.

Did Shapiro keep his 2022 campaign promises?

When he first ran for governor in 2022, Shapiro put a heavy emphasis on democracy and voting issues, and the first policy plan his campaign released was focused on those subjects. It laid out a wide range of policy ideas he said he would pursue, including new legislation and administrative changes.

During his first term, Shapiro has successfully enacted some of those plans, but not others.

In September 2023, he unilaterally brought automatic voter registration to the state, directing PennDOT to change its voter registration process from one where prospective voters had to affirmatively opt in to one where they are automatically taken through the process unless they opt out. State data shows the switch has achieved its goal of registering more voters.

Shapiro also promised to appoint a secretary of the commonwealth who would “run elections fairly and uphold democracy.” That appointment would fall to Al Schmidt, a Republican and the former Philadelphia city commissioner who stood up to Trump’s claims of election fraud in 2020.

Under Schmidt, the Department of State has redesigned mail ballot return envelopes and provisional ballot envelopes to reduce the number of ballots rejected for technical errors. Analysis from Votebeat and Spotlight PA found that both of those changes have achieved their goals.

In keeping with Shapiro’s promise to “make more resources available in different languages so that every eligible voter can make their voices heard,” in 2023 the Department of State created Spanish and Chinese versions of its website. During Shapiro’s term, the department has also translated voter registration and mail ballot application forms into additional languages.

But there are some promises Shapiro hasn’t delivered on. For instance, his 2022 plan said he would create a centralized website where election results for all races, including local races, could be found. But the state’s current project to upgrade its Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, or SURE, program, which includes a revamp of its election night reporting system, does not include a plan to have it also display local results.

Additionally, he said he would “provide funds in his first budget” so that all counties could participate in a risk-limiting audit of elections, a type of statistical test done to ensure the accuracy of results. By the time Shapiro entered office, all counties were already participating in the risk-limiting audit, and his first budget kept funding for county election expenses flat. Counties are not currently reimbursed for the costs of these audits.

This, and other policy struggles also reflect the reality of Pennsylvania’s divided legislature.

A divided legislature impedes election lawmaking

Shapiro made many other promises during the 2022 campaign that required the legislature’s help to pass. Those included allowing people to register to vote on Election Day, preregistering 16-year-olds to vote, establishing true early in-person voting, and allowing counties more time to process mail ballots ahead of Election Day.

But election legislation of all types has effectively ground to a halt during Shapiro’s term. The Republican-controlled state Senate has said any election legislation needs to be paired with expanded voter ID requirements, which they prefer in the form of a hard-to-pass — and hard-to-challenge legally — constitutional amendment.

But Shapiro himself has also been relatively quiet on election legislation. He has issued few statements urging passage of specific proposals, even those that he touted during that 2022 campaign.

In 2024, when the state House passed a bill that would have provided more time for counties to prepare mail ballots for counting, he urged the state Senate to do the same and send it to him to sign. But in other instances, Shapiro has not responded to questions on specific election legislation, and he has avoided weighing in or declined to comment on competing proposals, even when he has supported the underlying policy.

Last year, when a comprehensive election reform package supported by Democratic state House Speaker Joanna McClinton passed the lower chamber, a spokesperson for Shapiro did not directly answer a question on whether he supported the bill, which included some elements he campaigned on. Recently, his campaign also did not respond to questions on what his election priorities would be if Democrats were to win full control of state government this fall.

Shapiro has also failed to appoint several members to a state board meant to advise the legislature on election policy, which has contributed to the board now sitting idle.

Manuel Bonder, a spokesperson for Shapiro’s campaign, defended his record on elections and noted that the fact that control of the legislature is split between parties makes it more difficult to pass legislation. “Governor Shapiro has a long record of protecting our democracy – from standing up to Trump and his allies when they try to undermine it, to implementing commonsense reforms to protect and improve our free, fair, safe, secure elections,” he said in an email.

Beyond voter ID, Garrity’s election priorities are unclear

If Garrity is elected governor, she could have tremendous influence over election policy in the state. But she hasn’t released an elections policy plan of her own, and her campaign has not responded to several requests for an interview on the subject. What is known about her stance on election issues comes from the few questions she has answered on the campaign trail and in more broadly-focused interviews with Spotlight PA.

First and foremost, Garrity would be able to appoint a new secretary of the commonwealth, who can influence how elections run through approving what equipment can be used and making sometimes binding guidance on issues of state law. It’s not clear who, if anyone, Garrity has in mind for this position.

Garrity could also make, or direct her cabinet members to make, administrative decisions that would impact voting.

For example, several Republican-led states have recently withdrawn from the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, a data-sharing consortium of states that works to identify inaccurate or duplicate voter registration records. The program has faced attacks from conservatives in recent years. Garrity has not said how she would handle ERIC.

Both state Republicans and President Trump have also heavily criticized Shapiro’s implementation of automatic voter registration. As governor, Garrity would be able to reverse the policy, but she has not said whether she would.

One point on which Garrity has been more definitive is that she would like to require more voters to show identification at the polls.

Currently, voters are required to show ID only when voting for the first time or when voting at a new polling location. Republicans in the state have for years been trying to expand those requirements.

During the recent interview with Spotlight PA, Garrity said she supported implementing enhanced voter ID requirements in the state.

“That’s where I would start,” she said. “You have to have an ID to do anything.”

Garrity did not specify what forms of identification would be acceptable, or other details such as whether she would be open to exceptions. For instance, some other states have an affidavit system where someone else can vouch for a voter’s identity if they do not have ID with them at the polls.

Shapiro has also indicated an openness to voter ID, though no proposals made it to his desk during his first term.

Shapiro, Garrity would handle Trump differently

Apart from their policy differences at the state level, Shapiro and Garrity would bring very different approaches to Pennsylvania’s relationship with the federal government, including as it pertains to elections.

As state attorney general in 2020, Shapiro represented Pennsylvania in numerous lawsuits involving Trump’s election fraud claims, a fact he still makes note of even today.

“Every time Donald Trump and his enablers have been forced to produce evidence to back up these ridiculous claims, they’ve failed,” Shapiro said in response to Trump’s July primetime address on elections. “And in 2020, when they took us to court and tried to undermine the will of the people here in Pennsylvania — I went 43-0, Trump went 0-43.”

This year alone, Shapiro has joined two lawsuits against the Trump administration in his capacity as governor. The first, from April, challenged Trump’s executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to only deliver ballots to individuals on preapproved lists provided by the states.

In July, he also joined a suit challenging the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s withholding of grant funds, which the plaintiffs argue is being done to coerce the states into compliance with the administration’s preferred elections and immigration policies.

By contrast, Garrity is likely to cooperate with the federal government on election policies. In response to Trump’s call this past February to nationalize elections, Garrity said she would “work with the Trump administration” to “turn our state around.”

The Shapiro administration has also rebuffed the U.S. Department of Justice’s demand for a version of the state’s voter roll that includes driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.

By contrast, Garrity has said she would provide the records.

“If we think there’s not voter fraud, then why not hand over the rolls and prove him wrong?” she told ABC27.

Clarification, Aug. 20: This article has been updated to specify that Garrity has not acknowledged that Joe Biden was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election.

Katie Meyer of Spotlight PA contributed reporting.

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

Complaint alleges conservative activist Scott Presler violated campaign finance law

2026-08-18T19:36:12+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 watchdog group has filed a complaint alleging conservative activist Scott Presler and his political action committee may have violated state campaign finance law in Pennsylvania.

Presler is based in Pennsylvania and has gained a national profile for voter registration work and ongoing searches for noncitizen voters. The complaint alleges that despite his extensive campaigning in the state in 2025 urging voters not to retain three state Supreme Court judges, Presler and his organization, Early Vote Action, did not disclose sources of revenue or detailed expenditures as required.

“Presler has every right to conduct such political activities, but lawmakers and voters also have every right to know who is paying how much to influence their political choices,” Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, which filed the complaint, said via email. Public Citizen is a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit focused on democracy and corporate power issues.

Presler did not respond to requests for comment.

According to Pennsylvania campaign finance law, political action committees are required to report expenses, as well as the names of all contributors who give more than $50, when their spending exceeds $250. While Early Vote Action is registered with the Federal Election Commission, a search of the state’s campaign finance database shows that the organization has never registered as a political action committee or submitted reports in Pennsylvania.

Fines for late filings in the state are relatively minimal. Failure to file is more serious, and can result in fines of up to $5,000 and jail time for a candidate or the treasurer of a political action committee, but charges for this are exceedingly rare.

Enforcement of Pennsylvania campaign finance law violations is lax, and Presler isn’t the first activist to face questions over whether expenses were properly reported in recent elections.

The new complaint against Presler focuses on his activism in the 2025 election. That year, three state Supreme Court judges, who were originally elected as Democrats, were on the ballot for retention, a type of election where voters select “yes” or “no” to indicate whether they would like the judge to serve another 10-year term.

Republicans, including Presler, were campaigning to unseat the judges in the hopes of opening the court up for an ideological shift during the 2027 municipal election.

“If we defeat even 1 of these democrat Supreme Court Justices this November, we will go down in Pennsylvania history,” Presler said in a September 2025 post on the social media site X, which showed him placing Early Vote Action-branded “Vote No” signs along a roadway.

Public Citizen said in its complaint that according to press reports, during the campaign, Early Vote Action used paid staff, engaged in voter outreach, and purchased digital and print media — all expenditures which should have been detailed in campaign finance reports.

The complaint was lodged with the Pennsylvania Department of State, which oversees the state’s campaign finance law. A spokesperson for the department confirmed the state had received the complaint but said that it does not comment on investigations.

This is not the first time Public Citizen has filed a complaint against Presler. In March the group filed a complaint with both chambers of Congress alleging Presler was not registered as a lobbyist as he should be, given his work pressing members of Congress to pass the SAVE America Act. Front Line Government Relations, a firm representing Presler Persistence, LLC, subsequently registered and filed disclosures.

(Neither entity has ever registered as a PAC with the state.)

Presler has also been gaining national attention in recent weeks for his request to Pennsylvania counties for lists of individuals who were rejected for jury duty due to their lack of U.S. citizenship, which he says he will cross check against the state’s vote roll for evidence of illegitimately registered voters.

Presler’s social media posts citing the numbers of noncitizens who were rejected from jury lists attracted the attention of U.S. Sen. Dave McCormick, a Republican, who said it was evidence of a “badly broken” system. Those posts also prompted a direct rebuke from the Pennsylvania Department of State, which clarified online that inclusion on a jury rejection list doesn’t mean a person is registered to vote.

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

‘I don’t trust you’: Tensions reach boiling point on election security call for state leaders hosted by Trump administration

2026-08-17T11:00:00+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.

Tensions between state election officials and the Trump administration are rising as we head into the heart of the midterm election season. Frustrations boiled over on Monday during a rare election security call hosted by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency for state officials. During the call, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes unloaded on the agency.

CISA used to be a go-to shop for many states looking for help ensuring that their elections weren’t hacked, targeted, or undermined by cyberattacks or foreign interference. CISA provided states with classified security briefings on threats, helped ensure that state voting equipment wasn’t vulnerable to cyberattacks, and worked with election leaders to game out potential risks.

All that changed when Donald Trump returned to the White House last year. The second Trump administration scaled back its support for states, cut back CISA staff, and launched an investigation of its former leader, whom Trump accused of disloyalty because he pushed back on the president’s false claims that the 2020 election was rigged. CISA has not had a permanent director since the start of Trump’s second term.

Changes at CISA have paired with the president’s broad focus on controlling how elections are run. The federal government is threatening to arrest election officials if they allow noncitizens to vote. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has vowed to withhold federal funds from states that don’t implement Trump administration election overhaul proposals. A coalition of Democratic states and officials has sued the Department of Homeland Security in a suit that accuses the Trump administration of withholding Federal Emergency Management Agency funding in an attempt to coerce states into enacting disputed election changes.

With all that as backdrop, CISA organized this week’s call – and things didn’t go too well.

After more than a year of near silence, elections officials wondered if CISA would step up to offer classified intelligence briefings on emerging cyber threats from hostile countries, specialized testing of election equipment, or training on how to prepare for potential problems on Election Day.

Instead, CISA leaders provided what one participant characterized as a generic “CYA” (cover your a**) briefing that offered state officials few assurances that the federal government would help thwart threats this November.

Participants said acting CISA Director Nick Andersen and Jim Harrell, the assistant director for integrated operations, offered no concrete support for the 2026 election, which is less than 90 days away. Instead, the participants said, CISA leadership seemed more focused on the 2028 presidential election.

When they were done, according to participants, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, lashed out at the CISA officials. Fontes blasted the Trump administration for threatening state election officials and made it clear he had no confidence in their leadership, they said.

“Fontes got testy with them,” said one participant on the call who asked not to be identified. “‘I don’t trust you,’ [Fontes told the CISA officials.] ‘Your boss came out there and said: We are going to criminalize the work you do. Why should we trust you?’”

When asked about the call, Fontes confirmed that he’d made those comments and expanded on his frustrations

“They don’t work with us, they work against us,” Fontes told Votebeat. “Why should I trust them?”

Fontes said it was difficult for state and local elections officials to have confidence they would get support from the federal government when the administration treats them like an adversary rather than a partner. He and others on the call said CISA leaders offered few assurances they would provide much support in the coming weeks.

“They just wholly and completely abandoned their duties and threatened prosecution,” Fontes said. “If they want to apologize for threatening us and ruining perfectly good systems, that’s a good start.”

CISA did not respond to requests for comment on the call.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, also a Democrat, echoed Fontes’s frustrations.

“It’s unhelpful to have political leaders, including the secretary of Homeland Security, hinting at imprisoning election administrators who don’t do what they want,” Simon told Votebeat. “That’s just not helpful.”

Simon said Minnesota and other states have spent months working to fill the gaps left by the drop-off in CISA support.

“It’s pretty clear states are almost entirely on their own this election cycle and cannot rely on the federal government for election assistance,” said Simon.

Not everyone on the call came away with a sour taste in their mouth, though. Some participants described it as a tentative move that could help repair the strained relationship between state and federal leaders working on elections.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, also a Democrat, described the call as a “positive step” in rebuilding relations between CISA and state election officials.

“While this engagement is encouraging, CISA and our other federal partners must focus on continuing to rebuild trust with election officials,” Hobbs said. “Over the last two years, we have watched this administration systematically dismantle many of the election security resources in place at the federal level.”

With the November election fast approaching, he said, “election officials need sustained commitment to supporting local elections, not renewed attention only as major elections approach. Meaningful support will do more to rebuild relationships than words alone.”

37 Hamtramck ballots could flip mayoral race after Michigan Supreme Court declines appeal

2026-08-14T21:20:53+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, 9:55 p.m.: This story has been updated to include comment from Hamtramck Mayor Adam Alharbi.

A tiny Michigan city must count 37 additional ballots more than nine months after the election in question, potentially flipping an election eight months after the announced winner took office.

The Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the city of Hamtramck, the Wayne County Board of Canvassers and current Hamtramck Mayor Adam Alharbi, leaving in place a March decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals that ordered the ballots counted. The parties could appeal to federal courts, but such a challenge would face significant expenses, not to mention legal hurdles.

These 37 ballots weren’t counted on Election Day after mistakenly being left in their opened envelopes and returned to the clerk’s office. They were later discovered there, but only after outside officials had entered the office — allegedly to address punching bags bearing candidates’ faces that had been left inside — thus breaking the ballots’ chain of custody.

The Wayne County Board of Canvassers deadlocked over whether to include the ballots in the final count because of concerns about the chain of custody, leaving the votes uncounted.

Those 37 ballots could now decide the mayoral race months after Alharbi — who beat his opponent Muhith Mahmood by only 11 votes — took office.

The identities of the 37 voters have not been made public.

“This is a great victory for democracy and for the rights of voters to have their votes counted,” Mark Brewer, Mahmood’s attorney, said in an email Friday afternoon.

He emphasized that counting the ballots will change the final vote totals, but it won’t be clear who the final winner is until after all 37 ballots are counted.

It is not clear when the Wayne County Board of Canvassers may consider the ballots in question. Questions sent to several canvassers weren’t immediately returned Friday.

While such a decision is atypical, there are plenty of examples of election results remaining unresolved for months, Justin Levitt, a constitutional law expert at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, told Votebeat.

In 2008, for example, the Minnesota Senate race was decided by only a few hundred votes, and Sen. Al Franken wasn’t sworn in until the July following his election after a series of legal challenges.

“It takes time to get it right, and sometimes that means months,” Levitt said. “It’s very unusual, but it’s not unheard of, and frankly, I think the citizens benefit by making sure that these things are closely examined by the courts.”

It’s just the latest in a tumultuous saga in Hamtramck, a city of less than 28,000 people that has been racked by a number of election-related scandals. Last week, Mohammed Hassan, a city councilman who is also the city’s mayor pro tem, was sentenced to a year of probation after he was found guilty of forging someone’s signature on an absentee ballot. Another council member, Muhtasin Sadman, pleaded guilty to election fraud charges earlier this year.

Alharbi said in an email Friday that he wasn’t worried about his seat but rather “the future of our city,” pointing to at least one additional ballot that turned up later.

“The integrity of the process is fundamentally compromised,” he wrote.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel requested an independent prosecutor investigate a number of members of the council last year, alleging that six people “conspired to receive unvoted absentee ballots that had been signed by recently naturalized citizens, and to then fill in the candidates of their choosing” in the city’s 2023 election. No other charges related to that request have been made public.

Rana Faraj, the city’s clerk during last year’s election, was replaced by city officials in part for the envelope mixup, officials said. She sued the city late last year, alleging officials retaliated against her for trying to whistleblow “ongoing election integrity issues.” Court records show a review hearing is scheduled in that case for October.

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

Michigan charges 5 noncitizens for allegedly voting in 2024 election

2026-08-13T23:28:49+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.

Michigan’s attorney general announced Thursday she was charging five noncitizens for allegedly voting in the 2024 general election, plus one U.S. citizen accused of registering their noncitizen spouse to vote.

Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, made the announcement more than a year after her office announced she was investigating 13 potential noncitizen voters referred by the Michigan Department of State. Thursday’s announcement encompassed those referrals as well as 25 other people referred more recently on similar allegations.

In addition to the six who were charged, 10 of those cases have been closed without charges, and 22 remain under investigation. In addition, the voter registration of every identified noncitizen — including several who were not charged — has been canceled.

“We’re upholding election integrity by investigating all claims of non-citizen voters, as rare as they are, and holding bad actors accountable when they refuse to abide by the laws that keep our elections safe and secure,” Nessel said in a news release announcing the charges. “These charges reflect the severity of the allegations, the sanctity of our democracy, and the tremendous consequences of voting illegally— whether that’s done to try and ‘test’ security measures or to make an unlawful vote count.”

Noncitizen voting has been a top concern of conservative lawmakers and activists across the U.S. for several years, with a renewed emphasis during President Donald Trump’s second term. It is extremely rare in Michigan and across the U.S.

6 people charged in connection with noncitizen voting in Michigan

The six people were each arraigned between April and earlier this week, according to Nessel’s office. Of the six, three live in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents, while a fourth is a limited-term alien resident. Only U.S. citizens — not lawful permanent residents or noncitizens with any other residency status — can vote in state and federal elections.

Michael Akioya is accused of registering to vote in Inkster in 2016 and voting in the 2024 election in Oak Park via absentee ballot. He is a lawful permanent resident, Nessel’s office said, but not a citizen. He is charged with making false statements on an absentee ballot application and envelope.

Harumi Michael is accused of registering and voting in person in 2024 in Commerce Township despite being only a lawful permanent resident. She is charged with two counts of election law forgery, one count of making a false statement when registering to vote, and one count of being an unqualified elector attempting to vote.

Robert Piva, another lawful permanent resident, registered to vote online in September 2024 and voted early in Roseville the next month, according to the attorney general’s office. He “claimed his vote was an experiment concerning voter fraud,” according to the news release. He is charged with one count each of election law perjury, fraudulent registration, and being an unqualified elector attempting to vote.

Alondra Harker, a limited-term alien resident, allegedly registered and voted in person in the 2024 general election in Three Rivers. She is charged with fraudulently registering to vote.

Kimberly DiDonato, an American citizen, allegedly posed as her husband, a lawful permanent resident, and registered him to vote in 2024 while claiming he was a citizen. According to the news release, DiDonato “claimed her intent was to test the registration system for vulnerabilities to unqualified voter registrants” and she canceled the registration a month later. She has been charged with election law forgery and using a computer to commit a crime.

Her attorney, former Republican attorney general candidate Kevin Kijewski, noted that DiDonato’s case was lumped together with a number of “very different” cases.

“No ballot was cast, and the registration was canceled in May 2024 after it was brought to the township clerk’s attention,” he said in a text message Thursday.

The final person announced Thursday, Basanth Sadasivian, is a noncitizen residing in the U.K. who allegedly registered to vote by email using the Federal Post Card Application — which allows military personnel and other U.S. citizens living abroad to register and vote — using a Bloomfield Hills address. He voted in the general election in 2024 through that same system, according to Nessel’s office, and is charged with one count of being an unqualified elector attempting to vote.

Michael’s and Harker’s attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday. Attorneys could not be immediately located for Akioya, Piva, and Sadasivian.

“This is how the system works under the law. The same process that produced these investigations and criminal charges is the process we use every time we receive allegations of illegal voter activity,” Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie said in a statement Thursday. “The people of Michigan deserve to know that each case is thoroughly investigated, those investigations are pursued based on evidence, and that anyone found to have broken the law is held accountable.”

He further encouraged people not to “test the system,” noting that people who break the law in order to do so will be held accountable.

Others investigated as part of ongoing efforts

The attorney general’s office also announced that 10 people who had been under investigation for noncitizen voting or “adjacent conduct” would not be charged. Of those, two were found to be citizens, while another was “subject to a complicated international adoption” and is presumed to be a citizen. A fourth person, while not fully considered a citizen, is federally recognized as an American Indian born in Canada; such individuals are often referred to as “dual citizens” in their paperwork, according to the release.

Nessel’s office also declined to charge five legal permanent residents who had voted — some of them in several different elections — as well as one noncitizen with authorization to work in the U.S., because it felt there was not enough proof to do so. To secure a prosecution, the government must prove these people knew they were unqualified to vote and that they weren’t encouraged to register by the government itself.

Nessel’s investigations aren’t the only ones ongoing in the state. Anthony Forlini, the Macomb County clerk and the Republican candidate for secretary of state this fall, has been using jury pools to try to find noncitizens on the voter rolls for much of the year, despite warnings against that from the Department of State.

Forlini applauded Nessel on Thursday.

“Good elections are a non-partisan topic and both parties need to take this seriously,” he said in a statement shared on social media Thursday. “This is just the beginning of what I am uncovering. This is not a small matter. This is an infrastructure issue that needs to be fixed.”

Noncitizen voting a staple of political conversation in Michigan

Previously, only one person — a University of Michigan student from China — was publicly charged with voting in the 2024 election in Michigan despite not being a U.S. citizen. That student, Haoxiang Gao, was later charged with fleeing the country.

Despite its rarity, noncitizen voting has remained a focus of Republican elected officials. Rep. Bryan Posthumus, a Republican from Rockford, began the state legislative session last year by introducing an amendment to the Michigan Constitution that would require would-be voters to prove their citizenship. That ultimately failed to move forward in the legislature, but proponents are hoping to put a similar constitutional amendment before voters this fall.

The group Americans for Citizen Voting submitted more than 750,000 signatures in March in support of that effort. The Board of State Canvassers will decide later this month whether it will make the November ballot.

It’s not just Michigan where that’s a focus. Trump has made implementing a federal proof-of-citizenship requirement one of his top priorities, repeatedly calling on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act (the bill, though, lacks the votes to pass the Senate). In an effort to root out noncitizens on the voter rolls, the Department of Justice has also requested unredacted information on voters from every state; Michigan is one of 30 that have refused to comply and is locked in a legal battle with the federal government over the issue.

The Trump administration last month also sent letters to every state’s top election official warning that they could face criminal prosecution if they knowingly allow noncitizens to vote or be registered to vote.

Trump has claimed for years that noncitizen voting is a widespread problem in the U.S., even though election officials and independent audits have found no more than a handful of examples. Most recently, Trump said last month during a primetime speech that there are more than 270,000 noncitizens registered to vote nationwide, although he provided no evidence or details about how he arrived at that number.

Rep. Rachelle Smit, a Republican from Martin and the chair of the House Election Integrity Committee, said in a statement that she “truly believe[s] Michigan is the epicenter of the problem.”

“The charges filed today are just the tip of the iceberg, and further underscore exactly why the U.S. Senate must approve the SAVE Act to safeguard our elections and ensure only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections,” she said.

Danny Wimmer, a spokesperson for the Michigan attorney general’s office, said the investigations and ultimate charges were “not impacted by any external focus appearing in recent weeks or months.”

In fact, in her release, Nessel criticized the Trump administration for making it harder to identify the noncitizen voters. “The federal government has not always provided easy or open access to certain necessary citizenship records,” she said, noting that this delayed her investigation.

“While the question of whether any given resident is a citizen may feel simple, some cases are nuanced in unexpected ways,” Nessel said.

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

Texas’ mail ballot ID requirements restored by federal appeals court

2026-08-13T21:30:32+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.

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 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday restored several pieces of a 2021 Texas election law that overhauled mail-in and assisted voting, overturning a lower court’s block on those provisions.

Five years ago, Texas passed Senate Bill 1, a wide-reaching election law that changed the way local officials administer elections and how some Texans vote, particularly aimed at initiatives Harris County implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law was denounced by voter advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, and Democratic lawmakers, who broke quorum in an attempt to stifle the bill.

After several lawsuits over accessibility concerns created by the new law were consolidated into a single suit, a district judge in March 2025 struck down nine of its provisions. Those blocked provisions included requiring Texans to provide an identification number or Social Security number on mail-in ballot applications and have them match the state’s records. The judge also blocked provisions that create processes for curing defective ballots and require voters and those who assist them in filling out their ballot to sign an oath swearing they did not coerce the voter and disclose how they’re related.

The plaintiffs who sued argued the provisions were overly cumbersome and restrictive for voters with disabilities, and the district judge agreed, ruling they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Texas allows voters who are over the age of 65 and those with certain disabilities, among others, to vote by mail.

Wednesday’s 11-page ruling from the 5th Circuit reverses the district judge’s ruling in its entirety, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing on most of their complaints. The written opinion strongly rebuked the lower courts’ decisions in the suit, noting that appellate judges have “reversed the district court on everything” through the suit’s five years of litigation.

“The bulk of the plaintiffs’ claims fail for lack of standing. One fails on the merits. But none justifies interference with the State Legislature’s efforts to prevent voter fraud and to protect election integrity,” Judge Andrew Oldham wrote in the opinion.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is a defendant in the suit, described the ruling as a “major victory” in a social media post.

The ruling also asserts that mail-in ballots have “long been established” as prone to fraud, and notes that the number of mail-in application or mail-in ballot rejections caused by identification numbers errors dropped from 11% to 2.7% after the law’s implementation. A 2022 study found that 1 in 7 voters who requested a mail ballot in the 2022 primary had their applications or ballots rejected in the wake of SB 1.

New secretary of state will continue to defend Texas’ open primaries against GOP lawsuit

2026-08-12T21:26:34+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.

Robert Howden, the new Texas secretary of state, said in a legal filing Monday that he would continue to defend the state’s open primary system, putting him at odds with the Texas GOP in the lawsuit filed by the party last year.

“The only thing that has changed in this case is the name of the defendant,” lawyers for the state agency wrote, emphasizing that the secretary would “gladly implement statutory changes” if passed by the Legislature.

Republicans in Texas, worried about the moderating influence of Democrats and independents crossing over to GOP races, want to require voters to register with a party before they’re allowed to participate in primaries.

Last year, the Texas GOP sued to strike down the current open primary system, under which eligible Texans register to vote without declaring a party affiliation. Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the party, leaving then-Secretary of State Jane Nelson to find her own legal representation for the agency. Nelson, a Republican and former state senator, said in legal filings at the time that this was a decision best left to the Legislature.

In the months since, this idea spawned by the conservative grassroots has garnered widespread support from state leaders. At the Texas Republican Convention in June, Gov. Greg Abbott addressed the issue to a cheering crowd, saying he wants to “make clear that in the future, only Republicans vote in Republican primaries.” He later told Texas Scorecard that this was an issue for lawmakers, who “can and should be more responsive to Republicans than a judge may be.”

A spokesperson for Abbott, who appoints the secretary of state, did not respond to a request for comment.

Many in the party celebrated Nelson’s retirement last month as an opportunity for the agency to change its position in the lawsuit. But Howden, Abbott’s former legislative director, is staying the course.

“This issue can and will be resolved by the Legislature in the coming months,” he said in the filing, noting that the Legislature is the right venue for “thoughtfully crafting the detailed scheme that would govern it.”

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Amarillo, has been a major financial weight on the party. After the convention, the new chair, D’rinda Randall, reported that the party’s largest unpaid debt was to cover the legal fees associated with this lawsuit.

The Texas GOP did not respond to a request for comment.

An election night error overshadowed Milwaukee’s improvements at processing absentee ballots

2026-08-12T16:59:27+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.

Milwaukee election officials spent Tuesday trying to prove they had a better way to count absentee ballots — faster, smoother, and with less reason for anyone to doubt the process.

Then, after 15 hours of nearly flawless work, a few minutes of human error blew up the plan.

At around 11:10 p.m. on Tuesday night, city officials left their central count facility without exporting results from five of its nine tabulators, forcing them to race back under police escort and delaying Milwaukee’s results by about 90 minutes. It was the third time in recent years that a significant tabulator-related mistake had disrupted the city’s heavily scrutinized absentee-ballot operation.

So, right around midnight, chief Milwaukee election official Paulina Gutiérrez and other city officials climbed into a white van under police escort and headed back along the Milwaukee River to the central count facility they thought they had shut down about an hour earlier.

There was ample evidence of what had gone wrong — and no evidence of tampering or any sign the results were affected.

“We’re all human, and humans can make errors,” Gutiérrez told Votebeat, just past 12:30 a.m. on Wednesday, after she and several other city officials shuffled from tabulator to tabulator to export the results they had failed to retrieve the first time.

By then, the warehouse-like room was largely empty. Temporary workers had gone home. Election observers, believing the night was over, had left too. Gutiérrez, wearing a white blazer and pants and maintaining an even-keeled expression as reporters surrounded her, said the results were secure, and that the city would determine how the error occurred and how to prevent it from happening in the future.

City of Milwaukee Election Commision executive director Paulina Gutiérrez speaks to the media on election night. She assured reporters later in the night that the city error didn't jeopardize ballot security.

Her explanation did little to slow the criticism.

Within minutes, Dan Eastman, a right-wing lawyer who has filed election-related cases in Wisconsin, wrote on social media that there was no way central count could work for Milwaukee. Loomer Unleashed, a podcast hosted by right-wing pundit Laura Loomer, was more explicit: “Yeah, they cheated!”

Others, including Democrats, criticized the city without alleging wrongdoing.

“What an inauspicious ending to an otherwise quiet day,” said Ann Jacobs, a Democratic appointee on the Wisconsin Elections Commission and a regular observer at the city’s absentee ballot counting operation.

Mistakes add up for the state’s most scrutinized election operation

In November 2020, after arriving at the county clerk’s office to transmit Milwaukee’s election results, then-city election chief Claire Woodall realized that she forgot one of the facility’s 12 flash drives containing vote results at central count, a mistake some conservatives seized on as a flagrant oversight. That led her to create a checklist that the city has since used to avoid similar errors, outlining over two dozen steps for extracting, securing, and transmitting election results.

Four years later, at the next presidential election, Milwaukee election officials made the extraordinary decision to count 31,000 absentee ballots all over again because some staff didn’t lock tabulator doors in the early morning. Those panel doors, which cover the on/off switch and sometimes a slot for USB drives, were supposed to have been locked during counting.

The process Woodall created to prevent future such errors included a single official extracting results from each tabulator while accompanied by other staff. Officials appeared to have followed that process in November 2024, but not this time. Instead, different staff members downloaded the files from different tabulators and did so inconsistently, not realizing that results were not properly exported from five of the tabulators.

At the time, it appeared to take officials around 10 minutes to extract results from some tabulators, and only three minutes from others. In hindsight, the mistake was clear to Gutiérrez: Downloading results from tabulators takes more than three minutes, she told Votebeat.

“The fact that this happened five times seems more like a training issue,” Woodall told Votebeat. “Was this person trained on how to export results? Are they familiar with the machines and how you export results?”

But she also cautioned people not to get too carried away by a human error that wasn’t indicative of any fraud or fatal flaw in the election system.

Just after 1:15 a.m. Wednesday, Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson stood beneath the bright fluorescent lights outside his courthouse office, facing roughly a dozen reporters who had stayed well past midnight waiting for the city’s results. Nearly two hours had passed since Christenson first expected those results to arrive.

Now, with the mistake finally corrected and the long election night stretching on, he told the assembled media that Milwaukee operates under constant scrutiny — and that people make mistakes.

“At the end of the day,” he continued, “what’s important is that we’re transparent, that the results are secure, and that we’re open and honest. And that’s what the City of Milwaukee election director did. She came up here and she explained it, went back, got the results, brought it back to us, and we got everything right.”

Errors undermine city efforts to build trust, lobby for policy change

Milwaukee officials have long argued that state law and limited resources make the city’s massive absentee-ballot operation harder than it needs to be. But the string of high-profile mistakes at Milwaukee’s central count operation has complicated their efforts to persuade lawmakers to give them more flexibility.

Wisconsin law prohibits municipalities from processing ballots before 7 a.m. on Election Day. That leaves Milwaukee — home to the biggest central count operation in the state — to open envelopes, verify signatures and witness addresses, and prepare tens of thousands of ballots for counting in a single day.

For years, election officials have pushed for legislation allowing municipalities to begin that process before election day. The proposal has been repeatedly stalled by the Republican-controlled legislature, largely on the basis that Milwaukee cannot be trusted with additional time. That’s despite state Rep. Scott Krug, a high-ranking Republican, having spent years behind the scenes trying to gather support for the policy.

As liberals on Tuesday suggested the pre-processing law would have helped stave off mistakes, Krug said that the city wasn’t helping its cause.

“Complete incompetence at the facility isn’t helping anything here,” he said on social media. “This was human error that could have easily been double checked before leaving the facility. More than one answer to the problem not one silver bullet.”

How officials, experts think central count operation can improve

Allowing Milwaukee to start processing absentee ballots earlier would relieve some of the pressure on Election Day. But election experts say it would not solve all the other weaknesses in an operation handling more absentee ballots than any other in the state.

Jennifer Morrell, CEO of the Elections Group, said a successful central count operation depends on three things: experienced staff, a space designed for the work, and the right equipment. Milwaukee, she said, falls short in each area compared with similarly sized cities that have invested more heavily in election administration.

The city election commission never had enough full-time staff to begin with, Morrell said, and currently has a small handful of vacancies. While central count relies on temporary employees, she added, it still needs enough experienced full-time staff to run an operation of that size.

The city also has no permanent home for its central count, meaning officials must adapt the operation to spaces that were not necessarily designed for processing tens of thousands of absentee ballots. Morrell also said the city lacks equipment that other cities of similar sizes have invested in, like a mail sorting machine. That means Milwaukee election workers sort tens of thousands of mail ballots — sometimes more than 100,000 — by hand. Madison’s sorting machine, by comparison, allows the city to sort hundreds of ballots in minutes.

Gretchen Macht, the founder of the Engineering for Democracy Institute and an associate professor of industrial and systems engineering at the University of Rhode Island, has spent the past few years assisting Gutiérrez to find more efficient ways to conduct its central count. In an interview with Votebeat, Macht invoked an old saying in both election administration and engineering: You can have something fast, accurate, or cheap, but you can only pick two.

For Milwaukee officials, sacrificing accuracy is an obvious nonstarter.

“Our number one priority is efficiency and accuracy,” Gutiérrez said, adding that she’ll never sacrifice election operations just to improve speed.

But without more money or changes to state law, there is only so much faster the city can go.

Just before midnight on Tuesday, that consequence was playing out on national television.

With more than 90% of the state’s unofficial results in and Milwaukee’s absentee ballots poised to determine the outcome of the Democratic gubernatorial primary, NBC News election analyst Steve Kornacki was waiting for the city’s numbers to arrive.

He stood flabbergasted — hands on his knees, mouth agape, eyebrows raised — in his studio as he learned about the snafu with the USB sticks.

“Are you serious?” he said.

“We’re kind of indefinitely waiting for them to get their act together here,” he said. “We waited 90 minutes for them. They did this whole procession, and then we find out there’s nothing on the sticks.”

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

Federal judge blocks Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting nationwide

2026-08-12T00:36:58+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, Aug. 12, 11:26 a.m.: This story has been updated to include comment from the Justice Department.

What happened?

A federal judge delivered another setback on Tuesday to President Donald Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting during the 2026 midterms, blocking the U.S. Postal Service from taking steps to implement his election-related executive order from earlier this year.

It’s the second legal hold on the order, the first of which is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Tuesday’s ruling makes it even less likely that the executive order will be in effect for the November election.

What’s the dispute?

Trump issued an executive order in March that called on the Postal Service to create a new system to regulate who could vote by mail and directed states to create special lists of who could request absentee ballots.

The order immediately drew several lawsuits challenging the executive order as unconstitutional. The League of Women Voters and a cross-section of states filed lawsuits in early April. The Postal Service unveiled draft rules to carry out the order in May, but U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked key pillars of the executive order in June as part of the case brought by the states.

At the time, Talwani issued an injunction specifically preventing the federal government from enforcing those provisions of the order against the 24 jurisdictions (23 states and the District of Columbia) that brought the lawsuit. The list includes most Democratic-led and swing states, including Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

On Tuesday, Talwani issued an injunction in the separate lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters and other nonpartisan voting groups — this one blocking the Postal Service from restricting absentee voting across the nation.

Talwani rejected the Trump administration’s argument that courts could not rule on the legality of the Postal Service process since the government has not yet set up the system.

“The court finds it prudent to review the EO now, where less than 90 days pending before the midterms and the millions of citizens who rely on mail voting require clarity as to how or whether they will vote in November,” Talwani wrote in her 27-page ruling.

“The EO—even in the absence of a final rule—is thus causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff Organizations’ members through the confusion it has engendered as to how they may vote in the fast-approaching midterm elections,” the judge wrote.

“This ruling reinforces the clear language of our Constitution: The president plays no role in our elections and he cannot turn the U.S. Postal Service into a tool for disenfranchising voters,” attorneys for the League of Women Voters said in a statement. “Millions of citizens rely on mail voting, and USPS has no authority to determine which of them should receive ballots.”

The White House also responded to the decision on Tuesday. “The entire Trump Administration will continue lawfully enacting the agenda President Trump was elected to enact – which includes the safety and security of American elections,” said spokesperson Lauren Bis.

What happens now?

The ruling throws another wrench in the Trump administration’s efforts to constrain absentee voting.

On July 27, Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift Talwani’s June injunction by arguing that the lawsuit brought by the collection of Democratic states was premature. The high court is expected to rule on that question any day now, but Tuesday’s decision lowers the stakes of that decision. Even if the Supreme Court lifts the previous injunction, the newer one will still prevent the Postal Service from implementing the executive order, at least for the time being.

The Trump administration could appeal Tuesday’s ruling, just as it did the June one. On Wednesday, the Justice Department said it was “reviewing all options” and did not say how it would respond. “We disagree with the court’s ruling,” the department said in a statement. “The Department remains confident that President Trump’s order to secure federal elections will ultimately be upheld.”

But an appeal would burn precious time. There is already less than two months left before voters start casting absentee ballots — a nearly impossible time frame for the government and elections officials to set up the new system. Appealing Tuesday’s decision to the Supreme Court could take weeks off that ticking clock.

Read more Votebeat coverage of the issue here:

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Prediction markets place odds on election results. Officials say they could erode public trust.

2026-08-10T09:00:00+00:00

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

A 2004 paper on the history of presidential election betting markets kicks off with a partial quote from the transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau’s 19th-century essay “Civil Disobedience”: “All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it.”

Not everyone agrees with that last part. And the rapid rise of online prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket are bringing that tension to the fore.

Prediction markets are websites that sell contracts that allow users to wager on event outcomes. Political examples could include which party will control the U.S. House or Senate after the midterms, for example. Typically, there are fixed payouts and the price of the contract reflects the market’s expectation of the odds of the outcome.

It isn’t yet entirely clear who regulates prediction markets and how, and markets have regularly clashed with state officials trying to rein them in. When it comes to elections, most states have laws prohibiting election betting in some form or fashion, according to a Pew Research Center analysis released in June. But many such laws predate modern prediction markets and haven’t necessarily been tested in court recently.

Kalshi recently pushed back on Wisconsin election officials after they issued an advisory about a state law dating back to the 19th century that says voters can’t cast ballots in races they’ve bet on. A Kalshi staffer said on social media the Wisconsin advisory meant election officials were engaged in “active voter suppression.”

However the legal situation shakes out, betting on elections is happening. An NBC News analysis found nearly $200 million in trading volume on midterm election outcomes on prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket, and election officials say they are concerned about how the odds on such sites could influence public trust in election outcomes — particularly when election results differ from those the markets had favored — and about creating incentives for manipulation.

“I think it is something that we are going to have to wrestle with going into the November election and forward,” said Dean Logan, the registrar-recorder and county clerk for Los Angeles County, California, the country’s single most populous election jurisdiction, during a webinar organized by the Partnership for Large Election Jurisdictions this month.

Logan said in the Los Angeles mayoral primary in June, “early election returns differed from market expectations, and that resulted in suspicion and questioning of normal ballot processing and canvassing procedures in California.” The bottom line, he said, is that “elections administration right now is very much affected by perception and misinformation, and in our field we have to be prepared to respond to that.”

‘This is all bad’

Prediction markets say their odds reflect the wisdom of the crowds and can be more accurate than polling. And these markets have been pretty good at predicting elections in the past. For example, the 2004 paper that quoted Thoreau, by economics professors Paul Rhode and Koleman Strumpf, analyzed data on election gambling between 1868 and 1940 and found that the historical markets “did a remarkable job forecasting elections in an era before scientific polling.”

But prediction markets differ from polls in important ways. Polls are representative samples of just the voters who live in the state or district in question; prediction markets are open to anyone, and the more money a person bets, the more influence they have on the odds.

And election officials, already worried about low public trust in elections, are concerned the odds on these markets could be manipulated to influence public perception of a contest or create new financial incentives to shape outcomes. Kalshi and Polymarket did not respond to requests for comment.

Jim Allen, the elections director of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, which had already banned election workers from directly betting on elections, earlier this year added a ban on using prediction markets to do so. He likened it to referees betting on the outcome of a basketball game.

The new language, he said during the PLEJ webinar, “kicked off a conversation at our poll worker training. There was one person out of 383 precincts, one person who stood up and they said, ‘Well, what if we just want to make a minor bet on what turnout will be? That’ll keep things interesting.’ And we said, ‘No, this is all bad.’”

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

Green Bay clerk resigns amid investigations into duplicate ballot incidents

2026-08-07T16:27:45+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.

Green Bay Clerk Celestine Jeffreys has resigned amid a state investigation into how her office sent duplicate ballots to voters two elections in a row, the city announced Friday.

Jeffreys had been on administrative leave since July 9. Her resignation came shortly after the first stage of a Wisconsin Elections Commission investigation showed just how central Jeffreys was to the city sending out 152 duplicate ballots in the April election and an undisclosed number ahead of the August primary.

“We wish her the best in her future endeavors,” the city said in a brief, two-sentence statement, declining to comment further on the matter.

Stacy Menke, previously the city’s deputy clerk, is serving as interim clerk for the August primary election. The job of picking a permanent replacement will fall to Mayor Eric Genrich, although his nominee must be confirmed by the city council.

Like all municipal clerk positions in Wisconsin, the Green Bay clerk’s office is nonpartisan.

Previously the mayor’s chief of staff, Jeffreys became city clerk in January 2021. Her tenure was marked by extensive scrutiny, and it followed a turbulent year for the city’s elections.

When she entered the role, the city was under fire, especially from Republicans, for allegedly giving an election consultant too much authority over its operations during the November 2020 election. The Wisconsin Elections Commission found no wrongdoing. But that incident, in part, led to a statewide ban on outside election assistance and a particular focus from conservatives on Green Bay’s election operations.

Jeffreys’ practices repeatedly drew criticism even before the duplicate ballot incidents.

The commission in late 2023 said Jeffreys’ policy of letting a third party return absentee ballots for someone who’s sick but not disabled likely broke state law.

The following year, she admitted that for several elections, she hadn’t followed the state law requiring clerks to deactivate certain voter registrations. The law applies when postcards sent to Election Day registrants at their stated mailing addresses are returned as undeliverable. She didn’t follow that law because she wasn’t aware of it, a city attorney said on her behalf.

As officials began to probe her recent duplicate ballot mistakes, former Brown County Clerk Sandy Juno, a Republican, told the city to consider moving on from Jeffreys.

“I would hope that when you go through this process, you really evaluate how things are done, because you may not have the right person in that job,” she said.

Sam Liebert, the Wisconsin state director of All Voting is Local and a former municipal clerk, said voters need not worry about the transition coming amid the midterm elections.

“Green Bay has experienced leadership transitions before, and the systems in place are designed to ensure continuity regardless of personnel changes,” he said. “Voters in Green Bay can still vote with confidence, knowing election workers across the city remain committed to conducting free and democratic elections.”

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

Green Bay explains how voters got sent multiple absentee ballots in two straight elections

2026-08-03T19:49:50+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.

Green Bay Clerk Celestine Jeffreys sent some voters multiple ballots for the August primary after she reprinted absentee envelope labels that she mistakenly thought were missing from an outgoing batch of ballots, the city said in a Friday email to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

The email was the first of two sets of documents that the commission ordered the city to provide after the city sent duplicate ballots to voters two elections in a row. The commission also asked the city for an explanation by Aug. 14 on how it will prevent sending duplicate ballots in the future.

The document sheds light on how the city sent out duplicate ballots in both the April Supreme Court election and the August partisan primary. City officials had already detailed the breakdowns that led to the first error, but until now it was unclear just how central Jeffreys was to the mistake.

Still, the explanations fell short to at least one member of WEC.

“I don’t know that it answers the questions of how on earth this happened.” Ann Jacobs, a Democratic commissioner, told Votebeat.

Jeffreys, whose position is nonpartisan, was placed on administrative leave on July 9. Stacy Menke, previously the city’s deputy clerk, is serving as interim clerk for the August election. City spokesperson Michael Bergman said city officials won’t be providing additional comments on the documents at this time.

Green Bay sent first duplicate ballots in March

The first time Green Bay sent out duplicate absentee ballots was in March, when 152 voters received multiple absentee ballots for the April 7 state Supreme Court election. Although the incident sparked concerns about double voting, only one voter returned two ballots, and the city voided them.

City officials largely explained the causes of this error in response to an administrative complaint filed in April with the election commission. But Friday’s email revealed Jeffreys’ central role.

Typically, after mailing labels — featuring voters’ names and addresses — are placed on absentee envelopes, Green Bay election officials put a copy of regular paper with the same label information in a folder to be retained for recordkeeping purposes, Logan Wood, an attorney for Jeffreys, said in an April response to the complaint.

In March, Jeffreys photocopied a printed batch from regular paper copies to sheet labels and then gave them to a staff member to be placed into a ballot packet assembly, City Attorney Lacey Cochart wrote in Friday’s email.

But for the duplicated batch of labels, Jeffreys either failed to clip the original printing and the sheet labels together before giving it to the staff member, resulting in the paper copy of the labels not being filed in the right place, or for some reason reprinted the entire batch without inquiring with staff, Cochart said.

She then passed the duplicate labels for the second time to another staff member, Cochart said.

The April explanation of the error, which Wood filed on behalf of Jeffreys, said an election worker thought the batch hadn’t been completed and duplicated it. The latest explanation makes clear that Jeffreys was that election worker.

Jacobs said she didn’t understand why city officials were printing labels onto regular paper and then photocopying them rather than printing them directly onto labels.

Second error resulted from another Jeffreys oversight

The second error happened after Green Bay officials, preparing to send out absentee ballots for the Aug. 11 primary, sent a document containing the mailing labels for 1,734 voters to a printing shop in late June. After Jeffreys reviewed the labels the shop sent back, she came to believe some were missing Cochart said.

It’s unclear why Jeffreys thought the labels were missing or whether any actually were. But, either way, she reprinted the labels she believed to be missing directly from the PDF that was sent to the printing shop. That reprinting was the source of the duplicate ballots, Cochart said.

It remains unknown how many voters received duplicate ballots as a result of the second error. Jeffreys didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In both March and June, Jeffreys appeared to sidestep safeguards built into WisVote, the state’s voter registration database and election management system, to prevent the sending of duplicate ballots. WisVote does not allow officials to generate duplicate labels, but it doesn’t prevent someone from copying or reprinting an already-generated physical or digital label sheet. Cochart’s email confirmed that WisVote was the only software used to generate the labels.

Asked whether the latest batch of documents reveal that the city was using WisVote in a way it was not intended to be used, Jacobs said, “It’s hard to say because it’s really not clear what they’re saying.”

Don Millis, the Republican chair of WEC, had asked the city for a plan detailing how it will ensure that the voters mailed duplicate ballots won’t vote twice. The city’s response to that request was relatively brief. It outlined that election officials should contact the clerk and the voter if they discover a duplicate ballot.

Millis didn’t respond to a request for comment on Friday.

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

Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow new mail ballot restrictions in the 2026 midterms

2026-08-03T11:00:00+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.

Elections are back before the U.S. Supreme Court: The Trump administration is asking the justices to quickly lift an order blocking its efforts to put new restrictions on mail-in voting for the fast-approaching midterm elections.

It’s unclear how the justices will rule, but the case focuses on a narrow question of whether or not the lower courts issued premature rulings rather than the broader questions about the legality of the executive order.

But no matter what the court decides this time, a series of practical and legal challenges make it increasingly unlikely that the federal government can impose new rules giving the U.S. Postal Service the power to block Americans from voting by mail in November’s elections.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the justice designated to handle emergency appeals from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ordered the plaintiff states to respond by Monday to the Trump administration’s filing, and a decision could come any time after that. But there are already fewer than 100 days left until the election, and the U.S. Postal Service itself said in July court filings that it is running out of time to carry out the changes the president is demanding in time for this election.

The heart of the matter is President Donald Trump’s March 2026 executive order, which attempts to restrict mail-in voting by requiring creation of a series of lists of people eligible to vote, including one it requires the U.S. Postal Service to secure from states listing all voters eligible to use mail ballots. The order attempts to give the postal service unprecedented new power to prevent delivery of mail ballots to anyone who is not on these lists.

States, nonprofit groups, and Democratic party committees quickly sued over the order, which they argued was unconstitutional because the president has no authority over elections. Federal courts have since issued conflicting orders on the question of whether blocking major provisions would be premature because government agencies hadn’t yet taken final action to carry out Trump’s orders.

A judge in federal court in Washington, D.C. declined to block the challenged provisions, but last month, in a case brought by states, a federal judge in Massachusetts prevented the Trump administration from moving ahead with the plans, putting the whole issue on hold. Separate appeals courts have now upheld both rulings, leaving the Massachusetts injunction in place for now, which is what prompted the Trump administration to file its emergency appeal last week with the Supreme Court.

Still, “I think everyone agrees that it’s not going to be implemented for 2026,” said Derek Muller, an elections specialist at the University of Notre Dame Law School. “The logistics are so horrific.”

To be clear, the issue the court is now being asked to decide isn’t about the legal merits of the executive order itself, or whether Trump has the authority to issue it. The Trump administration is arguing that the federal courts blocked the executive order prematurely because the government is still drafting the rules, which haven’t been finalized. Until the rules are final, the Trump administration argues, the states can’t prove that there is any harm that should be blocked by the courts, or that agencies won’t carry out the order in a way that complies with the law.

The Massachusetts court’s injunction “is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful,” the Trump administration argued in its 116-page filing.

That’s essentially what the other panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia concluded in a ruling Tuesday when it upheld a lower court’s decision not to block the executive order — though the plaintiffs in that case are nonprofit groups and party committees rather than states.

“The scope of the issues at play” before the Supreme Court “are really, really narrow,” said Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and rule of law at the Campaign Legal Center, one of the lawyers involved in bringing the Washington, D.C. case.

And like Muller, Lang said it appears unlikely that the government would have the time to push through the changes before November.

“The kinds of dramatic changes they are asking for in election administration are not the kinds of things that you get done in a few months’ time,” Lang said. “As a practical reality, I don’t think they can do this in any non-chaotic way.”

If the Supreme Court were to side with the Trump administration this time, an army of lawyers across the country is prepared to again ask the courts to step in as soon as the new rules are finalized.

Even the appeals court judges in Washington that agreed the legal challenges were premature also suggested that they had some qualms about the executive order.

“Plaintiffs have identified a number of serious questions concerning the lawfulness of proposed actions if implemented on the threshold of the upcoming federal election,” the court said in its ruling.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

New ballot drop-off option proves popular in primary, potentially leading to faster election results

2026-07-30T10:00:00+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.

Correction, July 31: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that poll workers in Pima County had to sift through mail ballots on primary night to separate ID-verified ones from those in need of signature verification. The story has been updated to reflect that staffers had to do so during early voting, not on primary night.

When Arizonans went to the polls last week for the state primary election, they made their preferences clear about more than just the candidates: They also really liked the option to get their mail ballots counted faster by showing identification.

More than 6,000 voters used the new, optional procedure in Pima County — about half of the voters who dropped off their ballots at the polls on Election Day, per county records. In Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, officials said about 23,000 voters, or 30% of those who dropped off ballots on Election Day, opted to show ID to verify their mail ballots.

Those numbers represent a successful debut for the procedure, which Republicans have pushed as a way to speed up election results. Indeed, Maricopa County finished counting mail ballots significantly faster than usual, which officials credited in part to the change.

But it remains to be seen whether ID verification is a long-term fix for Arizona’s relatively slow vote count. Officials in at least one county, Pima, said kinks remained to be worked out with the process. Plus, it’s unclear whether the option will be as popular in November.

How the new option leads to faster election results

Arizona voters have long had the option of dropping off their mail ballots at polling places. But unlike voters who cast ballots in person, they don’t have to show an ID to verify their identity or wait in line at the polls.

Instead, they just have to sign their ballot envelope and place it in a secure box at the polling place. Election officials later compare that signature to signatures the voter has on file before counting their vote.

But that process can be time-consuming. As a result, it often takes days to verify and count the thousands of mail ballots — often called “late earlies” — that are dropped off on or shortly before Election Day. The wait has caused increasing consternation as the state has morphed into a key election battleground, with major races sometimes separated by just hundreds of votes.

So, in 2024, as state lawmakers sought to find compromise on legislation to adjust election dates, Republicans pushed to require county officials to offer a new option. Now, voters can wait in line and show a driver’s license, passport, or similar form of ID when dropping off their ballots, allowing them to bypass the signature verification process.

Last week’s primary was the first big test of the new option, and with fewer ballots needing to be signature-verified, that process took less time than usual. Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap, a Republican, announced around 8 a.m. on Wednesday, July 22 — just 13 hours after polls closed — that his staff had completed signature verification. His office said in a statement that it marked “an unprecedented milestone” and set “a new benchmark for the speed and efficiency of signature verification during a primary election.”

The statement attributed the improvement to “enhanced processes, technology improvements, and the dedication of our trained staff.” But Republican Kate Brophy McGee, chair of the county’s board of supervisors, said the ID-verify option also helped speed things up.

“This significantly reduced the number of early ballots requiring signature verification in the days after the election,” she said in a statement.

The county’s elections department also closely coordinated its ballot preparation and tabulation processes, and was fully done counting 99% of ballots as of Wednesday evening. Plus, the primary saw relatively low turnout statewide.

Judy Keane, a spokesperson for Heap, declined to respond to questions from Votebeat about how the ID-verify option contributed to the faster-than-usual signature verification. She said signature verification metrics would be available following the county’s canvass of election results on Aug. 3.

In Pima County, Democratic Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly said in a statement to Votebeat that workers are capable of verifying about 2,500 to 3,500 signatures in an hour, depending on staffing levels. In last week’s primary, her office finished signature verification at about 2 p.m. on Wednesday. She estimated that it would have taken staff an additional hour and a half to signature-verify ballots from voters who opted into the ID-verify process on Election Day.

Cázares-Kelly said the number of ID-verified ballots in the primary wasn’t significant enough to truly impact her office, adding that the new procedure also slowed some ballot intake processes.

But her county saw more than 44,000 late early ballots in the 2022 general election. If that number — and the ID-verify option’s popularity — holds true this year, the new process could stand to save her team up to nine hours of signature verification. The potential time savings is much larger in Maricopa County, which saw a record 290,000 late earlies dropped at the polls in 2022.

Election official says there are still kinks to work out

Despite the numbers, Cázares-Kelly raised a host of concerns with the ID verification process for mail ballots.

She said the procedure, created without “meaningful input” from election officials across the state, created additional steps that delayed ballot processing and ultimately did not save her office time. For instance, because Pima County offered just one ballot drop box per polling place for mail ballots during early voting, workers had to sift through those ballots to separate ID-verified ones from those in need of signature verification.

Cázares-Kelly declined to respond to questions from Votebeat about how much time workers lost to that task and whether the issue could be mitigated by implementing a second ballot drop box for ID-verified ballots at the polls.

Cázares-Kelly said the new process also created training and communication challenges. She said her office received many complaints when poll workers began approaching voters about the ID-verify option in small, local elections earlier in the year.

“Some felt singled out, discriminated against,” she said, adding that her team eventually created signage and directed workers not to proactively talk to voters about the new option. “Some voters wondered why they were asked, while others were allowed to simply drop off their ballots. Some said they were made to feel as if it were mandatory; several alleged racial discrimination.”

Meanwhile, other staffers were confused when voters came into the polls requesting that they “signature-verify” their ballots.

“This is a specific process, which is only conducted by our highly trained signature verification staff,” Cázares-Kelly said. “We will be training staff to interpret that language as a request to ID-verify in the next election cycle.”

Will ID verification be as popular in November?

There are also questions about whether the new option’s popularity in the primary will translate to the general election.

Lines were minimal to nonexistent at the polls during last week’s primary. But in higher-turnout elections, lines of up to an hour are not uncommon at polling locations in the state’s largest cities. It’s unclear whether voters will be as enthusiastic about ID-verifying their ballots if they have to wait in long lines to do so.

State Rep. Alex Kolodin, one of the lead architects of the new option and the GOP nominee for secretary of state, did not respond to requests for comment on the process’ primary debut and how it might perform in the fall.

But Republican Stephen Richer, Maricopa County’s former recorder, was doubtful. “Remains to be seen if it will be easy in November when more people vote and lines will be longer,” he wrote in an email.

Primary data suggests voter interest in the option may also hinge on decisions by county officials. In Pima County, where a significantly larger share of voters opted to ID-verify their ballots, officials offered two separate lines at the polls on Election Day — one for in-person voters, and one for those ID-verifying their mail ballots. Maricopa County offered only one line for all voters on Election Day, though officials there used on-site tabulators to count ID-verified ballots immediately.

Still, Richer said if the option remained popular in November, it could help “materially” with speeding up counting and race calls — although he noted voters and politicos will still have to wait if races are exceptionally close.

“The statistical models used by the networks are quicker to call results the more ballots they have in,” wrote Richer, now an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. “So the sooner you get to 80, 85, 90, 95 percent, the sooner you can call races, even closer ones.”

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

Amid USPS delays, Wisconsin officials tell voters to mail their ballots ASAP and voters sue for more options

2026-07-28T09:30:00+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.

Ahead of the 2026 midterms, Wisconsin elections officials are planning for the potential of mail ballot delivery delays by encouraging voters to mail back absentee ballots as soon as possible or return them some other way.

And on Friday, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission, arguing voters should be able to cast provisional ballots on Election Day if they don’t think their mail ballot will arrive on time.

Unlike many other states, which allow ballots to be counted if they arrive after Election Day as long as they’re postmarked by that day and arrive by a set cutoff time, Wisconsin requires mail ballots to arrive by 8 p.m. on Election Day to be counted.

Historically, the USPS and Wisconsin Elections Commission advised voters that mailing back a ballot a week ahead of Election Day would suffice. Now, the commission and municipal clerks are calling on voters to allow more time.

Milwaukee election chief Paulina Gutiérrez reported receiving only 20 mail ballots on Election Day in April’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election — a low number even for a small election — but more than 269 late ballots on the day after, which Gutiérrez said was a high number for an election of that size. Seeking to avoid such a high number of late-arriving ballots in the future, Gutiérrez told Votebeat that for the upcoming August election, the city opened its ballot drop boxes four weeks sooner than it would have in the past.

“We are encouraging voters to use our dropboxes or drop off their absentee ballot at [early in-person voting sites],” she said.

If they’re unable to do either, Gutiérrez said voters should mail back their ballots at least two weeks ahead of Election Day.

In Madison, which received more than 100 late ballots in April — also more than what’s typical — City Clerk Lydia McComas told Votebeat that drop boxes open three weeks ahead of the August election.

“We emphasize this is a convenient and far faster option than returning an absentee ballot via USPS,” she said.

Many election officials observe mail delays

These concerns are shared by election officials across the state.

In a recent survey, two-thirds of Wisconsin election officials said they observed problems with absentee ballot mail delivery in the April election. About one-third of officials said voters had complained to them about mail delays.

Nearly 40% said that mail performance in the election was somewhat or much worse than mail performance in past elections.

That experience isn’t universal. Vernon County Clerk Jerry Pedretti, who’s also clerk of the separate town and village of Genoa, told Votebeat that rural USPS workers recognize absentee ballots from the envelopes and make “every effort to make sure that they’re getting them delivered.”

Similarly, Buffalo County Clerk Lisa Schmitt said a couple of ballots arrived after Election Day in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election but problems weren’t major. That was likely a result of postmasters keeping the mail local rather than sending it out via Minnesota for processing, which she said is the typical procedure for non-election mail.

Nonetheless,commissioners at the Wisconsin Elections Commission are concerned about the delays. On MyVote, a website for voters to request ballots, the commission still includes the USPS recommendation for voters to return mail ballots at least seven days before Election Day. But in June, the commission’s new election manual and guidance to voters went further, suggesting at least 10 days before Election Day.

At a meeting in early July, commissioners discussed this updated guidance. “I’m concerned about us just saying 10 days is enough,” Democratic commissioner Mark Thomsen said at the meeting.

USPS spokesperson Desai Abdul-Razzaaq said that he is confident the Postal Service will perform well in the upcoming elections. While he said the USPS takes officials’ concerns from the April election seriously, he said “the overwhelming majority of Election Mail was processed and delivered within established service standards.”

Voters sue for ability to cast provisional ballots

Amid these delays, voters are challenging commission guidance prohibiting voters from casting in-person ballots on Election Day if they think their mail ballot might arrive too late to be counted.

The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin said the commission’s guidance violates the right to vote enshrined in the Wisconsin Constitution, and is calling on a Dane County Circuit Court judge to allow voters to cast provisional ballots if they think their ballots might arrive late.

Unlike standard in-person ballots, which generally go directly from the person casting them to a tabulator, provisional ballots are segregated and verified and counted later on, once election officials determine they are validly cast. The league is asking for mail voters to be able to cast provisional ballots, and only have them counted if their mail ballots don’t arrive on time.

State law says that a voter who mails or delivers an absentee ballot to a clerk isn’t permitted to vote in person in the same election on Election Day. But the league said the commission is too narrowly interpreting that law in its rule prohibiting voters from casting ballots if they suspect their ballot will arrive late.

“This rule risks denying Impacted Voters their right to vote — the right most preservative of all others,” the lawsuit states.

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

Everything you need to know about how to vote in the Wisconsin primary

2026-07-28T09:00:00+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.

Wisconsin’s primary election is two weeks away, and early voting is already underway in municipalities across the state.

Whether you plan to vote early in person, by mail, or on Election Day, here’s everything you need to know about how to make your voice heard in the upcoming election.

When is Wisconsin’s primary election?

Election Day is Aug. 11, and polls will be open from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. that day. You can also vote early in person beginning July 28.

What offices are on the ballot?

The Democratic primary for governor is perhaps the highest-profile race for the August primary, but depending on your district, there may also be competitive congressional, legislative, and other primary elections. Click here for a full list of what’s on your ballot.

Who can vote in the Wisconsin primary?

Any registered voter can cast a vote in the primary. You can click here to find out whether you’re registered.

Wisconsin has an open primary system, so you don’t need to be registered with a political party to vote a certain way. But you can only vote within one party. If you’re choosing a Republican congressional candidate, for example, you can’t select a Democrat anywhere else on your ballot.

What if I’m not registered to vote yet? Is it too late?

The deadline to register to vote online or by mail was July 22, but you can still register in person.

You can register at your local clerk’s office or at an early voting location through Friday, Aug. 7. If you miss that window, you can also register at your polling place on Election Day itself.

Where is my polling place?

You can find your polling place here. On Election Day, you can only vote in person at your designated polling location. However, your early in-person voting location may differ from your Election Day polling place. You can contact your municipal clerk here to learn more early voting details specific to your community. The League of Women Voters has also assembled a list of early voting sites in dozens of Wisconsin’s biggest municipalities.

What should I bring to vote?

If you are registering to vote at the polling place, you’ll need to bring a proof of residence that includes your name and current mailing address, which could include a driver’s license or other government ID, a residential lease, or a utility bill.

What is early voting?

Early voting, often called in-person absentee voting, allows voters to go to their municipal clerk’s office or a designated early voting location to cast a ballot up to two weeks before Election Day. That ballot is then stored by the city and counted on Election Day.

The availability of early voting varies widely across the state. Some clerks do it by appointment only. Some cities, including Madison and Milwaukee, operate multiple early voting sites that are open multiple hours each day. But by law, early voting can’t be offered later than the Sunday before the election; after that, you must vote on Election Day.

How does early voting work?

Once you arrive at an early voting site, you must first request an absentee ballot. Election officials will also check that you have an acceptable photo ID before issuing you a ballot.

Election officials should then let you mark your absentee ballot in private, but let them know if you require assistance. Clerks or designated officials will also have to sign the envelope that you put your absentee ballot in.

Can I vote absentee by mail?

In Wisconsin, you can also request that an absentee ballot be sent to you by mail. The deadline to request absentee ballots is Aug. 6 by 5 p.m. for regular and overseas voters, but Aug. 7 by 5 p.m. for indefinitely confined and military voters. For your absentee ballot to count, it must arrive back at the clerk’s office by primary day, Aug. 11.

However, if you want to vote this way, you should request and return your ballot as soon as possible; mail delays have recently led to some absentee ballots getting delivered too late to count. To avoid this, consider dropping your ballot off at the clerk’s office, a drop box, or an early voting location instead of mailing it.

What if I vote absentee and then my preferred candidate drops out?

That means — for now — that your absentee votes are final once you return the ballot to the clerk. If you make a mistake while casting the ballot, though, or spill something on your ballot, you can request a replacement from an election official.

Who should I contact if I have trouble voting or have any questions?

Please contact your municipal clerk, whose information you can find here. We at Votebeat would also like to hear about any problems you notice. You can contact us at wisconsin.tips@votebeat.org.

If you have disability-related voting questions or concerns, you can also contact the Disability Rights Wisconsin Voter Hotline at 844-347-8683.

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

The noncitizen voter mystery: New Trump numbers raise more questions than answers

2026-07-27T09:00:00+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.

The polarizing debate over noncitizen voters escalated last week when New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill announced that an apparent software glitch had led to the unintended registration of 6,600 noncitizens between June 2023 and June 2024, 400 of whom voted in recent elections.

In a hastily called press conference, Sherrill placed the blame on her predecessor, fellow Democrat Phil Murphy, and said she was taking immediate steps to fix the problems.

Sherrill’s 20-minute briefing raised as many questions as it provided answers. How did a software glitch at the state’s motor vehicles agency lead to adding people who said they weren’t citizens to the state’s voter rolls? Who discovered the problem back in 2024? Why didn’t state officials alert the public when they first learned about the mistake? And what did state officials do about the people who were improperly registered at the time?

Sherrill, who took office in January and said she learned about the problems the week of July 13, said she’s ordered an independent investigation. That’s not good enough for Republicans in Washington and Trenton.

The U.S. Department of Justice is demanding that New Jersey hand over the names of the 6,600 people by Tuesday. New Jersey Republicans question Sherrill’s software glitch explanation and are calling for a legislative investigation.

The New Jersey issue isn’t coming in a vacuum. President Donald Trump has long argued that ineligible noncitizen voters cost him the 2020 election, though no evidence has emerged to support that. His second administration has been focused on rooting out any noncitizen voting, and his top legislative priority is election legislation that he says will block it.

In a televised primetime speech on July 16, Trump said his administration had found 250,000 noncitizen voters on the voter rolls of four states: New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

Officials in all four states pushed back on Trump’s claims, and said they didn’t understand how the administration arrived at those numbers.

Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar called the numbers “wildly speculative.” Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt said that “all evidence has shown that noncitizen voting is extremely rare across the country.” Even in New Jersey, the 6,600 noncitizen voters discovered by the state did not come close to the 35,152 that the Trump administration claimed to have found in the state. “Do I think that the latest round that he has put out is in some way an attempt to undermine our elections in this country? Yes I do,” Sherrill said at her press conference.

How did the Homeland Security Department come up with the estimates? The Trump administration isn’t saying. But the letters the Department of Homeland Security sent to the four states to notify them of the findings provide some interesting clues.

For instance, the letters qualify the numbers in ways that Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin did not in their public statements.

“We’ve identified 250,000 noncitizens registered to vote in just four states,” Mullin said in a briefing the day after Trump’s speech.

But the letters are more careful in making that claim.

In California, for example, the letter from Mullin said there “may be as many as 190,832 non-citizens registered to vote in California.” The letter then went on to say that the government found 81,336 registered voters in California’s public voter registration database with names, dates of birth, addresses and Social Security numbers that match those of noncitizens in federal files. That’s less than half the overall estimate; the letter doesn’t explain where the extra 109,496 came from.

In Pennsylvania, Mullin’s letter said the government matched the data of 8,594 registrants to a noncitizen, out of a total of 14,576 potential noncitizens it identified. Nevada’s letter said there were 8,576 matches out of 15,903 potential noncitizens. And according to the Shore News Network, New Jersey’s letter said there were 19,497 matches out of 35,152 potential noncitizens.

Altogether, these numbers in Mullin’s letters say the department has matches for just 118,003 of the 256,463 noncitizens the government is asserting have registered to vote.

The letters specify that Trump officials relied on each state’s public data files. All four of these states are among the 30 that have gone to court to block the federal government from getting access to unredacted versions of their voter rolls, which would include sensitive personal information, such as driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers.

The public versions of the voter rolls only include basic information about individual voters, such as their names and addresses, so it’s unclear how the government could have matched individuals based on social security numbers as it says it did.

It’s likely that even the 118,003 number is too high. States that have audited their own voter rolls for noncitizens or checked them against federal databases by using the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, program have found noncitizen totals that are far less concerning.

Upon further investigation, several states have also found that SAVE — which works similarly to the methodology that Mullin apparently used — overestimated the number of noncitizens on their rolls, leading experts and elections officials to warn that the system was unreliable.

Aaron Blacksberg, federal policy counsel at the Institute for Responsive Government, called the 250,000 estimate “puzzling and concerning” and said there was no reason to believe the number of noncitizens on the voter rolls is actually that high.

“There are all sorts of reasons why you would get a huge number of false positives,” he said. “There is no reason to trust anything in the order of that 250,000 number. That will absolutely fall apart under any scrutiny.”

Correction, July 31: An earlier version of this story misstated the date of President Donald Trump’s primetime address on election issues. It was on July 16.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Can Wisconsin voters void a returned absentee ballot? Issue heads back to court

2026-07-21T09:00:00+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.

Update, July 29, 3:00 p.m.: A Dane County Circuit judge upheld the Wisconsin Elections Commission guidance banning absentee spoiling after voters already returned their ballots, saying state law was unambiguous in prohibiting the practice.

Update, July 23, 1:30 p.m.: This story has been updated to incorporate a new lawsuit filed by three voters against the Wisconsin Elections Commission over its absentee ballot guidance.

Wisconsin election officials have reignited a legal battle over absentee voting with July guidance stating that voters cannot void a returned absentee ballot and cast a new one, even if Election Day is weeks away or the candidate they supported has dropped out.

Three Democratic residents in Dane County on Thursday sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission over the guidance, which was adopted by the commission on July 9, calling it an unconstitutional violation of the state’s absentee voting laws. All three plaintiffs voted for a gubernatorial candidate who have since dropped out of the primary, and under the commission guidance they cannot change their votes, even though those votes have not yet been counted. The legality of spoiling ballots just to change a vote has long been disputed.

The lawsuit says WEC’s guidance means the plaintiffs “will all be disenfranchised from meaningfully participating in this August election unless this Court steps in.”

Thursday’s lawsuit is the latest development in a legal dispute that began in 2022 and was reopened by an appeals court decision earlier this year. It was filed two days after the Democratic Party of Wisconsin sent the commission a letter urging it to rescind the guidance. The letter raised many of the same concerns later cited in the suit, including that the policy could disenfranchise voters and was adopted after early voting in the primary had already begun.

The July 9 guideline for clerks reverses the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s previous position and Attorney General Josh Kaul’s legal arguments on the agency’s behalf that voters should be allowed to replace absentee ballots they have already returned as long as they comply with statutory deadlines.

The WEC spent years arguing in court in favor of that broader definition of ballot spoiling, but its latest guidance effectively restores the rule imposed by a 2022 court ruling that banned the practice.

The commission adopted the guidance after clerks had already mailed ballots for the August 11 primary and, notably, after multiple candidates in the crowded Democratic gubernatorial race dropped their bids.

“It seems to me exceedingly likely that this is something that people are going to keep fighting about,” Jeff Mandell, founder of the liberal law firm Law Forward, said ahead of the lawsuit.

He added that the timing of the guidance was unusual: Typically courts are skeptical of efforts to change rules close to an election. Some absentee voters in this election cycle probably cast their ballots under the assumption that they could spoil their ballot and cast a new one if their preferred candidate dropped out or they just wanted to change their vote, Mandell said.

Even if the commission’s guidance is in line with Wisconsin law, it creates a clear discrepancy between in-person Election Day and absentee voters, said Sam Liebert, the Wisconsin state director of All Voting is Local and a former municipal clerk.

Election Day voters can receive up to three ballots at the polls if they make a mistake, he pointed out. On the other hand, he said, absentee voters now get no second chance once they return their ballots, even if Election Day hasn’t arrived yet.

“The inconsistency is hard to ignore,” he said, and it presents a policy question for the Legislature — or maybe the courts.

Spoiling controversy blew up amid similar political dynamics in the 2022 primary

The WEC’s more permissive August 2022 guidance on ballot spoiling was prompted by similar dynamics as that of the present: highly contested primaries with candidates dropping out throughout the race and at the last minute.

In September 2022, GOP voter Nancy Kormanik sued over that guidance allowing absentee ballot spoiling, arguing that clerks can only reissue an absentee ballot if a voter returns their absentee ballot in a “spoiled or damaged” condition. Voiding a ballot that’s already been submitted and getting a new one over a voter’s own mistake or a candidate dropping out didn’t fall under that category, she argued.

Kaul, the state’s Democratic attorney general, saw the issue differently. A few different laws allow ballot spoiling, he said in a court filing, and “none requires the elector to explain how or why the ballot is ‘spoiled.’”

Siding with Kormanik, a lower court banned the practice of spoiling absentee ballots in October.

The ban stood until February of this year, when an appeals court vacated the lower court ruling. But the new ruling wasn’t on the merits of the case. Rather, it came because the court said Kormanik didn’t properly serve documents to a legislative committee at the start of the suit.

After the February ruling, clerks sought the commission’s updated guidance about how to deal with spoiling. They didn’t receive it in time for the Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April, and some municipalities offered instructions on how to spoil ballots. But with midterm primaries coming up — and particularly as rumors of gubernatorial candidates dropping out swirled — clerks were especially eager to know if the commission planned to stand by its earlier interpretation of the law and allow absentee ballot spoiling again.

On July 9, the commission provided an answer: It voted 4-2 that absentee ballot spoiling is prohibited after a voter returns an absentee ballot. Democratic commissioner Carrie Riepl, a former clerk, voted with the three Republicans in favor of the guidance. Democratic commissioners Mark Thomsen and Ann Jacobs voted against it.

The guidance came just one day after Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Crowley, the Milwaukee County executive, dropped out of the race and endorsed Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez for governor. Just over a week later, Rodriguez dropped out of the race and Crowley reentered.

Over 36,000 Wisconsin voters had already returned ballots by the day the commission issued its guidance, commission data shows. Voters had returned nearly 68,000 ballots by the time Rodriguez dropped out.

At the July meeting, commission chair Don Millis, a Republican, argued that voters should only be able to void — or spoil — ballots before they return them to the clerk.

“Once you’ve turned your ballot in, that’s it,” he said.

Meanwhile, Thomsen noted that in-person voters on Election Day can mark a ballot and receive a replacement ballot if they make an error, as long as the first ballot isn’t tabulated yet. But under the new guidance, an absentee voter couldn’t spoil a returned ballot even if it’s weeks from being tabulated.

“Why are we treating people that use mail differently than me if I show up?” he said.

On one hand, voters can argue that the inability to spoil ballots effectively disenfranchises them if they vote for a candidate that has since dropped out, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative.

On the other hand, she said, others can cite the Wisconsin law calling absentee voting a privilege, not a right, and argue that voters who exercise that right accept some risk in casting an absentee vote that can’t be taken back.

“The issue of whether ballot spoiling is or is not allowed under Wisconsin statutes hasn’t been definitively resolved,” she said.

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

Trump move to neutralize election administration agency creates chilling effect, but its impact may be muted

2026-07-13T15:04:46+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 abrupt removal Thursday of the three remaining members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission leaves the agency unable to make key policy decisions, but is unlikely to disrupt preparations for the November elections, according to former staff members and election analysts.

Still, even though Trump’s move won’t bring the agency to a halt, it has created concerns that the president might take further steps to weaken the agency that distributes congressionally-apportioned election funding to states and certifies voting equipment.

The White House declined on Friday to give more detail on its reasons for dismissing the commissioners or explain what the president hoped to achieve by stripping the election oversight agency of its ability to enact changes to policy and voting system guidelines. But the move came at a time of rising concern over how the Trump administration could attempt to influence the outcome of November’s midterm elections.

Benjamin Hovland, one of the two Democratic commissioners fired by Trump, said it would be “challenging to operate without commissioners or a quorum.” Because the agency is small and lightly funded, commissioners play a much larger hands-on role than they do at many other federal agencies, he added. Still, he said, “There is a great team there and they’ll keep doing this work.”

Hovland was sitting at an airport waiting for a cancelled flight on Thursday when he got an unexpected two-sentence email from the White House letting him know he had been fired. Hovland said no one from the Trump administration had been in touch with him since they took control in 2025.

When the U.S. Supreme Court last month gave the president unprecedented new power to fire leaders of independent agencies, Hovland said he figured he would be dismissed “sooner rather than later.”

What the EAC can still do

Ryan Macias, an election technology expert who oversaw federal certification of voting systems at the EAC from 2016 to 2019, said the dismissals were likely to have little or no impact on the day-to-day business at the commission.

States are still expected to get federal election funding already in the pipeline for the November election, which is disbursed according to already-set formulas. While many states rely on the EAC’s federal certification of voting systems, the testing and certification of voting systems does not require action by the commissioners, meaning voting systems can continue to be tested, updated and certified to the standards commissioners had previously adopted, Macias said. Three commissioners would have to approve any updates or changes to the current guidelines.

Commissioners do play a role in some parts of the certification process, at least theoretically. If a voting system vendor disputes the outcome or process of a certification decision, commissioners would hear the appeal. But, Macias said, that’s never happened.

Trump’s actions could also renew debate in Congress over shutting down the EAC, which has been the target of repeated closure efforts, though those have quieted in recent years.

The EAC was created by Congress in response to the disputed, chaotic 2000 presidential election, whose outcome was ultimately decided by a Supreme Court ruling. The agency provides support to states by distributing federal election funds, maintaining the national mail voter registration form, testing and certifying voting systems, and offering best practices and guidance to state and local election officials.

The agency has a four-member commission split between Democrats and Republicans, and most major decisions require an affirmative vote from at least three. Commissioners are nominated by the president and must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Hovland’s nomination process took around 9 months, and was on the shorter side. Even if Trump moves quickly to nominate replacements, the agency appears unlikely to regain a quorum before the November election.

This is not the first time the EAC has operated without a quorum, though it is the first time it has been left with no commissioners at all. Between 2010 and 2015, the agency lacked enough commissioners to take official action after the Senate stopped confirming nominees — and some congressional leaders stopped recommending them — as lawmakers debated whether the agency should continue to exist. That prolonged vacancy delayed updates to the federal voting system guidelines and left the commission unable to take many policy actions.

Election officials see little immediate disruption

For election officials, the consensus is that the firings are unlikely to disrupt this year’s elections. But several said the longer-term implications are harder to forecast, particularly if the administration takes additional steps to reshape or weaken the agency.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat who is a member of the EAC Board of Advisors, called the agency a valuable partner since it was created in 2002.

“I do not expect the changes at the EAC to have any immediate impact on the administration of elections in Minnesota or across the country,” he said. “Yet, the loss of the entire EAC leadership is another canary in the coal mine – and I urge Americans to take notice.”

Aaron Blacksberg, federal policy counsel at the Institute for Responsive Government, said Trump’s moves might not have a major impact on the upcoming elections, but suggested that they should be seen in the broader context of Trump’s widespread efforts to eliminate government election integrity programs and cast doubt on elections where Democrats fare well.

“In the short term, it’s another chilling effect,” Blacksberg said. “I don’t think there’s going to be an end to or a deescalation to these actions as the election gets closer.”

Hovland, who served seven years on the commission, defended the agency’s work.

“We weren’t perfect, and we weren’t a silver bullet, but we were someone in the federal government that was still trying to help,” he said. “I am so proud of the team and the agency.” He added, “I feel like people lose sight of why Congress created the EAC.”

Jessica Huseman contributed reporting.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Michigan could approve a constitutional convention this year. What would that mean?

2026-07-09T09:00:00+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.

As Michigan works out who (and what) will be on ballots this fall, one proposal is already set in stone: Should the state “convene a constitutional convention?”

Proposal 1, as it will be known, pops up every 16 years and gives Michigan voters the chance to rewrite the state’s governing document.

On its face, the proposed convention — sometimes referred to as a “con-con” — could functionally reset everything about Michigan’s laws. But what would it look like? And what would a yes vote actually do?

Here’s everything you need to know about Proposal 1 in Michigan.

What is a constitutional convention?

A constitutional convention is exactly what it sounds like — a group of people convene to rewrite the state’s constitution.

If voters were to approve Proposal 1, it wouldn’t immediately mean the Michigan Constitution is thrown in the trash. Instead, it would simply mean that a group of people get together to draft a new document that could one day, if approved by voters, serve as the new state constitution.

How would a constitutional convention work in Michigan?

In many ways, it would function a lot like the constitutional conventions from centuries ago that you learned about in history class (although probably fewer horses). A group of delegates would get together starting in 2027 and write a new draft of the state’s constitution. They would then present the draft to voters in another statewide election for their approval or rejection. If voters vote down the new constitution, the old one would simply stay in effect.

Each state Senate and House district would send one delegate to the convention. Those delegates would be elected within six months of the certification of the 2026 election results (meaning campaigns would probably begin almost immediately). They would then convene on the first Tuesday in October — Oct. 5, 2027 — in Lansing.

From there, delegates would set most of the rules on how things will work, including who is in charge of the convention and how much assistants get paid. Nothing can go to the voters without majority approval from the convention, and anything that is approved will have to go before voters “not less than 90 days” after the convention is over.

There is no deadline for when the convention has to end. The last constitutional convention in Michigan — which started in 1962 — took nearly 10 months.

A convention would put every part of the constitution in limbo. Voters have for many years approved smaller constitutional changes via ballot measure, but a convention would likely mean changing the whole thing.

Why are we voting on this?

The current Michigan Constitution, which was passed by voters in 1963 and put into effect in 1964, requires voters to weigh in on whether to call a constitutional convention every 16 years — a requirement that’s been in each state constitution since the very first in 1850.

The current constitution is the fourth in Michigan’s history.

Michigan isn’t the only state with the option for a constitutional convention. Across the country, 14 states have it appear on the ballot automatically like Michigan. Some others allow their legislature to put a constitutional convention on the ballot, while a few others allow residents to petition for one. Only eight states have no mechanism for a convention.

Do constitutional convention ballot measures usually pass?

No. In fact, since 2000, no state has passed a constitutional convention ballot measure. That includes Michigan’s most recent, in 2010, which failed 67% to 33%.

Who is supporting it?

Two key Republican legislators have gone on the record in support of the convention. State House Speaker Matt Hall said during last year’s Mackinac Policy Conference “they stuff so many things in this constitution,” referring to voter-approved measures such as marijuana legalization and the independent redistricting commission, which both passed in 2018.

“Some of those proposals sounded good, but then had intentions that the public is frustrated about,” Hall said at the time.

State Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt also said there was a lot he wanted to update in the constitution, such as changing how university boards are selected.

However, according to state campaign finance records, there aren’t yet any official campaigns to support the ballot measure.

Who is against it?

A group known as Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests has formed to oppose a constitutional convention.

The coalition comprises a number of voting rights groups, including Voters Not Politicians, the League of Women Voters of Michigan, and the American Civil Liberties UnionACLU of Michigan. It also includes unions (such as the Michigan AFL-CIO and Michigan Council of Carpenters & Millwrights), a number of business groups (including the Detroit Regional Chamber, Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and West Michigan Policy Forum), and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

The group says that a full convention “opens a Pandora’s Box” that could have “potentially devastating consequences for Michigan citizens for decades to come.”

As of late April, the campaign had raised more than $680,000, according to campaign finance reports. That includes $385,000 from The Fairness Project, a Washington, D.C.-based group “dedicated to advancing social and economic justice,” according to its website.

What would a constitutional convention mean for voting in Michigan?

It could mean any number of things, and the exact impacts are hard to predict before a new constitution has been proposed (and before any delegates are even selected).

The first change could be fewer measures on Michiganders’ ballots. Many of the biggest changes to Michigan’s laws in the last few decades have been through constitutional amendment — including changes to legalize recreational marijuana, establish environmental conservation funds, codify access to abortion, and update election laws. A new constitution might not offer voters the chance to amend it as easily.

It is also possible that Michigan’s fairly liberal election laws would change. Michiganders have voted repeatedly over the last decade to expand voting access, voting in 2018 to let people register to vote on Election Day and vote absentee without an excuse and in 2022 for early voting and the creation of a permanent absentee voter list. Those rights could be protected under a new constitution, or they could go away entirely.

That is the tricky part of potentially reworking the constitution — it would be the entire document up for grabs, not just certain parts. It would, in many ways, depend on who controls the convention, which could be different from the makeup of the state legislature.

A Republican-controlled convention would likely try to enshrine GOP priorities such as eliminating no-excuse absentee voting — a bill proposed by five Republicans in late June — and requiring documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

A Democratic-controlled convention, meanwhile, might codify the Michigan Voting Rights Act into the new constitution. That proposal aims to fill in the gaps left by the federal Voting Rights Act, blocking laws that could discriminate against voters based on race and requiring ballot materials to be made available in languages other than English.

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

Pennsylvania elections could look very different if Democrats win full control of state government in 2026

2026-07-08T10:00:00+00:00

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

The movement to change voting laws in Pennsylvania is all but dead.

Despite bipartisan support for changes in Harrisburg, no major election bill has become law since the state implemented no-excuse mail voting in 2020. The issue has become deeply partisan since then. Bills routinely pass either the GOP-controlled state Senate or Democratic-controlled state House, then wither in the other chamber. And a board meant to advise the legislature on bipartisan solutions sits idle.

But could that change if Democrats win a state government trifecta — control of the state Senate, state House, and governorship — this fall? And what policies would they prioritize?

Republicans have controlled all three for stretches in recent decades, most recently from 2011 to 2014. During that period, they passed a major voter ID requirement that was ultimately overturned in court. Democrats in Pennsylvania, meanwhile, haven’t held both chambers and the governorship since 1993. Even then, the trifecta lasted just one year.

But a path, though difficult, exists for Democrats to regain unified control in November’s midterm elections.

Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro leads state Treasurer Stacy Garrity, his Republican challenger, by more than 20 points in several recent polls.

Democrats would also have to maintain their narrow majority in the House and flip the Senate, where Republicans currently hold a 27-23 majority. That would require them to retain a seat they flipped in Lancaster County last year and pick up new ones in potentially vulnerable districts in the Lehigh Valley and Philadelphia suburbs.

Democrats have reason to think those seats are within reach. Conventional political wisdom holds that when a sitting president has low approval ratings, the opposing political party tends to have a good year in the midterms.

If Democrats succeed, they could have an easier time passing election law changes that have eluded them in recent years.

They may also face political pressure from their base to go further and pursue the kind of partisan mid-decade redistricting that other states under single-party control, like Texas and California, have recently undertaken.

Pennsylvania Democrats showed their election priorities this legislative session

Democrats have made it clear during this legislative session where their election priorities lie.

Last May, the state House passed an omnibus election bill sponsored by Democratic Speaker Joanna McClinton that would have significantly reshaped Pennsylvania elections.

The bill would have established true in-person early voting, instead of the current, time-consuming process of requesting and casting a mail ballot at a local election office; mandated at least two mail ballot drop boxes in every county; and required counties to adopt electronic pollbooks by 2027.

It also would have given counties more time to prepare mail ballots for counting before Election Day. Advocates say this preparation, known as pre-canvassing, leads to faster election results. The state House also recently passed pre-canvassing as a stand-alone bill.

Earlier this month, at a rally for voting rights in the state capitol, McClinton again called on the state Senate to consider her omnibus bill.

“We’ll have everything necessary so that we can continue to lift up our voices in this democracy,” she said of how things would look if her bill passed.

State Sen. Jay Costa, the Senate minority leader, responded to McClinton’s call on X, saying Senate Democrats were ready to take up the bill. But the bill hasn’t come up for a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate because GOP leaders have insisted that any election legislation include expanded voter ID requirements.

Asked how the election policy conversation would change under a Democratic-led Senate, Costa highlighted many of the issues covered in McClinton’s bill as well as other Democratic priorities: pre-canvassing, drop boxes, electronic pollbooks, preregistering voters who will be 18 by Election Day, early voting, and same-day voter registration.

He also mentioned opening up Pennsylvania’s primaries to independent and third-party voters. It’s a proposal that has been gaining some bipartisan traction in recent years.

“We want to make it easier for people to vote, but also have a system that has integrity,” Costa said.

Costa added that if Democrats pass these proposals next session, they would also try to provide counties with funding to implement them.

McClinton’s bill also included funding to help counties implement the changes. It would authorize up to $60 million in bonds for new equipment, provide $2 million for electronic pollbook vetting and approval, and designate about $100,000 annually, plus benefits, to pay a new staffer.

Would election changes be a priority for Democrats?

Should Democrats win a trifecta, they would surely have a lot of things other than election policy on their wish list. But Kyler Miller, a former Democratic Senate staffer who now works as a policy advocate with the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, thinks that election legislation would be fairly close to the top — perhaps even in the top three.

Miller said President Donald Trump’s attacks on voting have elevated the issue for Democrats, pointing to the Department of Justice’s attempts to obtain election materials and voter rolls, as well as threats to reject unfavorable election results.

“That playbook that is being deployed against American elections is very much a top issue for the Dems and their electorate,” he said. “People have fought for years for the right to vote, and it’s being slowly eroded over time by the administration and the Supreme Court.”

Miller agreed that a Democratic trifecta would likely focus on passing priorities they’ve already identified, such as pre-canvassing and codifying certain court rulings.

State courts in recent years have required counties to use a system that notifies mail voters if election officials determine their ballots will be rejected due to a fixable error. They have also affirmed voters’ right to have a provisional ballot counted if their mail ballot is rejected. Voting rights advocates cheered both decisions, but both advocates and jurists have expressed frustration that the legislature did not clarify those ambiguities itself.

Miller also said the state should provide more funding for election officials’ safety and training, given the exodus of experienced local officials in recent years.

Could Democrats try to redraw Pennsylvania’s congressional map?

With full control over state government, Democrats would also have the ability to redraw Pennsylvania’s congressional map to better advantage their party.

The current map, selected by the state Supreme Court in 2022 after a partisan deadlock in the legislature, elected 10 Republican representatives and seven Democrats to Congress in 2024. However, it’s possible to draw a map with as many as 12 or 13 safely Democratic seats.

Over the past year, several other states, including Texas and California, have redrawn their congressional lines as part of an unprecedented spate of mid-decade gerrymandering.

Last year, Shapiro said he was not pursuing mid-decade redistricting and called Texas’s redraw “shameful.”

A spokesperson for Shapiro’s campaign didn’t respond to questions about whether Shapiro would pursue partisan redistricting if Democrats won a trifecta or what specific election law priorities he would pursue. But press secretary Sam Reposa said in a statement that the Republican grip on power has been an impediment to election law changes more broadly.

“For over 30 years in the majority, Senate Republicans have stood in the way of more progress we could be making in the Commonwealth,” Reposa said, specifically citing “passing key reforms to protect our democracy.”

Erica Clayton-Wright, a spokesperson for state Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward, responded in an email that Senate Republicans are the “last line of defense” protecting taxpayers on a variety of issues, including “safeguarding elections.”

“Pennsylvanians know [Democratic] policies are detrimental to positioning our Commonwealth for growth, which will prevent a trifecta in Pennsylvania,” she said.

Even if a Democratic trifecta did redraw Pennsylvania’s congressional map, it would likely face a court challenge. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that partisan gerrymandering violated the state constitution when it threw out a GOP-drawn congressional map.

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

How inconsistent standards led to dozens of disenfranchised voters in a Wisconsin city

2026-07-06T10:00:00+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 years, Mequon election workers employed an unusually strict standard for judging the validity of witness addresses on absentee ballot envelopes — a standard not apparently used elsewhere in Wisconsin and that the Wisconsin Elections Commission has now said is illegal.

Under that standard, Mequon officials rejected absentee ballots if the witness address did not include a state or ZIP code and the municipality name was not unique nationwide. That’s despite the fact that Wisconsin’s absentee ballot envelope no longer specifically asks witnesses to provide the information Mequon treated as essential: a state or ZIP code.

But a Votebeat review of hundreds of April 2026 absentee ballot envelopes, the dozens of ballots Mequon at least initially rejected since 2024, and scores of city records found that the city’s strict standard was applied unevenly — and, in some cases, resulted in the initial rejection of ballots that did not appear ambiguous at all.

In April, election workers accepted several ballots with the same missing witness-address information as ballots they moved to the reject pile. In one case, poll workers appeared to override the city’s own recommendation to reject a ballot. And of the ballots Mequon rejected because officials said the witness address listed a municipality name shared by other places in the country, about a third were actually from uniquely named municipalities. All the rest had unique combinations of street number, street name, and municipality, even without a state or ZIP code.

Across several recent elections between 2024 and 2026, the city rejected at least 27 absentee ballots while allowing others with the same missing witness-address information to count. In the Wisconsin Supreme Court election this April, Mequon initially intended to reject five more ballots before the commission ordered city officials to count them — and to stop applying the unusual standard in elections moving forward.

Mequon followed the commission’s order to count the votes in April. But when Votebeat asked whether the city would abandon its practice in future elections, the city attorney was less definitive, leaving open the possibility that it could return.

Mequon officials have defended the rejections by saying voters are responsible for following the rules. Nancy Martin, a chief inspector at a Mequon polling place, said that she is unequivocally supportive of the city’s witness-address policy. She invoked a state law calling absentee voting a privilege, not a right.

Because of that law, she said, “you need to make sure that you’re doing your job as a voter, and I don’t think that sending incomplete information is doing a complete job as a voter.”

How Mequon’s standard clashed with state practice

Wisconsin law requires absentee voters to have a witness sign the ballot envelope and provide an address. But state law does not define how complete that address must be. In a lawsuit filed by Rise, Inc., a nonprofit advocacy organization, a court in 2024 sided with the group’s more lenient view, ruling that an address is sufficient as long as a clerk can reasonably discern where the witness lives.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission has since said that means clerks should not reject ballots simply because the witness address does not include a state or ZIP code. In fact, the WEC-approved state absentee ballot envelope doesn’t specifically designate spaces for a witness to provide their state or ZIP code. Mequon has taken a stricter view than WEC in rejecting ballots that do not provide that information.

Around August 2024, Mequon officials discussed the state commission’s witness-address standard at a training for chief inspectors. City records pertaining to that meeting show that City Attorney Brian Sajdak expressed that he disagreed with the commission on what constitutes a valid address. Since then, the city has repeatedly rejected ballots the commission deemed properly witnessed.

Sam Liebert, the Wisconsin state director of All Voting is Local and a former municipal clerk, said it’s normal for city attorneys to be in touch with clerks to decide or interpret election policies.

“But in Mequon, it is pretty alarming and jarring that an attorney would so blatantly not be in agreement with WEC’s interpretation of the Rise ruling,” he said.

Sajdak and Mequon City Clerk Caroline Fochs didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment about who came up with the controversial policy, though a letter from a chief inspector endorsing the policy says they both played a part.

Inconsistencies within polling places that rejected ballots

The unevenness showed up even within the same polling places.

Mequon officials at the same polling places who initially rejected the five ballots from the April election counted six others in that same election — three from Cedarburg, one from Waukesha, one from Rib Lake, and another from Shorewood — even though their witness addresses were also missing ZIP codes and states, and the municipality names were not unique nationwide.

In this rare instance, Mequon poll workers appeared to override a suggestion to reject a ballot.

In one instance, poll workers even appeared to override a city official’s instructions to reject a ballot from Shorewood that didn’t list a ZIP code or state. It arrived at the precinct with a handwritten note affixed to it saying “Reject — multiple ‘Shorewoods’ in US.” There is a Shorewood near Mequon and others in Illinois and Minnesota.

In different handwriting, an election worker wrote that the street name listed on the address, Farwell Avenue, was in the nearby Shorewood, and accepted the ballot.

Mequon’s controversial practice came to light in April 2026 as a result of a letter to Fochs from Law Forward, a liberal law firm, warning that the city’s policy may be wrongfully disenfranchising absentee voters.

In response, Sajdak said the city’s ballot rejection practice is a “policy of last resort utilized only when all other reasonable attempts have failed.”

But it appears that city officials did not use simple techniques that would have shown that the witness address provided on each of the rejected ballots was unique.

All rejected ballots did have unique address

Of the 32 ballots Mequon initially rejected in recent elections, about a third did not meet even the city’s own standard for rejection: They came from uniquely named municipalities, like Fox Point and Chicago.

All the rest were also traceable to unique addresses. Even without a state or ZIP code: The street number and street name on those ballot envelopes pointed to only one location in the United States, even though the municipality name wasn’t unique.

Votebeat sought to better understand the process by which Mequon officials rejected those ballots, which the city has described as extensive. But the city has provided little transparency about what specific steps are actually taken to verify witness addresses.

In response to a records request for election workers’ online searches, Mequon initially said it had no responsive records. After Votebeat explained how to export browser history, the city produced records showing that Mequon officials searched Google on April 6 and 7 — Election Day and the day before it — for whether there were multiple cities in the United States named Baltimore and Verona.

The records do not show that the searches went further. Had city officials entered the complete street names and numbers, they would have found that both addresses were unique to just one of those cities. Ballots from both cities were rejected before the commission ordered Mequon to count them.

Fochs did not answer follow-up questions about whether she took other steps to determine whether the addresses were sufficient.

“I do what I can, and we do go through a lot of hoops,” Fochs said in an earlier April interview, saying the clerk’s office contacts voters with insufficient witness addresses when time allows.

But Liebert, from All Voting Is Local, saw it differently: “It does seem sort of just like a lack of due diligence.”

Mequon election workers appear split on city policy

Alisha Campbell, who was an assistant chief inspector at a Mequon polling place in April, said that every absentee ballot went through the clerk’s office before being delivered to an individual ward. The general instruction from her chief inspector, Campbell said, was to reject the ballots that the clerk’s office suggested rejecting.

She also said she was told by her chief inspector that ZIP codes were paramount, and that if a ballot is missing a ZIP and the municipality name isn’t unique, poll workers could not count it. While Votebeat found instances in which pollworkers overrode a decision by the central election offices, Campbell said most were generally just following the instructions of the city clerk’s office rather than making decisions on the fly.

Campbell would not say whether she agreed with the city policy.

“What you think independently isn’t always what you are told to do,” Campbell said. “I will leave that at that.”

Martin, the Mequon chief inspector who defended the city’s policy, took a different view. In her letter supporting the policy, which five other Mequon chief inspectors signed, Martin expressed hope that the election commission would “correct their position” by calling for a state and ZIP code in the witness address field.

Instead, the commission did the opposite. In its new manual, published in June, the commission said using the same witness address standard that Mequon employed would constitute “an abuse of discretion.”

Martin said she was disappointed in the commission’s new language and plans to write to her local legislators asking them to change the law to require ZIP and state. She was noncommittal on how she would handle the address standard moving forward, but said she will largely rely on the clerk’s office’s guidance.

Liebert questioned whether other cities and towns in Wisconsin were implementing policies that don’t follow state law or court decisions. Wisconsin has the most decentralized election system in the nation, with 1,850 municipalities each running elections at the local level.

But he said the commission’s intervention in Mequon this year shows a silver lining. While Mequon had rejected ballots against WEC guidance in several recent elections, the commission went further by ordering the city to count the initially rejected ballots from the April election. All five were included in the final results.

“It’s disappointing what happened in Mequon, but I think also at the end of the day, the system shows that it works,” Liebert said, adding that the commission vote to count those ballots was bipartisan. “That should give voters confidence in the system and that people are looking out for them.”

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

What 250 years of voting rights battles tell us about today

2026-07-04T12:00:00+00:00

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

Happy Fourth of July, on this 250th anniversary of the United States. We’re living through extraordinary times in American democracy, as President Trump presses for greater federal control over elections and redistricting slips loose from its once-a-decade rhythm. As always, Votebeat is focused on an essential part of it: who gets to vote, who makes the rules, and what those votes are worth.

That question has loomed over the nation from the beginning. Voting history is often framed as a steady expansion from white male landowners to everyone else. The truth is messier. States have always experimented with expanding the franchise, retracting it, and expanding it again.

Voting rights have long varied from state to state

The Constitution has never contained a broad, affirmative right to vote, which helps explain why voting in America has always depended so much on where you live.

Some states expanded the vote earlier than we typically remember. Vermont, for example, adopted a broad franchise before the federal Constitution existed. Others expanded the franchise and later narrowed it: Revolutionary Pennsylvania extended voting rights to taxpaying men before limiting the vote to white men in 1838. Taken together, these examples show that American voting rights have never moved in one direction for everyone at once.

Let’s start with Vermont, one of the earliest examples of a state taking an unusually expansive view of who should have the vote. In 1777, before the federal Constitution existed, Vermont adopted its own, eliminating both property and taxpaying requirements for voting. Why? Because of a man whose name you’ve probably heard before: Ethan Allen.

A painting depicts Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys demanding the surrender of British forces at Fort Ticonderoga on May 10, 1775. Allen’s militia is better remembered for its Revolutionary War exploits, but its fight against New York’s authority also helped create the breakaway political community that adopted Vermont’s unusually broad early voting rules.

Allen led what historian Alexander Keyssar describes in his book “The Right to Vote” as an “unruly political—and military—process” involving his militia group, the Green Mountain Boys. Allen’s men roamed what ultimately became Vermont back when New York still claimed the territory, resisting New York’s authority by stopping sheriffs, intimidating New York-backed settlers, burning buildings, and sometimes flogging opponents.

Their campaign was not specifically about expanding the franchise. It began as a fight over land, sovereignty, and New York’s authority in the territory that became Vermont. But by helping create a breakaway political community outside New York’s control, the Green Mountain Boys also helped create the conditions for a very different constitution — one that rejected New York’s property-based voting system and allowed any adult man who took the Freeman’s Oath to vote.

Then came the U.S. Constitution. The 1787 document did not grant anyone the right to vote, instead deferring to states to determine the makeup of their own electorate. Whoever a state allowed to vote for its own legislature could also vote for members of Congress from that state. States, not the federal government, were left to decide who “the people” were. Vermont, therefore, could continue to coexist with neighboring New York despite radically different approaches to the franchise.

That flexibility produced inconsistency. In 1780, Massachusetts dropped racial exclusions for voting but kept property ownership at the center of political rights. That meant a free Black man who met the property requirement could vote while a poor white man who did not meet it could not. Property, race, gender, dependency, and local law interacted unevenly in the early American electorate.

Some states also gave voting rights and then took them away. In New Jersey, the state’s 1776 Constitution and a 1790 election law allowed some property-owning women and Black men to vote. That changed in 1807, when the Legislature limited voting to “free, white male” citizens.

An 1808 article in the Trenton Federalist said the new law “restricted all that has made our elections disagreeable, contentious and corrupt; all Females and Negroes being now deprived of a vote, who, not being eligible to nor much acquainted with the affairs of government, need not any longer be made use of to answer a party purpose.”

The same state-by-state experimentation complicates another assumption we often make now: that citizenship and voting have always been inseparable.

For much of American history, they were not. Some territories and newer western states used the franchise as an inducement to settlers. If they wanted people to move west, build towns, work land, pay taxes, and bind their futures to a new place, the vote was often part of the offer.

Wisconsin became the clearest example. In 1848, it allowed immigrants to vote if they had lived in the United States for two years and filed papers declaring their intent to become citizens. Michigan and Indiana soon followed, as did the Oregon and Minnesota territories. Later, similar rules spread across parts of the South and West.

But here, too, societal pressures prompted change. States began repealing noncitizen voting laws in the late 19th century. The backlash accelerated around World War I, amid rising xenophobia and suspicion of immigrants’ loyalty. Arkansas was the last state to end the practice, doing so in 1926.

Which brings us to the arguments over voting that Votebeat covers now.

Today, the fight for voting rights revolves around equal representation

For much of American history, the central question around voting rights was who could get through the door: who could register, who could cast a ballot, and who was excluded by law. But there is another question on the other side of the franchise. In 1976, legal scholar Gerhard Casper argued that American debates had long focused on “the right to be a voter,” rather than the harder problem of representation. Voting, he wrote, “is supposedly performed with a goal in mind — representation; but voting does not in itself necessarily entail representation.”

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 tried to answer both problems. It gave federal force to the principle that citizens could not be denied the ballot because of race, and Section 2 later became one of the main tools for challenging election rules and maps that diluted minority voters’ ability to turn votes into representation.

That issue is at the core of the modern fights over gerrymandering. A voter can be eligible, registered, and able to cast a ballot, and still live under maps that weaken the political power of that vote.

Louisiana is the latest example. After years of litigation over whether Black voters in the state had a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, the Supreme Court’s Callais decision struck down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district and narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to redistricting. Many voting rights scholars and advocates have described the decision as a major rollback — not because it removes anyone from the voter rolls, but because it changes what legal protection remains when votes are diluted by district lines.

That is not the same thing as states limiting or even taking away voting rights based on property requirements, gender, or citizenship status. But it belongs in the same history. The rules change. The line moves. And sometimes, as American history keeps reminding us, it moves backward.

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

Trump administration asks federal judge to quickly lift ban on planned mail voting restrictions

2026-07-02T17:29:31+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 Trump administration is asking a federal judge to quickly lift her recent ruling against major provisions of a presidential executive order on elections, arguing in an appeal that the court’s action will effectively prevent the government from putting new voting restrictions in place before the November election.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani halted President Donald Trump’s efforts to create centralized lists of adult citizens and give the U.S. Postal Service unprecedented authority over who can vote by mail. Her 37-page ruling concluded that the president did not have the constitutional authority to regulate state elections, as his March executive order tried to do.

The executive order directed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to create a nationwide list of verified U.S. citizens over 18, and thus presumably eligible to vote in federal elections. It also called on the U.S. Postal Service to create a system to handle and accept mail-in ballots only from voters on preapproved lists.

Talwani’s order prevents the federal government from enforcing those provisions of the order against the 24 jurisdictions (23 states and the District of Columbia) whose attorneys general and governors brought the lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts. The list includes most Democratic-led and swing states, including Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

This week, the Trump administration appealed Talwani’s ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and said it is still proceeding with its efforts to set up the new system for the rest of the states. But it warned that the judge’s order will make it impossible for the U.S. Postal Service to create a bifurcated system for the November election, even if the administration ultimately prevails on appeal. Government attorneys asked Talwani to lift her ban by Monday.

The request for a quick decision suggests that the Trump administration may be trying to speed things up so the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible.

“Operationally, it would not be possible for us to put a two-tiered system in place where one set of rules apply to the ballot mail of the Plaintiff States, and another applies to the remaining states,” Steven Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer and executive vice president, said in a court filing. “Doing so would cause operational confusion and significantly increase the complexity and efficiency of implementing any final rule.”

But the Trump administration’s nationwide efforts to use the Postal Service to regulate who gets ballots also hit a separate legal roadblock this week when another federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that the executive order violates a years-old agreement requiring the federal government to ensure voters who request mail-in ballots get them in time to ensure they can be counted.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan concluded that the Trump administration’s plans to send ballots only to voters on preapproved lists breached a 2021 agreement between the Postal Service and the NAACP meant to ensure that the agency prioritized ballot delivery. In contrast to Talwani’s ruling, Sullivan’s decision applies nationwide.

“These proposed rules directly undermine commitments that the Postal Service made to ensure mail-in ballots are delivered and counted,” said Anthony Ashton, senior associate general counsel for the NAACP, in a statement.

The U.S. Postal Service and Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Supreme Court allows states to accept mail ballots after Election Day, rejecting Republican challenge to voting access

2026-06-29T16:38:52+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 Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, as long as they are properly postmarked — a key victory for voting rights advocates and another setback to President Donald Trump’s efforts to crack down on absentee voting.

In an uncommon 5-4 ruling, the justices found that nothing in federal law prevents states from enacting grace periods for absentee ballots to be received, as long as they are actually cast and mailed by Election Day. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia currently have such grace periods.

The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, centered on a Mississippi law that allowed ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted as long as they arrived up to five business days later. The national and state Republican parties challenged the law in 2024, arguing that, because Election Day is set by federal law, states should not be about to count ballots received after it.

Live event: Will the midterms happen? Your election questions, answered

A federal judge initially upheld Mississippi’s law, but an appeals court sided with the Republicans who challenged the ballot rules. Mississippi then brought its case to the Supreme Court in March.

The high court eventually sided with Mississippi. “The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. “The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.”

The ruling crossed ideological lines, with conservatives Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joining liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor in the majority.

The status-quo ruling was good news for those who worried that eliminating the absentee-ballot grace period would disenfranchise voters. A Votebeat analysis of data from 11 of the 15 jurisdictions with grace periods found that more than 745,000 absentee ballots arrived after Election Day in 2024, representing no more than roughly 3 percent of the total vote in any state.

“The Court’s decision is a direct message to all voters who rely on mail ballots, including military and overseas voters, rural voters, seniors, and people with disabilities: Your voices matter equally to voters who can easily access a polling place,” said Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan voting security group. “This ruling ensures that a postal delay outside of any voter’s control does not erase a lawfully cast ballot and supports election officials’ ability to capture the will of voters.”

Carolina Lopez, executive director of the Partnership for Large Election Jurisdictions, said she was pleasantly surprised by the court ruling. She said the decision would come as a relief to election administrators who weren’t sure when the absentee ballot receipt deadlines would be in their states.

“For election offices, this clarity matters,” she said.

Republicans, however, criticized the ruling. “Democrats are inviting chaos at the ballot box by allowing elections to drag on for days and weeks after voters cast their ballots,” Joe Gruters, chairman of the RNC, said in a statement. “Republicans are not going to be deterred by this decision, and the RNC will keep fighting to have elections end on Election Day as Americans want.”

In a post on social media, Trump called the ruling a “tremendous loss” and said it should be a catalyst for Congress to pass his long-stalled election overhaul, the SAVE America Act.

“There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!” Trump wrote. Studies show that mail voting fraud is exceedingly rare, accounting for only 0.000043% of total mail ballots cast, on average, in the 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 general elections.

Trump has long criticized mail-in ballots, blaming them for delayed election results and arguing unsuccessfully in court that they cost him the 2020 presidential election.

“We should know the result of the election on Nov. 3, the evening of Nov. 3,” Trump said on the campaign trail in 2020. “That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it should be.”

As post-Election Day vote tallies in key states that year showed a swing toward Democrat Joe Biden, Trump called for a halt to counting ballots. The late swing reflected timing, not fraud: Studies show misinformation made Republicans more wary of mail voting in 2020, so later-counted mail ballots skewed Democratic.

“STOP THE COUNT!” Trump wrote on social media two days after Election Day. “ANY VOTE THAT CAME IN AFTER ELECTION DAY WILL NOT BE COUNTED!”

Last year, Trump issued an executive order that gave the federal government power to withhold federal funding to states that allowed ballots to be counted if they arrived after Election Day. Several states sued over the order, and federal courts have largely blocked it from taking effect.

On Monday, conservative Justice Samuel Alito embraced Trump’s arguments in his dissent. Alito argued that the ruling “creates a serious risk of further undermining public confidence in our elections and our system of self-government.”

In the wake of the ruling, Mississippi’s Republican attorney general urged the state legislature to eliminate the state’s grace period anyway.

“I am hopeful that the Mississippi Legislature will take this opportunity to amend the law and require absentee ballots be received on the same day ballots are cast at the polling place,” said Attorney General Lynn Fitch. “President Trump is right to prioritize improving public trust in our elections.”

During two hours of oral arguments in March, some conservative Supreme Court justices pressed the lawyers about whether late-arriving ballots could create the perception of voter fraud. At the time, Alito asked whether “confidence in outcomes can be seriously undermined if the apparent outcome of the election on the day after the polls close is radically flipped by the acceptance later of a big stash of ballots that flip the election.”

“We don’t have Election Day anymore,” Alito said. “We have election month, or we have election months.”

The more liberal justices questioned the impact that nullifying Mississippi’s law could have on voting by Americans and soldiers living overseas.

“You believe that absentee voting by the military and overseas voters, the… federal laws under which states have proceeded with respect to those votes are illegal?” asked Sotomayor.

Dion Nissenbaum is a senior national reporter for Votebeat and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Legal ruling blocking Trump hunt for noncitizen voters may not help those already flagged

2026-06-29T09:00:00+00:00

A few days ago, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s use of a revamped immigration database to identify noncitizens who have registered to vote across the country.

The pointed 75-page ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said the federal government’s actions threatened Americans’ privacy and voting rights.

But what does it mean for the estimated 24,000 registered voters that the Department of Homeland Security said it has already identified for further investigation using the revamped system that’s now been deemed a threat to Americans’ privacy?

Sooknanan’s ruling doesn’t put a halt to any of the investigations that have been carried out in more than two dozen states that used the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system, better known as SAVE, over the past year to identify potential noncitizens on their voter rolls.

“The ruling turns the spigot off of a broken system, but it doesn’t go backwards in time,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “The reality is that the thousands of people that are caught up now in the system are still at risk.”

Live event: Will the midterms happen? Your election questions, answered

Texas, for example, flagged more than 2,700 people as potential noncitizens using the SAVE database. Last fall, the Texas Secretary of State’s Office said it had sent lists to county elections officials and asked them to investigate. As Votebeat previously reported, hundreds of the voters flagged for investigation had likely already proven their citizenship when registering to vote.

Chris McGinn, executive director of the Texas Association of County Election Officials, said most Texas counties had already completed their investigations. County officials sent out letters to those on the list and gave people 30 days to provide proof they were eligible to vote.

“Most of our jurisdictions went through the process and, I hate to say, kind of wiped their hands of it,” McGinn said. “As far as the counties are concerned, they completed their part of the process.”

While the exact number of people removed from voter rolls because of the check has not been made public, McGinn estimated that 75% to 80% of those in smaller counties have already been taken off the lists because they did not respond within the 30 days.

“Candidly, I think it was more political than practical in Texas,” he said. “You have 19 million registered voters in Texas and 2,700 is a small percentage. We still can’t consistently find evidence that ineligible voters are having an impact on elections, which speaks to how secure our elections process is.”

Dan Vicuña, the senior policy director for voting and fair representation at Common Cause, which filed a legal brief in support of the League of Women Voters’ lawsuit, said the judge’s ruling would at least give people who had been improperly removed from voter registration lists because of states’ use of SAVE a chance to challenge the decisions.

“It will provide some strong avenues for people who have been tossed to challenge that,” he said. “Obviously it would have been better if they had never had to deal with it in the first place.”

Vicuña said other lawsuits could provide more help to individual voters. Common Cause is currently suing several Texas counties that removed voters from their rolls based on the revamped SAVE system.

Other states using SAVE so far have flagged much smaller numbers of potential noncitizens registered. Louisiana said it identified about 400 potential noncitizen voters on its rolls (out of nearly 3 million registered voters) and found 83 who had voted in at least one election since the 1980s. In 2024, Georgia identified 20 potential noncitizen voters on its rolls (out of more than 8 million registered voters).

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger said in a statement that he was disappointed with the judge’s ruling and said he was still proceeding with a new check of its voter rolls to ensure no noncitizens were on the lists.

A top election official in Arizona’s Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, recently referred more than 200 cases of potential noncitizen voters to the state and local prosecutors for potential prosecution.

Initially, Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap said in February that his office had used SAVE to identify 137 potential noncitizens on the rolls and found 60 of those had voted in prior elections. That’s about 0.2% of the 60,000 voters it ran through the system, and a tiny fraction of the county’s total 2.5 million voters. Heap’s office and the state attorney general’s office did not respond to requests for comment on how the legal ruling might impact ongoing investigations.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Federal judge blocks key pillars of Trump executive order restricting mail voting in 2026 election

2026-06-25T15:14:37+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, June 25, 2:05 p.m.: This story has been updated to include comments responding to the ruling.

A federal judge on Thursday blocked key pillars of President Donald Trump’s efforts to overhaul the 2026 elections, declaring unconstitutional his attempts to create centralized lists of adult citizens and giving the U.S. Postal Service unprecedented authority over who can vote by mail.

The 37-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani concluded that the president did not have the constitutional authority to regulate state elections as he tried to do in a March executive order.

Live event: Will the midterms happen? Your election questions, answered

Talwani’s decision came one day after the head of the Postal Service said the agency would refuse to deliver mail-in ballots to voters that were not on lists approved by the federal government, making explicit what the agency’s proposed new rules had previously implied.

In her ruling, Talwani said that the federal government could not use the postal system to regulate who gets ballots.

“No law enacted by Congress delegates authority to control mail-in voting to USPS,” Talwani wrote.

Talwani issued an injunction specifically preventing the federal government from enforcing those provisions of the order against the 24 jurisdictions (23 states and the District of Columbia) whose attorneys general and governors brought the lawsuit. The list includes most Democratic-led and swing states, including Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

However, the injunction applies only to this year’s elections. Talwani granted the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ legal challenges to the executive order as not yet ripe when it comes to future elections.

The White House implied that it would appeal the ruling. In a statement, Abigail Jackson, a spokeswoman, said the administration is “confident that we will ultimately prevail.” The U.S. Postal Service didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some Democratic secretaries of state who brought the case hailed the ruling as a major victory for voters.

“Trump will not be able to use the Postal Service to control which voters receive a mail ballot, and cannot use the DOJ to intimidate election officials into following his unlawful order,” said Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. “The Constitution is clear: States run elections, not Trump. This is a major victory for American democracy.”

The ruling is the latest in a series of judicial rebukes to Trump’s efforts to impose federal control over American elections, something that the Constitution leaves to Congress and the states.

The executive order is the second election-related one issued by Trump. The first one, issued in March 2025, sought to require prospective voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections and impose restrictions on states accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day. Federal courts have so far blocked major portions of the first executive order, including the effort to require documented proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

During the hearing in the case over the second order, in early June, Talwani expressed concerns about the executive order.

“What’s the harm if I say no one can use this list for the November election?” Talwani asked.

The Trump administration has cast the president’s efforts as an attempt to compel federal agencies to enforce existing laws barring noncitizens from voting in elections.

Trump has consistently targeted America’s electoral system and, without evidence, accused Democrats across the nation of “rigging” elections.

The president has repeatedly claimed that he was cheated out of the presidency in 2020 when he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, even though federal judges, state elections officials, and independent investigations have repeatedly debunked those allegations.

Before Thursday’s ruling, the Trump administration had been forging ahead with implementing the executive order.

A different federal judge declined in late May to block major parts of the executive order, arguing that the issue was premature because the U.S. Postal Service had yet to take any steps to set up the new system. The following day, the Postal Service unveiled its proposed rules, which would give the agency the power to block delivery of mail-in ballots to Americans across the nation unless they were on a verified list of voters.

And in early June, the Trump administration said that it was taking steps to create a new nationwide mechanism aimed at verifying voter citizenship, per the executive order.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Appeals court rules against Trump administration in Michigan voter roll dispute

2026-06-24T21:10:24+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.

What happened?

A federal appeals court has ruled that Michigan does not have to turn over its unredacted voter roll to the Department of Justice, dealing the Trump administration its highest-profile loss yet in its quest to obtain voter data from states ahead of the 2026 midterms.

What’s the dispute?

Since last year, the Department of Justice has demanded lists of registered voters from virtually every state, including Michigan in July. The state turned over the public version of its voter file but refused to turn over personally identifying information such as partial Social Security numbers.

In response, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Michigan in September but lost in district court in February after a judge dismissed the case, arguing that none of the laws cited by the department required the disclosure. The department then appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with the lower court’s reasoning.

In addition to Michigan, the department has sued 29 other states and Washington, D.C., to compel them to share their voter rolls. (Seventeen states have complied voluntarily.) So far, lower courts have dismissed several of those lawsuits, with none finding in favor of the Department of Justice.

What is the plaintiff asking for?

The Department of Justice has argued that a number of federal laws, including the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, entitle it to access to the unredacted voter rolls, including voters’ personal information. Many states have declined to provide that information, arguing that it would pose privacy concerns and violate state law. Federal officials have not provided an official reason for their requests, but they appear to be looking for noncitizen voters on the rolls.

What happens now?

Michigan’s case is the first to be heard, and be ruled on, at the appellate level. The next step up would be to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but Department of Justice officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

Even if the case is taken up by the country’s highest court, a resolution — particularly one that could be meaningfully implemented — before the midterm elections is unlikely. Absentee ballots for the Michigan primary election start going out Thursday.

Read more Votebeat coverage of the DOJ’s fight for access to voting rolls:

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

To accommodate overseas voters, Michigan changes start dates for local officials

2026-06-23T19:28:11+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 first election legislation of the 2025-26 session has made it over the finish line — and more voters could see their ballots counted as a result.

On Monday, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed four bills into law that would delay the start of some local officials’ terms. The laws are designed to ensure that people don’t take office until every vote is counted in their elections.

In many communities, local officials previously took office almost immediately after Election Day, meaning ballots counted later might not be considered at all. That functionally disenfranchised military voters or those voting from overseas, whose ballots can be counted as long as they arrive within six days of an election.

In November 2024, for instance, 1,440 ballots were returned in that six-day window — 303 from military voters and 1,137 from civilians overseas.

Under the new laws, elected officers for cities, townships, and villages — supervisors, trustees, clerks, and so on — won’t be able to start their job any sooner than noon on the first day of the month following their election, which for many positions means Dec. 1. And no one will be able to start until the election is certified by the appropriate canvassers.

“We must take the … step to ensure our local elected officials are not sworn in before the election results are certified,” Sen. Jeremy Moss, a Democrat from Bloomfield who sponsored two of the bills, said in a news release. “This bipartisan solution sets a uniform date for local oaths of office to take place and gives our community leaders a firm expectation of when to prepare for their new roles.”

Voting legislation has not found much success in Michigan since the 2024 election, when Republicans took control of the House but Democrats kept control of the Senate. Numerous bills have made it through one chamber but have gone untouched in the other.

The four bills enacted Monday, however, had support from both major parties. Moss’ bills had the co-sponsorship of Republican Sens. Ed McBroom, of Waucedah Township, and Ruth Johnson, the former secretary of state from Holly. The two others, introduced by Republican Reps. Mike Hoadley, of Au Gres, and Pat Outman, of Six Lakes, had a number of members of both parties sponsoring them.

Hoadley said in a release that the change “protects the will of the voters,” while Outman said his bill “gives local communities more flexibility and helps ensure continuity in local government.”

The bills take effect immediately.

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

Bipartisan election board languishing as governor fails to appoint new members

2026-06-18T16:00:07+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.

In 2020, Pennsylvania’s elections were facing a major crisis. The presidential primary was set for April 28, but the COVID-19 pandemic was in full swing, restricting travel and complicating in-person activities — such as voting.

So the state legislature came up with a solution. In a unanimous vote in both chambers, the primary was moved to June and, simultaneously, the state created a new bipartisan body meant to review and recommend changes to Pennsylvania’s near-century-old election law.

The Election Law Advisory Board, as it is called, was heralded at the time as a way to thoughtfully reform the state’s elections. But six years later, the board has fallen into a state of disuse, in part because Gov. Josh Shapiro has so far failed to fill seven seats he’s responsible for. The board has not met in nearly three years, even as county election officials are still clamoring for changes to the state’s outdated, contradictory election code.

The Election Law Advisory Board initially seemed promising

The idea of a board to advise the legislature on Pennsylvania election law was first born out of a 2017 report on the state’s aging voting equipment. When Republican state Sen. Elder Vogel introduced the bill that was signed in 2020, he told the Beaver County Times that the board was designed to provide the legislature with a road map to enacting election reform.

The board was designed to be bipartisan, bicameral, and representative of the entire state, and to include critical voices in the voting space, such as advocates and county officials. It is composed of majority and minority members from each legislative chamber, a representative from the Pennsylvania Department of State, and one member from each federal congressional district appointed by the governor.

The board met a dozen times in its first two and a half years, discussing everything from processing mail ballots to standardizing training for election workers.

“Back three years ago, when we were getting together and working, we were coming up with bipartisan solutions,” Joe Kantz, a Republican county commissioner and the current vice chair of the board, said.

To be sure, Kantz said, there was disagreement between the members on the issues, “but we found ways to work together in a time when we often see Harrisburg not working together.”

The yearly reports produced by the board offered tangible solutions to election law issues. For example, after the 2020 election, the state took several days to report unofficial results due to counties’ inability to pre-canvass, or prepare mail ballots for counting beforehand. The board’s first report recommended 14 days of pre-canvassing and provided language for the legislature to pass.

“The amendments would allow election results to be known within hours, rather than days, of the conclusion of in-person voting on election day,” the report said.

In 2022, the board suggested amending state law so that sources other than the Pennsylvania Department of Health or obituaries could be used to remove dead voters from the rolls; the following year, it recommended prohibiting counties from rejecting mail ballots for lacking a date on the exterior envelope, a requirement that has tripped up many voters and remains mired in litigation.

Shapiro has left 7 Election Law Advisory Board seats vacant

While statutorily mandated yearly reports are still being produced, the Election Law Advisory Board hasn’t met since September 2023. Part of the reason is that seven congressional districts are lacking a gubernatorial appointee.

According to emails obtained by Votebeat and Spotlight PA, in October 2024, Kantz emailed an official from the Joint State Government Commission, which oversees the board, to inquire about the status of the appointments and express his dismay that the board wasn’t meeting in a presidential election year.

“We have done all we can on our end to remind the Governor’s Office that we are awaiting the appointment of new members,” Yvonne Hursh, the commission’s counsel, wrote back. She added that the executive nominations calendar, which tracks gubernatorial appointments awaiting Senate confirmation, had “placeholder names” in the open positions.

Many of those same placeholder nominees remain on the current calendar, and others listed as Election Law Advisory Board nominees are also nominated to several other positions, suggesting they may also be placeholders.

Kantz said that the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania also raised the issue directly with Shapiro in a meeting earlier this year.

“I know what it’s like to make appointments,” Kantz said. “I know it’s not easy to find people that want to be on a board, but I don’t think that’s an issue here. I think there is some level of prestige, pride in being on a board that’s been created by the [legislature] to do what we do. Everyone knows how important it is.”

Hursh said her understanding is that the governor is “actively seeking new appointees.”

A spokesperson for the governor’s office did not answer a question about the status of finding appointees, but said the Department of State works closely with stakeholders to provide guidance and make improvements to the voting process.

“The Shapiro Administration is constantly engaging with and listening to election stakeholders and has a team of experienced professionals who work full-time to ensure elections in Pennsylvania are free, fair, safe, and secure,” Rosie Lapowsky, the governor’s press secretary, said.

According to Hursh, the vacancies have made it difficult for the board to convene. Board meetings require a quorum of at least 11 members, she said, and although 15 members are currently active, that doesn’t leave much room for absences.

“All of our members are busy people, and it is always difficult to find [a] date where we can be sure of enough attendance,” she said via email. “We have been very uncomfortable with trying to schedule a meeting, rearranging people’s schedules and prepping materials for a meeting that may fall apart due to a lack of a quorum at the last minute.”

The law that established the board says that a quorum is a “majority of appointed members,” raising the possibility that a majority of sitting board members would be sufficient. But Hursh said that the board follows a legislative rule which says the “majority of the membership” constitutes a quorum.

“The majority definition that would not count vacancies would give 8 out of 22 positions the power to convene meetings and make decisions,” she said in an email. “We do not believe that outcome was the intent of the legislature, given that the overall intent of requiring a quorum is to ensure that a body’s decisions are not made by a small, potentially unrepresentative group.”

The board has also said in recent reports that the missing members aren’t just a concern for forming a quorum, but also because they feel it is “unwise” to convene and debate issues with so many parts of the state not represented.

Christina Iacono, a Democrat appointed to the board from the 5th Congressional District and a former poll worker coordinator for Delaware County, agreed that the board was doing good work and was frustrated that the board hasn’t met recently.

Even though the legislature hasn’t passed any of the board’s recommendations, Iacono said it still has value in informing the proposals lawmakers do introduce and providing non-legislative readers, like judges, with detailed information on how elections work directly from officials involved in making them happen.

“I would hope the legislature will eventually look at what we have created,” she said. “Everyone in government has a tough job, and I do think partisanship gets in the way of many things getting done, but I think overall having a group that gets together that puts together guidance is a good thing.”

Hursh said the Joint State Government Commission is “uncomfortable with the amount of time that has elapsed since the group last met” and is hoping to schedule a meeting for the fall, but so far it hasn’t been able to find a date that works for the remaining members.

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

Why the GOP wants closed primaries in Texas, and what that could mean for voters

2026-06-18T09:45:00+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.

During the Texas Republican Convention last week, Gov. Greg Abbott publicly backed a push to close primaries and require voters to register with a party.

“We are going to make clear that in the future, only Republicans vote in Republican primaries,” he said Friday, addressing the convention in Houston.

After an unsuccessful legislative push last year to close the primary elections, when voters choose a party’s nominees for the November general elections, state Republicans sued to make it happen. That litigation is still pending in federal court, but Abbott wants state lawmakers to try again. Lawmakers “can and should be more responsive to Republicans than a judge may be,” Abbott told the Texas Scorecard, a conservative news outlet.

During the convention, Abbott noted that closing the primary will require a “thoughtful process” laying out “how we’re going to make sure we get all Republicans registered to vote and identified as Republicans.” Abbott’s comments were received with cheers and applause. The party also made closing the primaries one of its top legislative priorities for next year’s legislative session.

Here’s what you need to know about the GOP’s push to close the primaries:

When did the recent push to close Texas primaries begin?

For years, Republicans in Texas have made closing primaries a top legislative priority, but haven’t gotten anywhere. The push intensified in 2024 when two incumbent state representatives viewed as moderates, former House Speaker Dade Phelan and Gary VanDeaver, held off challengers in their primary races by fewer than 800 votes.

Some Republican leaders claimed Phelan and VanDeaver only won because they’d received votes from Democratic- and independent-leaning voters — which is allowed under the state’s open primary system that doesn’t require party registration and allows any voter to cast a ballot in whichever primary they want.

That same year, more than 70% of voters in the Republican primary supported a nonbinding proposition calling for closed primaries.

How do primaries work in Texas?

Texas’ open primary system has been in use since the early 1990s, when the state moved away from using party conventions to nominate candidates.

Eligible voters in Texas do not have to select a party affiliation when registering to vote, and may choose to vote in any one party’s primary during a given election cycle.

Unlike most other states, where county and state officials are responsible for managing the primary election, Texas gives the political parties a lot of authority. On primary Election Day, the parties have discretion to choose where and how voters cast ballots and how the votes are counted. The state then reimburses them for many expenses and administrative costs.

Why did closing the primaries become such a hot topic?

The issue heated up last fall, when the Texas Republican Party sued Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson, a Republican, arguing that the state’s open primary system is a violation of their freedom of association rights under the First Amendment. Then, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the GOP in asking a federal judge to strike down parts of the election code that allow for open primaries. Paxton’s office gave Nelson less than an hour’s notice of his filing.

Nelson, who earlier this month announced she’d be stepping down as secretary of state, opposed Paxton’s motion and argued that it’s up to the state Legislature to make changes to election law. This sparked backlash among some Republicans, and scattered calls on social media for Abbott to fire her.

The lawsuit is still pending in federal court.

What would it actually take to close the primaries?

The law would have to change. Republican lawmakers’ proposals to close the primaries haven’t been successful so far, but Abbott’s recently declared support could push the proposal forward during next year’s legislative session.

Alternatively, the federal judge presiding over the GOP’s lawsuit could also at some point rule the current state law unconstitutional, which would also force a change.

What would closing the primaries in Texas mean for voters?

Administratively, changing the state’s current system could be complicated because the state’s more than 18 million registered voters have never had to declare a party affiliation. And the state’s voter registration system is not designed to accommodate that.

In its lawsuit, the GOP suggested that if the judge were to rule in their favor, the party could maintain its own voter registration lists, “develop its own verification procedures,” and work with county election officials to provide them with access to the GOP’s system. Under that model, Democrats would presumably need to take similar action.

But the change could also require administrative action by the state. Election policy experts are wondering whether switching to closed primaries would mean requiring all voters to re-register with a party affiliation. That could be a big lift not just for voters but for the state, which would have to redesign its forms and software to allow for voters to list a party affiliation. It’s not yet clear how long that would take and how much it could cost.

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.

Alleged Wisconsin fake elector accomplices plead not guilty as Trump seeks to rewrite 2020 election

2026-06-15T18:34:53+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.

As three alleged planners of Wisconsin’s fake elector scheme pleaded not guilty Tuesday to eleven forgery-related criminal charges in Dane County court, the criminal charges against them are moving forward in a national legal and political landscape that looks dramatically different from the one in which they were filed.

When Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed the charges in June 2024, Joe Biden was president, Donald Trump was battling a criminal case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and state prosecutors in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada were bringing criminal cases tied to the fake elector scheme.

That scheme arose in the aftermath of the 2020 election, when Trump allies tried to keep him in power despite his loss. Those allies, who became known as fake or false electors, attempted to cast electoral votes for Trump in multiple states he lost and submit those certificates to Congress.

Now, as the three defendants in the Wisconsin case await trial , the case enters what is expected to be a lengthy legal process. It will unfold as Trump has regained the presidency, and he and his allies are undertaking extensive efforts to rewrite what happened in the 2020 election.

Since returning to office, Trump has issued a federal pardon to those involved in the 2020 scheme, and his administration has sent the FBI to investigate the 2020 election in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

The federal criminal case against Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election has been dismissed. And, until recently, his administration had plans to allocate $1.8 billion to compensate people it claimed had been unfairly prosecuted by the federal government, raising questions about whether participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and those involved in the fake elector schemes could receive taxpayer funds.

Other state cases have also faltered. Georgia’s election interference case has been dismissed, though not before the prosecution secured some guilty pleas from Trump’s allies. Michigan’s false elector case has also been dismissed. Arizona’s remains unresolved after a major setback for the prosecution, and Nevada’s just resumed after its Supreme Court revived charges that a lower court had thrown out.

Kaul faced criticism for filing his charges so late — it was the last criminal case to be filed regarding the fake electors. But two years later, that timing has left Wisconsin’s as one of the last cases standing in the broader, mostly failed effort to prosecute Trump and his allies for their attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

“The direction of activity has completely flipped, from prosecuting the people who were disrupting the election or inhibiting the normal flow of events to now going after Trump’s adversaries,” said Barry Burden, a UW-Madison political science professor who founded the Elections Research Center.

The Trump administration’s new investigation into the 2020 election in Wisconsin and elsewhere, Burden said, “seems to be a targeted effort at people who were mostly upholding the law and trying to administer an election in a very difficult environment.”

Amid the federal government’s current activity, and nearly six years removed from the 2020 election, Burden said any guilty finding in the Wisconsin fake elector case would likely have a muted effect.

“If we wanted the public to believe that there were ramifications for that kind of unlawful behavior, it would have to happen quickly and publicly, and feel like it was an immediate response to what people had done after the 2020 election,” he said. “But that’s not where we are six years later.”

‘Shocking’ if there are no ramifications in Wisconsin

The Wisconsin criminal case is still in its preliminary stages. Although it was filed two years ago, a number of motions and an appeal have set the case back significantly.

The defendants — former Dane County Judge Jim Troupis, who was Trump’s Wisconsin campaign attorney in 2020; attorney Kenneth Chesebro, who advised Trump on legal matters; and former Trump aide Mike Roman — each face 11 felony charges for his part in allegedly guiding Wisconsin’s 10 fake electors to send documents to the U.S. Capitol falsely stating that Trump had won Wisconsin in the 2020 election.

All entered not-guilty pleas on Tuesday during a brief proceeding attended by a couple dozen people in attendance in the several pews in the back of the courtroom.

Chesebro and Roman appeared virtually. Troupis, who briefly worked in the same courthouse where he was arraigned, was there in-person. He showed little emotion during the quick arraignment but smiled as he greeted supporters afterward. He told the press after the proceeding that he didn’t have anything to say.

The 10 false electors from 2020 aren’t defendants in the current case, but they separately settled a civil lawsuit in Wisconsin by acknowledging that Biden won the 2020 election and pledging not to violate election laws in the future.

Chesebro and Troupis separately reached a settlement in that case, turning over a trove of documents outlining their role in 2020 and agreeing not to participate in similar schemes in future elections.

Text messages and emails show that Chesebro was a primary architect behind the 2020 plan to have Wisconsin’s GOP electors attest that Trump won the state while Trump’s court challenges seeking to overturn the election were still ongoing. Troupis discussed that plan with the Trump campaign, and Roman helped craft the language of the documents Republicans planned to send to the Capitol from states that Biden won.

Troupis has since asked the federal government to reimburse him $3.2 million from the proposed $1.8 billion fund, saying his life has been a “nightmare” since he stepped up to represent Trump.

“My experience is a poster-child for what weaponization can do,” he wrote in a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, adding that “the entire legal system is at risk if compensation is not paid.”

Attorneys for Chesebro and Roman didn’t respond to requests for comment, and Troupis’ attorney declined to comment.

Burden said it is striking that the case is still ongoing nearly six years after the election, but he said the conduct at issue remains extraordinary.

“These were among the most serious challenges to elections we’ve seen in modern times,” Burden said.

“To think that there might be no ramifications of that really would be shocking,” he said, “and, I think, at odds with how the American criminal justice system has typically operated.”

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

Trump’s moves to erect voting hurdles face race against the clock

2026-06-15T09:00:00+00:00

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

President Donald Trump is in a race against time.

Since returning to office last year, Trump has repeatedly tried to remake American elections, including by issuing two executive orders that would erect new federal rules and restrictions on voting and various aspects of elections. Voting rights advocates and a variety of states have filed lawsuits that have already frozen key tentpoles of Trump’s first executive order on voting and could do the same for the second. If Trump wants to see these measures impact this November’s elections, his administration has to move fast.

In recent days, the Trump administration has taken new steps to erect the architecture it would need to implement key pieces of the president’s most recent election executive order, which called in March for the Department of Homeland Security to create “State Citizenship Lists” of all U.S. citizens who are over 18.

In response to the order, the Department of Homeland Security unveiled plans to set up a special system by the end of this month — then revised its plans just days later, showing how quickly the administration is moving to try and put these measures in place.

The executive order also calls on the U.S. Postal Service to set up a new process where it could block voters from receiving mail-in ballots if they are not on a vetted list provided to the federal government 60 days before an election, and the agency has proposed new rules to do so. Many election officials say the move could cause chaos, and is beyond the president’s authority.

Setting aside the constitutional questions around the efforts, voting rights advocates say that it could be practically very difficult for the agencies involved to create a workable system before the November election.

“Elections are like a battleship, it’s not like you can turn them around on the fly,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA political science professor and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project. “It seems exceedingly unlikely that any of this will be in place by November.”

The administration’s court filings hint at some of the difficulties.

On Friday, June 5, the Trump administration filed a four-paragraph notice to a court in Boston overseeing a legal challenge to the March executive order. In that notice, the Department of Homeland Security said it was moving ahead with plans to allow states to check voter eligibility by submitting their entire voter lists to a federal database known as Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE.

It also said the department would create a portal that would allow state election officials to “securely access citizenship-related data” from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, the Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Department of State — by June 30.

But three days later, this past Monday, the Trump administration changed plans and filed a new notice with the court, outlining a new memorandum rescinding the previously stated policies. Per the notice, that memo walks back some of the specifics of the earlier implementation plan, promising only to provide by June 30 “a mechanism for States to receive secure, state-focused citizenship-related information from each agency.”

The previously mentioned portal would come sometime later this year, the revised notice said, and the new memo also rescinded the proposal that would let states submit their voter rolls to SAVE because, the notice said, that approach wasn’t specifically called for in the executive order.

Some states have already used the system — which was previously used to verify immigrants’ eligibility for benefits — to check voter eligibility after the administration revamped the database and vigorously encouraged states to do so, but others have questioned the accuracy of the SAVE system and declined to use it.

The initial notice also said that the Homeland Security department “contemplates working with” the U.S. Postal Service to access its data on mail ballots and use it to “monitor mail-in and absentee ballot flows, identify anomalies that may suggest voter fraud or misuse, and generate authorized investigative leads.”

In the second notice, the administration instead told the court the two agencies were having “preliminary conversations” on potential data-sharing, and decisions would be contingent on final legal and policy determinations.

Beyond the logistical challenges, the proposals are facing legal challenges that could block them from taking effect. A coalition of Democratic party committees and some nonprofit groups have challenged the Trump executive order as unconstitutional. And while a federal judge in Washington, D.C. declined to immediately halt major provisions in that case, a federal judge in Boston could still do so. That judge expressed concerns last month during a hearing on a separate case brought by Democratic officials from twenty-three states, the District of Columbia, and a different group of nonprofits, and is expected to rule soon.

John Davisson, deputy director at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the latest Trump administration move “a five-alarm fire for the protection of privacy and voting rights” across the country.

“Building a citizenship registry is beyond the federal government’s power, illegal under the Privacy Act, impossible to construct without introducing catastrophic error, and guaranteed to cause untold numbers of perfectly legal voters to be denied their right to vote if implemented,” he said.

The Trump administration says its efforts are a way to integrate federal systems to help ensure there is no fraud in the country’s electoral system.

The Department of Homeland Security didn’t respond to a request for comment. In April, Lauren Bis, a spokesperson, said SAVE “is a critical tool for state and local governments to safeguard the integrity of elections across the country.” The Trump administration has sued a majority of U.S. states in an effort to secure access to their voter registration databases.

Votebeat Brunch: Is your election rigged? Separating fact from fiction.

California’s primary election set off a new wave of unsubstantiated allegations — including from Trump — that the vote was rigged. To separate fact from fiction, Votebeat spoke to Renee DiResta, an associate research professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy and an expert in disinformation. DiResta served for five years as technical research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory and co-led a nonpartisan Election Integrity Partnership that studied misinformation during the 2020 election. The interview was conducted in writing and has been lightly edited for clarity, brevity, and style.

Q: The California election has triggered a new flood of unsupported allegations that the vote is rigged. What advice do you have for voters trying to separate fact from fiction?

Many election rumors spread because they are emotionally compelling, not because they’re supported by facts. When people encounter a claim that an election was “rigged,” they should ask a few questions:

- What is the original source of the claim?

- Is there any evidence, or just screenshots, anecdotes, or speculation? “It just seems weird” isn’t evidence.

- Have election officials, courts, or independent observers said anything?

- Do multiple credible sources support the claim?

People should also be careful about treating isolated irregularities as proof of widespread fraud. Every election has some mistakes, and administrative errors. Those are not automatically evidence that they were manipulated. Officials will often explain what happened quickly, but you sometimes have to go check because their posts generally don’t go viral. A useful rule of thumb is: The stronger the claim, the stronger the evidence must be.

Q: What are some tools people can use to get reliable information amid a flood of misinformation?

A good starting point is official election information from state and local election offices, since they can provide direct information about procedures, vote counting, and certification, and they know the local rules better than anyone else. Fact checks are helpful as well. Keep in mind that getting answers takes time. Asking an AI for facts isn’t going to get you an immediate answer in most cases because it has to work with what’s out there, too. Asking Grok or another AI can help, but it’s sometimes dependent on how recent or specific the issue is. Be wary and double check, or check again later.

Q: Is there more state and federal officials should be doing to address election misinformation?

Election officials who communicate quickly and responsively about voting procedures, counting, audits, and certification tend to leave less room for rumors to thrive. Communicating in advance can help, too. And strengthening influencer disclosure rules would go a long way toward shifting incentives.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Republican legislators put measure to change voting procedures on November ballot

2026-06-13T16:57:48+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.

In a contentious late-night vote, the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature on Friday placed a measure on the November ballot that, if passed by voters, would significantly alter voting in the state.

The measure, HCR 2001, would make various changes to voting procedures, most notably requiring all voters, even those who vote by mail, to provide “valid government-issued proof of identity.” If voters approve the measure, it would take effect in 2028.

State lawmakers voted along party lines to pass the referral, also known as the Fast, Accurate, Secure, Transparent Election Results Act. In Arizona, legislators can refer measures to the ballot with a simple majority vote in both chambers, bypassing Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto pen.

State law already mandates that voters casting ballots in person show photo ID or two non-photo documents bearing their name and address, such as a utility bill. But the vast majority of the state’s voters cast ballots by mail. State law currently does not require these voters to provide ID, although they do have to provide identification upon registering to vote and sign their ballot envelopes when voting. Those signatures are then compared against their signatures on file to safeguard against voter fraud.

It’s unclear exactly how mail voters might prove their identity should the measure pass in November. State Rep. Alex Kolodin, a Scottsdale Republican who sponsored the legislation in the Arizona House and is running for secretary of state, told members of the Senate Judiciary and Election Committee in March that there were “many potential options,” including a system by which county recorders would issue each voter a unique identification number and require them to write the last four digits of it on their ballot envelope.

He suggested state lawmakers should revisit the topic next year if voters approve the measure.

The measure is part of a national movement by Republicans to restrict voting by mail. Earlier this week, the GOP-controlled Ohio legislature passed a similar photo ID requirement for mail voters, sending it to Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine for his signature. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump issued an executive order in March giving the U.S. Postal Service unprecedented oversight over mail voting. That order has been challenged in court, and it remains to be seen if it will be implemented for the 2026 election.

“For years, the people of Arizona have been calling out for real election reform,” Kolodin said in March, adding that tightening voter ID requirements was also a priority of the Trump administration. “This measure gives them the opportunity to take it into their own hands.”

Voter ID measure aims to speed up vote-counting

Among the other changes the measure would make is the one that inspired its acronym, the FAST Election Results Act.

It would require counties to give voters who drop off their mail ballot at a polling place on Election Day the option to have their ballot counted on site, rather than transported back to a central location for tabulation. That could speed up the reporting of election results without “even a minor inconvenience” to voters, per Kolodin.

A similar law, passed in 2024, just took effect this year. That law gives mail voters the option to show ID when dropping off their ballot, eliminating the need to check their signature later.

But unlike state lawmakers’ proposal, that law does not require counties to physically count those ballots at voting sites. Most counties currently transport all ballots back to a central election office after voting ends to tabulate them.

Jen Marson, executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties, said in March that the measure would pose huge financial and logistical challenges for those counties. At the time, the measure would have taken effect immediately after passage, giving counties little to no time to adjust.

The version of the measure that ultimately passed, however, is not effective until 2028 and includes a provision requiring the state to fund new equipment and other costs associated with its implementation.

Marson did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Friday.

The legislation would also prohibit noncitizens from contributing money to influence state elections and prohibit any candidates from knowingly accepting such contributions. Additionally, it contains a provision asserting that the state’s elections “shall be decided solely by the votes of eligible citizen voters.”

Some other provisions of the measure are already in state and federal law, including that only U.S. citizens are eligible to register to vote. Still, Republicans said on the floor that the legislation addressed many concerns their constituents have about the integrity of the state’s elections, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud or a rigged vote.

“These reforms are necessary,” Rep. Neal Carter, a Republican from San Tan Valley, said on Friday. “They really are.”

But Democrats in both chambers viewed it differently. On Friday, they repeatedly described it as an attack on mail voting, which is wildly popular in Arizona.

“The intention of this is to eliminate early voting,” said Sen. Analise Ortiz, a Democrat from Phoenix. “We shouldn’t be tiptoeing around the impact of this, because what it means is that senior citizens, rural voters, tribal voters, people with disabilities, people who work multiple jobs and can’t wait in long lines, are going to lose their access to vote by mail. That is shameful.”

Voting-rights advocates propose counterinitiative

The measure may not be the only voting-related question on the November ballot.

A group called Protect the Vote Arizona is collecting signatures to qualify a different ballot initiative that would counteract the Republican-supported one.

That measure, the Free, Fair and Secure Elections Act, would enshrine a fundamental right to vote in person at countywide polling places or by early ballot in the state constitution.

It would further prescribe that voters who sign up to get a ballot by mail keep getting one until they move, die, or opt out — canceling out a state law scheduled to take effect next year that would remove voters from the early voting list if they haven’t voted using a mail ballot in more than two years. And it would codify the state’s current rules around voter ID in the state constitution to prevent new mandates from being placed on mail voters.

In Arizona, if two measures with conflicting provisions both pass, whichever one receives more votes takes effect.

It’s unclear exactly who is funding the group behind the initiative. Protect the Vote Arizona’s officers have a history of working with left-leaning politicians and causes. But Stacy Pearson of Lumen Strategies, which is helping manage the campaign, said the effort was “grassroots.”

“We didn’t start with big funders telling us what to do,” Pearson said. “We started with, there’s an opportunity here in Arizona to protect what works.”

The organization had not received any donations as of March 31, according to a campaign finance report. It will file its next report on July 15.

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

Michigan revokes Antrim County clerk’s access to voter roll after unauthorized cancellations

2026-06-12T22:13:55+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.

Correction, Oct. 16: A previous version of this story said that 1,800 voters received confirmation or cancellation notices. While Interlochen Public Radio estimates 1,800 voters had their statuses questioned, only about 1,600 actually received notices.

The Michigan Bureau of Elections revoked Antrim County Clerk Victoria Bishop’s access to Michigan’s voter roll Friday, the latest salvo in the dispute between the state and the controversial Republican election official.

Jonathan Brater, Michigan’s director of elections, said in a letter to Bishop that she is “taking actions ... that do not comply with the Michigan Election Law and fall outside the scope of your statutory authority” after she allegedly changed or even canceled some voters’ registrations earlier this year.

Under Michigan law, maintaining the Qualified Voter File — the state’s central database of registered voters — is the job of city and township clerks, not county clerks. Brater noted in his letter that Bishop does “not have authority to alter QVF records except in certain situations,” including to flag voters who have died.

However, Brater wrote, the state’s review of Bishop’s QVF activity found that that was not what she was doing. He also reprimanded her for sending notices to voters about the cancellations that were insufficiently complete, based on unreliable information, and also supposed to be sent only by city and township clerks.

“Based upon your actions, it appears there is a lack of understanding regarding your responsibilities and authority as it relates to voter registration, list maintenance, and use of QVF,” Brater wrote. He concluded by notifying her that her QVF access has been suspended until she completes a series of trainings on QVF security, promises to comply with Michigan’s election law in the future, and responds adequately to the state’s initial inquiries on whose voter registrations were changed and why.

Bishop did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday afternoon on the suspension. However, she has previously argued she has a “mandate” from voters to “rectify long-standing vulnerabilities in the county’s registration data” after Antrim County elected her on promises she would clean up the county’s rolls.

Bishop has been in hot water with the state since April, when Votebeat first reported that she had been altering people’s voter registrations. Interlochen Public Radio later reported that she had sent notices of confirmation or cancellation to some 1,600 voters in the county of about 25,000 people, confusing voters and irritating township clerks who had to deal with the fallout.

After Bishop failed to correctly respond to the state — she initially sent her response to an incorrect email address and did not answer a number of questions — the Department of State formally demanded she stop. Bishop and her husband, a radio host best known as Trucker Randy, threatened their own legal action against the state. They raised a few hundred dollars for the effort before ultimately unpublishing their fundraiser. It does not appear a suit was filed.

Michigan State Police also investigated the Bishops after it came to light that her husband was alone in the clerk’s office using her computer in February. The Bishops told investigators that he was using the computer to watch a public county meeting as he was waiting for a phone call. The attorney general’s office confirmed Friday that investigation is ongoing.

Voters should not see services interrupted by Bishop’s lack of access to the QVF, as her deputy clerk, Annette Marcus, will still have access, and the bulk of work in the QVF is done by city and township clerks.

The county’s next elections are the primaries in August.

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

The state has taken over elections in a Texas county. It’s not the one everyone expected.

2026-06-12T09:45:00+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.

Three years ago, Texas Republicans approved a state law that was designed to allow unprecedented state oversight of elections in Harris County, a Democratic stronghold that is also the state’s most populous county and includes most of Houston.

State Republican lawmakers said at the time they were responding to problems and irregularities with Harris County’s elections, while some election and policy experts decried the partisan overtones of the new law and said it amounted to an intrusion on local control of elections.

But the law also said the state could take control of elections in smaller counties, if it found problems there when conducting state-required random audits. Now, the state is using the law for the first time — but not to take over in Harris County.

Instead, the state has assumed administrative oversight of voter registration in Val Verde County, which sits along the Rio Grande west of San Antonio and has around 30,000 registered voters. The county voted Republican in the past two presidential elections.

The county’s tax assessor-collector and voter registration officials, who are responsible for voter registration duties, have repeatedly failed to maintain accurate voter registration records despite on-site training and help from officials with the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, according to the agency’s preliminary audit of the county, released last year.

“A recurring pattern of problems with election administration and voter registration exists and the problems impede the free exercise of citizens’ voting rights,” the preliminary audit report from the state said.

The findings prompted the state to take control, the first time it has used that provision of the 2023 law. The agency did not answer questions about how long the county will remain under administrative oversight but in an emailed statement, said a full report with details on the parameters of the state’s oversight is expected in July.

The law’s author, state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, a Republican from Houston, said the bill’s application beyond Harris aims to address lingering voter registration and election administration issues that some election officials may be failing to resolve.

“This is an example of how we’re just trying to make sure that we’re following the law and it’s not specific to just one county,” Bettencourt said. “We need to make sure that if there are problems, that they’re followed up on, and that they stay fixed.”

A state audit finds problems

In 2022, Harris County, under the leadership of newly appointed election officials, had to extend voting for an hour after various polling places had malfunctioning voting machines, paper ballot shortages, and long waiting periods. Losing Republican candidates filed more than 20 lawsuits against the county, citing those problems and seeking a redo of the election. All but one of those lawsuits was dismissed. A judge ordered a new election in one race, though it never happened because the previously elected candidate resigned before it could be held.

During the 2023 legislative session, Bettencourt said the county’s election woes inspired him to craft a bill granting the Texas secretary of state the authority to investigate election “irregularities” after complaints are filed specifically in counties with more than 4 million people, a category that includes only Harris County.

The bill was later amended before passage to also apply to any counties that are selected at random for a state-required biennial audit of elections. In 2024, Val Verde was among the counties selected from a drawing to be audited.

This law gives state officials the ability to follow through and help county officials resolve ongoing problems uncovered by the audits when necessary, Bettencourt said.

The secretary of state’s office, until now, has had less rule-making authority over counties’ election procedures than nearly any other state’s chief election authority. But under this law, secretary of state officials can remove a county election administrator or file a petition to remove an elected county officer overseeing elections — such as a county clerk or a tax assessor-collector overseeing voter registration duties — if “a recurring pattern of problems” isn’t resolved.

That’s what ultimately happened in Val Verde. According to the preliminary audit report, the state found that Val Verde’s tax assessor-collector and voter registration office had no written voter registration policies. It found that staff created new voter registration records instead of updating existing ones, which resulted in duplicates. The staff could not explain how voter registration accuracy was verified, and provisional ballots were not processed promptly.

According to the preliminary audit report, state officials said the voter registrar’s failures led to some voters being assigned to the wrong jurisdiction and receiving the wrong ballot style, as well as voters often having to cast provisional ballots, which are at more risk of not ultimately counting. Due to these consistent issues coming up at polling locations across the county, the county clerk requested additional help from the secretary of state during the audit process.

In 2023 and 2024, the secretary of state sent teams to Val Verde County to provide “in-depth training” on voter registration and redistricting processes. “The state team worked with all offices to ensure that the jurisdictional boundaries were accurately reflected in the statewide system. However, the audit revealed that Val Verde County has not consistently updated this information since the Secretary of State provided assistance last year,” the preliminary audit report says.

The county’s tax assessor-collector and voter registrar, Elodia Garcia, said in an email that her staff has since reviewed its list of registered voters to merge duplicates, though some are still pending, and that they have resolved the issues with jurisdiction boundaries by visiting the addresses of affected voters and double-checking street numbers. She also noted that her office has now implemented a policy manual for voter registration, that voter registration data is entered in a timely manner, and that they now use time stamps to have proof of dates on records.

When Bettencourt’s bill was first proposed, election policy experts raised concerns about how punitive it would be and the unprecedented authority it gave the state over local elections.

But the state’s implementation of the law in Val Verde indicates the state is so far using the law to resolve ongoing issues, not to punish local officials or make sweeping changes to local policies. Daniel Griffith, senior policy director for Secure Democracy Foundation, one of the experts who initially voiced concern, said that he’s interested to see whether the state oversight could lead to improvements in Val Verde and set guardrails for all 254 counties.

“If that is something that is enhanced by this or is a benefit that can be realized, then that’s definitely a good thing, and something that I think most election observers would certainly be in favor of,” Griffith said.

‘We gotta fix it’

Val Varde County Judge Lewis Owens, a Democrat, said the county welcomed the audit and findings from the state.

“You can’t fix what you don’t know is broke. So, with them coming in and giving us the detailed report like they did and pointing out exactly what needs to be fixed, we gotta do it,” Owens said, adding, “We gotta fix it.”

Owens said he expects another report from the state in August detailing the county’s progress. If the issues aren’t fixed by then, he said, the Val Verde County Commissioners Court will decide whether it needs to create a county elections administration position and appoint an official whose sole responsibility will be election administration and voter registration.

“It’s good that they’re holding our feet to the fire. We gotta do a better job,” Owens said. “We can’t afford for a person to go in to go vote, and they’re having to vote provisional because we screwed up.”

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.

Special prosecutor investigating latest election-control disagreement in Maricopa County

2026-06-09T19:37:32+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.

With mere weeks until voting begins in a high-stakes primary election, a long-standing disagreement over election control in Maricopa County is only getting more combative.

In a new twist of the feud, a special prosecutor is looking into whether employees in the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office broke the law by allegedly removing a scanner and provisional ballot envelopes from the county’s vote tabulation headquarters amid a local election earlier this year.

Recorder Justin Heap, a Republican, said in a recent legal filing that he wanted possession of the scanner, which he said belongs to his office — a claim that the county’s mostly-GOP board of supervisors disputed.

He also requested a court order barring any criminal prosecution of his employees related to the incident, which occurred as votes were being tallied in the March 10 election for three seats on the Tempe City Council.

Heap’s latest filing in his lawsuit with the board of supervisors raises further questions about top officials’ ability to work together to administer this year’s midterm election in the key swing county. It comes less than two months before the state primary on July 21 — and as the special prosecutor looking into the scanner incident draws close to completing his investigation.

Former Pinal County Attorney Kent Volkmer, a Republican, told Votebeat that he was tapped by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to investigate the matter in April. He said he’d hired an off-duty, reserve deputy with the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office to assist with the case, and that the investigation was “wrapping up.”

Erin Pellett, a spokesperson for Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, said in a statement that Mitchell had appointed special counsel after receiving an “allegation” and determining a conflict of interest was present. As the county’s top prosecutor, Mitchell, a Republican, represents both the recorder’s office and the board of supervisors.

Volkmer declined to share many details of the investigation, noting that it still remained active. But he said the investigation wasn’t initiated to target specific employees in the recorder’s office. Rather, Volkmer said he was looking into the incident to determine “whether there was, in fact, criminal behavior.”

“This wasn’t, ‘Hey, go look at this person,’” he said. “That’s not how this came about.”

Volkmer added that it is standard practice for investigators to attempt to contact individuals who could have knowledge of a potential criminal matter.

“I would say you’re not doing your job if you don’t try,” he said, adding that he believed his investigator would be “thorough” in examining the incident.

What happened with Maricopa County Recorder’s Office employees and the disputed scanner?

Heap said in his court motion that multiple employees from the recorder’s office had attempted to “retrieve” a scanner from the election center in March, with the intent of repurposing it to scan inbound provisional ballot envelopes.

He said the scanner belonged to his office. Heap noted it was purchased with funds from the recorder’s office and was never “lawfully transferred” to the county elections department, which is overseen by the board of supervisors. He added that the scanners were acquired specifically for early voting services, “a function under the sole authority of the recorder.”

But the board saw it differently. In a statement, Supervisors Kate Brophy McGee and Debbie Lesko said two workers — including Chief Information Officer Brian Colby, who is named in court filings as one of the employees who was later approached by an investigator — were caught on security cameras loading the piece of equipment into the back of an unmarked pickup truck on March 12. The supervisors said it appeared to be a personal vehicle.

The supervisors called the machine a “pre-tabulation” scanner and said it was controlled by the board. Furthermore, they said Colby had been notified on “at least one occasion, in an inter-office message on March 5,” that the scanner was the property of the board.

Brophy McGee and Lesko, both Republicans, said the workers returned the scanner about an hour later, after elections department staff contacted the recorder’s office about the matter.

But they said Colby also appeared to take envelopes that potentially contained live provisional ballots, creating “grave chain-of-custody concerns.” They added that a count the following day confirmed that all ballots were accounted for, and that a human resources investigation substantiated their accounting of the incident.

Later, Heap said his employees were approached at their homes by “Pinal County Sheriff’s deputies.” He said Colby was specifically told he was under investigation for theft.

Filing comes as Maricopa County elections dispute continues to escalate

The filing adds fuel to the flames of a long-running feud within county government.

Heap has long contended that county supervisors usurped much of his power in a deal they struck with his predecessor months before he took office. He sued over the matter last year — and after months of back-and-forth in court, a court ruled largely in his favor on April 16, ordering the board to return control of several election-related functions and information technology staffers to Heap’s office.

The board unsuccessfully moved to stay that ruling, arguing it was too close to the primary to implement the court’s directives without risking a tumultuous election. Later, they filed for an appeal, which is still pending.

In the meantime, the officials have continued to butt heads.

During a May 19 local election, they argued over how to communicate a new voting option at polling sites. Emails show the recorder’s office and the board’s elections department disagreed over whether poll workers should verbally inform voters that they could opt to show identification at voting sites to have their mailed ballot counted faster.

Then, another scuffle erupted last month over ballot drop box locations for the upcoming primary. The board has set such sites for years under a provision of the state’s election rulebook, and it planned to approve the locations at a May 20 meeting. But just before the supervisors met to do so, Heap sent a letter to the board citing state statutes that he said granted his office authority over ballot drop boxes. He also warned that election workers who handle ballots deposited in “unauthorized” receptacles could face criminal penalties.

The suggestion that election workers could be charged with felonies drew strong condemnation from the supervisors. One, Democratic Supervisor Steve Gallardo, accused Heap of attempting to sabotage election operations. Ultimately, the board unanimously approved a slate of voting locations — including the drop box sites — for the primary.

Later, Heap asked a judge to hold the county board in civil contempt of court, accusing supervisors of flouting the April ruling. If supervisors failed to quickly adhere to the recent decision, he asked that the court levy substantial fines and give the money to his office.

Heap reiterated that request in his most recent filing, asking the court to set an expedited hearing on the issue in light of “these new factual developments.”

He also said the board was targeting his employees and doing “exactly what it had falsely accused the recorder of doing” amid the drop box saga last month.

“It has actively initiated a criminal referral against a Recorder’s Office staff member for doing something entirely lawful, in the middle of active litigation, just over two weeks before early ballots are scheduled to be mailed to voters,” Heap wrote in the filing.

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

Here’s why California’s election results take time

2026-06-08T09:00:00+00:00

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

President Donald Trump, a Republican, quickly took to social media after California’s primary on Tuesday to accuse Democrats in late-night posts of trying to steal the election, pointing to the state’s long timeline for counting votes and large share of mail-in ballots. He asserted that the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles was investigating. On Friday, Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor for Los Angeles, said he is overseeing “multiple election fraud investigations” in California.

“We will follow the evidence wherever it leads and prosecute any violations of federal election law to the fullest extent,” he wrote on X. “My office will not look the other way. We will investigate and prosecute. Every legal vote deserves to be counted. Every illegal vote cancels one out.” For their part, multiple California officials said — again — that the state’s long counting time doesn’t mean anything is wrong.

Why does it take so long for California to count votes and declare winners? The question has dogged the Golden State for years and drawn additional scrutiny because of a partisan divide in voting methods. Republicans have long lamented that their candidates lead in early results and watch their advantage vanish as mail-in ballots are counted in the days and weeks after Election Day. But while Republicans claim this is evidence of fraud, it actually reflects the fact that Republicans are more likely to vote in person and Democrats more likely to vote by mail — meaning more Democratic votes get counted later in the process.

By Friday afternoon, California voters still didn’t know which candidates for governor and Los Angeles mayor would be on the November ballot.

California is one of eight states that sends mail-in ballots to all registered voters. And a majority of California voters — nearly 90% in last year’s special election — use them. The Catch-22 is that it takes elections officials a lot longer to verify mail-in ballots than it takes to confirm in-person voting, creating long delays while they make sure there is no fraud.

And in California, a large number of voters drop off their mail-in ballots on or right before election day, creating a huge bottleneck of ballots that have to go through a signature check and other steps to make sure the vote can be counted.

Kim Alexander, founder and president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group, refers to it as the “pig in the python” problem.

“The truth is we are taking extra steps to ensure the voting process is accessible and the vote count is accurate and reliable, and that’s why it takes a long time,” said Alexander.

Delays are compounded by state laws that allow elections officials to accept ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive up to seven days later, and a lengthy process that requires counties to inform voters if there are problems with their mail-in ballots — such as missing signatures — that they usually have several weeks to fix.

Jesse Salinas, the voter registrar, assessor, and clerk-recorder of California’s Yolo County who serves as president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said there is a tradeoff between speed and security.

“If you want speed, not as many people’s votes are going to be counted that could legitimately be counted,” he said. “So this tension exists between accessibility and speed.”

California leaders admit there is a problem. “We wish the votes were counted faster, too,” Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, wrote on social media.

Two decades ago, California used to count 80% of its ballots within the first two days after an election, according to a California Voter Foundation analysis. That fell to 50% in 2022. The state has gone some ways toward reversing the decline, with the figure rising to 66% in November 2024.

More resources could speed things up

One unique factor for California is its size. California is home to 23 million registered voters, far more than any other state. (Texas comes closest, with about 18.7 million registered voters.)

Last year, Newsom signed a law that requires California counties to count most votes within 13 days of the election. This is the first election where we will see whether that speeds things up. Counties can ask for an extension, and they still have up to 30 days to certify the results, so the law only goes so far.

Local election officials and voter advocates say another major issue is funding, and the state doesn’t provide counties with the money they need to speed up counting.

“If I have more space, more equipment, and more staffing, things could be done quicker,” Salinas said.

Voting rights advocates like Alexander worry that the long vote counts, and the persistent criticism coming from the White House and others, are taking a toll on American confidence in the electoral system. One recent study found that Americans’ trust in elections fell from about 67% to 60% when people heard about unexplained delays in results. Another study found that voter trust that votes will be accurately counted in the upcoming election fell from 77% in 2024 to 60% this year.

“I do see voter confidence eroding and the long vote count doesn’t help restore it,” said Alexander. “Even people who aren’t buying into those myths and disinformation, people who trust the process, ask why we have to wait so long for the vote count. It allows lies to spread and conspiracy theories to grow, and we need to minimize the opportunity for nefarious actors to cast doubt on the reliability of our results.”

Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy in California, challenged the narrative that California has a problem and suggested that people should look at the issue from a different perspective.

“We don’t have a vote counting problem. We have a lot of votes,” she said.

Along with more money for counties and expanded voter education efforts, Romero suggested steps to shorten the California timeline for certifying results.

“Anything structurally will be considered voter suppression by voters,” she said, “and you have to think about weighing the size of the problem that you’re trying to fix.”

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Madison former deputy clerk removed from election tasks after misplacing 23 Supreme Court race ballots

2026-06-04T19:49:06+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 former Madison deputy clerk who claimed responsibility for the 23 late-arriving ballots in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election has been reassigned within the clerk’s office to non-election tasks.

Jim Verbick — the election office’s former second-in-command who was previously scrutinized and sued for the clerk’s office losing 200 ballots in the 2024 election — admitted to losing track of the absentee ballots that didn’t end up arriving at several polling places until after 8 p.m. on Election Day in April, according to public records obtained by Votebeat.

He told Votebeat that he’s only partially to blame, that understaffing and a lack of communication led to the mistake, and that it’s unfair that he got reassigned away from elections. Verbick is now the city clerk’s office’s lead worker for licensing.

“I do admit that I had forgotten about the ballots I secured when I left the post office,” he said, adding that he said the error was exacerbated by unexpected absences and mistakes made by others.

The issue went to court after the Wisconsin Elections Commission ordered Madison not to count the ballots because they arrived after the 8 p.m. deadline in Wisconsin law. A court reversed the commission’s decision, and the ballots were counted in the final canvass.

Verbick’s reassignment was part of a set of personnel changes designed to improve how the clerk’s office manages “the many logistical tasks of administering elections,” Madison Clerk Lydia McComas said in a statement. The city is also hiring two new deputy clerks and a lead employee for absentee voting. But this move doesn’t amount to a net gain of three election positions because one election staff member recently left the office and Verbick was reassigned.

Madison officials said after the election that the clerk’s office — not voters — was responsible for the ballots’ late arrival. Election officials had received and sorted the ballots in time to be delivered: They arrived on the Monday before Election Day and were sorted that same evening, then put on a shelf to be delivered in the afternoon of the following day, records show.

Emails, spreadsheets and Microsoft Teams messages obtained by Votebeat show that Verbick was in charge of absentee ballots and accepted some blame for their late arrival.

Around 4 p.m., Verbick sent a message on Microsoft Teams that he realized he sent out officials to deliver ballots that afternoon without the batch of absentee ballots including the 23 votes that would end up arriving late, former clerk’s office staff member Bonnie Chang said in an email to McComas.

Per that same email, Chang said that about an hour later, she scanned a spreadsheet that showed polling sites were still missing absentee ballots. She then contacted Verbick to find out how many ballots were in the late-discovered bin and whether he needed help delivering them. She wrote that he wouldn’t say how many ballots were found or whether more staff were needed to deliver ballots.

At around 6 p.m., Chang said, the clerk’s office sent additional staff to help deliver the ballots as early as possible. She said most got reassigned to other tasks.

By the time that additional help arrived, Verbick told Votebeat, the ballots had already been sent out for delivery. He said he didn’t think the couriers who were already dispatched to deliver the ballots would have trouble delivering them on-time.

In hindsight, Verbick said, he would have used those additional staff to lighten their load. But he also said he could have planned for the additional staff better had anybody told them that they were en route to help him out.

That night, Verbick sent an email to McComas taking blame for not putting the batch containing the 23 ballots on the planned afternoon drop-offs to polling places.

“Missing the bin of envelopes with the initial afternoon route is my fault,” he emailed McComas at about 10:45 p.m. on Election Day. “I had all of them reviewed this morning and ready to be run with the mail delivery.”

Verbick told Votebeat he forgot about the ballots because election workers in the clerk’s office hadn’t told him about a planned USPS delivery around noon that Tuesday. Believing the delivery had not happened, he went to the post office to investigate.

Before leaving, he said, he moved the batch of ballots that later arrived late into a secure area because there were no other full-time clerk’s office staffers available to watch them while he was gone. It was there that he forgot the ballots.

The error, Verbick told Votebeat, reflected chronic understaffing in the clerk’s office — a problem exacerbated by the increase in absentee voting since the 2020 election.

In an email to McComas, Verbick said he didn’t get additional staff that he thought would help process ballots, and that he didn’t intentionally ignore messages from office staff.

Relying on hourly and temporary workers to fill those gaps is not enough, he told Votebeat.

In an email to Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway sent the night of the incident, McComas said that she would “firmly address the lack of communication” and would have more staff in August and November, including the new deputy to oversee absentee ballots.

Wisconsin Elections Commission chair Ann Jacobs called the latest error “absurd” at a commission meeting in late April. The commission voted to investigate Madison over the error, meaning the agency’s first two authorized investigations in its history both center on Madison: one for the 2024 ballot snafu and one for the latest one.

Ultimately, the votes affected by this year’s error were counted. Officials said these 23 ballots were correctly, legally cast, counted and checked into the pollbooks just like any other valid absentee ballots — the only problem was that they were delivered and counted after polls formally closed. The Wisconsin Elections Commission voted that the city and county erred in counting the ballots since state law held that ballots must be delivered to polling places “no later than 8 p.m. on election day.”

A Dane County judge, however, reversed that order, ruling that the ballots should be counted because they were properly cast, and precedent held that voters shouldn’t be disenfranchised because of clerk errors.

Verbick scrutinized for 2024 election snafu

This was the second time in about two years that Verbick has faced scrutiny over allegations that he failed to act decisively when absentee ballots were at risk of being left uncounted.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission previously scrutinized Verbick for his inaction after the 2024 presidential election, when nearly 200 voters were disenfranchised.

When Maribeth Witzel-Behl, the clerk at the time, was on vacation after the election, Verbick was in charge of the office, Witzel-Behl told the commission in a deposition.

Verbick, on the other hand, “testified that he is generally in charge when Clerk Witzel-Behl is not in the office, but that he is ‘not always the point person on everything in the office,’” and wasn’t sure who the point person would have been, according to the commission investigation.

The commission stated that Verbick’s involvement was “minimal” by his own account, and that nobody took responsibility for those ballots: “It was always someone else’s job.”

After learning about the ballots, the commission stated, Verbick “did not instruct anyone to determine how to get the ballots counted.”

Verbick was sued in his personal capacity for his role in the error, and declined to comment about the 2024 snafu. The case is ongoing, and the plaintiffs are demanding financial damages for being disenfranchised.

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

Arizona Supreme Court declines to review fake electors case, leaving prosecution in limbo

2026-06-04T18:51:42+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.

The Arizona Supreme Court won’t review lower court rulings that crippled Attorney General Kris Mayes’ fake electors case, leaving the prosecution of 18 people who attempted to overturn the state’s 2020 election results in limbo.

The case is one of several that arose in the aftermath of the 2020 election when allies of President Donald Trump, who lost the election, tried to install him anyway. Those people, who became known as fake or false electors, attempted to cast electoral votes for Trump in multiple states he lost and submit those certificates of votes to Congress.

In Arizona, those people — alongside other Trump allies — were later indicted on felony charges of fraud, conspiracy, and forgery. Their case has been on pause since Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers sent it back to a grand jury last year, ruling that prosecutors had failed to provide a full copy of the relevant federal election law before the original jurors handed down their indictments in April 2024.

Mayes, a Democrat, unsuccessfully appealed the decision, which would have effectively forced a re-do of the case. Then, she asked the state’s top court to take up the matter.

In the wake of the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling, Richie Taylor, a spokesperson for Mayes, said in a statement that her office would “return this case to the grand jury.”

But the high court’s decision suggests that case is now likely to stretch into 2027 or 2028. Mayes faces reelection this year. Her GOP opponents — Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and military attorney Rodney Glassman — have both pledged to drop the case if they take the attorney general’s office.

The ruling comes as similar cases in other key swing states also flounder. In Georgia, prosecutors dropped their fake electors case last year. In Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel announced in March that she wouldn’t appeal a ruling dismissing her state’s fake electors case. In Nevada, a judge is set to issue a decision on a fake electors case later this month, but seemed skeptical of the charges during court hearings.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin’s fake electors case is moving forward. Attorneys who represented fake electors there are set to be arraigned later this month.

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

A dispute over Missouri’s congressional map could snowball into a legal and logistical elections crisis

2026-06-01T09:00:00+00:00

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

It was another week of on-and-off redistricting drama: In case you missed it, it’s on in Florida and off in Alabama and South Carolina. But there’s one state where a legal and logistical crisis is brewing over the fact that election officials can’t agree on whether redistricting is on or off. Call it Schrödinger’s map.

Missouri was one of the first states to heed President Donald Trump’s call for Republican-controlled states to redraw their congressional lines. But unlike the others that have done so, Missouri allows residents who don’t like a law passed by the legislature to gather signatures to put that law to a statewide vote. Opponents of the new Republican gerrymander did just that, and in December they submitted more than 305,000 signatures to the secretary of state — almost three times as many as are required to make the ballot.

Crucially, under the Missouri Constitution, a law that is referred to a public vote isn’t supposed to take effect unless and until voters approve it — meaning the mere existence of a referendum on the map should have been enough to prevent it from being used in the 2026 election. But, breaking from precedent, Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins took the position that merely submitting the signatures wasn’t enough to put the map on hold. Instead, he said, the map would remain good law until his office officially verified all the signatures and certified the referendum for the ballot. That decision was legally challenged, but the Missouri Supreme Court sided with Hoskins.

As things stand today, the referendum still is not officially certified. Hoskins has until Aug. 4 to make a final determination. The problem is, Aug. 4 is also the date of the Missouri primary — and local election officials have to plan to hold that election under one map or the other. They have to assign voters to the appropriate districts in their computer systems as soon as possible and send out the first ballots to overseas and military voters by mid-June.

With the Republican gerrymander still technically on the books, Hoskins is telling county clerks to plan for the primary to take place under the new map — even though it’s very likely that the referendum got enough signatures to qualify.

At least one clerk is not yet doing that.

Boone County Clerk Brianna Lennon, a Democrat, initially said she would not update voters’ information to reflect the new map while the referendum remained uncertified. She has since gained the ability to load both the old and new congressional lines into the state voter registration system and toggle between them, but she still has not decided which map to use for the August primary.

Boone County Clerk Brianna Lennon, a Democrat

“We’re trying to look down the timeline building up to August 4 and figure out what the least likely damage will result from,” Lennon told Votebeat. In theory, Lennon said, her office could create two sets of ballots, include both possible congressional districts on a single ballot, or go “full bore” into the old congressional map and hope that it turns out to be the right one. Those were the kinds of questions she said clerks had hoped to have answered “well before we started setting up for the election.”

For Lennon, the uncertainty is not just technical. She is worried “about the validity of the results of the August primary.” Candidates have already filed to run under the new congressional map. But if Hoskins certifies the referendum, the Missouri Supreme Court has confirmed the map would be paused until voters decide whether to approve it. “And if that’s the case, does that mean we’ve just run a primary election on a set of maps that are no longer valid?” Lennon said.

The logistical burden is concentrated in just a handful of places. Most Missouri counties either are not affected by the new map or would move wholesale from one congressional district to another, making the change relatively simple. But four counties — Boone, Jackson, St. Charles, and St. Louis — have voters who must be reassigned at a more granular level because the new map changes the lines within the county. For those clerks, the uncertainty is not just which map is legally correct, but how much time they have to build ballots and voter records around it.

“Right now it’s every county for themselves and not everyone will make the same decision,” Lennon said.

That frustration is shared by Clinton Jenkins, the Republican Miller County clerk who serves as president of the Missouri Association of County Clerks and Election Authorities.

Jenkins has described communication with Hoskins’ office as poor since Hoskins took office last year, telling the Missouri Independent in mid-May that Hoskins had failed to provide guidance on the switch, and that Jenkins’ efforts to build a relationship between clerks and the secretary of state’s office “just never materialized.”

After the Missouri Independent article was published, Jenkins said, Hoskins asked for a meeting and accused Jenkins of being “a liar” over his claims of poor communication. In that meeting, Jenkins said, Hoskins also told him he was committed to “hold firm” to the Aug. 4 deadline for a final answer on certifying the referendum — the same day as the primary.

“He said we were in uncharted waters,” said Jenkins. “At least this has meant more communication with clerks.”

But more communication has not brought more clarity. Hoskins has told clerks to prepare to use the new map because, for now, it remains in effect. But Jenkins said he has not told them what to do if the referendum is certified on or near Aug. 4, suspending that same map just as voters are using it. Instead, Jenkins said, Hoskins has told clerks only that he expects them to comply with whatever map is in effect.

Hoskins’ office did not respond to a request for comment.

Hoskins’ critics are also worried his stance could provoke a constitutional crisis. It’s possible that Hoskins announces the referendum has made the ballot — legally blocking the use of the new congressional districts — on the same day that voters are actively voting in those new districts. That could throw the legitimacy of the primary into doubt — it’s even possible the results could be thrown out in court, said Lennon.

No one can say with confidence what would happen next. Lennon said she expects litigation after the primary “no matter what,” because candidates would likely have standing to challenge the outcome if the election is held under a map that is later suspended. The question then would move from election offices to the courts: whether the primary results still count, whether Missouri must somehow redo part of the election before November, or whether it is too late in the cycle to change course. For now, Lennon said, all of those outcomes seem possible.

Practically speaking, though, August is too late in the summer to order and pull off a whole new primary election under different lines before November. So realistically, whatever congressional map is used on Aug. 4 is also going to be used in the general election — even if it’s the map that is legally not supposed to be in force.

That’s certainly Hoskins’ position. “I would say that it’s too far along in the election in order to change the maps for 2026,” Hoskins told St. Louis Public Radio earlier this month. Of course, that’s a convenient truth for Republicans, who are eager to use the new map because it increases their chance of holding onto the House in 2026. Indeed, the maps’ opponents and local clerks argue this was Hoskins’ plan all along: drag his feet on certifying the referendum so as to leave election officials with no choice but to implement the gerrymander.

If that was the plan, and if it works, House Republicans will have Hoskins personally to thank for almost certainly adding one member to their ranks next year. But if a court rules after the primary that Missouri just held an election under an illegal map, well, it could be a very chaotic few months for the state’s top election official.

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

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

USPS proposal to carry out Trump’s executive order could create new barriers to mail voting

2026-05-29T23:25:16+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. Postal Service proposed new rules Friday that detail in part how the Trump administration intends to carry out its contested mail-ballot executive order — revealing a plan that, if it survives legal challenges, would create new barriers for mail voting and new burdens for election officials.

Under the proposal, all states would be required to send the federal government a list of all registered voters to which they are sending mail-in and absentee ballots in key federal elections. The proposal appears to give the postal service new power to block delivery of ballots to people that are not on the list and allow the agency to refuse delivery of ballots that do not meet new federal standards outlined in the proposed rule.

Jennifer Morrell, CEO of The Elections Group and a former Colorado election administrator, said that the proposal would create onerous new regulations that could be difficult and costly for local elections officials to follow, especially in rural counties which do not currently have the technology to produce the required barcodes. Such systems cost thousands of dollars.

Morrell said the rules represent an unnecessarily broad attempt to crack down on extremely rare examples of voter fraud.

“This proposal would fundamentally change the rules to address a problem that is extraordinarily rare,” she said. “This is adding significant complexity and new administrative burdens that can add additional costs with little-to-no evidence the current system is failing.”

Release of the proposed rules created widespread confusion among local elections officials unsure how they would work, and sparked broad condemnation from voting rights advocates and Democratic leaders who accused the Trump administration of trying to take unconstitutional steps to deny Americans their right to vote.

“Tens of millions of eligible voters could be prevented from voting by mail if states do not fully submit to this new federal mandate being rushed ahead of the 2026 election,” said U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat who previously served as California’s secretary of state. “Serious and consequential questions remain over how this new list will work with the Trump Administration’s ongoing illegal effort to create a national voter list.”

Friday’s proposed regulations, which require a 30-day comment period before moving forward, are the latest step by the Trump administration to overhaul election rules and impose unprecedented new federal oversight on the voting process.

Since returning to the White House last year, President Donald Trump has directed his administration to take sweeping new steps to alter an election system he has accused, without evidence, of cheating him out of the 2020 election. The Federal Bureau of Investigation in January seized ballots in Fulton County, Georgia as part of a probe of the 2020 election. He has issued two executive orders that attempt to assert broad presidential control over elections, though the Constitution gives authority over elections to the states and Congress. Both orders were quickly challenged in the courts, which froze major provisions of the first order, ruling the president exceeded his authority.

Release of the rules came one day after federal judge refused to block the most recent executive order on mail-in ballots because the Postal Service had not yet released its proposed new regulations. Another challenge to the order is pending in Boston, where a federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments June 2 in cases brought by voting-rights groups and a coalition of states.

Counties face steep compliance questions

Local election officials and experts said the proposal raised urgent operational questions about whether existing ballot envelopes comply with the new standards, whether counties and vendors can produce unique barcodes for outgoing and return ballots, and whether USPS could reject ballot mailings if voter data is missing, late, or mismatched.

“I don’t know how the states would potentially interpret what they need to do in order to comply, and what happens if the state doesn’t?” said Tammy Patrick, chief programs officer for the Election Center, which represents state and local election officials. “Does that mean the postal service will reject the ballots? I don’t think so. The postal service will deliver any mail provided to them so what happens if a state doesn’t do it?”

In addition, Patrick added, “I haven’t seen much here that is giving me much confidence this can be done by the fall without creating a lot of confusion and potential chaos.”

Patrick said many of the Postal Service’s proposed standards are best election-mail practices, many of which she worked on for years. But turning them into federal mandates could collide with state laws and leave local officials with no clear way — or funding — to comply.

“Some of these things are actually really good,” Patrick said, though election officials have been unable to adopt them in the past, and there’s no funding in the executive order to help.“Who is going to pay for it?”

Kathy Boockvar, a former Pennsylvania secretary of state, said implementing the changes before the 2026 midterms would place another burden on election officials who are already underfunded and understaffed.

“Especially in situations like this, where there is no funding being provided and no time for election officials and voters to absorb the required changes, this means that voters will bear the brunt of a poorly planned, last minute attempt to upend electoral processes,” said Boockvar, a Democrat. “You can’t just snap your fingers and change how elections are run overnight.”

A technical rule with major implications

Among the most concerning pieces of the 20-page proposal, voting rights advocates and election officials said, is a new requirement that every ballot envelope — both the one sent to the voter and the one used to return the ballot — carry a unique Postal Service barcode.

Election officials would have to send those barcodes to USPS along with voters’ names and addresses, allowing the agency to check whether outbound ballot mailings match the state-submitted list before accepting them. The postal service said the new rules wouldn’t apply to primary elections or to military and overseas ballots, but critics said it could force some jurisdictions to redesign envelopes, update vendor contracts, and build new ballot-tracking systems before the next federal election in November.

That could be difficult. For example, Thad Hall, the election director in Pennsylvania’s Mercer County, said that while some of his outgoing mail envelopes have intelligent barcodes, not all do. Officials in other Pennsylvania counties have in the past said their vendors do not use intelligent barcodes.

Gideon Cohn-Postar, director of federal affairs at the Institute for Responsive Government, a nonpartisan think tank, characterized the proposal as a confusing attempt to comply with Trump’s recent executive order.

“The executive order they are trying to fulfill is incoherent in and of itself,” he said.

Cohn-Postar said the proposals could have the biggest impact on small jurisdictions that may not have the funding to comply. In a small jurisdiction of about 2,500 voters, ordering new envelopes costs about $10,000 — a significant expense that requires them to learn entirely new technology.

For those jurisdictions, he said, the proposal could be a “big change.”

“Right now, in the heat of the midterm election cycle, election officials should be given the space and resources to focus on critical work like improving cyber and physical security,” he said. “More bureaucracy only pulls them away from those mission-critical priorities.”

Correction, May 29: An earlier version of this story incorrectly attributed a quotation to Mercer County Election Director Thad Hall.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Sometimes officials send duplicate ballots. Here’s how security measures prevent double voting.

2026-05-29T14:37:38+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.

Ahead of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April, Green Bay election officials accidentally sent duplicate ballots to 150 voters, prompting an administrative complaint before the Wisconsin Elections Commission and conspiracy theories online.

In a slightly different example from this year, some voters in Maryland initially received primary ballots for the wrong party. Election officials then intentionally issued new ballots for the correct party to all voters who had requested a mail ballot, and the original ballots were voided. Nonetheless, President Donald Trump falsely suggested that nobody knew what was happening with the original ballots and that “any Republican running in Maryland doesn’t have a chance” because voters who received them, which were disproportionately Democrats, would be allowed to vote twice.

Despite the heightened attention, election officials accidentally sending duplicate ballots — or sending out an erroneous batch before intentionally sending corrected ballots to the same voters — is a rare but well-understood mistake nationwide that hardly ever results in the type of double voting Trump has warned of.

“Once any ballot is received and accepted, it locks down that voter’s record, so that a second ballot could not be accepted for that same voter,” said Tammy Patrick, chief programs officer of the National Association of Election Officials. “That’s the way it works everywhere.”

Two primary mechanisms keep these accidental duplicate ballots from getting counted: proper record-keeping and deterrence, said David Levine, an election security expert and the election director in Richmond, Virginia. Generally, that record-keeping is done by putting unique barcodes on absentee ballot envelopes, which prevent people from voting more than once.

“It’s usually not an issue because, one, election officials are pretty good about contingency planning and having procedures in place, so if something like this happens, they know how to either void ballots or segregate them appropriately, so that they’re not going to be counted,” Levine said.

Second, he added, most voters understand that double-voting is a crime, and it’s not a practice they want to engage in. A study of 2012 election results found that, at most, one in 4,000 votes cast could be a double vote, but that clerical errors in marking turnout records — not actual double voting — may account for most if not all of that number.

Some of the attention on these mistakes comes from people who are genuinely unaware of the protections that keep double votes from being counted, Levine said. But, he said, there’s also scrutiny from people who are familiar or should be familiar with those safeguards but “choose to try and make a lot of hay out of something that’s largely much ado about nothing.”

Why do duplicate ballots get sent out?

Simply put, election season is an extraordinarily busy time for clerks and the vendors that print their ballots. Sometimes amid their multitasking, they mistakenly send two batches of absentee ballots to the same group of voters, or send an incorrect batch and have to send a second, correct one.

In the Green Bay instance, Jeffreys said election officials were scrambling because a mid-March blizzard closed much of the city, and her staff faced a time-crunch to send ballots out on time. The city sent notices to the 152 affected voters before Election Day. Ultimately, just one voter returned two ballots, and both were voided after Green Bay officials alerted the voter about it.

In Maryland, the State Board of Elections said the initial batch of ballots was erroneous because of a coding error with the board’s mail ballot vendor. Since the vendor couldn’t identify which voters received the wrong ballots, the board decided to send new ballots to everyone who had requested a mail ballot in that election and void the old ones in the state’s registration database, so they wouldn’t count even if voters returned them.

Similar errors have happened around the state and country. Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, Madison, Wisconsin, officials sent around 2,200 duplicate ballots because of a data processing error. In Racine, Wisconsin, this year, election officials intentionally sent voters a second batch of ballots because the first set left off a municipal race. Other incidents have happened in Pennsylvania and California.

What keeps those erroneous ballots from getting counted?

One of the best tools election officials in Wisconsin and elsewhere have at their disposal are unique barcodes printed on the absentee ballot certificates that voters receive.

Those barcodes in Wisconsin connect to the statewide voter registration database and are unique to each voter. Other states have similar systems, with unique identifiers tying an absentee ballot to each voter. If an election official scans a duplicate ballot, the system shows that the voter already returned one, and one of the ballots is rejected.

That’s a “very, very established process,” Wisconsin Elections Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe said after the Green Bay incident.

In examples like Racine, when voters receive a ballot missing a race or containing another error that can be corrected before Election Day, officials will intentionally send another, correct ballot to the voter. The first ballot becomes known as the “A” ballot and the second one is known as the “B” ballot.

If a voter returns just one ballot, that vote will count — including only valid votes from the erroneous ballot, if that’s the one submitted. If a voter returns both ballots, officials will scrap the “A” ballot and count the “B” since the latter is the correct form.

That’s different from Maryland, where election officials voided all of the original ballots and reissued new ones.

How specific instances of duplicate ballots get resolved — whether that’s canceling out all the original ballots or planning for “A” and “B” ballots like in Racine — can depend on state laws, officials’ discretion and court rulings, Patrick said. How close the error is to election day and the jurisdiction’s budget can also influence how election officials handle duplicate ballots, she added.

Patrick also drew a distinction between officials sending out duplicate absentee ballots and the rare but occasional instances of double voting.

“More often than not, the rare instances where we see it, it’s an individual voting in two different jurisdictions or two different states,” she said. “It’s not so much that a single person is voting in the same election, in the same jurisdiction, under the same name.”

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

Federal judge refuses to block Trump executive order on mail voting — for now

2026-05-28T13:28:23+00:00

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

This is a breaking story.

What happened? A federal court judge Thursday declined, for now, to halt two major provisions of President Donald Trump’s second executive order on elections, which would give the U.S. Postal Service sweeping new authority to regulate mail ballots and would force major changes to the administration of the midterm elections.

Judge Carl Nichols found that the U.S. Postal Service has not yet acted to implement the president’s order, and until it does, the nonprofit groups and Democratic Party committees that brought the legal challenge cannot show they had been harmed in a way that merited the court’s immediate intervention. He also declined to block a second provision that requires the U.S. Homeland Security Department to create lists of citizens eligible to vote in each state, saying it wasn’t yet clear the department would carry out the president’s order in a way that violated federal law.

But Nichols, a Trump appointee, signaled that once the agencies do act, the outcome in court could be different. “The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,” Nichols wrote. “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur.”

What’s the dispute? Multiple nonprofit groups, Democratic Party committees, and states sued Trump, the U.S. Postal Service, and other federal agencies over the president’s March 31 executive order on elections, which give the U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail ballots. Some of those cases were consolidated before Nichols in federal court in Washington, D.C., and he is the first federal judge to address the order.

The plaintiffs argue the Constitution doesn’t give the president authority over elections.

The executive order works by requiring or asking for the creation of multiple lists of eligible citizens and voters who can use mail ballots, though it’s not always clear how the lists intersect. First, the order requires the U.S. Homeland Security Department to create lists of citizens eligible to vote in each state that, plaintiffs argue, cannot be assembled without violating federal privacy laws.

The order also says states may also create lists of voters and provide them to the U.S. Postal Service, which in turn would only be authorized to deliver ballots from people on a third list, to which states would be allowed “to routinely supplement and provide suggested modifications or amendments.”

Plaintiffs argued the DHS lists would inherently be inaccurate and unreliable, and that no federal law allows the U.S. Postal Service the ability to regulate mail-in voting. At a hearing before Nichols earlier this month, U.S. Justice Department lawyer Stephen M. Pezzi acknowledged that “no list is ever going to be perfect,” but said that states acting responsibly wouldn’t throw voters off the rolls just because they weren’t on the list provided by the federal government.

Pezzi argued that federal agencies have yet to take action on the order, and that their eventual actions could comply with federal law. Danielle Lang, a lawyer for the nonprofit watchdog group Campaign Legal Center who is representing some of the nonprofits, argued that the order’s timing, with primary elections underway, will cause chaos. And although the order does not require states to use the lists they receive from DHS, Lang said at least some will certainly feel pressure to do so.

The March 31 executive order is Trump’s second attempt to exercise oversight of federal elections. Federal courts blocked many provisions of Trump’s first executive order on elections.

What happens now?

The lawsuit remains pending before Nichols, and a separate case is pending in federal court in Boston. The executive order instructed the U.S. Postal Service to initiate a rulemaking on how it would carry out the order within 60 days of when it was issued, a deadline which falls at the end of May.

Read more Votebeat coverage of Trump’s March 31 executive order on elections:

Trump issues second executive order on elections, giving U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail voting, March 31, 2026

Trump administration sued by states over mail voting executive order, April 3, 2026

We still have questions about Trump’s new executive order on elections, April 6, 2026

What are Democrats’ and Republicans’ election priorities if they win control of Michigan state government?

2026-05-27T09:00:00+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.

It hasn’t been the most productive couple of years for election legislation in Michigan.

Democrats in control of the state Senate have introduced bills that would amend rules for signature gathering and move up the state’s primary election from August to May. Over in the House, the Republican majority has proposed requiring people registering to vote to prove their citizenship, banning ranked choice voting, and preventing foreign nationals from spending money on ballot measure campaigns.

Bills have occasionally been sent from one chamber to the other, but time and time again, they never again see the light of day. Only two election bills, both bipartisan efforts, have made it out of committee in a second chamber. None have been signed into law.

That’s not a huge surprise given that different parties run the two chambers, particularly given how contentious election policy has become. But it does make the November election — in which Michigan voters will select a new governor as well as an entirely new legislature — that much more important. State House seats in Michigan are up every two years, while state Senate seats, like the governorship, are up every four.

The potential that one party could win a trifecta — i.e., control of the Senate, House, and governorship — is enticing to legislators who want to see Michigan as the home base for their party’s election goals. Michigan Democrats last held a trifecta in 2024, while Republicans last had one in 2018.

Unsurprisingly, though, the two parties have very different visions for the state’s elections if they take it all this fall. Democrats want to bolster voting rights, while Republicans want to improve security in the state’s elections.

Here are some specific proposals that each party is focusing on.

Democrats want to expand voting rights in Michigan

Sen. Jeremy Moss, the Senate president pro tempore and a Democrat from Southfield, noted that Democrats in the state have already passed much of their elections agenda. Moss has been chair of the Senate Elections Committee since 2023, and in that time, he said Democrats have “achieved a lot.”

“One of the biggest stories” out of the 2023-24 session, when Democrats held their first trifecta in nearly 40 years, “was how much we improved elections here in the state of Michigan,” said Moss, who is retiring from the legislature this year to seek a U.S. House seat.

But there’s more work to be done, he said. If Democrats win the trifecta back, he expects to see the Michigan Voting Rights Act finally become law. The MVRA, which is made up of four bills, aims to fill in the gaps of the federal Voting Rights Act, which has been weakened by a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in recent years. It was introduced last session but ultimately failed to make it through the chaotic final month of the session. Senators introduced it again earlier this month.

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for governor, has supported the MVRA and called for its passage late last month after the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais further eroded the federal version. That has left Democrats with what Sen. Darrin Camilleri, a Democrat from Trenton, called “an obligation to take action” during a hearing on the bills last week.

“Whether you’re an independent or Republican or Democrat, these bills are good for you,” Camilleri said. “They protect your vote and your voice no matter who you support.”

The bills, reintroduced this session as Senate Bills 961-964, passed out of committee last week in a 4-1 party-line vote, clearing the way for a vote by the full Senate. However, they are expected to languish in the Republican-controlled House.

Michigan Republicans are focused on preventing noncitizen voting

On the other hand, if Republicans win a trifecta, party leaders promise to focus on election security measures, especially a proof-of-citizenship requirement.

Rep. Rachelle Smit, speaker pro tempore of the Michigan House and a Republican from Martin, held a press conference last week slamming Senate Democrats for failing to take up Republicans’ election bills, including her own proposal to ban foreign nationals from spending money on ballot measure campaigns in the state.

She also criticized the MVRA, calling it “fear-mongering.”

“The most important thing that we could be doing to preserve and protect our voting rights is pass Representative [Jason] Woolford’s bill, which would be requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote,” Smit said.

Proof of citizenship has been a major priority for Republicans this session, beyond just Woolford’s bill. Rep. Bryan Posthumus, a Republican from Rockford, introduced a state constitutional amendment to require proof of citizenship when someone registers to vote, although that ultimately did not pass the House. It’s possible a proof-of-citizenship amendment will be directly on the ballot this fall, though, after a similar effort from Americans for Citizens Voting submitted more than 750,000 signatures to the Bureau of Elections earlier this year.

“Proof of citizenship is a critical one,” Anthony Forlini, the Macomb County clerk and GOP candidate for secretary of state, told Votebeat when sharing his own list of what he would like to see happen if Republicans win big this fall.

Secretary of state is not considered part of the trifecta, but if Forlini wins, he’ll be expected to work with the legislature to enact voting legislation. His wish list right now includes “accountability” in how absentee ballots are handled and improvements to the state’s campaign finance laws.

“I’d like to see more transparency across the board as it revolves around election integrity,” he said, pointing to some of his own efforts in Macomb County to improve transparency.

He suggested a stronger monitoring system for ballot drop boxes to verify who drops off ballots at them. State law already requires video monitoring, but Forlini said some videos have captured people dropping off a significant number of ballots, possibly in violation of the law (in Michigan, people can only return ballots on behalf of family or members of their household). Such a video came out in Hamtramck last summer, but Forlini said he was aware of videos in other communities as well, although he didn’t name them.

“These are things that need to be looked at,” he said. “It’s not voter suppression. You’re suppressing votes by allowing these things to happen.”

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

Lawsuit seeks to require Wisconsin clerks to let voters fix problems with their absentee ballots

2026-05-26T17:01:43+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 League of Women Voters of Wisconsin is challenging the state’s law governing voters’ ability to fix missing information on their absentee ballots, alleging that the law violates the Wisconsin Constitution by giving clerks a vast amount of discretion over whether to reject ballots.

The group is asking a Dane County judge to require all clerks to provide voters notice when an absentee ballot certificate is lacking necessary information — such as a signature or the address of a voter or the person who witnessed the ballot’s casting — and give them an opportunity to add that information before rejecting the ballot, a process known as “curing” the ballot.

Right now, the law tells clerks that they “may” return incomplete absentee ballots to voters. That results in some municipal clerks sending voters prompt notice about faulty ballots, while other clerks put those ballots in the rejected pile without informing the voter at all, the lawsuit states. Municipalities also treat absentee ballots differently depending on when they receive them, the lawsuit alleges, and those that arrive closer to Election Day often have a lesser chance of getting cured.

The lawsuit, which names the Wisconsin Elections Commission as the defendant, argues that, without a blanket curing requirement, “mail-in absentee ballots are jeopardized by the lack of mandatory notice and curing opportunities across the state.”

This case, which comes a few months ahead of Wisconsin’s 2026 primary election, is the latest in a long line of lawsuits over what to do when information is missing on absentee ballot certificates. In recent years, courts have allowed clerks to use their discretion to determine what constitutes a proper witness address but taken away their ability to fix missing information on the address form.

“Right now, we have ballots that come in weeks ahead of the election, and they’re being set aside for rejection with no attempt by the clerk to contact the voter,” Debra Cronmiller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, told Votebeat.

“If even one clerk is not curing ballots, that’s one clerk too many in a democratic system where voting is an absolute right,” Cronmiller said, adding that the number of clerks who fail to follow the practice could reach into the hundreds.

While the lack of uniformity could create legal issues, clerks say a blanket curing requirement could be difficult to implement if courts maintain the state’s 8 p.m. Election Day deadline for receiving ballots as the deadline to cure those ballots, too.

In 2024, Milwaukee received about 150 mail ballots just minutes before polls closed. At that late hour, it would have been virtually impossible for officials to notify those voters about any deficiencies with their ballots — much less give them a chance to cure them before the polls closed.

Size and resource disparities between Wisconsin’s many municipalities would also present challenges to a uniform curing system.

A part-time clerk working from home in a small rural town operates with dramatically fewer resources than election officials in Milwaukee, where thousands of absentee ballots can arrive on Election Day. Resources in both settings would be stretched by a uniform curing requirement, depending on how courts ultimately require it to be implemented. If courts grant the league some version of the relief it is seeking, questions about how the process would work in practice could also be settled in court.

Marathon County Clerk Kim Trueblood, a Republican, said another complicating factor for clerks is that Wisconsin’s voter registration form doesn’t require registrants to provide their email addresses and phone numbers.

Trueblood said she already tells the 60 municipal clerks in the county to try to cure ballots, but that process is harder when voters don’t provide contact information or when ballots are returned on Election Day. Requiring voters to provide their contact information would make a curing requirement a lot easier to comply with, she said.

If such a requirement were imposed ahead of this year’s midterms, Trueblood said, bigger villages and cities would likely have the staff and resources to contact every voter, but for town clerks who work a different full-time job and spend just a few hours working as a clerk on weekends and evenings, “it could be a little more challenging.”

Curing lawsuits play out in Wisconsin and across the nation

Ballot curing practices vary widely across the country. Some states don’t allow curing at all. Others allow voters to cure absentee ballots well after Election Day if they’re missing a date, signature, address or something else. As arguments over voting practices increasingly head to court, lawsuits over ballot curing have played out across the nation.

In Pennsylvania, for example, ballot curing is neither required nor prohibited under state law. Similar to Wisconsin, different counties have different curing practices — some allow voters to cure their ballots, while others don’t.

In North Carolina, a robust curing process was created as the result of a lawsuit that mirrors the one in Wisconsin. It was brought by the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, among other groups, and relied on a similar allegation: that the lack of a statewide-mandated procedure to cure absentee ballots amounted to a denial of voters’ right to due process under the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit resulted in a settlement that created a curing requirement in every county. Now, voters have up to three days after Election Day to cure issues on their ballot.

The ballot rejection rate has dropped dramatically as a result of the case, said Joselle Torres, a spokesperson for Democracy North Carolina, a voting rights group that joined the state’s league chapter in the case. But she added that state and local funding is crucial to educate poll workers, voters, and other election officials about the changes — “and that’s no small fee.”

Marc Meredith, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania who researched ballot curing in North Carolina in the wake of the settlement, said he had initially expected under 50% of voters to fix their ballot or vote a new one. But ultimately, about 82% of the 26,000 voters eligible to cure their ballots did so. Many opted to vote a new ballot in person rather than fix their old one, he said.

Curing has potential benefits but also challenges in Wisconsin

The drastic increase in the number of voters curing their ballots in North Carolina may not be replicated in Wisconsin, where many municipalities already have curing notifications and procedures in place.

Another difference is that North Carolina has 100 counties running elections, whereas Wisconsin has about 1,850 municipalities doing so. That could complicate implementation, Meredith said, because the same procedures would need to work in places ranging from Milwaukee to towns with 100 residents.

“In the places that aren’t currently curing,” he added. “I would expect lots of voters would take opportunities to make corrections.”

That issue of municipalities not curing ballots is especially pronounced in rural Wisconsin, Cronmiller said. There, part-time clerks don’t always have the bandwidth to return ballots to voters ahead of Election Day, she said. If courts call for a more stringent curing requirement, Cronmiller added, “it would force all municipalities to give resources sufficient to their clerks so they could do this work.”

A requirement for clerks to tell voters can create practical issues in bigger cities, too, especially those that can receive thousands of ballots on Election Day.

To get every last ballot cured, Wisconsin would likely have to implement a cure deadline after Election Day, Meredith said.

“You don’t want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, is my opinion on these things,” Meredith said. “There are going to be some things that will slip through the cracks, but … don’t let the fact that a few might slip through the cracks prevent you from putting that system in that way that would help the rest.”

At the highest level, the League of Women Voters is seeking a declaration that Wisconsin’s discretionary ballot-curing law violates the state constitution, said Nina Beck, a counsel at the Fair Elections Center, which represents the league in Wisconsin and also represented the North Carolina league chapter in its lawsuit to create ballot-curing there.

What’s required under the due process clause of the Wisconsin Constitution, Beck said, is adequate notice and the ability to cure a defect if clerks are otherwise denying people their fundamental right to vote. Instead, right now, clerks are dealing with curing in many different ways and may even be treating voters within the same municipality differently, she said. “That’s fundamentally unfair.”

If the court sides with the league, the group will ask the court to set a uniform procedure for all clerks to follow, Beck said, adding that the current system is “kind of a free-for-all.”

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

Primary voters could pick nominees for Michigan secretary of state and attorney general under new proposals

2026-05-26T09:00:00+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.

When Republicans and Democrats head to the polls in August for the Michigan primary, they’ll vote on nominees for U.S. Senate, governor, and several other offices.

But they won’t have a say in who will be each party’s standard bearer for the important posts of attorney general and secretary of state. That will already have been decided, months ahead of time, by a narrow group of party insiders.

Michigan is one of the only states where candidates for those positions are chosen by delegates at party conventions, not by voters in primary elections. But two new bipartisan proposals are looking to change that.

On Thursday, Republican Rep. Greg Markkanen and Democratic Rep. Joe Tate introduced a proposed state constitutional amendment that would move the selection of attorney general and secretary of state nominees to primary elections starting in 2027. It would also eliminate elections for board members of the state’s three major public universities, giving the governor power to appoint those officials instead. A sister effort will be introduced by Republican Sen. Ed McBroom when the Senate next reconvenes.

“Voters will get to know the candidates and what they stand for during the primary, and parties will be able to nominate candidates who can handle the rigors of a statewide campaign,” McBroom said in a statement Friday.

Separately, two former party leaders have also teamed up to promote a similar effort. Jason Cabel Roe, the former executive director of the Michigan Republican Party, and Lon Johnson, the former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, are launching a campaign to amend the Michigan Constitution to nominate attorney general and secretary of state candidates in primary elections, not at conventions.

Getting either effort passed won’t be easy. First, two-thirds of each chamber of the legislature must vote to put the amendment before voters. Then, a majority of voters must approve the amendment in this November’s election. It’s technically still possible that it could go before voters in the August primary, but that’s unlikely because it would require the amendment to pass the legislature before June 5, less than two weeks away.

It’s unknown if either proposal will attract enough support to pass. Some legislators have already come out in favor of the idea, such as Democratic Rep. Noah Arbit, while others appear against it, such as Republican Rep. Matt Maddock.

Roe and Johnson say they are optimistic after their conversations with leaders in the legislature, but on Wednesday, state House Speaker Matt Hall said he was “focusing on other things.”

“This is not a divisive issue,” Johnson told Votebeat on Thursday. “This is something that both sides, across all spectrums of both parties, [are] looking to have done.”

The change would benefit both major parties, Roe agreed. He laid the groundwork for the change back in 2022, the year Republicans selected Kristina Karamo as their secretary of state candidate and Matt DePerno as their attorney general candidate.

Karamo’s and DePerno’s extremely far-right views — including a false belief that the 2020 election in the state was fraudulent — appealed to Republican convention delegates, but not general election voters. Karamo and DePerno lost to Democrats Jocelyn Benson and Dana Nessel by 14 and 9 percentage points, respectively.

“I was talking to Democrats around the state [in 2022] and they agreed with it, were interested in pursuing a change,” Roe said. “Then, after kicking our ass in the ’22 election, they decided it was a uniquely Republican problem and they were not all that excited to help us save us from ourselves.”

But this year’s Democratic convention got a lot of Democrats interested again, he said. That convention left many delegates frustrated after problems with the website on which they voted caused the convention to run hours longer than expected. There are also concerns from establishment Democrats about whether the candidates selected at this year’s convention, who tended to be farther left, will face their own electability challenges.

In the time since, the convention has gotten even more bad press, with some delegates reporting they broke party rules by voting in the convention remotely and others raising concerns that their votes weren’t counted properly — or perhaps at all.

“All of a sudden my phone started ringing, and people were interested in revisiting it,” Roe said.

Now, Roe, Johnson, and others are working with lawmakers to bring a proposed amendment to the legislature floor. They’re tight-lipped about who specifically might sponsor their own effort, saying they don’t want to get ahead of internal politics.

This week, during the Mackinac Policy Conference, they intend to gather more support from not just political leaders, but other attendees, including business and nonprofit leaders.

Roe and Johnson said they might later turn their attention to other offices whose candidates are also chosen at conventions — Michigan Supreme Court seats, for example, or university trustees — but for now, they’re focused on moving the races they consider most critical.

“We can’t boil the ocean here,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to move very deliberately, and we cannot have a ballot that’s too long and complicated. Reform doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time.”

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

Judge dismisses federal government’s lawsuit over Wisconsin voter records

2026-05-21T20:11:12+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.

A federal judge on Thursday rejected the U.S. Justice Department’s demand for Wisconsin’s unredacted voter list, the latest defeat for President Donald Trump’s administration in its quest to obtain more information about voters around the country.

In his 10-page ruling, U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson said the department’s allegation that the Wisconsin Elections Commission violated the Civil Rights Act by not turning over the state’s voter roll “fails as a matter of law.”

The Department of Justice has requested voter rolls with unredacted information — including voters’ full birthdates, full or partial Social Security numbers, and driver’s license information — from at least 48 states, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. At least 15 states have provided or said they will provide the data, but most have not, prompting the department to file suit against 30 states plus Washington, D.C.

Federal judges have so far dismissed those lawsuits in seven other states, including Michigan, Oregon, California, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Arizona. The Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Maine was also dismissed on Thursday.

The department has so far appealed three of those dismissals, the ones in Michigan, Oregon, and California.

The Justice Department has said it is entitled to the voter rolls under federal law and needs the data to enforce requirements in federal statutes. Officials in both Republican- and Democratic-led states have pushed back on the Justice Department’s request for unredacted voter data, saying it could put voters at risk. They also say the department hasn’t provided enough information on how the data would be used.

The federal government requested Wisconsin’s unredacted voter rolls late last year, and the Wisconsin Elections Commission argued that state law explicitly bans election officials from disclosing information like driver’s license numbers to most people who aren’t election officials. That led to the lawsuit.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This ruling protects against federal intrusions into Wisconsin’s election system,” said ACLU of Wisconsin legal director Ryan Cox, adding that it “ensures private voter data is safe from abuse, and prevents the Trump administration from playing politics with our right to vote.”

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

Tina Peters’ commutation has left election officials feeling betrayed

2026-05-19T09:00:00+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 Colorado Gov. Jared Polis first signaled that he was considering clemency or a commutation for Tina Peters, a former county clerk who was convicted for helping to breach her county’s election systems in an effort to uncover fraud in the 2020 election, election officials urged him against it.

Pam Anderson, another former county clerk who defeated Peters in the 2022 Republican primary for secretary of state, in January accused Polis of “enabl[ing] violent, lying, bullying criminals” by considering clemency. Caleb Thornton, a lawyer for the Colorado secretary of state’s office who testified at Peters’ trial, wrote in February that the possibility of a commutation was “a slap in the face to all election officials around the country.”

Their pleas didn’t work. On Friday, Polis, a Democrat, said he would commute Peters’ sentence; she is expected to be freed on parole June 1. In a commutation letter and press interviews, Polis said he believed her sentence of nearly nine years in prison was too harsh for a first-time nonviolent offender, and that the severity of her sentence was based in part on what he said was her incorrect belief in conspiracy theories about election fraud — not solely her illegal actions.

Now, many Colorado election officials who have spent years working to convince the public that they run free and fair elections feel betrayed by the governor’s decision and don’t believe Peters has shown enough remorse to merit relief.

“We needed the governor to hold the line, and he let us down,” said Lori Mitchell, the clerk and recorder in Chaffee County. “We protected everything, and basically he’s saying the one woman who betrayed that trust for the public — she deserved to go home early. It’s just hard to even explain to my staff.”

In a social media post Friday, Peters said she had “made mistakes,” and “going forward I will make sure that my actions always follow the law.”

Polis’ decision came as election officials remain under pressure, preparing for what promises to be fraught midterm elections this year. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly advocated for Peters’ freedom, continues to suggest elections are rigged. His administration is again investigating previously debunked allegations about the 2020 election, and some activists who supported his claims in 2020 now hold official positions in the federal government.

Mitchell, a Democrat who is not running for reelection as clerk, said that she believes Polis gave in to Trump’s campaign to free Peters. She predicted that those who promote conspiracy theories about elections and consider Peters a martyr will see this as a victory. “She is going to be on the pedestal, and I think that’s really bad for elections in this country,” she said.

Election officials feel abandoned

In 2024, a jury convicted Peters of multiple charges in connection with a 2021 breach of her county’s election equipment that forced the county to eventually replace it. Her case became a cause celebre among those who believe the 2020 election was rigged, and Trump even issued her a federal pardon, though it had no legal effect (she was convicted of state crimes, not federal ones). Colorado officials and others linked Trump’s campaign for her freedom to his administration’s withholding of unrelated federal funds from Colorado.

A Colorado appeals court in April upheld Peters’ conviction but threw out her sentence, finding the trial court judge’s criticism of her beliefs during the sentencing went too far. The panel ordered her resentenced but did not free her from prison. The court had not yet resentenced her.

Election officials have for months warily parsed Polis’ signals that he was considering taking action in the Peters case and didn’t hold back once they learned of it.

“A clear message is being sent to those willing to break the law and attack our democracy for the president that they very likely will not face consequences for their actions,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, said in a press call shortly after the news broke Friday.

During the same call, Matt Crane, the executive director of the Colorado Clerks Association, said the group was “furious, disgusted, and deeply disappointed” by Polis’ decision.

Later that day, in an interview with Votebeat, Crane said that “election officials just feel very alone right now.”

Jessica Huseman contributed reporting.

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

The FBI is contacting Wisconsin election officials. Here’s what we know.

2026-05-15T18:50:27+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 federal government’s probe into the 2020 election has reached Wisconsin, with several current and former election officials, including multiple people in Milwaukee, confirming they have been interviewed or approached by the FBI.

The exact nature of the investigation remains unclear, though it appears to be at least somewhat centered around the 2020 election. The agency’s election investigations elsewhere in the country have featured subpoenas for ballots and other election records, but legal experts still say it won’t be easy for the federal government to convince a court to give it access to ballots.

Milwaukee County officials are nonetheless preparing for that possibility, in part because they still retain ballots from the 2020 election, though they declined to discuss those preparations or comment on the record. Those ballots contain identifying information that could, in some cases, allow otherwise unidentifiable absentee ballots to be matched to the voters who cast them. Milwaukee is one of the few jurisdictions in Wisconsin that still has ballots from that election, and the city has long been a target of voter-fraud accusations and related attacks from the political right.

Elsewhere in Wisconsin — in communities whose elections have faced less scrutiny and in the vast majority of municipalities where 2020 ballots were destroyed according to the standard retention schedules in state law — election officials are less alarmed and are instead focused on preparing for the midterm elections.

Still, news of the FBI interest has created confusion and some fear on the part of voters and election officials.

What happened?

So far, the FBI has contacted multiple current and former election officials in Wisconsin.

The FBI interviewed Wisconsin Elections Commission deputy administrator Robert Kehoe within the last few weeks. The news of the interview was first reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The interview focused on the 2020 election, with agents asking Kehoe to explain how Wisconsin elections operate.

The agency has also attempted to contact Milwaukee County Election Director Michelle Hawley. An agent left a business card at Hawley’s home when she was not there. Milwaukee County Clerk George Christensen criticized the agency for approaching Hawley at her home rather than through the county.

“While we cooperate with all legitimate law enforcement actions, we will defend against any attack on our democracy and will defend the rights of voters of Milwaukee County,” Christensen said in a statement.

Agents also left a card for, called, and texted a former Milwaukee election official, who confirmed the contact to Votebeat but requested anonymity because of personal safety concerns. That official declined to say whether they responded to the FBI.

Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson confirmed the FBI has reached out to city employees about the probe.

“The president for whatever reason cannot seem to let it go that he lost an election,” Johnson told a WISN 12 reporter.

Wisconsin Elections Commission spokeswoman Emilee Miklas declined to comment for this story. Other officials declined to speak on the record, and an FBI spokesperson didn’t answer Votebeat questions about the probe.

David Becker, the executive director of the nonpartisan nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former Justice Department voting section attorney, said the federal government’s actions appeared more to be aimed at intimidating election officials than producing actionable criminal cases.

He pointed to FBI Director Kash Patel’s public statements in April suggesting arrests related to the 2020 election were coming, as well as federal officials discussing potential cases on social media before they’re brought before courts.

“If you think you’re going to bring charges and prosecute individuals, you don’t do anything that the federal government has done over the last few months,” he said.

Becker also noted that any potential federal crimes connected to the 2020 election are “well beyond the statute of limitations for any potential federal jurisdiction or crimes,” adding, “This is a problem for any investigation relating to 2020.”

Even so, Becker said election officials’ worries were justified. He said the Election Official Legal Defense Network, which he leads, has received more requests for legal assistance from election officials than ever before “even though all of these efforts indicate that the federal government knows it’s got nothing.”

How do the events in Wisconsin relate to probes elsewhere?

It’s unclear how the FBI interviews in Wisconsin relate to the agency’s scrutiny of the 2020 election in other states.

In January the FBI raided a Fulton County, Georgia, election office seeking records tied to the 2020 election. About a month later, the agency subpoenaed records related to the audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, Arizona, which includes Phoenix.

Separately, the U.S. Justice Department has sought access to 2024 ballots in Wayne County, Michigan, home to Detroit.

Those jurisdictions share several characteristics with Milwaukee County. All are located in highly competitive swing states won by former President Joe Biden in 2020, and all became central targets of President Donald Trump, who repeatedly challenged the election results despite court rulings, audits, and reviews repeatedly reaffirming his loss.

Fulton, Wayne, Maricopa, and Milwaukee County are the largest and most heavily scrutinized election jurisdictions in their respective states. Each has been the subject of persistent conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, many of which remain prevalent on social media, even after extensive investigations found no evidence of widespread fraud.

“What’s really disconcerting,” said former longtime Wisconsin election chief Kevin Kennedy, “is the fact that there is a clear pattern here to try and continue to stir up issues that were resolved in every single opportunity there was to review them, whether it was a court case, an independent audit or the actual certification and review process that exists.”

What comes next?

The short answer is that nobody really knows.

Officials have been considering the possibility that the federal government may seize the city’s 2020 ballots, which contain personally identifiable information.

Kennedy said recent actions by the Trump administration offer “no reason to think that information that should be protected is going to be protected.”

Kennedy said Wisconsin’s decentralized election system was intentionally designed to distribute authority among local jurisdictions — both to keep election administration accountable at the community level and to limit the amount of sensitive voter information concentrated in any one place.

“You put that at the national level,” he said, “and it only takes one bad actor — and we’ve got evidence there’s more than one of those already in the federal government — to totally disrupt the process when you consolidate that kind of information that’s protected through the various state and local laws and practices.”

Becker said it will be an uphill battle for the federal government to successfully obtain Milwaukee’s ballots. But he said the mere possibility that federal officials could theoretically identify how individual people voted is deeply troubling.

“That is not the way a democratic society works,” he said. “Now, I don’t think they’re likely going to be able to do that. I think that’s going to be incredibly difficult. It’s not impossible, but the fact that they seem to engender this fear is troubling enough.”

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

23 late-arriving Madison absentee ballots must be counted, judge rules

2026-05-14T23:32:37+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 was wrong to order Madison to remove 23 late-arriving absentee ballots from its count, a Dane County judge ruled Thursday, ordering the city to count them in the soon-to-be-certified Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit brought by two of those 23 voters, who alleged that the Wisconsin Elections Commission unconstitutionally ordered Madison not to count the ballots. The absentee ballots at issue arrived at the polls after 8 p.m., a delay city officials say was caused by election administrator error. State law requires that absentee ballots be “delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m.” on Election Day, but the lawsuit alleged that it would be illegal to disenfranchise properly cast votes over election officials’ errors.

“Voters who comply with every element that is required for them to vote a special absentee vote, and then not being allowed to have the votes count, is contrary to what good law in Wisconsin has been,” Dane County Judge Everett Mitchell said from the bench.

The ruling came after an hour-long back-and-forth between attorneys for the Wisconsin Elections Commission and the plaintiffs over the rights of voters when election officials commit errors.

In briefs and in court, lawyers for Law Forward, who represent the plaintiffs, referenced several past rulings in the state that they say established a long-running precedent that voters can’t be deprived of their constitutional voting rights due to election officials’ errors.

In court, Charlotte Gibson, a Wisconsin Department of Justice lawyer representing the Wisconsin Elections Commission, argued that the precedent wasn’t that simple — and that the onus was on both voters and election officials to ensure ballots are counted on time.

In ordering Madison and Dane County not to count the ballots weeks after the election, the Wisconsin Elections Commission argued that state law simply does not permit late-arriving ballots to count, even as some commissioners expressed ambivalence about that rule and reluctance about disenfranchising voters in the process.

Wisconsin Elections Commission Chair Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, said in a statement after the ruling that she was pleased Mitchell reversed the WEC decision and ordered the ballots counted. Jacobs had voted to exclude the ballots, arguing the commission was bound by state law, but said at the time that she hoped a court would overturn the decision.

“As I have indicated previously, as an administrative agency we are bound by the language of the state statutes which precluded counting those ballots,” Jacobs said in a statement. “That said, it has been my firm belief that voters should not be penalized by the actions of a clerk as these 23 voters were. The right to vote should not be predicated on a clerk failing to deliver properly and timely submitted ballots.”

Mitchell’s decision means the votes removed in response to the WEC order will now be added back to the count. Those aren’t necessarily the exact 23 ballots that were delivered late, though. Due to poll workers not heeding Madison Clerk Lydia McComas’ request to uniformly mark the late-arriving ballots, Madison officials conducted what’s known as a drawdown to remove 23 random voters’ ballots from the count.

It remains unclear why there was such a delay between the ballots’ arrival at the elections office on Monday and their delivery to the precincts for counting.

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

Two reminders that the rules of the 2026 election are still in flux

2026-05-11T09:00:00+00:00

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

With less than six months until the general election, and state primaries already well underway, you’d think that the rules of engagement for the 2026 midterms would be set by now. But two developments last week should quickly disabuse you of that notion.

Redistricting risks confusing voters and costing states millions

First up: Multiple states are plowing ahead with redrawing their congressional districts in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. As we reported in last week’s newsletter, the flurry of mid-decade redistricting has already diluted the voting power of millions of people. But there’s another consequence to redrawing maps specifically at this late juncture: It will throw primary elections that are actively underway into disarray, confusing voters, forcing election officials to scramble, and costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

For example, after the Callais decision ruled Louisiana’s congressional map unconstitutional, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, quickly issued an emergency executive order suspending the state’s May 16 congressional primary for U.S. House candidates — even though voting had already started. Approximately 42,000 voters had already cast absentee ballots with those races on them.

Under Landry’s order, the rest of the primary will go ahead, but votes in those U.S. House races won’t count.

Legal challenges to his order are still pending, voters are confuzzled, and election officials are warning that adding a second primary election just for U.S. House elections will be expensive. “This election cost about $212,000 to $215,000, and so if we still go forward … and have to add the other closed party primary, that’s going to be more money,” Louis Perret, the Lafayette Parish clerk of court, said in an interview with KADN-TV. Perret estimated the statewide cost at around $8 million.

In Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed a new map on May 4, county election supervisors say they’re preparing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars sending voters updated information about their new districts and clarifying where they’ll be voting. Alabama has petitioned courts to let it use a previous version of its congressional map, which would require new primary elections this summer, and a state fiscal note attached to the legislation estimates that could cost $4.5 million over two fiscal years.

Tennessee, which enacted a new map on Thursday, also enacted a law that eliminated the requirement for counties to notify voters by mail when their precincts and polling places change, according to the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, though counties can still get reimbursed by the state if they choose to send the mailings. This would save money but leave voters responsible for figuring that out themselves. “When polling places or precincts are changed, more effort should be made to reach affected voters, not less,” the coalition wrote.

In Virginia, the state Supreme Court on Friday overturned the congressional map voters passed in a referendum late last month, citing problems with the process lawmakers followed in putting it on the ballot. That means the millions of dollars the state spent on the election was essentially for naught.

It does also mean that state and local election officials will avoid the “very, very time-consuming, incredibly detailed process” of assigning voters to the new districts while preparing to administer the upcoming August primary election, said Chris Piper, who was Virginia’s chief election official until 2022.

“In order to make those changes, it takes quite a lot of work,” he said.

The feds aren’t sure what to do with Trump’s mail voting executive order

Redistricting isn’t the only thing that could turn the midterms on their head. On March 31, President Donald Trump issued a second executive order on elections that would have given the U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail ballots, which immediately drew legal challenges.

Democrats, voting rights groups, and states all filed lawsuits challenging the order. In a May 1 filing in a lawsuit consolidating some of those challenges, the U.S. Department of Justice asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuits and not issue a preliminary injunction blocking the order. That was no surprise, but more notable was their reasoning for it: The department argued that the lawsuits were premature because federal agencies haven’t even started to implement the order yet.

The order called for the creation of three separate lists of potential voters, including a list of citizens over age 18 residing in each state. But as Votebeat reported, it didn’t specify what any of these lists had to do with each other or, really, anything about how the order was supposed to work.

In statements accompanying the filing, leaders at the U.S. Postal Service and Social Security Administration basically said they were still figuring out what the order means for them. And the DOJ essentially agreed with many of the order’s critics who had pointed out that the order provided no direction on what to do with the lists it created.

“The Order does not specify any particular purpose or intended use for the State Citizenship Lists,” the department wrote in the filing, “and (other than their creation by the Department of Homeland Security … and transmission to States) does not require anyone inside or outside of the federal government to do anything with those lists.”

The administration’s inaction on implementing Trump’s executive order at least makes it less likely it will change anything for voters or election officials in the 2026 election, even if the courts decline to block it. But if there’s one thing we learned this week, it’s that politicians aren’t afraid to upend election administration if their motivations are strong enough, so the status of the order’s implementation bears watching into the summer and fall.

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

Wisconsin Elections Commission faces lawsuit, criticism over order not to count late-arriving Madison ballots

2026-05-06T22:38:02+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 is facing criticism from local officials and a lawsuit filed Wednesday after it ordered Madison not to count 23 absentee ballots that arrived late to the polls in the state’s recent Supreme Court race, a delay city officials say was caused by election administrator error. City officials also say the commission initially offered little guidance but later faulted them for making the wrong decision.

As Madison officials discussed what to do with the late-arriving ballots the day after Election Day, Madison City Attorney Mike Haas reached out to Wisconsin Elections Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe for advice. Wolfe sent the relevant statute the following day, and told Madison officials to “decide, within their statutory discretion” whether the 23 ballots should be counted. Madison decided to count them.

Three weeks later, WEC’s commissioners decided Madison made the wrong choice, ordering them to remove the 23 affected ballots from the count. The commissioners didn’t mince words. Chair Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, said Madison committed an “absurd error,” and GOP commissioner Don Millis called it an “epic failure.”

The dispute has exposed a breakdown between state and local election officials with consequences beyond the 23 ballots at issue. Madison officials say they followed guidance from the commission when they chose to count the votes, only to be publicly rebuked and overruled weeks later. Now, a lawsuit argues that not counting the votes would disenfranchise voters whose ballots were delayed by election officials — and local clerks warn the episode could make them less likely to act decisively when problems arise in future elections.

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democrat, said the turnaround from the commission was puzzling and could demoralize clerks.

“Why would anybody ask WEC for an opinion about how to handle a situation?” he said. “Here they are attacking clerks for having to make a decision because they couldn’t get advice.”

Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe said that the agency was limited in how much advice it can provide for local election officials, but said the commission remains “dedicated to supporting their efforts within the scope of our administrative role.”

Lawsuit alleges removing the 23 votes would be unconstitutional

The liberal law firm Law Forward’s lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court alleges that the commission illegally ordered Madison not to count 23 absentee ballots that arrived at the polls after 8 p.m.

The group says the two voters it’s representing — Margaret and Robert Honig — along with the other voters, would be unconstitutionally disenfranchised “through no fault of their own” and asks the court to strike down the WEC order not to count the ballots.

The lawsuit references several past rulings in the state as establishing a precedent that voters can’t be deprived of their constitutional voting rights due to election officials’ errors.

This is the second recent Law Forward lawsuit involving Madison’s failure to count ballots due to administrative error. The legal group sued the city for disenfranchising 193 voters in the 2024 presidential election for a separate series of failures.

It remains unclear why there was such a delay between the ballots’ arrival at the elections office and their delivery to the precincts for counting. State law requires they be “delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m.” in order to be tallied.

Dane County authorized a separate lawsuit on Tuesday, and then filed it Wednesday early evening, as county election officials said they want clarity in the future on whether late-arriving ballots can count if they were only delayed because of election official error.

That same day, Madison complied with WEC’s demand to remove the ballots from the count, but instead of removing the specific ballots at issue, the city selected 20 ballots at random and removed those. Called a “drawdown,” the controversial practice was necessary because poll workers apparently failed to follow Madison Clerk Lydia McComas’ instructions to clearly mark the late-arriving ballots so they could be identified if necessary. Only three were appropriately marked.

Officials criticize the election commission for lack of direction

Local election officials say the Wisconsin Elections Commission has become less willing to provide clear guidance in difficult situations — a practice that commissioners and staff say reflects the limits of the agency’s role.

Haas, the Madison city attorney, has firsthand experience on the commission: He preceded Wolfe as the commission’s administrator. Her initial response to the city’s request for advice on how to handle the late-arriving ballots — which provided little direction — was in line with the commission’s tendency in recent years to “intentionally avoid giving definitive responses to specific questions,” Haas wrote in a May 6 letter to the commission obtained by Votebeat.

“This has caused local clerks and their legal counsel to feel frustrated that the WEC is abdicating its responsibility under the Statutes to administer the election laws and provide guidance and advice to local election officials,” he continued.

Haas also questioned why Wolfe’s response and the commissioners’ eventual order were so out of step with one another. The city relied on Wolfe’s initial guidance, Haas said, only to have the commission “contradict its Administrator without even an acknowledgment of her guidance.”

That dynamic, he added, discourages local election officials from being transparent with the agency and damages the commission’s credibility.

He also said that the commissioners were contradicting themselves. In its investigation into the 193 ballots that went missing in Madison until several days after the November 2024 election, the commission concluded that the missing ballots never arrived at the polling places but still could have been counted.

Haas said it was “difficult to sustain” the commission’s conclusions that “a municipality should count ballots that are discovered in the Clerk’s Office days after the election but not ballots that were delivered minutes after the 8:00 p.m. deadline.”

To McDonell, the Democratic Dane County clerk, the commission’s “real reticence to give advice” is undermining election officials’ trust in the state election agency.

McDonell said that in the past he used to get specific advice from the commission, but now “we get a game of ‘gotcha’ instead.”

In a statement, Wolfe told Votebeat that the commission provides guidance to clerks when the issues are clear. But when state law is ambiguous or unprecedented situations arise, she said, “it’s been our long-established policy to direct clerks to their respective legal counsel for interpretation.”

The Wisconsin Elections Commission has six commissioners, three Democrats and three Republicans. Decisions must be made by a majority of the commission, needing at minimum a 4-2 vote. Although Wolfe — whose role as administrator is nonpartisan — is often referred to as Wisconsin’s top election official, she does not have a vote.

Wolfe added that the commission can exercise its authority to issue determinations on election matters and that it’s her role to adhere to those directives, “even when I don’t always agree with those decisions.”

Jacobs, the commission chair, said the commission provides clerks plenty of help, from designing election manuals and creating administrative rules to adjudicating administrative complaints.

“We are doing everything we can to provide guidance to clerks on how to do things right,” she said. “We are not their 1-800-GET-HELP number for individual clerks’ every single legal need.”

One of the other reasons the commission can’t provide specific legal advice, Jacobs said, is that the commission acts as a judicial body that could ultimately evaluate whether election officials comply with the law.

“If you’ve got a court case, a personal injury lawsuit on a car accident, you don’t get to call the judge up and say, ‘Hey, am I doing this right?’” she said. “It cannot be our job to do their jobs for them.”

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

Mequon includes ‘incorrectly rejected’ votes in state-ordered certification redo

2026-05-05T21:01:41+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.

MEQUON, Wisc. — The Mequon canvassing board on Tuesday complied with a Wisconsin Elections Commission order to count five absentee ballots from the April state Supreme Court election that City Clerk Caroline Fochs had initially rejected using an unusually strict standard for assessing the validity of a witness address.

But City Attorney Brian Sajdak stopped short of committing to abiding by the commission’s additional order to stop employing that standard in the future, saying the city was still considering its options.

The city’s decision to count the ballots that the commission said were “improperly rejected” came one day after the Ozaukee County Board of Canvassers on Monday ordered the city to revise its totals, and several days after the commission said Fochs’ standard for judging the validity of absentee ballots was illegal.

A Wisconsin court ruled in 2024 that a witness address is valid so long as the clerk can reasonably assess where the witness lives. Fochs previously told Votebeat that she thinks the courts need to revisit the ruling.

WEC has instructed clerks to count ballots even if the witness address lists only street name, number, and municipality. The envelope that a witness fills out and signs does not specifically designate spaces for state or zip code.

Despite that, Fochs has for several elections applied a standard of not counting ballots that didn’t include the state or ZIP code unless the municipality was uniquely named nationwide — a policy that the election commission said is not legal.

The commission told Fochs that if she applies requirements beyond the normal standard of accepting ballots that provide only a street name, number, and municipality, she must evaluate the validity of the address based on the full address, not just whether the municipality is unique.

The street name and number in three of the rejected ballots were unique to just one of the municipalities with the same name, a Votebeat analysis found. The other two were from Fox Point, which is a uniquely named municipality despite Mequon election officials’ claims otherwise.

In Tuesday’s meeting, Fochs continued to describe Fox Point as not uniquely named, despite Votebeat reporting that it is.

During the Board of Canvassers meeting on Tuesday, one of the three board members appeared confused by absentee rules, asking whether out-of-state residents could serve as witnesses. Fochs confirmed that they can. The question arose over a ballot whose witness listed a Baltimore address. Though there are a few Baltimores across the country, the street name and number are unique to the one in Maryland.

City still weighing options for future elections, attorney says

Although the city canvassing board decided to count the five disputed ballots in this instance, Sajdak, the city attorney, said the city won’t necessarily follow the more lenient standard suggested by WEC in future elections.

At the same time, he said it’s “not likely” that the city will appeal the current WEC order in court.

The battle over what constitutes a proper witness address has been playing out in courts for years. State law requires witnesses to include an address on the absentee form but doesn’t clarify the details Republicans have argued in court that an address must include a street name, number, municipality, ZIP code, and state, but that argument was rejected by the court in 2024.

The current standard allows a witness address to be considered valid if the clerk can reasonably assess where the witness lives. In the past, Fochs told Votebeat that standard leads to different outcomes in different places.

Sajdak reiterated that concern on Tuesday, saying “the problem” was that every community can weigh ballots differently.

“It should be a consistent standard for everybody,” he said. “All of this rigmarole and hassle could be easily solved by the Legislature or WEC adopting an administrative rule or changing the statute.”

Sajdak added that while Mequon complied with WEC this time, “Whether we continue to do that in future elections, we’re still weighing what that looks like and how that’s going to play out.”

Ann Jacobs, the Democratic chair of the elections commission, said that if the city disagrees with the order, they should appeal it rather than ignore it. If they appeal it, she said, “then we’ve got to sue them, and I don’t know that the taxpayers of Mequon want to pay to defend a lawsuit that tells them to conform their conduct to applicable law.”

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

Dane County to appeal Wisconsin Elections Commission order not to count late ballots

2026-05-05T19:32:30+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, May 5, 5:40 p.m: This story has been updated with additional information.

Dane County on Tuesday voted to appeal in court a Wisconsin Elections Commission order directing the county to remove 23 late-arriving Madison votes from its election certification of the recent state Supreme Court race after the commission said initially counting those votes was an illegal abuse of discretion.

The Madison Board of Canvassers also voted Tuesday to remove 23 ballots from the count. But instead of identifying and discarding the specific late-arriving ballots, officials in most cases carried out what’s known as a “drawdown,” randomly selecting ballots to remove.

Records obtained by Votebeat show that while Madison Clerk Lydia McComas instructed poll workers on Election Day to mark late-arriving ballots with a uniform identifier, that directive was issued late, and was not consistently followed. As a result, officials were unable to identify all of the late-arriving ballots. In 20 of the 23 cases, the ballots removed were likely not the ones that were delivered after the deadline.

That’s in line with the state’s controversial drawdown law, which calls for election officials to remove random ballots when there are more ballots than properly documented voters, or when absentee ballots outnumber correctly completed “ballot certificates” — the information on the envelope affirming a voter’s and witness’s identity.

The conflict between the county and election commission centers on 23 Madison absentee ballots that city officials didn’t deliver to the polls until after 8 p.m. on Election Day, even though those ballots arrived at the city’s election office on the Monday before the election. Those ballots were initially counted by the city and county despite a state law requiring that absentee ballots be “delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m.” in order to be tallied.

Madison argued that counting those late-arriving ballots was in line with past court decisions holding that voters shouldn’t be disenfranchised solely for clerks’ mistakes. The Dane County Board of Canvassers sided with the city at the time, voting 2-1 to count the ballots the week after the election.

Then the state election commission last week said that the 8 p.m. deadline is not flexible — even if election officials’ errors are the only reason votes arrived that late. Commissioners ultimately voted 5-1 last Thursday to order Dane County and Madison not to count the 23 ballots, though one of the commissioners who voted in favor, Democratic Chair Ann Jacobs, said at the time that she hoped Madison or Dane would appeal the commission’s order in court.

“Like so many, I am unhappy that the law requires that the actions of the clerk penalize a lawful, proper voter, and I think our judiciary needs to address that conflict,” Jacobs told Votebeat after the Dane County vote on Tuesday. “I wish it was within the province of the commission to do so. I don’t think it is, so I am hopeful the judiciary will see and address this conflict.”

The county decided to appeal the order largely because the statute stipulating that ballots must be delivered by 8 p.m. “specifically addresses what should happen if the ballot is returned to the clerk on election day,” a legal memo from Dane County corporation counsel David Gault states. Because Madison received the ballots on the Monday before Election Day — not on Election Day itself — that statute doesn’t apply, he said.

In any case, Gault wrote, that law “should not be construed to disenfranchise an elector who has strictly complied with all statutory requirements to cast an absentee ballot. Such a construction would, in my opinion, be unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case.”

While voting to appeal, the Dane County Board of Canvassers also ordered Madison to redo its certification without counting those 23 votes — in line with the commission order. Madison redid its canvass late Tuesday morning without those 23 votes. Madison City Attorney Mike Haas said the city has 30 days to appeal the commission decision and hasn’t decided yet whether to do so.

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democrat, told Votebeat that he hopes the Board of Canvasser’s appeal can be filed and ruled on quickly enough to reinstate those votes. But because the exclusion of those votes didn’t affect the outcome of any race and a ruling before the May 15 state deadline to canvass is unlikely, he said his focus is more on how courts say these situations should play out going forward for voters.

“They should not be penalized by a clerk error and have their constitutional right to vote taken away,” he said.

Drawdown appears to stem from breakdown in communication

As it appeared increasingly likely that some ballots would arrive after 8 p.m., McComas sent a Microsoft Teams message around 7 p.m. on Election Day that “if folks get courier delivered ballots after 8pm, please mark on the ballot something uniform, like a circle, and then count them,” according to documents obtained by Votebeat.

But that instruction appears to have been followed for just three of the 23 ballots — one from Ward 77 and two from Ward 132. In the other instances, election officials “could not determine” which ballots were delivered late. As a result, officials turned to the remedy in the law and conducted a drawdown, randomly removing 20 ballots from the count.

It remains unclear why the marking instructions were not followed. In an email to the Wisconsin Election Commission on Monday, McCommas said it was possible the chief inspectors didn’t follow her instructions, but did not explain further.

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

The Supreme Court’s voting rights decision could reshape local government across Texas

2026-05-05T10:00:00+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.

Guillermo Ramos remembers seeing few elected leaders who looked like him while he was growing up in the 1980s in Farmers Branch, a fast-growing affluent suburb northwest of Dallas.

Over the years, Latino representation continued to lag, he said. In 2015, after he had become a lawyer, he decided to do something about it.

Ramos stepped forward as the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District, alleging that its at-large system of electing board members violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by denying Latino voters the right to elect representatives of their choice. At the time, Latino voters made up 56% of the district, but every Latino school board candidate had lost since at least 1995, the lawsuit said.

The case settled, and as part of the agreement, Ramos was appointed as the board’s first Latino trustee. The settlement also replaced the at-large system — in which every seat was filled by districtwide vote — with what’s known as cumulative voting. The new system lets voters cast as many votes as there are seats on the board, but allows them to stack their votes on a single candidate or spread them across multiple candidates.

Ramos, now 51, won the next election to keep his spot on the board, which he said created a ripple effect that drew in more Latino candidates.

“They felt at this point that if they throw their hat in the ring, that they’re going to have actually a shot at getting elected. And that’s what happened,” Ramos said.

Changes like those in the Carrollton-Farmers Branch School District played out over decades on local governing bodies all over Texas, enabling representation of Latino and Black voters. Those changes were a direct result of claims brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or electoral maps that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or language minority status.

But a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last week weakened that key provision, and Ramos and others say it could make it harder and more uncertain for other candidates of color to follow the path he took to local office.

The effects of the decision, which struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, are reverberating around the country and setting off a new cycle of redistricting for partisan advantage. Experts say there is still a lot of uncertainty about how the decision will play out, especially at the local level and when it comes to nonpartisan local governmental bodies such as Texas school boards and city councils.

“The judges in the opinion are discussing congressional elections, not school board elections, even though that’s where Section Two has been applied probably more frequently,” said Christian Grose, director of the Democracy and Fair Elections Lab at the University of Southern California.

But whether it’s after the 2030 Census or sooner, he added, “I do think there are going to be challenges, even in nonpartisan elections, saying that Section 2 doesn’t need to be enforced anymore.”

Prior to the decision, plaintiffs could prove a claim under Section 2 by showing evidence of a disparate impact on minority voters, regardless of whether the mapmakers intended it. Now, they must be able to show a “strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred,” the high court’s conservative majority declared.

With the court having previously authorized maps to be drawn for partisan aims, dissenting Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the new standard under Louisiana v. Callais gives plaintiffs virtually no recourse under Section 2, as long as a mapmaker declares a partisan motive and leaves “no smoking-gun evidence of a race-based motive.”

FARMERS BRANCH, TX - NOVEMBER 13: Elizabeth Villafranca (L) speaks to a crowd of protesters outside the city hall November 13, 2006 in Farmers Branch, Texas. Later in the evening, council members unanimously voted to pass the legislation that would make English the official language of the city and approving fines for landlords and businesses who do business with illegal immigrants. (Photo by Brian Harkin/Getty Images)

Going back in time

The decision could quickly become a factor in ongoing litigation.

Though most local elections in Texas are nonpartisan, county commissioners courts are an exception, and last week’s opinion will likely give a boost to counties that are already citing partisan motives in defending their maps. Last year, for example, the Republican-majority commissioners court in Tarrant County redrew its district lines, prompting a challenge from a group of voters who alleged the new map illegally diluted the power of Black and Latino voters by packing them into a single precinct. But Republican commissioners argued they’d drawn the lines for partisan gain, and earlier this year, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the maps.

But Bill Brewer, the Dallas lawyer whose firm handled Ramos’ case in Farmers Branch, said he believes the ruling could actually help advocates win some challenges involving nonpartisan races.

Brewer, whose firm has filed at least 18 lawsuits against school districts and city councils in Texas under the Voting Rights Act, is representing a parent who sued the Keller Independent School District under Section 2, claiming the school district’s at-large system dilutes the votes of Latinos. The lawsuit was dismissed earlier this year and Brewer filed an appeal hours after the ruling to renew his push for a switch to cumulative voting. Brewer said the Callais ruling’s emphasis on intentional discrimination strengthens his claim for access to emails, meeting recordings and other evidence that could show intent.

“If they’re refusing to change because they intend to dilute opportunities for Hispanics or Blacks or Asians at the voting box, well, then you still have a claim under Section 2,” he said.

Keller ISD did not respond to a request for comment.

Ramos’ suit against the school board wasn’t the only Section 2 case brought in Farmers Branch. Its city council, too, was forced to switch from at-large to single-member districts in 2012, and the first Latino council member was elected in 2013. Council Member Elizabeth Villafranca, who was first elected last year, eventually became one of many Latino candidates to win a seat. The impact of the Voting Rights Act in the city has been “immeasurable,” she said.

But after the decision from last week, “I’m just horrified at the thought of having to go back in time,” Villafranca said. Still, she believes the community has come too far to revert to its old system. “You can see the incredible pride that there is when our residents see someone that looks like them, that speaks like them, that can represent them, and ultimately, that benefits everyone.”

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.

How the Voting Rights Act reshaped Texas’ electoral maps

2026-05-04T19:28:03+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.

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 2002, U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Republican, nearly lost his South Texas seat to Democrat Henry Cuellar. So when the GOP used its newfound majority in the state Legislature to redraw the voting maps the next year, they sawed through Cuellar’s hometown of Laredo and scattered Latino voters, who tended to vote Democratic, into other districts.

Latino advocacy groups sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the cornerstone provision of the law that prevents government bodies from diluting the voting power of specific groups. The Supreme Court found Texas lawmakers had taken away Latino voting power “because they were about to exercise it.”

“Latino voters were poised to elect their candidate of choice,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “The State not only made fruitless the Latinos’ mobilization efforts but also acted against those Latinos who were becoming most politically active.”

Bonilla’s 23rd Congressional District was redrawn, and he lost to a Democrat. Just five years later, Latino voters flipped it back to Republican control; the seat was held most recently by GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales, who resigned last month.

Nina Perales, who argued that case at the Supreme Court, sees that district as an enduring testament to the power of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

“A lot of the districts that we see in the map today were created to make sure that minority communities were not accidentally chopped up, and that minority communities could have a voice in some parts of the state,” Perales said. “In CD-23, when a majority of Latino voters support Gonzales, they get to elect Gonzales, and it’s irrelevant what Gonzales’ political party is.”

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court gutted Section 2, raising the bar for voter dilution claims so high as to make the statute a “dead letter,” as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent. Partisan gerrymandering, like the type used to try to keep Bonilla in power, is a defense against allegations of vote dilution, the conservative majority ruled. Under the new standard, plaintiffs will have to prove mapmakers intentionally set out to discriminate against voters on the basis of their race.

Even as it diminishes in power, the legacy of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is deeply woven into Texas’ political maps, reflected in districts carefully drawn to ensure voters of color could have a say. The landmark 1965 law also gave rise to a new generation of leaders, elected from Black, Hispanic and Asian communities. From that point on, both parties would have to look out for voters of color when drawing their maps — and if they didn’t, voters would have legal recourse.

Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, said his career has been “defined” by the Voting Rights Act. As a young Black state representative, he was elected in 2012 to a congressional district drawn to right what a court found to be a legislative wrong: Texas had divided communities of color in North Texas across multiple majority-white seats designed to elect Republicans. Fourteen years later, Veasey is now departing Congress after GOP lawmakers redrew the district out from under him last summer.

With Section 2 of the VRA now significantly weakened, it will be harder to make the legal case that this redraw had an improper racial, rather than partisan, intent.

The recent hollowing out of the Voting Rights Act created a disconcerting full circle moment for Veasey, who recalled that his district was originally drawn for Willow Park GOP Rep. Roger Williams. Under the new lines, Veasey noted, Williams “will end up representing my neighborhood after all.”

How Section 2 remade Texas’ maps

In 1965, when Texas’ favorite son, President Lyndon B. Johnson, signed the Voting Rights Act into law, he said the vote “is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice.”

The law included two pillars with significant implications for Texas — Section 2, which prohibits voter discrimination based on race, and Section 5, which requires jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination to get preapproval from the Department of Justice for any voting changes, including new electoral maps.

Before the law went into effect, Texas had just two people of color in its congressional delegation — Reps. Henry Gonzalez of San Antonio and Kika De La Garza from the Rio Grande Valley, both of whom were Mexican-American. They each voted for the Voting Rights Act that would enable the ranks of Hispanic lawmakers to swell significantly.

In the 1970s, Barbara Jordan became the first Black member of Congress from Texas. As a state senator, Jordan helped draw the district she would soon be elected to, a seat that provides Black Houstonians the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice to this day. Three new representatives of color joined Texas’ congressional delegation in the 1980s. By the 1990s, there were 13 members of color who served at any point during the decade. With two more election cycles to go, the 2020s have already reached a peak of 22 members of color, some of whom have represented white-majority districts.

During her sophomore term, in 1975, Jordan got Texas added to the list of states that needed preclearance for its maps. In 1982, Congress reinforced the law with an amendment that said maps ran afoul of the law if they had the effect of diluting racial or ethnic groups’ vote, even if that wasn’t the intent. These new provisions, the second of which overruled a Supreme Court decision to the contrary, opened the floodgates to litigation against Texas’ maps, at every level of government.

In each decade since the law’s passage, at least one of Texas’ maps has been found to have violated the law, and courts have ordered at least one new district to be drawn. The maps drawn in 2021 and 2025 are still under active litigation.

In the 1980s, plaintiffs successfully sued over the congressional, state Senate and state House maps under the Voting Rights Act, compelling redraws of legislative seats that were found to have diluted Black and Hispanic voting strength through packing them into just a few districts in the state’s urban counties — and into a single district in South Texas. Through preclearance, the Department of Justice also ordered Texas to redraw districts that diluted Black and Hispanic voters’ strength. The effects of those redraws can still be seen in today’s maps.

“You had charges and claims against the South Texas district, because they were packed down against the border,” said Matt Angle, a Democratic strategist and founder of the Lone Star Project who has been involved in Texas redistricting cases for decades. “That’s why now, you see South Texas districts running north and south instead of along the bottom. It’s because [of] the court rulings under the Voting Rights Act, that you couldn’t pack those districts down against the border.”

More subtle, but just as important, was the way the Voting Rights Act pushed Texas lawmakers to proactively consider voters of color when drawing their electoral maps, Perales said. In the 1990s, for example, the majority-Hispanic 28th and 29th Congressional Districts “were born out of an understanding that the state needed to comply with Section 2,” she said.

Having grasped that it would be better to comply on the front end than be hauled into court later, the Legislature used to bring MALDEF and other groups in around the decennial census to train legislators on how to draw maps that met the law’s requirements.

“Part of that legal training was always on the obligation to avoid discriminating against minority voters under Section 2 the Voting Rights Act,” she said. “The guidance was, don’t inadvertently chop up minority communities when you’re drawing lines, because even if it’s inadvertent, it could be a legal problem.”

In 2013, the Supreme Court eliminated preclearance for most jurisdictions, including Texas. The state immediately reinstated a voter ID law that had been caught up under Section 5. The decision also freed Texas’ 2011 electoral maps from preclearance, though some parts of the map were later redrawn over Section 2 violations.

“A pre-1965 posture”

The centerpiece of the court’s redrawn map was the new 33rd Congressional District, crafted to allow voters of color to elect their preferred candidate in fast-growing Dallas and Tarrant county. The new lines were later upheld after a trial, in which the court concluded that lawmakers had “acted at least in part with a racially discriminatory motive … with regard to the districts in DFW in particular.”

Veasey was a state representative planning to run for reelection — and on his way to see a pre-Thanksgiving movie with his family — when he got a call that changed his career.

“I heard, hey, they’re gonna draw a new map, and there’s probably going to be an opportunity for you to run,” Veasey said. “You’ve got to make up your mind quick over whether you’re going to do it.”

He ran, and won, giving him a chance to represent a district that was as diverse as the state of Texas — one that would last about a decade and a half before falling victim to the GOP’s mid-decade redistricting.

Several other congressional districts that were shaped by the Voting Rights Act were subsequently dismantled by Republicans last summer. Among them are Hispanic-opportunity districts in South Texas, such as the 28th District represented by Cuellar, who rebounded from his loss to Bonilla to become one of Texas’ longest-tenured members of Congress.

The VRA also helped create Houston’s 9th Congressional District, where more than four in five residents are Black or Hispanic.

Last summer, lawmakers redrew it to a “bare majority” — 50.3% Hispanic — as they did several other districts.

Early last week, the Supreme Court allowed that map to go into effect while a trial proceeds. Just two days later, the court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that the results-based test that had been used for decades should be replaced with a new, higher bar that allows for an easier partisan defense.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said lower courts had applied Section 2 “in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.” Under the new framework Alito laid out in the decision, a Section 2 claim must prove that the state “intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”

Angle said Texas’ most recent rounds of redistricting demonstrate what a post-Section 2 future may look like.

“You’ve got a situation in which a state that’s over 60% people of color is only going to have somewhere between 20% and 30% of the districts where voters of color’s vote matters at all,” Angle said.

State Rep. Matt Shaheen, a Republican from Plano, said the U.S. had a long history of vote suppression that made the Voting Rights Act necessary.

“But we’ve moved on from that, clearly, and I think people recognize minority voters are entitled to equal representation but not certain election outcomes,” Shaheen said. “It really is more of a colorblind society, and elections are very much driven now by principles and policies, and not so much on skin color.”

Shaheen is among several GOP lawmakers who say they hope Texas takes up redistricting anew during the 2027 legislative session, this time with a focus on the state House and Senate lines.

Perales agrees that the Voting Rights Act is not about specific electoral outcomes. But she disagrees that the country is ready to move on from ensuring racial and ethnic voters have the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice, regardless of political party or the ethnicity of the candidate.

“As much as Justice Alito wanted to make it seem like a case about partisanship, it isn’t,” she said. “It’s about dismantling something much more historic and much more deeply needed in our country, which is equal opportunity for everybody.”

For Veasey, the ruling was not a surprise. But now that his district has been chopped up and the VRA’s core provision has been kneecapped, the retiring congressman sees a bleak future for the representation of Black and brown voters.

“It’s going to go back to a pre-1965 posture,” he said. “We just won’t have nearly as many voices pushing. It’s just be [like] when we had one or two voices that were pushing back before the VRA was passed — that’s what it’s going to be like now.

Here’s where redistricting stands after Florida’s new congressional map and the Supreme Court’s Callais decision

2026-05-04T13:52:00+00:00

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

If you love redistricting, boy, was it the week for you.

The Florida Legislature convened in a special session to pass a new congressional map that could net Republicans up to four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. And on Wednesday morning, literally as legislators were debating the map in Tallahassee, the U.S. Supreme Court defanged Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, a long-anticipated decision that could inspire several other states to join the redistricting fray.

Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, had cited the looming decision in Callais as a reason that Florida’s congressional map needed to be redrawn. But the maneuver is widely understood to be part of the nationwide epidemic of mid-decade redistricting that started last summer. To shore up Republicans’ chances of holding the House in the midterms, President Donald Trump urged Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina to draw new congressional maps that created more safe seats for Republicans. In retaliation, Democrats in California and Virginia successfully passed ballot measures that instituted Democratic gerrymanders of their own.

Once DeSantis officially signs the map, Florida will become the sixth state to voluntarily enact a new congressional map this cycle, and the eighth state overall. (Ohio and Utah also got new congressional maps this cycle for unrelated reasons.) Both of those numbers are modern records for election cycles not immediately following a census (when redistricting normally takes place).

The losers of this cartographical arms race have been the voters. There’s no set definition of what makes a political map gerrymandered, but one measure of a map’s partisan bias is a statistic called efficiency gap, or the difference between how many votes the map “wastes” for one party versus the other. (Any vote cast for the losing party in a district, or cast for the winning party after it already won a majority, is considered wasted.)

An ideal efficiency gap is 0, meaning the number of wasted votes is perfectly balanced between the parties. But based on the results of the 2024 presidential election, all but one of the new maps has an efficiency gap of 20 percentage points or greater in favor of the party that drew it. And all but two got less fair.

The maps also have a lot fewer swing seats — meaning fewer competitive elections and a House that is less responsive to changes in voters’ preferences. In 2024, these eight states had 28 districts that voted for either Trump or former Vice President Kamala Harris by 8 points or less. Under their new maps, though, they have just 13.

Ironically, the one thing mid-decade redistricting doesn’t seem to have done — at least, at this point — is give Republicans the upper hand they were looking for. When Trump kicked off the redistricting race, he likely didn’t anticipate that California and Virginia would be able to amend their state constitutions and implement such brutal Democratic gerrymanders, with the result that Democrats have actually been able to neutralize all of Republicans’ gains. According to redistricting expert Jonathan Cervas, who used past election results to estimate how the eight new maps would perform in a variety of political environments, the new maps actually produce an average net Democratic gain of 2.69 seats.

A map of the estimated partisan impact of 2025-26 redistricting.

At least so far. Thanks to Louisiana v. Callais, we’re not quite done with 2025-26 redistricting. On Thursday, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry announced that he was postponing the Pelican State’s May 16 primary for U.S. House contests — in which voting was already underway — in order to redraw Louisiana’s congressional districts to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision. That should result in a net gain of at least one, and possibly two, seats for Republicans.

Trump also said Thursday he had talked to Gov. Bill Lee about redrawing Tennessee’s congressional lines to target the state’s lone Democratic representative. While redistricting this late in an election year would present hurdles for any state, they might be surmountable in Tennessee, whose primary isn’t until Aug. 6. (It would still have to reopen its candidate filing period, which closed on March 10.)

In addition, Alabama asked the Supreme Court to strike down its congressional map in light of the Callais decision and has called a special session to reschedule its May 19 primary if that happens. Republicans in South Carolina, including Gov. Henry McMaster, and Mississippi have also urged their legislatures to draw new lines. Each of those states has one Democratic-held seat that Republicans would like to eliminate.

Meanwhile, Gov. Brian Kemp has announced that Georgia won’t redraw its lines before the 2026 election, although it may do so for 2028.

Adding to the chaos, state courts could still block some of the new maps that have already taken effect. The Virginia Supreme Court is hearing a procedural challenge to the referendum that passed its new map. Voting-rights groups have vowed to sue over Florida’s new map once it’s official. And a lawsuit is ongoing over whether Missouri’s new map can go into effect before a ballot initiative challenging it qualifies for the ballot.

Basically, we’ve entered a world where redistricting isn’t a once-in-a-decade occurrence — it’s all around us, all at once. If you don’t love redistricting, well, it might be time to get used to it.

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

Wisconsin Elections Commission overruled ballot-counting decisions in Madison and Mequon

2026-04-30T23:03:37+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 overruled controversial ballot-counting decisions in Mequon and Madison, ordering the cities to revise final tallies in their Wisconsin Supreme Court election results.

Madison counted 23 late-arriving ballots that the commission voted should not have been included, while Mequon threw out five ballots the commission said should have been counted. The commission voted 6-0 to investigate both city clerks’ offices and ordered changes to the counts — voting 5-1 to require Madison and Dane County to exclude the 23 ballots, and 6-0 to require Mequon and Ozaukee County to count the five.

The deadline for the state to certify the election is May 15, but some commissioners acknowledged the likelihood that lawsuits over today’s decisions could come before then.

In Madison, poll workers on Election Day counted 23 absentee ballots that arrived at four polling places after 8 p.m. Tuesday, despite a state law requiring that absentee ballots be “delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m.” in order to be tallied.

There was some debate ahead of the Madison vote because Commission Chair Ann Jacobs and Commissioner Mark Thomsen, both Democrats, said they felt uncomfortable disenfranchising the 23 voters. But Jacobs said she was following the law in ordering Madison to redo its count, adding that she hoped “those voters will perhaps appeal this decision.”

“We’re going to disenfranchise 23 people,” said Thomsen, the lone no vote. “I don’t think the law requires us to do that.”

Voting in favor, Don Millis, a Republican commissioner, said the commission is bound by state law not to count those ballots.

“There has to be some accountability,” he added, “for the failure to get these ballots to the polling places in a timely manner.”

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democrat, told Votebeat that he’s considering suing over the agency’s order. McDonell previously voted to count the late-arriving ballots during the county’s canvass.

“It’s disappointing that the Wisconsin Election Commission’s directive is to reject ballots that were properly cast by voters,” Madison Clerk Lydia McComas said in a statement.

This marks the second significant error from the Madison clerk’s office in recent elections. In 2024, officials didn’t count 193 ballots that arrived at the city well ahead of Election Day, leading to investigations and a lawsuit.

Mequon redo comes amid confusion over clerk’s standard

The decision to investigate Mequon came after City Clerk Caroline Fochs decided not to count five ballots under an unusually strict standard for the witness address field on absentee ballot envelopes. Commissioners and staff found that decision to be an abuse of discretion.

For years, Fochs has used a standard contrary to the commission’s guidance, which is to consider a witness address valid if it includes a street name, number, and municipality.

Instead, if a witness lists a municipality that shares a name with another elsewhere in the country and does not include a ZIP code or state — even though the absentee envelope doesn’t call for them — Fochs told Votebeat she does not count the ballot. If the municipality name is unique, she will count it without a ZIP code or state.

In this latest election, those municipalities were Baltimore, Fox Point, Verona and Houston.

“The idea that someone would Google to find out whether or not there’s multiple Veronas in the United States, but not Google the witness’s address to confirm where they were located just strikes me as an odd choice, and contrary to the applicable law,” Jacobs said.

A Votebeat review of Mequon ballots rejected since 2024 found that Fochs in some cases appeared to have misapplied her own standard — rejecting ballots from municipalities that didn’t share a name with any other city, like Chicago and Fox Point.

Referencing Votebeat’s reporting, Jacobs said those people’s votes “were not counted for any good reason.”

Fochs and her city attorney have defended the city’s standard as a proper use of discretion despite coming under fire for it. Fochs didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Speaking with Votebeat after the votes, Millis said that although mistakes happen from time to time, clerks need to understand that there can be consequences for errors “if you don’t follow the law and take reasonable efforts to make sure that all ballots are counted.”

Pointing out that he was a Republican commissioner, Millis said he also has a partisan interest in making sure votes in Mequon, a traditionally GOP city, are counted.

“We shouldn’t be doing things to make it difficult for anyone to vote, but here, from just even a partisan standpoint, on average, it’s hurting Republicans more than Democrats,”

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

The Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act. It may change how maps are drawn in Arizona.

2026-04-30T19:02:02+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.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to weaken a key section of the Voting Rights Act could change how election boundaries are drawn in Arizona — most immediately through a potential lawsuit to challenge its existing state legislative maps.

Several experts who spoke with Votebeat within hours of the high court’s decision said any such challenge would likely face an uphill legal battle. But the recent ruling, which affects Section 2 of the Civil Rights Era law, also stands to ripple into the battleground state’s next redistricting cycle. Its full implications for the state’s voting maps remain unclear.

Section 2 has long been used to require mapmakers to consider whether district lines give minority voters an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Under the court’s decision, the law still remains intact, but it now applies in significantly narrowed circumstances, making it much harder to challenge political maps for being racially discriminatory.

The decision is likely to result in quick, mid-decade redistricting action in certain GOP-led states where that process is controlled by politicians. In Arizona, where an independent commission conducts redistricting every decade, GOP leaders praised the decision, and one said he was likely to file a lawsuit to challenge the state’s legislative map.

But experts said the ruling is most likely to affect mapmaking at the end of the decade, when the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, or IRC, reconvenes to draft new congressional and legislative boundaries. In the meantime, it could also shape districts at the local level, which are controlled directly by city councils and county boards.

“They’ll have more free rein to draw lines, regardless of the impact on racial minority groups’ opportunity to elect representatives of their own choice,” said Bo Dul, a former state election official and lawyer who specializes in election and political litigation at Coppersmith Brockelman in Phoenix.

GOP legislators could challenge existing voting map

Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, a Republican, said in a social media post on Wednesday that he was “very likely” to challenge the state’s existing legislative boundaries in the wake of the high court’s decision.

In a separate statement, he told Votebeat that he was reviewing options to challenge “any unconstitutionally drawn districts.”

“For years, Democrats have pushed racial gerrymandering under the [guise] of Voting Rights Act compliance,” he said. “Arizonans deserve maps based on communities of interest, not race.”

If Petersen brought a successful lawsuit, it could force mid-decade changes to the state’s voting map. But legal experts said he’d need to produce strong evidence that the mapmakers relied on race while drafting existing boundaries.

Otherwise, the IRC could easily defend its maps by pointing to other legally recognized factors, such as partisan competitiveness, jurisdictional boundaries, or communities of interest — all criteria it must consider while developing the state’s voting maps. Those maps, while not completely without controversy, are widely considered to be among the fairest in the country.

“The legislative leaders who bring that suit would have to show that those districts were in fact drawn with a motivation that is unconstitutional,” said Tom Collins, a former assistant attorney general and executive director of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission. “The IRC would defend that by saying something like, ‘We have these other reasons for doing it.’”

Collins added that it would be “very difficult” for any lawsuit to change the state’s maps before the upcoming midterm election.

“It’s very hard to get these things resolved within an existing cycle,” he said.

Experts did say that local elected seats, which aren’t drawn by the IRC, could be redrawn before the end of the decade if there was political will to do so.

“They perhaps might be a little more vulnerable on a sooner timeline,” said DJ Quinlan, a political consultant with Radar Strategies. He led the Arizona Democratic Party’s redistricting efforts in 2011 and 2012.

Dul said county boards of supervisors could feel the biggest impact. Those bodies are partisan, which means they could lean on arguments for partisan competitiveness to draw lines during redistricting that split minority groups’ voting power. They also aren’t subject to the IRC’s criteria in the state constitution, which directs that its mapmaking should comply with the Voting Rights Act and take communities of interest into account when practicable.

“There’s a reasonable argument that basically all of the guardrails have come down in that context,” Dul said.

But she said racial discrimination claims might be easier to prove regarding city seats. In Arizona, almost all city councils are nonpartisan, making it harder for them to claim they were considering partisan competitiveness while drawing their maps.

“I think it’ll still be hard,” she said. “But at least map drawers in those contexts won’t be able to lean entirely on partisan motives to justify what they did.”

Quinlan said he suspects the biggest impacts of the ruling will come at the turn of the decade.

“At the end of the day, this is going to be a really big story for Arizona in 2031,” he said.

What does the court’s decision mean for future maps?

All of the experts who spoke to Votebeat said the high court’s decision is likely to affect how maps are drawn in Arizona, but were less aligned on how far-reaching the impact could be and exactly which districts could see changes.

“I think there’s a lot that remains to be seen about what that actually looks like, and it will definitely be dependent on what the composition of the commission looks like at that point,” Quinlan said. The IRC will next meet at the turn of the decade. Barring a court order, it cannot convene earlier.

Danny Ortega, a longtime attorney and community activist in Phoenix, said the future “does not look good for people of color being able to have maps drawn that would give them an opportunity to elect members of their community.”

He specifically referenced Arizona’s two minority-majority congressional districts — the 3rd Congressional District, which encompasses south and west Phoenix, and the 7th Congressional District, which spans from Tucson to Yuma. The former is currently represented by Democratic Rep. Yassamin Ansari, and the latter by Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva.

“Now, that district, when redistricting starts, can literally be done away with,” said Ortega, who is known for his work with farmworker, immigrant, and Spanish-speaking clients. “So, Arizona’s going to be affected.”

But Collins pointed out that having a minority-majority district isn’t necessarily unconstitutional under the court’s ruling. Rather, the question is whether the district was drawn in a way where race predominated over other considerations.

He questioned whether either of these two districts would look dramatically different if mapmakers were “trying to account for competitiveness and trying to account for the other factors that are there.” He said the same of the state’s 6th legislative district, where more than 60% of residents are Native American. The district covers nine distinct tribal communities, including Navajo Nation.

“I’m not a demographic expert, but I’d be surprised if you ended up with a situation where there was no Native American community representation in the legislature,” Collins said.

Some Republicans said the high court’s decision might offer upshots for Democrats in Arizona, too. Brian Murray, a political consultant with Cornerstone Public Affairs and former executive director of the Arizona GOP, said in a social media post that Section 2 had long “worked to GOP advantage” in the state’s congressional maps by packing heavily Democratic areas into the 3rd and 7th districts, rather than dividing portions of them into other surrounding districts that are more closely split along partisan lines.

Dul added that the ruling could have been worse in terms of how it might upend redistricting Arizona. She said it is effectively “the final nail in the coffin” of Section 2 and will have “devastating” effects nationally. But if the Supreme Court had outright held that the section was unconstitutional, she said it could have put the entire framework of the IRC at risk, because the state constitution directly says the body must comply with the Voting Rights Act.

“I think from the perspective of Arizona, it could have been worse,” she said.

Still, Dul said the ruling effectively means that the IRC will face tighter limits on when it can consider race while drawing lines. And Collins said there will be more pressure on the system to be partisan as redistricting becomes “more zero sum than it ever has been” nationwide.

In Arizona, that pressure quickly emerged on Wednesday as political leaders digested the court’s decision.

State Senate Democratic Leader Priya Sundareshan said in a statement that the ruling would have “real consequences” and limit the IRC’s ability to “draw maps that truly reflect our state’s diversity and risks diminishing minority and tribal representation at every level of government.”

“Fair maps are the foundation of a healthy democracy, and this decision moves us in the wrong direction,” she said. “Arizona Senate Democrats remain committed to fighting for fair maps, free elections, and a democracy that truly represents all people. The right to vote is fundamental and we will not stop working to protect it.”

Meanwhile, Arizona GOP Chair Sergio Arellano said in a social media post that the court’s decision sent a clear message to the IRC.

“Maps should not be drawn to engineer outcomes, but to reflect fair, constitutional principles where every voter counts the same,” he said, adding that the ruling was about “restoring trust.”

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

U.S. Supreme Court restricts Voting Right Act, but effect on Pennsylvania likely limited

2026-04-30T14:17:39+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.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a Louisiana voting rights case will make it harder to challenge political maps as being racially discriminatory, but the ruling will likely have limited effect on statewide district maps in Pennsylvania, where the state constitution provides stronger protections against gerrymandering.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines that raises the bar for proving illegal racial gerrymandering.

The case revolved around Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a Civil Rights era protection that prohibits racial discrimination in voting and has historically been used to challenge how voting districts are drawn and require that members of a racial minority have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. In the most recent round of redistricting, Louisiana’s legislature drew a map that would create a second congressional district that was majority-Black, instead of the single majority-Black district it had previously. The new map was challenged on the grounds that it explicitly used race as the basis in determining the districts.

“Allowing race to play any part in government decisionmaking represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. He argued that compliance with Section 2 “could not justify the state’s use of race-based redistricting here.”

Election law experts in Pennsylvania have said in the past that Section 2 hasn’t had much of an impact in the state.

Chris Fowler, a geography professor at Penn State University, said that’s because there hasn’t been a clear advantage for mapmakers of either party in drawing majority-minority districts.

Most of the people of color in Pennsylvania are concentrated in its major cities. Minority voters in Philadelphia, a heavily Black city, are generally already concentrated in districts where their numbers allow them to elect preferred candidates. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh has a smaller minority population, and Black communities in the city tend to be geographically intermixed with communities of other races. More racially mixed communities and less consistent racial bloc voting make claims under Section 2 harder to bring in Pennsylvania than in the South.

So while the Voting Rights Act remains relevant in the state and communities of color exist, Fowler said there are “very idiosyncratic reasons that it would be hard to win a case” on those grounds in Pennsylvania.

”It’s not necessary to draw a racially gerrymandered district to gain advantage,” he said. “I think both parties sort of know it and they come up with maps that are pretty bland when it comes to racial gerrymandering.”

Ben Geffen, a lawyer at the Philadelphia-based nonprofit Public Interest Law Center, agreed that Section 2’s relevance in Pennsylvania has been limited, aside from the general background rule it created — that you cannot discriminate racially when drawing districts — and the implications it has had for the growing Latino population in the northeast part of the state.

Section 2 has been invoked at the local level. Toward the end of President Joe Biden’s administration, his Department of Justice brought a case against Hazleton, alleging that its at-large method of electing city council members was diluting the power of Hispanic voters. Donald Trump’s Justice Department dropped that case. The Hazleton Area School District is currently facing a similar accusation that its at-large elections lock Hispanic voters out “from electing candidates of their choice.”

But Geffen has concerns about the Callais decision that extend beyond Pennsylvania. Namely, that more states may turn to drawing partisan gerrymanders, which the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts cannot review. He worries the overlap of racial and partisan voting trends could produce similar maps that are harder to challenge.

Pennsylvania, however, has dealt with partisan gerrymandered maps several times in recent years, and the state’s Supreme Court has struck them down. Geffen said that’s because rules about fairness are much stronger in state law than they are federally.

“Our [state] Supreme Court has said the [state] constitution prohibits partisan gerrymandering, so state lawmakers can’t brazenly draw maps for partisan gains,” he said. “I think that has put important boundaries on what map makers do here that helps avoid the excesses we see in other parts of the country.”

Marian Schneider, an adjunct professor of law at Villanova University, said that in her two decades practicing election law in the state she has only pursued one case related to Section 2. She agreed state law protections are stronger, and said there may be a path to bring the types of arguments in state court that a plaintiff might have previously made in federal court under Section 2.

But Schneider said that regardless of Section 2’s historically limited role in Pennsylvania, Wednesday’s ruling will have an effect on the state’s voters.

“Knowing that other states could engage in suppression of minority voters, we are all affected by that, because if they are not truly electing people that reflect the voters, what happens in Congress affects all of us,” she said.

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