Votebeat

Arizonans vote no on Prop. 144, rejecting significant changes to the state’s voting procedures

2026-11-06T02:26:06+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.

Arizonans have voted to reject a ballot measure that would have tightened voting rules in the state, per the Associated Press.

As of Thursday at 7 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, with 89% of the expected vote reporting, 53% of the electorate had voted against the measure, dubbed Prop. 144. Another 47% had voted for it.

The measure, which the GOP-dominated state legislature referred to the ballot in an eleventh-hour vote earlier this year, stood to significantly alter voting in the state. It was among the most controversial ones facing voters on Tuesday.

Had it passed, Prop. 144 would have amended the state constitution to require all voters, even those who vote by mail, to provide ID (although it left the details of how to implement that requirement up to the state legislature).

In addition, the measure would have required counties to give voters who drop off their mail ballots 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 would have meant new equipment and changes to voting procedures in most of the state’s voting jurisdictions.

The measure also would’ve prohibited noncitizens from contributing money to influence ballot measure contests, a tweak intended to close a loophole in existing state and federal campaign finance laws. Plus, it contained a broad provision suggesting state courts should use a lower standard of review to evaluate future election laws’ burden on voters, which would have made it harder to overturn restrictive voting laws.

The measure’s supporters argued that it would have improved election security and sped up vote counting in Arizona.

But its opponents — which included many of the state’s election officials — repeatedly said those promises were unrealistic, pointing out that many of the state’s recent elections have simply been too close to call on election night.

Instead, they claimed the measure was intended to hobble mail voting, which is wildly popular among Arizonans. Some also expressed concern that the measure’s broad language could have other consequences, such as giving the legislature wide leeway over election laws independent of the governor and judiciary.

In a statement declaring victory on Tuesday, before the race was called, opponents said voters had helped the state avert a “disastrous measure.”

“This is one of the greatest political longshot victories in Arizona history,” said Randy Keating, who chaired the committee opposing the measure. “It is a loud and unmistakable message that limiting how and where eligible voters can cast their ballot, in a blatant attempt to manipulate outcomes, will not be tolerated.”

Arizona Rep. Alex Kolodin, the GOP nominee for secretary of state and Prop. 144’s primary backer in the legislature, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the measure’s defeat. He also lost his race on Tuesday.

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

Mail voting dropped sharply in a Nebraska county after a group spread voter fraud claims there

2026-11-02T20:23:15+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.

This coverage is made possible through a partnership between Flatwater Free Press, Nebraska’s first independent nonprofit newsroom focused on investigative and feature reporting, and Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat’s free newsletters here.

A group that questioned the validity of Nebraska elections and promoted claims of voter fraud following President Donald Trump’s loss in 2020 may have helped stifle mail voting in one of the state’s most populous counties.

The Nebraska Voter Accuracy Project worked statewide, but it concentrated on Sarpy County. Volunteers from the group went door to door in the suburban Omaha county, quizzing residents about their voting histories and focusing on whether they voted by mail, which the group advocates against.

The efforts helped generate 52 complaints of voter fraud in the county. It sparked a county investigation costing about $88,000 that ultimately found no evidence of widespread fraud or criminal wrongdoing.

And that work also may have made Sarpy County residents less likely to vote by mail in the next two election cycles, voting data suggests.

For years, voters in Sarpy County had been more likely to cast their ballots by mail than voters statewide. But that pattern reversed after the 2020 election. While mail voting has remained popular across Nebraska, Sarpy County’s participation fell sharply, leaving it well below the statewide average. Early figures from this year’s midterm election, however, suggest mail voting may be making a comeback in the county.

The Nebraska Voter Accuracy Project’s leaders told the Flatwater Free Press they believe that the group’s efforts helped lead to the drop. There’s no direct evidence establishing that the group’s campaign caused Sarpy County voters to abandon mail voting.

But the timing of the decline, and the group’s concentrated efforts in the county, raise questions about whether its allegations influenced how residents chose to cast their ballots.

The executive director of Common Cause Nebraska, a transparency-in-government watchdog that advocates for voting rights, believes it’s plausible the group’s efforts could have depressed mail voting in Sarpy County.

“Nebraska elections, including vote by mail, have been shown to be safe and secure time and again,” said Common Cause’s Gavin Geis. “Anyone working to decrease the voice of Nebraska voters in any county should be ashamed of that work.”

The county’s investigation offered a glimpse of how election-fraud allegations were influencing some residents. Investigator William Black found that several complaints stemmed not from perceived wrongdoing in Sarpy County but from national television coverage and cable news commentators. More than one witness expressed the belief, “If it’s happening there, it’s happening here!”

Other factors may help explain Sarpy County’s decline in mail voting. During the pandemic in 2020, Sarpy mailed absentee-ballot applications to voters but did not continue the practice in 2022. Unlike Douglas County, Lancaster County and Hall County, Sarpy also does not maintain a continuing list of voters who receive absentee-ballot applications before each election as these other counties do.

The decline doesn’t surprise election expert Tammy Patrick, who said election officials across the country are seeing double-digit drops in requests for mail ballots this year.

“Where the noise is loud, incessant and pervasive, voters may change their voting behavior,” said Patrick, chief programs officer at the Elections Center run by the National Association of Election Officials. She said the Nebraska Voter Accuracy Project’s advocacy, rampant concerns about the U.S. Postal Service, and changing policy may all have influenced voters’ decisions. “The ongoing, unsupported narrative that voting by mail is not secure and fodder for rampant fraud has eroded some voters’ confidence.”

The shift in Sarpy County is stark.

In 2018, nearly a third of Sarpy voters cast votes by mail, far more than the quarter of Nebraska voters doing so statewide. Sarpy voters cast ballots by mail more consistently than the state overall from 2014 to 2020, data from the U.S. Election Commission’s Election Administration and Voting Survey shows.

But that pattern reversed sharply after 2020, during which time the Nebraska Voter Project concentrated its efforts in Sarpy County.

By 2022, just 24% of Sarpy County voters cast ballots by mail, compared with 35% statewide.

In 2024: 25% of Sarpy voters cast mail ballots, compared with nearly 32% statewide.

“That decline is consistent with voters and officials responding to documented gaps in identity verification, roll integrity, and ballot supervision,” Nebraska Voter Accuracy Project manager Connie Reinke said in an email.

A campaign to question Sarpy County’s elections

Nebraska has long been something of an outlier among Republican states when it comes to voting by mail. For decades, voters have been able to request a ballot without providing an excuse, and some rural counties conduct their elections entirely by mail. Even as Republicans elsewhere have moved to restrict the practice, mail voting has remained a popular option across the Cornhusker State.

But the Nebraska Voter Accuracy Project moved swiftly to question that system after the 2020 election, going door to door in Sarpy County, the state’s third-most populous county where more than one in 10 Nebraskans live.

By February 2022, the group was bringing its allegations to state lawmakers. At a legislative hearing, project leaders Reinke and Larry Ortega alleged discrepancies in voter records and raised concerns about people depositing multiple ballots in drop boxes. Election officials, including Republicans, disputed the group’s claims.

“What’s wrong with that?” asked state Sen. Megan Hunt, a left-leaning registered independent, pointing out that Nebraska law allows voters to return ballots on behalf of others, including elderly relatives.

Spurred by the group’s allegations, Sarpy County investigators conducted a monthslong investigation, reviewing 52 complaints and interviewing 54 people. They found no substantiated voter fraud or criminal wrongdoing, although they identified some administrative errors.

The investigation’s findings did not end the group’s campaign. At a February 2023 legislative hearing, Reinke warned that the stakes went far beyond partisan politics: “This isn’t about Democrat or Republican. This is about freedom versus enslavement to these machines.”

The campaign extended across Nebraska. By June 2024, a Flatwater Free Press investigation found that the group had delivered nearly three dozen presentations statewide and maintained two Telegram groups with approximately 800 members, promoting unsupported claims that election results were being manipulated. As recently as 2025, Reinke was telling lawmakers that “fake mail-in ballots” were being delivered to election offices, without presenting substantiated evidence.

But Sarpy County remained a particular target. Ortega lives in Bellevue, a suburban city in the eastern part of Sarpy County, and the sheer volume of complaints generated there suggests a concentrated effort that may help explain the county’s sharper decline in mail voting.

If Ortega’s group has been actively pushing concerns about Sarpy County’s election integrity this year, county Election Commissioner David Jones said he hasn’t heard it. Jones was appointed last year to the post by Republican Gov. Jim Pillen.

Asked whether the group’s efforts led to a drop in mail voting in his county, Jones said he wouldn’t offer an opinion, but stressed that the group’s complaints produced no evidence of voter fraud. Early voting overall, which includes early in-person voting, has remained steady, he said, and is on track to increase this year from the total of about 16,000 early ballots cast in 2022.

“It’s very robust,” Jones said of early voting this year with only days to go before the Nov. 3 election. “I’m predicting we’ll be at 19- to 20,000 early ballots.”

Sarpy County Election Commissioner David Jones, center, assists voters in line outside the Sarpy County Building on Friday, Oct. 30, 2026, in Papillion, Neb.

Republicans send mixed messages as mail voting shows signs of a rebound

Despite years of allegations about the security of mail voting, there are early signs that the practice may be regaining ground in Sarpy County.

In 2022, the county had received about 9,330 mail ballot requests for the general election, Jones said. This year, it received around 13,300 requests for mail ballots by the Oct. 23 deadline — a spike of roughly 43%. It remains to be seen how many voters will actually cast their ballots by mail.

The increase comes as local Republicans send conflicting messages about the practice. Sarpy-area Republican state Sen. Rick Holdcroft introduced legislation in 2023 and again last year that would have required voters to provide an excuse to vote absentee, outlawed voter registration online and by mail, and compelled ballots to be counted by hand. Holdcroft said the changes were intended to strengthen confidence in election security.

Meanwhile, the Sarpy County Republican Party has been encouraging mail voting on its website, urging Republicans to “bank your vote” by requesting absentee ballots.

“The method in how you choose to cast your ballot does not matter,” the GOP website says. “What matters is you cast your ballot and you vote RED!”

Email and phone messages left by the Flatwater Free Press for Sarpy County GOP Chairman Michael Tiedeman and Linda Vermooten, the local party’s vice chair, were not returned.

Sarpy County Attorney Lee Polikov, whose office conducted the 2023 fraud investigation, said his investigator took six months to look into each allegation thoroughly and found that “there wasn’t anybody messing with the electronics or anything like that.”

“I think that was important to give confidence to the public that machine counting is valid,” Polikov, a Republican, said. “You can corrupt a machine electronically, but I think you can corrupt hand counters better.”

Jones said he’s highly confident in the mail voting process, including signature verification on the envelopes of mailed ballots, envelope barcodes that ensure against counting duplicate ballots if duplicates were to be submitted, and the oversight of ballot handling by those from both major political parties.

“All that to say, are there forces working against us? Misinformation, disinformation? Sure,” Jones said. “But what we expect is excellence, which I’ve seen from my folks. When you have excellence as a standard and you have policies and procedures and you follow those, that catches errors. That catches mistakes.”

Margery Beck is a reporter for Flatwater Free Press in partnership with Votebeat. Contact Margery at mbeck@flatwaterfreepress.org

Arizona ballot measure would require voter ID for mail ballots, make other election changes

2026-11-02T20:16:26+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.

As they cast their midterm ballots in hotly contested races for governor, Congress, and more, Arizona voters are also weighing in on a measure that, depending on who you ask, would either speed up ballot counting or cripple mail voting in Arizona.

Prop. 144, which state lawmakers referred to the ballot in an eleventh-hour vote earlier this year, would significantly alter voting in the state. If passed, it would amend the state constitution to make various changes to voting procedures — most notably requiring all voters, even those who vote by mail, to provide ID.

The measure has quickly become one of the most controversial ones voters will decide on Election Day — and the latest proxy for a yearslong dispute between those who trust the integrity of the state’s elections and those who have cast doubt on it.

Its proponents say it would introduce new safeguards against voter fraud, close a loophole in the state’s campaign finance law by barring foreign nationals from contributing to ballot measure contests, and hasten election results by requiring counties to allow voters to get their ballots counted at polling sites.

One of those proponents is Republican Alex Kolodin, a state legislator who sponsored the measure and is currently running for secretary of state. In a Sept. 30 debate, he described the proposal — also known as the Fast, Accurate, Secure, Transparent Election Results Act — as ensuring that the state has “election results on election night.”

But the measure has drawn criticism from Democrats and some Republicans who say that’s an unrealistic promise, pointing out that many of the state’s recent elections have simply been too close to call on election night.

Instead, they claim the measure is meant to hurt mail voting, which is wildly popular among Arizonans. At an Oct. 1 debate, Tempe City Councilman Randy Keating, who is leading an effort against the measure, called it “a clever attempt to trick us into surrendering or voting away one of our most fundamental rights.”

What does Prop. 144 do?

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.

However, the vast majority of the state’s voters cast ballots by mail. Currently, state law does not require these voters to provide ID, although they still must do so when 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.

Under Prop. 144, mail voters would also be required to provide ID — specifically, “valid government-issued proof of identity.”

It’s unclear exactly how that might work. The measure doesn’t prescribe how mail voters might show that ID. It also doesn’t address whether tribal IDs or other nonstandard forms of identification would be considered valid proof of identity.

Proponents have suggested state lawmakers could iron out the details next year if voters approve the measure. Greg Blackie of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a conservative group backing the proposal, suggested that one solution could be to require voters to provide their driver’s license number on their ballot envelope. He added at last month’s debate that he believed state lawmakers would “give a menu of options to voters.”

Prop. 144 would also require counties to give voters who drop off their mail ballots 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. Supporters argue that could speed up the reporting of election results without inconveniencing voters.

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. The option proved popular in the state’s major metro areas during the primary.

But unlike Prop. 144, 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.

The proposition would also prohibit noncitizens from contributing money to influence ballot measure contests and prohibit any candidates from knowingly accepting such contributions. It’s already illegal for foreign nationals to contribute to candidates, but courts have said the federal law that bars that doesn’t apply to ballot measures.

Additionally, the measure contains a provision asserting that the state’s elections “shall be decided solely by the votes of eligible citizen voters” — even though state and federal law already specify that only U.S. citizens are eligible to register to vote. Blackie noted that while voting is restricted to citizens in state statute, it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the state constitution.

If voters approve the measure, it would take effect in 2028.

‘It’s a trap’: Why Prop. 144’s opponents are concerned

Some allege that Prop. 144 is intended to harm mail voting.

That includes Republican Gina Swoboda, who ran against Kolodin for the GOP nomination for secretary of state. She said in an interview with KTAR earlier this year that an attorney for Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs told Kolodin in a private meeting that the measure “looks like a bullet in the head to AEVL,” referencing the state’s list of voters who automatically receive mail ballots every election.

“He laughed in her face and said, ‘That’s because it is,’” Swoboda said. “He wants to kill it.”

Kolodin has repeatedly denied that the measure is intended as an attack on mail voting.

But that’s not the only concern around the proposal. Some worry that the measure’s broad language could have other consequences, giving the legislature wide leeway over election laws independent of the governor and judiciary. Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, who is running for reelection against Kolodin, described it to Votebeat as “a sneaky lawyer trick.”

Speaking at a Sept. 22 conference hosted by Arizona State University’s Mechanics of Democracy Laboratory, Tom Collins, a former assistant attorney general and executive director of the Arizona Citizens’ Clean Elections Commission, said that Prop. 144 could be interpreted as allowing the legislature to make election law without the governor’s approval. The ballot measure also suggests that state courts should use a lower standard of review to evaluate future election laws’ burden on voters, making it harder to overturn laws that could prevent people from voting.

Opponents are also concerned about the fact that Prop. 144 is an amendment to the state constitution. If voters pass it, changes could be extremely difficult to undo or walk back.

As such, signs against the measure loudly proclaim: “It’s a trap!”

“Prop. 144 forces us to approve a mandate, a constitutional amendment, and then it empowers politicians to make the rules later,” Keating said. He is behind the signs, which reference Admiral Gial Ackbar’s line in “Star Wars: Episode VI —Return of the Jedi.” “Ultimately, this is just another distraction, another culture war fight, designed to divide Arizonans.”

How do election administrators feel about the proposal?

Emails obtained by Votebeat show that the vast majority of the state’s recorders, who manage voter registration and mail voting, were strongly opposed to the measure as it began to move forward at the state capitol in the spring.

Initial drafts of the proposal would’ve posed massive financial and logistical challenges to 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 included a delayed effective date and a provision requiring the state to fund new equipment and other costs associated with its implementation.

But records indicate officials’ concerns went far beyond the measure’s timing and costs. For instance, Jen Marson, executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties, wrote in an April 1 email to election officials across the state that she was worried the measure’s broad language could open up the possibility of hand-counting ballots.

In a reply, Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap, a former GOP state lawmaker who maintains close ties with Prop. 144’s supporters, accused Marson of voicing “supposition and hypotheticals.”

But officials in other parts of the state quickly chimed in to defend her, saying they were also worried about that possible reading of the measure — even if it wasn’t lawmakers’ goal. Yavapai County Recorder Michelle Burchill, a Republican, said she had also assumed that the proposal was “vague enough to open up hand counting.” GOP Recorder Dana Lewis of Pinal County said she agreed with Burchill. And Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly, a Democrat, chastised Heap for his response.

“Are you an election administrator or are you a legislator?” she asked Heap in a message. “There are 60+ election administrators on this thread and not a single person has said they can make it work.”

Officials also cast doubt on whether the measure would actually speed up results. Some recorders were particularly dismayed when legislators amended the proposal to remove a provision that would’ve created a new deadline for voters to drop off their ballots at polling sites ahead of Election Day, replacing it with a requirement that counties offer voters the option to have their mail ballot counted at the polls.

“The tabulation ‘delay’ wouldn’t change or improve with the extremely expensive cost

that’s proposed,” wrote Mohave County Recorder Lydia Henry, a Republican.

Marson told Votebeat that county recorders remained opposed when legislators voted to refer Prop. 144 to the ballot.

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

Mail delays are leading to more early voting. That shift is especially clear in rural Wisconsin.

2026-10-30T22:05:00+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.

In recent elections, the Namakagon town clerk has received multiple calls from voters asking whether the ballots they returned by mail had arrived. Town Clerk Laura Bjork had to break the news to voters in the 300-person town that they hadn’t.

“I’m like, ‘I cannot tell you why, and I apologize. I’m not in control of that mail,’” she said. “It made me very upset because I do push for people to vote.”

As the mail has slowed down, Bjork said there has been a shift to early in-person voting.

“I like it when people do come and [vote in person] because you know for sure that you’re getting that ballot back,” she said.

In Namakagon, in southern Bayfield County, 27 voters had cast in-person absentee ballots as of Thursday, a 35% increase from the same point in 2022. Meanwhile, the number of absentee ballots returned through other methods, including by mail, fell from 31 to 23.

That shift mirrors a dramatic change unfolding across Wisconsin. Statewide, in-person absentee voting has surged 54% compared with the same point in 2022, with more than 344,000 ballots cast that way. Every Wisconsin county has seen an increase, and in 16 counties, the number has at least doubled. In-person voting now accounts for more than half of all returned absentee ballots statewide, up from about 38% at this point in 2022.

The changing voter behavior comes as ProPublica found that mail delays have soared in rural counties as a result of U.S. Postal Service cost-cutting measures, often adding a day or longer to delivery times. The Postal Service has reduced mail pickups from twice daily to once daily in many communities, particularly those far from major processing facilities. Data ProPublica shared with Votebeat shows that, as of the 2026 midterm elections, those mail changes had been implemented across nearly all of Wisconsin, except for the Milwaukee metro area and a small portion of northwestern Wisconsin near Minneapolis.

In Wisconsin, absentee ballots must reach election officials by 8 p.m. on Election Day to be counted, regardless of when they were mailed. That means even a short postal delay could prevent an otherwise valid ballot from being counted.

Namakagon is in one of the ZIP codes where ProPublica found mail slowdowns. So is Manitowish Waters, a lakeside town 70 miles to the east.

There, clerk Heather Suffron said early in-person voting is higher than usual. As of Thursday morning, 48 people in the 600-person town had voted in person, a 37% increase from 35 at this point in 2022.

Voters have given her multiple reasons for voting early in person, including worries that a mail ballot wouldn’t arrive at their house or back at the clerk’s office in time.

Suffron offers three hours of early voting per day, as she has since her tenure started a few years ago. But this year she added five additional hours on the last Friday of early voting.

“If I can make it easier for people who are trying to vote, then I’m happy to do that,” she said.

All 16 Wisconsin counties where early in-person voting has at least doubled from this point in 2022 are outside the state’s major urban centers. Those counties stretch across Wisconsin, from Florence County, along the border of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, to Iowa County in the thick of the state’s scenic driftless region and Trempealeau County, which touches the Mississippi River.

The largest increases in actual ballot numbers came from Wisconsin’s most populous counties. Milwaukee, Dane and Waukesha counties together accounted for nearly 40% of the statewide increase in early in-person voting. But early in-person voting has grown fastest in smaller, rural counties, where changes to Postal Service operations have raised concerns about mail reliability.

In Clark County, in central Wisconsin, in-person absentee voting has increased 180%, from 67 ballots at this point in 2022 to 188 as of Thursday. Clerk Christina Jensen told Votebeat she wasn’t exactly sure what was driving the increase, but said voting early in-person is often easier and more convenient for voters than casting ballots another way.

With mail delays now present across the state, Bjork, in Namakagon, said she now favors early voting.

“Mail service is just unreliable as of late, and if anyone would ask my opinion, I would say in-person is definitely more reliable,” Bjork said. “You’re handing it right to somebody.”

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

More early voters casting ballots in person after Trump attack on voting by mail

2026-10-29T20:46:34+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.

More Americans are heading to the polls and relying less on mail ballots this election as voter preferences shift, according to a Votebeat analysis.

Voter turnout for the ongoing election is about 42 million as of Thursday, slightly ahead of turnout for the 2022 midterm election at the same point. But there has been a notable shift in how people are casting ballots in the lead-up to Election Day: a growing number of voters are turning away from voting by mail and are instead heading to early voting polling sites.

Clear examples of the shift are North Carolina, Georgia, and Wisconsin, where, on average, early in-person voting is up 35% compared with 2022 and voting by mail and drop box is down about 35%.

The catalysts for the shift aren’t entirely clear. But election experts, polling and voters themselves suggest that a combination of factors — including President Donald Trump’s persistent attacks on voting by mail and an end to COVID-19 pandemic concerns — are driving the changes.

Paul Gronke, a political science professor and director of the Elections & Voting Information Center at Reed College in Oregon, said both COVID and Trump have played a role in transforming how Americans vote.

“Any kind of messaging from such an influential voice in our political system, and whose attacks are taken up by, and amplified by, others with very large megaphones have moved many Republicans away from voting by mail / absentee voting,” Gronke said in an email.

But voting patterns are also adjusting to life after COVID-19.

In 2020, at the height of the pandemic, around 43% of voters cast ballots by mail, according to the Election Assistance Commission. That figure fell to 30% in 2024.

“Because Republicans and Democrats reacted differently to COVID, they also reacted differently to COVID and voting,” Gronke said. “Many more Democrats opted for the vote-by-mail option in 2020, then habituated and continue to vote that way. Many more Republicans rejected that advice, and/or listened to Trump, so voted early then habituated.”

Democratic trust in mail voting ebbs

The shift in voting trends comes amid Trump’s critiques of voting by mail and his unsuccessful attempts to restrict the widespread practice for this election through executive orders. The most recent, blocked by the Supreme Court in September, would have given the U.S. Postal Service more power to regulate voting by mail. Trump has repeatedly attacked voting by mail as riddled by fraud, even though he himself has cast ballots that way.

“There’s a lot of cheating in vote by mail,” Trump said earlier this month.

It was unclear until the Supreme Court ruling in mid-September whether voters looking to vote by mail would face new restrictions in the ongoing midterm election.

While Trump’s ballot restriction effort was derailed by the high court, his attacks on mail voting appear to have had an impact. A recent Pew Research poll found a drop in voters planning to vote by mail, driven mostly by a decline in Democrats.

“When you put [your ballot] in the mail, you don’t know if it’s going to count — if it’s going to come or not,” Greenfield, Wisconsin, resident Nereida Loma told Votebeat this month, adding that she plans to vote in person from now on.

American confidence in the Postal Service is also waning. Budget cuts have led to a spike in mail ballots being rejected because they are caught by slow-moving delivery delays.

This year, 15% of Democratic voters told Pew they planned to vote by mail, down 6% from 2024. That comes in parallel with a distinct drop in Democratic confidence in voting by mail, which fell from 85% in 2024 to 64% in the latest poll. Overall, the poll found broad bipartisan confidence that election officials would handle the election well.

Marc Meredith, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania who recently examined mail-in and early voting data, said Trump’s comments appear to be driving part of the shift.

“I don’t doubt that some of what you’re seeing is a reflection” of that, Meredith said.

Take the key battleground state of North Carolina, where Democrats are optimistic about winning an open U.S. Senate seat currently held by retiring Republican Thom Tillis.

Total early voting in North Carolina is up 35% from 2022, according to the latest figures, driven largely by more early voting at polling places. Early in-person voting has long been popular in the state, but it is up by 41% so far, while voting by mail is down 33%, according to state data.

North Carolina voter requests for mail ballots have also fallen, dropping from around 207,000 in 2022 to about 140,000 this year —- a 32% decline. The biggest decline came among Democrats. As of mid-October, Democratic requests for mail ballots had fallen by 41% from the same period in 2022.

That trend is playing out in other key battleground states, including Georgia, where the number of people going to early voting polling places is up 10% from 2022 and those voting by mail is down 47%, according to state data.

Wisconsin has seen in-person voting rise 53% from 2022 and a 22% drop in people sending their mail ballots back, according to the most recent state figures.

The shifts are not uniform across the country. In Pennsylvania as of Oct. 28, Democratic mail ballot requests are down slightly less that 14% compared to the same point in 2022, while independent and Republican requests are on par or even slightly up.

While ballot requests from Pennsylvania Democrats are down from last midterm, they are down less than independents and Republicans compared to the 2024 election. Democratic voters are requesting just 36% fewer ballots, while independents and Republicans are both down more than 50%. And Democrats have also returned the greatest portion of their ballots among all three, indicating they may not be as skeptical of the Postal Service as some fear.

Neil Makhija, a Democratic county commissioner in Montgomery County, outside of Philadelphia, said there’s been large increases in the number of voters in his county using drop boxes to return ballots rather than the Postal Service.

There’s a good reason for that: The county changed its messaging. Makhija himself has been vocal on social media that the most secure way to return a ballot is via a drop box, and this year, the county included a list of all its drop box locations along with the ballots sent to voters.

“We wrote frankly at the top, ‘To avoid issues with USPS, use a drop box,’” he said. “Given all the questions and uncertainty we were hearing from voters, we wanted them to know there was a secure way to return their ballot.”

Meredith said he and his co-author, fellow University of Pennsylvania law professor Michael Morse, noticed surveys showing hesitation among voters, particularly Democrats, about using mail ballots this time around and wanted to see if that was translating into their behavior. That study found a decrease, and he said his findings, as well as subsequent data he has seen, support the idea that some voters are turning away from mail voting due to concerns over the Postal Service and the Trump administration.

He said that’s likely the top reason for the decline, but there are other factors that may be at play.

“One of the most robust findings, not just in the United States but globally, is this winner-loser effect in election confidence,” he said. Voters whose party lost the most recent election, which in this case would be Democrats, tend to have decreased trust in elections.

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.

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.

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.

In rural Nebraska, mail voting saves money and boosts access. Restrictions could change that.

2026-10-23T20:58:48+00:00

For most of the 21st century, some of Nebraska’s smallest counties have conducted elections entirely by mail following bipartisan action to expand voting access. The effort has saved taxpayer money and made it easier for residents in the state’s most isolated rural areas to vote.

But now, as President Donald Trump pushes to restrict mail voting nationwide, Nebraska’s Republican nominee for secretary of state is proposing changes to a system that has become essential to election administration in some of the state’s most Republican counties.

Scott Petersen, who defeated incumbent Secretary of State Bob Evnen in the Republican primary in May, has called for establishing in-person voting in those counties rather than automatically mailing ballots to all registered voters. He argues that extended mail voting encourages outside groups to collect ballots and influence elections. Petersen has argued that technology could make polling places accessible to rural voters without requiring counties to conduct elections only by mail.

Morrill County in the Nebraska Panhandle is one those counties, along with 10 others that have opted to conduct their elections entirely by mail. The county’s election commissioner, Candace Panas, said all-mail voting saves the county the costs of setting up polling places and hiring poll workers.

“I don’t have the money in my budget to turn around and get all my polls in order and all the equipment and things I would have to get to do that,” she said. “There’s just no way my budget would allow me to do that.”

Since 2005, Nebraska has allowed counties with fewer than 10,000 residents to hold elections entirely by mail. Eleven counties now do so: Boone, Cedar, Cherry, Clay, Dawes, Dixon, Garden, Knox, Merrick, Morrill and Stanton. All 11 supported Trump by wide margins in the 2024 election, ranging from 71% voting for Trump in Dawes County to 90% in Cherry County.

Those 11 counties also have consistently recorded higher voter turnout than Nebraska as a whole. In the 2022 midterm election, turnout in those counties averaged about 69%, compared with 55% statewide.

The difference is not simply a reflection of rural voting habits. A 2024 Flatwater Free Press analysis found that the number of ballots cast in the 11 counties increased by an average of 16% between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, as most transitioned to all-mail voting. Participation also increased in lower-turnout elections, including the 2022 midterms, even as statewide turnout declined.

The findings suggest that automatically sending ballots to registered voters may have helped boost participation in counties where residents often live far from polling places.

Panas said the move to all-mail voting has been positive, noting that many Morrill County voters are elderly or live far away from the county seat, making in-person voting hard. The county also had rural roads washed out by recent flooding and some still are not passable from massive wildfires last year, she said.

How Nebraska Republicans helped expand mail voting

Mail-in voting has been around as long as Nebraska has been a state, but for most of its history, the state required those voting in absentia to provide a reason they couldn’t get to the polls on Election Day. Absentee ballots were available mainly to deployed military members, the disabled, and the elderly. But in 1999, the Nebraska Legislature opened mail-in voting to all voters, becoming a no-excuse state that allows any registered voter to request an early-voting ballot without having to provide a reason.

In Nebraska, the effort was solidly bipartisan, introduced by a Democratic state lawmaker, publicly supported by the Republican Nebraska secretary of state and advanced unanimously from committee. It was signed soon after passing in the Legislature by then-Gov. Mike Johanns, a Republican.

At a 1999 legislative hearing, Republican Secretary of State Scott Moore said some voters were reluctant to request absentee ballots because they couldn’t honestly claim they would be unable to vote in person on Election Day.

“And I respect them for that, but if they don’t vote because of it, I want to take care of the problem,” Moore told lawmakers.

The intent was to get more voter participation in elections, and it clearly worked, said Dave Shively, who headed elections in Lancaster County from 1999 to 2023, when he retired as county election commissioner. Shively conducted one of the first elections in the state in mid-1999 that allowed no-excuse absentee voting.

In 2005, Republican state Sen. Deb Fischer sponsored legislation allowing Nebraska’s smallest counties to conduct elections by mail, in part to avoid the expense of equipping far-flung polling places with accessible voting machines required under federal law. Fischer, now a U.S. senator, later explained that maintaining the equipment across sparsely populated counties was prohibitively expensive.

The transition was gradual. Some counties first experimented with mailing ballots to voters in a handful of precincts before expanding the practice countywide. In Stanton County, inaccessible polling locations and a tornado that destroyed much of the town of Pilger helped accelerate the shift. In Knox County, officials expanded mail voting after seeing turnout rise in precincts that tried it in 2018.

“We probably have a larger number today of people that are what we call 100% voters — people that never miss an election — because, you know, they get that ballot in the mail and always send it in,” Shively said. “If they didn’t get that ballot, they might not vote in every election.”

A longtime voting practice faces new opposition

Voting by mail has been besieged by critics in recent years who cast it as a threat to election integrity. It became a national partisan flashpoint in 2020, following President Trump’s claim — without evidence — that voter fraud cost him re-election. Trump has since cast doubt on mail ballot security, although he has repeatedly cast his own votes by mail and has encouraged Republican voters to utilize mail ballots.

In March, Trump issued an executive order designed to restrict mail voting by requiring the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to those voters who appear on lists built from federal data that has been called into question as unreliable. Courts have blocked that effort for this year’s midterms.

Some Nebraska Republicans also have sought to restrict mail voting, despite officials’ assurance of vote-by-mail security. Since 2024, Republican lawmakers have introduced measures to limit early and mail voting, including those to again require voters to provide an acceptable reason to vote by mail and cut the time voters now have to vote by mail or early in person from 35 days to 22 days.

Those proposals failed to advance, but Nebraska has adopted other changes. After voters approved a photo ID requirement in 2022, lawmakers passed a law requiring people voting by mail to provide identification information when requesting or returning their ballots. The state has also imposed security requirements on ballot drop boxes and tightened rules governing their use.

Nebraska election officials say voting by mail is reliable and accurate thanks to its extensive security measures: a photo ID requirement to receive a mailed ballot, a signature requirement on the outside envelope of a returned ballot that is matched to the signature on voter registration records, and barcodes on the envelope that are scanned.

The barcode both allows voters to check that their ballot was accepted and ensures against anyone trying to return duplicate ballots. If the election office were to receive a duplicate ballot tied to a registered voter, it would accept only the first received and reject any others. Voters who find that their mailed ballot was not received may contact their county election office. But election officials in Nebraska are not required to inform a voter if their ballot is rejected.

Outside of counties that conduct all-mail elections, Nebraska does not automatically provide mailed ballots to all registered voters. All eligible residents must request a mail ballot be sent to them. Mailed ballots also may be returned in person to the voter’s county election office or to ballot drop boxes managed by election officials.

Evnen, who has served as Nebraska’s top election official since first being elected in 2018 before losing his primary to Petersen in May, defends the state’s mail voting system, even as he has said he would comply with Trump’s executive orders on voting.

“In the 2024 general election, 300,000 Nebraska registered voters chose to vote by mail,” Evnen said in a recent social media post. “We work hard in Nebraska to assure that our mail-in voting is honest.”

Petersen, meanwhile, has argued that rural voters could be accommodated without mailing ballots to everyone, though he has offered few specific details.

“It’s prohibitive to vote if you live too far from a polling place,” Petersen told Nebraska Public Media. “There’s an easy way with technology to address that without making the whole county mail in, right?”

Margery Beck is a reporter for Flatwater Free Press in partnership with Votebeat. Contact Margery at mbeck@flatwaterfreepress.org.

Westmoreland County sends roughly 150 duplicate mail ballots to Pa. voters

2026-10-23T14:07:43+00:00

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

A western Pennsylvania county accidentally sent voters 157 duplicate ballots for the 2026 midterm elections.

The Department of State said “human error” resulted in some Westmoreland County residents who requested mail ballots getting multiple of them. The department gave assurances that only one ballot per voter would be counted.

“The statewide voter registration system has safeguards in place that will not allow more than one vote to be counted for a single voter, even if a voter sent back both ballots,” Geoff Morrow, a spokesperson for the department, said in an email.

When a county receives a mail ballot from a voter, the barcode on the exterior return envelope is scanned into the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, or SURE, database, and that voter is logged as having voted. If a county were to receive a second ballot return envelope from the same voter, the system would recognize the barcode on the second envelope as a duplicate and prevent it from being entered — and thus from being counted.

The department said Westmoreland County is the only county reported to be affected by the error.

As of Thursday, more than 35,000 voters in Westmoreland, a suburban county east of Pittsburgh, had requested mail ballots.

One resident who received a duplicate ballot, who asked not to be named but sent Votebeat and Spotlight PA photos of both ballots, said when they contacted the county elections office, they were told to just “rip up” one and throw it out.

Doug Chew, vice chair of the Westmoreland County Board of Commissioners, said the root cause of the issue was still being determined, but it started when a county employee encountered an error message sometime last week when trying to download new mail ballot requests from SURE to send them to the county’s mail vendor. The employee then called the Department of State’s SURE helpline to troubleshoot the issue.

“What we believe is there was either a mishearing or a misunderstanding between our person and the person on the helpline that created this issue, so to speak, where duplicates actually came out,” Chew said. He emphasized that the problem was not with the SURE system itself.

Chew also said that the county will be making poll workers aware of the issue in the event that voters who received duplicate ballots show up in person on Election Day. He said that if someone does try to return both ballots, the matter would be referred to the district attorney. From now on, the county will also check each new daily list of mail ballots it sends out against the master list of ballots already sent to ensure there are no new duplicates, Chew said.

The Westmoreland County incident is not the first time duplicate mail ballots have been sent to voters. In 2025, voters across four counties received duplicate ballots; some instances were chalked up to human errors, while officials in at least one county laid blame on the SURE system itself.

This is also not Westmoreland County’s first issue with mail ballots this fall. Earlier this week, the county reported there had been a delay in sending out nearly 30,000 ballots due to an issue with the county’s mail ballot vendor.

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

In Wisconsin, voters cast early in-person ballots as distrust in the mail grows

2026-10-21T09:00:00+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.

Greenfield resident Nereida Loma planned to vote by mail in November, as she usually does. But the ballot she said she requested never arrived, and city officials had no record of her application.

Rather than risk missing her chance to vote, Loma went to City Hall in the Milwaukee suburb on Tuesday to cast an in-person absentee ballot.

“When you put it in the mail, you don’t know if it’s going to count — if it’s going to come or not,” said Loma, who said she plans to vote in-person from now on.

Loma is among the thousands of Wisconsin voters reconsidering how they cast their ballots amid widely reported issues with the U.S. Postal Service and a continued shift away from mail voting after a pandemic-era peak.

Ahead of the November election, Wisconsin voters have requested about 20% fewer mail ballots than at this point in 2022, and those who have received them are returning them at a slower rate. Election clerks and experts say the trend could reflect concerns about mail delivery, or voters choosing to participate in person despite requesting a ballot.

Several of those voters were at the polls on Tuesday, Wisconsin’s first day of early voting. In Greenfield, Philip Zimmer said that he’s typically an early-in person absentee voter because it’s the easiest option for him. He doesn’t consider mail voting a viable option because of the growing politicization of what was once a standard way to cast a ballot.

“With all this Trump stuff and everything,” he said, “I don’t even bother.”

In New Berlin, a voter who identified herself only as Barb said she typically votes early and not by mail because you “never know if it’s gonna get here.”

In Milwaukee, voter Shan Nelson-Rowe said he has always preferred in-person absentee voting. It’s simpler than mail voting and quicker than voting on Election Day, he said. Plus, he doesn’t trust the Postal Service. He’s noticed others growing wary of it too: His neighbor, who usually mails back his ballot, plans to use a drop box this year because he no longer trusts the mail to deliver it, Nelson-Rowe said.

USPS did not return a request for comment sent Tuesday.

Clerks respond to trend away from mail voting

Clerks are seeing fewer ballot requests and adjusting their advice to voters as concerns about postal delays grow.

Inside the New Berlin City Hall, Clerk Rubina Medina told Votebeat her office is receiving just 25 to 30 mail ballot requests a day, down from 75 to 100 in past elections.

Meanwhile, in-person absentee voting appears to be holding steady. Voters lined up at City Hall on Tuesday morning, and Medina said turnout on the first day of early voting was about as busy as usual.

“The voters are saying they don’t trust the mail,” she said. “We hear that often.”

She said the distrust in the Postal Service is often unwarranted and driven by the media, but that she also does recognize that mail is slower than it used to be.

“We used to advertise a mail-it-back Monday, the week prior to election day,” she said. “We now advertise that two weeks prior.”

Election officials across the state have been offering similar advice for months, but the numbers show voters are turning their ballots in more slowly than they have in the past.

As of Tuesday, two weeks before the election, voters have returned 51.5% of the ballots they’ve been sent, down from 55.5% at the same time in 2022. The slowdown is widespread: In 63 of the state’s 72 counties, voters have returned a smaller share of their ballots than they had at this point four years ago.

Across the state, absentee voting is also down so far compared with the November midterm election in 2022. By this time in 2022, voters had returned nearly 259,000 ballots, 26% higher than the current returns of 191,000. The number of sent-out ballots has dropped about 20%, from 466,000 to 372,000.

Clerks and experts respond to what the numbers show

Much of the drop-off in traditional absentee voting can be credited to the passage of time since the pandemic. More voters are simply comfortable voting in person, UW-Madison political science professor Barry Burden said. But, he said, trust in the U.S. Postal Service has dropped dramatically too. An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll found that only 58% of Americans are confident about timely election mail delivery, compared with 71% two years ago.

“Voters are looking for ways to get around the Postal Service,” Burden said. “That can mean waiting until in-person voting opens up in one form or another, or getting a ballot by mail but finding another way to get it back to their clerk’s office.”

To a lesser extent, absentee voting has also gone down because more voters have exited Wisconsin’s list of voters who automatically received absentee ballots on a permanent basis, and because a series of high-profile errors around the state involving absentee ballots may have deterred some voters from voting absentee, Burden said.

Marathon County Clerk Kim Trueblood, a Republican, agreed voters are now motivated to bypass the mail. She expects many voters who have requested a mailed ballot will ultimately leave it blank and instead vote in-person on Election Day.

Sheboygan County Clerk Jon Dolson, also a Republican, agreed. And Milwaukee election chief Paulina Gutiérrez said more and more voters over the last few elections have been dropping off their ballots on Election Day citing similar concerns. She said Milwaukee anticipates that voters “are more comfortable” dropping their ballots off themselves.

Green County Clerk Arianna Voegeli, a Democrat, said she believes part of the drop-off in the share of returned ballots may be due to mail delays.

Some clerks are experiencing that slowdown firsthand: Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democrat, said his son studying in Ireland requested a mail ballot in September. It was sent in late September, he said, and his son still hasn’t received it.

Wisconsin Elections Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe said she doesn’t know exactly what’s behind the lower ballot-return rate, but said she has heard a lot of concern from voters about mail delays.

“We’re just trying to get the message out that if people still have a by-mail absentee ballot and they want to return it by mail, they need to do so as soon as possible, she said. ”We really do recommend that if you’re returning your ballot by mail, that you do so at least two weeks in advance of the election.”

That was Oct. 20.

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

Has Trump had a chilling effect on mail voting? In Pennsylvania, the early data is inconclusive.

2026-10-20T10:00:01+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.

After President Donald Trump unsuccessfully tried to use the U.S. Postal Service to regulate mail voting this spring, polls showed that voters — particularly Democrats — had less confidence in election mail and might move away from mail voting.

With less than three weeks until Election Day, the data on whether that’s actually happening in Pennsylvania is mixed.

There are signs that at least some Democrats have been discouraged from casting ballots by mail. But how much of the decline in mail voting can be attributed to Trump’s actions, and what effect it may ultimately have on the election, is unclear.

“I think there’s some anxiety among some voters about what the Trump administration is saying it’s going to do,” J.J. Abbott, a longtime Pennsylvania Democratic strategist, said about what he has been hearing this cycle.

Trump’s March executive order sought to give the U.S. Postal Service unprecedented authority over mail ballots.

It would have required states to submit lists of mail voters to the Postal Service and potentially make changes to ballot envelopes. The Postal Service would then have only delivered ballots to voters on those lists, and only if the envelopes states used met the order’s requirements.

Opponents sued, arguing the order was unconstitutional because it intruded on states’ powers to run elections. The case moved through the legal system over the summer and early fall, with courts at times pausing the order from going into effect and higher courts reversing those pauses. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled in mid-September that the order could not go into effect for the 2026 election.

The whiplash raised concerns that the uncertainty could discourage some voters, particularly Democrats, from casting ballots by mail.

Polling from Harvard University recently found that people following news about mail voting said they were more likely to change how they planned to vote, and a Marist poll shortly after the Supreme Court ruling found that Democrats’ confidence in the Postal Service to deliver election mail on time had declined by 26 percentage points since 2024. Republicans’ confidence, meanwhile, remained steady.

Democratic organizers in Pennsylvania say that reflects what they’ve been hearing from some voters as well.

Justin Lotito, the strategic organizing director for the Pennsylvania House Democratic Campaign Committee, said his team has heard from some voters hesitant about using mail ballots.

“We did absolutely hear some concerns on the phones about voters and the executive orders from Trump about USPS,” he said, estimating 1 in every 50 voters reached through phonebanking operations brought this up.

As of Monday, 1.2 million Pennsylvania voters have been approved for mail ballots — fewer than at this point in the 2022 or 2024 elections

That doesn’t capture the full picture, however.

As of Oct. 19, mail ballot requests from Democrats are down 14% from the equivalent point in the 2022 election. By contrast, mail ballot requests are up by 11% for Republicans and 1% for independent and third-party voters. This partisan split could suggest that the overall drop is due, at least in part, to concerns about the Postal Service.

However, when the data from 2026 is compared to 2024, Democrats have been the least likely of those three groups to abandon mail voting. Compared to this point in the overall higher-turnout 2024 election, Democratic mail ballot requests are down just 34%, versus around 50% for both Republicans and independent and third-party voters. That suggests factors other than Trump may be at play.

For instance, the 2022 election took place amid a lingering pandemic and 2024 was a higher-turnout presidential election.

Charles Stewart, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has been tracking mail ballot trends around the country, said it is ultimately unknowable whether Trump’s executive order is responsible for the change in voting method.

“I don’t think [the data] can tell us anything about that in a causal sense,” Stewart said. “Even if the executive order does have a causal effect, it also has to be that there are other effects that are affecting these numbers too.” He cited the general decline in mail voting since the COVID-19 pandemic as an example.

Stewart added that the most important number is not how many mail ballots are requested, but how many are returned. So far in Pennsylvania, Democrats have returned 47% of the mail ballots that they have requested — higher than either Republicans (43%) or independent and third-party voters (36%).

However, the Democratic ballot return rate is lower than it was at this point in either 2024 (55%) or 2022 (51%).

Abbott, the Democratic strategist, said he’s not overly concerned that the decline in Democratic mail ballot requests means Democrats aren’t voting in this election.

“We’ve seen sort of a natural attrition of Democrats who aren’t turning away from voting, but are going back to voting in person from voting by mail,” he said. “So I think a lot of that difference from 2022 to 2026 is really people changing their method.”

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

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.

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.

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.

‘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.

After ACLU letter, clerk apologizes for mailing out absentee ballots late

2026-10-09T09:00:00+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.

Update, Oct. 9, 11:02 a.m.: This story has been updated to show Deputy Clerk Dawn Webb posted a letter acknowledging and apologizing for her error to the township’s website.

Correction, Oct. 9: This story has been corrected with the fact that Oct. 5 is seven days after Michigan’s deadline to mail absentee ballots, not six days.

After the ACLU of Michigan sent a letter threatening potential legal action against a small northern Michigan community, its deputy clerk has apologized for her misleading defense of sending out the township’s absentee ballots late.

The letter, viewed by Votebeat and confirmed by the ACLU, accused Tuscarora Township Deputy Clerk Dawn Webb of writing in a community Facebook group that there isn’t a legal deadline for mailing absentee ballots, only for making them available to voters to pick up.

The ACLU contends that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of Michigan election law. State statutes require that absentee ballots be mailed to voters 40 days before the election, which this year was Sept. 24. It’s not uncommon for officials to miss that deadline for reasons out of their control; Votebeat reported last week that printing backlogs and tight election timetables caused absentee ballot delays in a number of Michigan communities.

But Tuscarora Township may have waited too long. According to Webb, Tuscarora Township received its ballots on Sept. 29, but took until Oct. 5 to mail them all to voters — seven working days after the 40-day deadline.

The law requires that clerks must send absentee ballots to voters “immediately” after getting their applications. If the application is in place before the ballots are received by local officials, they must be sent “as soon as the absent voter ballots are received by the clerk.”

“There is no legally cognizable excuse for failing to mail out the ballots until October 5, a full week later,” Phil Mayor, the ACLU of Michigan’s deputy legal director, wrote in the group’s letter.

More than 800 of Tuscarora Township’s roughly 3,000 people are on the permanent absentee voting list, according to state records. The delay in getting ballots to them “unconstitutionally deprived them of several days” of voting time, Mayor’s letter continued.

The ACLU requested that Webb both publicly retract her comments and the township issue a press release “in a prominent and obvious place on its website,” stating that the township will comply with election law by Friday.

If that did not happen, Mayor wrote that the ACLU “will consider all appropriate legal action to ensure that Tuscarora voters are not disenfranchised in future elections.”

As of Friday morning, a lengthy letter from Webb now appears on the township’s website acknowledging her misunderstanding of Michigan election law and apologizing for the delays in the ballot mailings. She said that she wrongly waited to mail out the ballots until she could conduct preliminary testing recommended by the Michigan Bureau of Elections.

“I acknowledge that providing ballots for pickup alone does not satisfy these obligations and I will correct any confusion that I may have caused the community,” she wrote.

A spokesperson for the Michigan Department of State confirmed Wednesday that the Bureau of Elections was looking into the accusations but was unable to provide additional details. The bureau was still attempting to get in touch with Tuscarora Township as of Thursday evening, a spokesperson said. The state previously confirmed to Votebeat that communities aren’t typically penalized for delayed ballots as long as officials are working to get them to voters.

Ann Mullen, the ACLU of Michigan’s communications director, said Thursday that her team is unaware of any clerks who still haven’t sent out their ballots, but noted “this is an issue our team continues to monitor.”

“Our expectation is that clerks follow election laws and send out absentee ballots at the beginning of the 40-day period prior to an election, at least so long as they have printed ballots by that date,” Mullen wrote in an email. “If we hear reports where that has not happened, our legal team addresses them immediately with clerks to ensure ballots are sent quickly and that the clerks understand the law and must follow it.”

The ACLU of Michigan has shown a willingness in the past to take action against election officials who suggested they might operate outside state laws. In 2024, for example, the group preemptively sued a Kalamazoo County canvasser after he said he might not certify the election.

The organization dropped the suit after the canvassers signed a sworn affidavit pledging to fulfill his legal obligation to certify the election.

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

Thousands of Wayne County voters to get new ballots after printing error

2026-10-02T16:45:16+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.

At least 8,500 voters in Wayne County are getting new mail ballots after officials misprinted their originals.

Belleville, Sumpter Township, and Van Buren Township all sent their ballots out last week, but a county error meant that a candidate running for a partial term on the Belleville Area District Library Board was included in the section for full-term candidates instead.

Wayne County officials noticed the problem earlier this week and notified the affected communities on Sept. 28. New ballots are in the works, but Van Buren Township Deputy Clerk Brittany Beaudry said she didn’t expect to have them before Monday.

Once they arrive, she plans to bring in people who normally work as poll workers to mark the envelopes so voters can distinguish the replacement ballot from the original and return the correct one.

“Everything had gone really smoothly,” Beaudry said Thursday. “I was commenting on it, like, ‘This is great! It went out a day early!’ The process went really well until it didn’t.”

It’s not yet clear who might pay for the additional work needed to get corrected ballots out, Beaudry said. Wayne County has agreed to pay for envelopes and ballots and offered its staff to help, though, she said.

Typically, counties design ballots and send them to cities and townships to review for spelling and accuracy. The system helps catch problems before counties send the ballots to the printers.

In this case, though, Belleville Interim Clerk Michelle Bellingham said that the documents officials received to check the ballot against also had the error.

“We had no way to know,” Bellingham said.

Beaudry estimated that Van Buren Township will have to resend roughly 7,700 ballots. In Belleville, Bellingham estimated it would be just over 800. Sumpter Township officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but state records from the August primary show that 1,824 people requested absentee ballots there.

Those who return the ballot with the error will not be penalized in any way, officials confirmed. Ballots with the faulty race will be duplicated upon receipt — that is, officials will copy the voter’s selections by hand onto a new ballot to ensure it can be tabulated correctly. A voter’s individual selections are not tied to their name or ID, meaning their privacy is maintained even if their ballot needs to be duplicated.

Beaudry said that, depending on the number of faulty ballots received, she may have officials call voters before envelopes are opened and ask if they would like to fill out a new one instead.

“We don’t want to be duplicating ballots for days after the election,” she said.

Dorian Tyus, a spokesperson for the Wayne County clerk’s office, confirmed Thursday that no other offices or proposals were affected.

“In the coming days, affected voters will receive a letter and a new absentee ballot from their local municipal clerk with detailed instructions on how to vote their replacement ballot,” he wrote in an email.

Voters will not be allowed to vote using both ballots. Those who received a ballot with the error are advised to shred it and wait for the new one to arrive.

Ballot errors are rare, but they do happen. Last year, Dearborn had to reprint about 10,000 ballots after the original absentee ballot listed a candidate who had dropped out of a race months prior.

The error, as in the Dearborn case, is usually caught in time to get new ballots printed.

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

Everything you need to know about how to vote in Pennsylvania in 2026

2026-09-25T10:00:01+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.

Election Day isn’t until Nov. 3, but the 2026 election is officially underway in Pennsylvania: The first ballots are starting to hit voters’ mailboxes.

Voters around the state will weigh in on everything from control of the U.S. Congress to the commonwealth’s next governor.

Here is everything you need to know about voting in Pennsylvania in the 2026 midterm election.

How do I register to vote?

To be able to vote, you first must be registered. The last day to register to vote in the 2026 election in Pennsylvania is Oct. 19.

Current or prospective voters can check their registration status online here.

To register to vote, you must be a U.S. citizen for at least 30 days prior to the election, be at least 18 years old by Election Day, and have lived in Pennsylvania for 30 days prior to the election.

Voters can register online through the Department of State’s website, by mail using this form, or in person at their county election office.

What offices are on my ballot?

Voters across the state will have congressional races, state House races, and the gubernatorial race on their ballot, and some will also have state Senate races and possibly other contests or ballot questions.

Nonpartisan groups such as the Committee of Seventy, Vote411, and Ballotpedia provide free sample ballots online based on voters’ addresses.

County election offices also provide sample ballots. You can look up your county website here.

How do I request a mail ballot?

Voting at a polling place on Election Day is not your only option. Mail voting is available to all registered voters in Pennsylvania and voters are not required to provide a reason for requesting a mail ballot.

The deadline to apply for a mail ballot is 5 p.m. on Oct. 27.

Voters can apply online here, by mailing this form to their county elections office, or by visiting their county elections office in person.

When filling out your mail ballot application, you’ll have the option to provide your email address. If you do, you will receive updates from your county on when they received your ballot and if there are any issues that could prevent it from being counted.

You can also track your mail ballot here.

I missed the deadline to apply for a mail ballot. What are my options if I can’t vote in person on Election Day?

If a voter has not applied for a mail ballot by Oct. 27 and some unexpected circumstance prevents them from voting in person on Nov. 3, they can apply for an emergency absentee ballot at any point before 8 p.m. on Election Day. Applications can be found here.

How do I return my mail ballot?

Mail voters can return their ballots through the U.S. Postal Service; just make sure you do it several days before Election Day to make sure it has plenty of time to arrive. Ballots can also be returned directly to your county election office or, if offered by the county, through a designated ballot dropbox or satellite voting location.

A list of drop boxes and satellite voting locations can be found here.

Once you have made your selections on the ballot — remember to check both sides — the ballot must first be placed in the secrecy envelope and sealed. Once it is placed in the secrecy envelope, place it in the outer return envelope and seal that as well. Finally, sign and date the declaration on the outer envelope, using the current date. Do not write on any other portion of the return or secrecy envelope.

Can I vote early in person in Pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania does not technically have early in-person voting like many other states. But registered voters can simulate the experience by visiting their county elections office anytime before Oct. 27 and applying for a mail ballot, filling it out, and handing it back to an election official all in one fell swoop.

Some counties also offer this option at satellite voting offices. Visit the Department of State website here to find out if this is available to you.

When and where can I vote on Election Day?

You can find your polling location here.

Polls will be open on Nov. 3 from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. As long as you are in line by 8 p.m., you will be allowed to vote.

What should I bring to vote?

If it is your first time voting at a new polling place, or your first time voting in Pennsylvania, you will be required to show ID. Acceptable forms of ID include a driver’s license, passport, utility bill with name and address, or paycheck with name and address, among other things. A full list can be found here. If you’ve voted at your polling place before, you shouldn’t need to bring anything.

I applied for a mail ballot. Can I still vote in person?

If you applied for a mail ballot and instead decided you would like to vote in person, you still can. Bring the entire mail ballot package, including the ballot and both envelopes, to your polling place and surrender them to the poll workers.

If you never received, forgot, or lost your mail ballot, you will have to vote a provisional ballot.

What is a provisional ballot?

Provisional ballots are used when there is some question about a voter’s eligibility, ranging from whether they are in fact registered to vote to whether they already returned a mail ballot. Provisional ballots allow these voters to cast a ballot on a conditional basis — if their eligibility is later confirmed, it will be included in the final count; if not, it will be excluded.

Voting a provisional ballot is very similar to voting a mail ballot. After the ballot itself is completed, it is placed in a secrecy envelope, then an outer envelope.

Unlike a mail ballot, there are two places provisional voters must sign. First, they must fill out their information in the Voter Information section of the outer envelope and sign the affidavit. After compiling the ballot and sealing it in the envelopes, the voter must also sign the Voter Signature section in front of the poll workers. Be sure the poll worker also fills out the portions they are responsible for, and keep the provisional ballot identification receipt given to you by the poll worker in a safe place.

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

Voters who encounter any issues or have questions should contact their county election officials. Their contact information can be found here.

The Pennsylvania Department of State also runs a hotline for election issues, which can be reached at 1-877-868-3772.

If you experience something newsworthy while voting, we’d also like to hear about it. You can email us at pa.tips@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.

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.

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.

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.

Over 1,300 ballots never made it to voters in Navajo County. That isn’t unusual.

2026-08-19T18:13:36+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.

At least 50,000 mail ballots never made it to voters during Arizona’s July 21 primary election.

That number, based on information gathered by Votebeat from 11 of the state’s 15 counties, isn’t out of the ordinary. In fact, it appears roughly in line with that of prior major elections. About 71,000 mail ballots went undelivered statewide during the 2024 general election, according to data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission that represented all of the state’s counties.

Every year, some ballots that are mailed out to voters are returned to election officials because the voter’s address is incorrect or the voter has a forwarding address on file. (In Arizona, ballots legally can’t be forwarded.)

Their return does not necessarily mean those voters were disenfranchised, as they could have voted in person instead. But slowdowns in mail processing and President Donald Trump’s invections against mail voting put voters and advocates nationwide on edge about the U.S. Postal Service’s role in elections. Anxiety is especially acute in Arizona, where the vast majority of voters cast ballots by mail. That has put more attention on the state’s undeliverable ballots.

Those fears were on full display last month in Navajo County, a rural county in the northeast quadrant of the state where Recorder David Marshall said just before the primary that his office was experiencing “an issue” with the U.S. Postal Service.

“We have received over 900 returned ballots — over 900,” Marshall, a Republican who was recently appointed to his post, said in a public meeting on July 14. “Why? Don’t know.”

Later, the number of undelivered ballots in the county rose to more than 1,300 — a figure that continues to tick slightly upward as delayed returns from the Postal Service trickle in. The news quickly spread, drawing extensive media coverage and the attention of Trump himself.

This year, more ballots than usual statewide might have been undeliverable because voters were out of town. Some county recorders told Votebeat that they noticed a slightly higher number of ballots returned with postal codes indicating that the intended recipients were temporarily away. Most chalked that up to the state’s earlier-than-usual primary date. In February, state lawmakers shifted the primary from Aug. 4 to July 21.

But in the Navajo County case, data and records suggest nothing nefarious, or even all that unusual, was afoot.

What data and records show about undeliverable ballots in Navajo County

Votebeat found that Navajo County’s rate of undeliverable ballots was indeed higher than that of other jurisdictions across Arizona during this year’s primary. As of Aug. 12, county officials said 1,377 ballots went undelivered in the rural county, or about 3.9% of the total number of ballots mailed out. By contrast, across the other 10 counties where Votebeat was able to collect data, only 2.3% of ballots were returned undelivered.

But data from the EAC shows Navajo County’s undeliverable ballot rate isn’t unheard of historically in Arizona. During the 2024 general election, for instance, La Paz County saw about 4.4% of its mail ballots returned as undeliverable. In 2022, Coconino and Pinal each received thousands of undeliverable ballots from the Postal Service — about 5.5% and 3.8% of the total number of mail ballots sent to voters by officials, respectively. Statewide, undeliverable ballot rates rose as high as 4.7% in the 2016 general election.

Furthermore, undeliverable ballot rates can vary widely from year to year. Navajo County, for instance, has seen its rate fluctuate from as low as 0.6% to as high as 3.3% in recent general elections.

The data isn’t perfect. Some counties told Votebeat they counted undeliverable ballots in the primary election slightly differently than other counties. The EAC collects data on undeliverable ballots after each general election, but not for primary elections. And in some years, not all counties reported undeliverable ballot data to the EAC.

But records obtained by Votebeat also suggest that Navajo County’s high rate of returned ballots wasn’t because something went wrong with their delivery. Following Marshall’s remarks, county officials asked the Postal Service to examine a sampling of the undeliverable ballots. When the Postal Service did so, it found that nine of the 10 ballots submitted by the county had a valid reason for being returned. The remaining ballot required further investigation.

Officials appear to be backing away from undeliverable ballot fears

Federal, state, and local officials have been working to tease out whether there was an identifiable issue connected to the undelivered ballots in Navajo County — or if the number, while not ideal, came from processes operating as usual.

Initially, some officials — including Marshall in his remarks at the public meeting — appeared to suggest that something may have gone awry. But in recent weeks, the county’s tone has gradually shifted.

For instance, the Navajo County Recorder’s Office said in a July 24 statement that it was working with the Postal Service to “identify any issues that may have occurred during the mailing process.”

Later, on July 31, the office issued an updated statement. It said it had sent an expanded sample of 200 undeliverable ballot envelopes to the Postal Service for review. Of those, the Postal Service found that 66% were returned because the recipient had some type of change-of-address order on file. Others were marked undeliverable because they were addressed to vacant homes or closed postal boxes.

“Returns of ballots occurred in other Arizona counties, demonstrating that this is a routine part of election administration statewide,” the statement read.

Calli Jones, a spokesperson for the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, told Votebeat on July 30 that her office was working to set up meetings with the Postal Service to “learn more about this situation on their end.” And on Aug. 14, Richie Taylor of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office said his office believed the undeliverable ballots were normal after looking into the matter.

“We’ve spoken to the recorder in Navajo County and they’ve verified that the rejection rate is in line with historical rejection rates, so we don’t believe there’s anything nefarious going on there,” Taylor told Votebeat.

Meanwhile, Cathy Purcell, a spokesperson for the Postal Service, told Votebeat on July 24 that mail carriers returned the ballots to the county “in accordance with proper protocol.”

Can Arizona reduce its undeliverable ballots?

Some number of undeliverable ballots may be normal and a sign that the system is working as intended. Still, undeliverable ballots are far from ideal, and officials in Navajo County say they will work to reduce them in the future.

In a statement, officials said they would begin taking more proactive steps to clean up the county’s voter rolls ahead of November. When ballots are returned as undeliverable, the Navajo County Recorder’s Office will begin sending affected voters a mailed notice that can be forwarded by the Postal Service to their current address, if available.

The office will also seek to email, call, and text voters if their contact information is available in their voter record.

“This additional step will provide multiple ways for voters to receive information, respond, and update their registration,” officials said on July 31.

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

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.

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.

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.

Why thousands of Michigan votes likely won’t be counted in this year’s primary

2026-07-23T09:00:00+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.

This is an updated version of a story originally published Aug. 2, 2024.

Every other August in Michigan, thousands of votes are rejected because voters don’t understand or pay attention to the directions on their primary ballot.

The problem occurs when voters do something called crossover voting, where, either intentionally or by accident, they vote for candidates from different parties on the same ballot. In a general election, that would not be a problem. And in a presidential primary, it wouldn’t be possible.

But in the August primary elections — where candidates for federal- and state-level positions are selected — a crossover vote that doesn’t get caught by the voter means officials can’t count any of the votes on the partisan section of the ballot. And many voters, particularly if they vote absentee, will never know that their partisan votes didn’t count, if they don’t closely read instructions or don’t respond to an on-screen alert when their ballot gets flagged by the tabulator.

“I think that sometimes, it can be a source of confusion,” said Elizabeth Hundley, the Livingston County clerk.

It’s difficult to tell exactly how many crossover votes are cast in Michigan’s August primaries; the state doesn’t keep track of the number, and neither do many of the counties Votebeat surveyed. But the counties that do keep track suggest the number is significant, meaning there are likely thousands of Michiganders whose votes on the partisan section aren’t counted each election. (Votes in the other sections of the primary ballot — for nonpartisan candidates, proposals, or millages — are unaffected by the mistake and still get counted.)

In 2022 in Macomb County, for example, nearly 6,300 ballots — about 3.6% of the more than 175,000 ballots cast in the county’s August primary — saw their partisan votes rejected due to a crossover vote, officials said.

Washtenaw County doesn’t explicitly track rejections due to crossover votes, but Votebeat’s analysis of vote data from the county suggests the total was close to 1,400 votes in 2022, or roughly 1.5% of the 87,526 votes cast there. Even if that relatively low percentage is consistent statewide, Washtenaw County Clerk Lawrence Kestenbaum said, it would still mean thousands of votes across Michigan are being excluded from the count.

The rate of crossover voting is a significant improvement over the “punch-card days,” Kestenbaum said, when “something like 5% to 15% of primary ballots would not have partisan votes counted.” Punch-card ballots, which were largely phased out across the state by the early 2000s, didn’t enable voters to catch their mistakes in the way today’s electronic tabulators do.

That’s why the problem primarily affects absentee voters today, clerks say. If an in-person voter selects candidates from different parties, the tabulator will show a warning about the crossover,” explained Meredith Place, the Kalamazoo County clerk. The voter can then either spoil their ballot and get a new one, or else they can cast it as is. If they do so, their partisan votes won’t count, but their nonpartisan selections will.

Without those alerts, absentee voters are much less likely to become aware of the issue. And if they do notice, spoiling an absentee ballot is a more involved process.

In Michigan, nearly 2 million people have requested absentee ballots for August’s election, according to the state’s voting dashboard. More than 610,000 of those have already been returned as of Wednesday.

Ballot instructions don’t necessarily prevent crossover voting

It’s not that voters aren’t given instructions on how to mark their ballots correctly, clerks say. Those who vote in person, either early or on Election Day, will get instructions from poll workers to stay within a single party column. There are also instructions printed on the top of ballots that tell voters to choose only one party, and many polling places will have signage to further warn voters.

With mail ballots, there is an included instruction sheet that tells voters in capital letters: “YOU MAY VOTE IN ONE PARTY SECTION ONLY; YOU CANNOT ‘SPLIT YOUR TICKET.’ IF YOU VOTE IN MORE THAN ONE PARTY SECTION, YOUR PARTISAN BALLOT WILL BE REJECTED.”

But still, there are enough places for confusion that many voters miss the messaging altogether.

For one thing, the August ballot is not like the others. In Michigan’s presidential primary, voters have to request a specific party’s ballot, so there’s no risk of a crossover vote. In November’s general election, voters can vote straight-ticket or go back and forth as they please for each office.

But August — technically considered an open primary, because voters don’t have to declare a party — is ripe for problems, because voters may not be aware of the risk, especially if they’ve voted before and expect this ballot to be like the others.

“If we did the regular primary the way we do the presidential, this problem wouldn’t exist at all,” Kestenbaum said.

Another concern comes from the design of the ballot itself, which falls short of best practices in several ways, according to Whitney Quesenbery, director of the nonprofit Center for Civic Design, which helps promote best practices for ballots and other election tools across the country.

Among the issues Quesenbery flagged: The text on the ballot itself is small. The separate instruction sheet that comes with the mail ballot has language that’s set by state law but is potentially confusing, and the relevant warning comes after information on how to fill in a bubble, which could lead voters to ignore it altogether. The columns for separate parties don’t have a lot of visual space between them.

“This was all written into law by lawyers, not by the people who have to explain to people how things work,” Quesenbery said. “They don’t give enough attention to accurately explaining a complex system.”

Largely, clerks say they’re doing all they can to make sure voters are aware they can vote in only one column. Beyond that, there’s a level of what Hundley called “personal responsibility by voters” to make sure they read instructions.

Crossover voting may require a legislative fix

But some clerks are supportive of a change, because, as Hundley also said, an election administrator’s goal is to make sure “the will of the people is accurately reflected.”

Any significant changes would require changing state law. While legislators have discussed changing how certain offices are selected, pivoting from conventions to primaries, few have discussed altering the primaries themselves.

Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou, a Democrat from East Lansing who used to head the elections committee in the Michigan House, said she’s “always open” to proposals to try to address concerns people have about voting.

Before making any major moves, she said she would want more information on the scope of the problem. In the meantime, she said she thought more voter education might help.

“If people are really struggling with this, I’d want to look at it and consider what we can do,” Tsernoglou said. “I want to do all we can to make voting fair, accessible and easy for everyone.”

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

Green Bay clerk’s office faces investigations after duplicate ballot errors in a second consecutive election

2026-07-15T10:00:00+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.

Green Bay and state officials over the last month have authorized separate investigations to better understand how city election officials accidentally sent voters duplicate absentee ballots in two consecutive elections this year, including for the upcoming August 11 primary.

This set of investigations marks an unprecedented level of scrutiny for Green Bay Clerk Celestine Jeffreys, who has repeatedly come under fire for election administration mistakes and was placed on leave by Mayor Eric Genrich on July 9.

Jeffreys, whose job is nonpartisan, has served as clerk since 2021, running elections in the state’s third largest city. City spokesperson Michael Bergman said in a statement that the latest errors in the clerk’s office “are unacceptable.”

On Monday, city elected officials and nearby residents weighed in at a public meeting.

“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,” former Brown County Clerk Sandy Juno, a Republican, said at the Monday meeting.

Others raised concerns that Jeffreys’ suspension could hurt the city’s preparedness for the upcoming primary election.

“I worry that Celestine is now sitting at home when she’s not able to prepare for the August 11th election,” said Jane Benson, a Suamico resident and a longtime poll worker. “This is a really busy time for any clerk, and I feel like we’re hamstringing the city from having more reliable elections by sending her home.”

Investigations arose quickly after second error

Before the Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April, Jeffreys’ office issued 152 duplicate absentee ballots, an error that drew scrutiny and prompted the Wisconsin Republican Party to file an administrative complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Election officials at the time made an effort to explain to voters how the state’s system prevents double votes from being counted.

When it happened again, though, officials on all sides became more critical of the Green Bay clerk.

“I am really concerned that, first of all, it happened once,” Ann Jacobs, a Democratic appointee on the Wisconsin Elections Commission, said at the commission’s July 9 meeting, before commissioners voted to investigate the clerk’s office. “But then for the exact same error to happen a second time weeks later is unconscionable.”

Jeffreys, who didn’t respond to a request for comment, sought to explain the first error in an April response to the administrative complaint filed against her, describing it as the downstream result of a printing error.

Typically, after absentee ballot certificate 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 a response to the complaint.

But in the April instance, Wood said, that sheet of paper wasn’t placed in a folder after the ballots were sent out — it’s unclear why. An election worker then mistakenly thought the batch of labels hadn’t been printed at all and made a duplicate copy, Wood said. The duplicate batch of labels was then affixed to envelopes and sent out to voters.

In late June, Jeffreys announced that election officials had again printed and mailed out duplicate ballots for the midterm primary election in August due to a certificate label printing error.

“I regret the printing error occurred,” she said in the June statement, without elaborating on how such an error happened again or how many duplicate ballots were sent out. She noted that affected voters will also receive instructions by mail on submitting only one ballot.

Jacobs said the errors can likely be attributed in part to city election officials using a tool other than WisVote, the state’s voter registration database and election management system, to print labels for absentee ballots. WisVote doesn’t allow officials to generate duplicate labels, she said, but other systems can lack that failsafe.

She said it would be helpful to know which system Jeffreys used, how workers exported the labels, who printed them, and why the duplication wasn’t caught.

“We can’t fix it if we don’t know how it happened, and I don’t think we can give proper direction to the clerk of Green Bay without knowing how this happened,” she said.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission probe, unanimously authorized at the July 9 meeting, seeks a response from the clerk’s office by July 31 explaining how the office accidentally sent duplicate absentee ballots to voters in two consecutive elections and how the city will ensure that only one ballot gets cast per voter.

The commission told the clerk’s office to come up with a plan by Aug. 14 to outline how the city plans to prevent another repeat error. The commission will separately investigate whether the city clerk’s office violated any laws. Meanwhile, city officials announced on July 9 that they’re also conducting an internal review into the mistakes.

It’s unclear if or when Jeffreys will return to her post. Bergman, the city spokesperson, said the city won’t comment on the matter until the city and state finish investigating the errors. Green Bay Deputy Clerk Stacy Menke is running elections in the meantime.

Jeffreys previously came under fire for assorted complaints

The sending of duplicate ballots isn’t the first election administration issue that Jeffreys has faced in Green Bay since transitioning in 2021 from being the mayor’s chief of staff to the clerk.

In late 2023, the Wisconsin Elections Commission stated that Jeffreys’ office’s policy of letting a third party return ballots for somebody who is “sick” but not disabled likely violated state law.

In 2024, Jeffreys admitted that, for several elections in a row, she had not followed the state’s legal requirement to deactivate the voter registrations of Election Day registrants after postcards sent by clerks to their stated mailing addresses were returned as undeliverable. Lindsay Mather, an attorney representing Jeffreys at the time, said the city clerk had also not been referring those voters to the district attorney, as required.

“The failure to do so was inadvertent and due to a lack of awareness of the statutory requirements, and not the result of any willful violation of state law,” Mather said.

Juno, the former Brown County clerk, said at the commission’s July 9 meeting that when somebody makes as many errors as Jeffreys has, that person doesn’t have the skills to be a good clerk.

But Sam Liebert, a former municipal clerk who served in nonpartisan roles, said that while accountability is important, highly publicized investigations could further increase clerk turnover in Wisconsin and dissuade other people from becoming clerks. He said the commission shouldn’t create an expectation for clerks to be perfect 100% of the time.

“Frivolous lawsuits and politically charged attacks over human error do not strengthen the systems that ensure our freedoms to vote,” he said. “They undermine confidence in these very systems that successfully prevented any improper votes from being counted.”

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

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.

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.

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.

New study finds that ballot curing helps more mail ballots get counted

2026-06-03T19:07:53+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.

Mail voters who are informed and have opportunities to fix ballot errors ahead of elections are much more likely to have their votes counted, a new study of the 2024 election in Pennsylvania has found.

The study, from the University of Pennsylvania, provides hard evidence to back up the arguments that county officials have used for years to justify such “notice and cure” policies for defective mail ballots.

“Vote curing policies help balance the tension between promoting both access and integrity in mail balloting,” the study’s authors wrote. “In short, vote curing can reduce the number of eligible voters whose deficient mail ballots become ‘lost votes.’”

Mail ballots can be rejected for a variety of reasons, including lacking a signature on the outer envelope or lacking the inner secrecy envelope. In some elections, ballots have also been rejected for lacking a date on the outer envelope, although this requirement is currently being litigated in state and federal court.

Pennsylvania counties have a wide array of methods for letting voters fix these errors. Some ask voters to fix the errors in person at the county election office — for example, by adding a missing signature — while others automatically return deficient ballots to voters, or cancel deficient ballots and reissue new ones. Other counties only allow voters to correct the error by casting a provisional ballot at their polling place on Election Day.

The study examined how many voters corrected their deficient mail ballots across counties that use these different methods and found that voters were 25 percentage points more likely to have their vote counted if they were told of a disqualifying error before Election Day, and 10 points more likely to have their vote counted if they had an opportunity to correct that error before Election Day, rather than just on Election Day.

The study also found that when deficient ballots were automatically returned or replaced, allowing voters to make a correction by mail, voters were 25 points more likely to have their vote counted.

Jim Allen, the election director of Delaware County, one of the counties that automatically replaces deficient ballots, said this method roughly doubled the rate at which voters were able to cure their ballots.

“Also, it reduced traffic at our Voter Service Center and reduced provisional ballots,” he said via email.

Likewise, counties have a variety of methods for notifying voters of deficiencies with their mail ballots, including calls, emails, and publishing lists online. The study measured if a voter was notified by looking at when their ballot was recorded as deficient in the state public ballot tracking system, where voters or political parties could see the issue and which also automatically emails voters if there is an error with their ballot.

But providing an email is optional when applying for a mail ballot. According to data from the just-concluded 2026 primary election, roughly 20% of mail ballot requestors didn’t provide an email address. For those voters, what happens next depends on what county they live in. Some may not be notified at all that their ballot may be rejected.

The mail ballot application says the email “may be used to contact you about important information” but not expressly that it could be used to notify voters of errors with their mail ballots that may disqualify their vote.

Michael Morse, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the study’s coauthors, said that more explicit language on the application could lead to more voters providing their email address and, therefore, getting notified if their ballot is at risk of rejection. He also suggested that the state could use email addresses they may have for the voter in other databases, such as the state’s voter rolls.

The Pennsylvania Department of State said in a statement that it encourages voters to fill out the email section, and that it was reviewing the study and “is always open to considering ways to improve communication with voters.”

The study also highlights the equal protection principle, which could be the next frontier in legal fights over Pennsylvania’s mail ballot curing rules.

In a case from the 2000 election, Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court found that Florida’s recount of that year’s presidential election violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause because counties were using inconsistent standards to decide which ballots counted.

Pennsylvania’s system, in which voters across the street from each other might have vastly different opportunities to cure their ballots based on what county they live in, could also test this principle. The argument has been made in cases before, Morse noted, but hasn’t yet been fully litigated in Pennsylvania.

Morse said when and how the equal protection principle applies in the context of election administration is unclear, since the decentralized nature of elections means there will always be variation across counties, and they can’t all violate the principle.

“That fight really hasn’t developed much … [because] it hasn’t mattered yet to the Pennsylvania outcome,” he said. “The only reason it was going to come up in 2024 is if the number of deficient mail ballots was within the margin of victory, and it wasn’t.”

The equal protection question may not have had much of a bearing on Pennsylvania’s curing policies yet, but in other states it has. A recent decision in a case in North Carolina found that the state’s cure process violated the equal protection principle for some voters.

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

Maricopa County election fight boils over as recorder threatens felony charges over ‘unauthorized’ drop boxes

2026-05-21T15:45:39+00:00

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

A messy and longstanding feud between Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors over control of the key swing county’s elections has spilled over into a new arena.

On Wednesday, Heap sent a letter to the board asserting his office’s authority over ballot drop boxes and warning that election workers who handle ballots deposited in “unauthorized” receptacles could face criminal penalties.

The letter, written by Heap’s attorney, arrived hours before county supervisors were set to take up a routine vote on drop box locations for the July 21 primary. It set the stage for a lengthy and fiery meeting that put the divisions between the county’s mostly GOP officials on full display.

The spiraling saga is amplifying questions about how effectively top county officials will be able to administer this year’s midterm election.

Supervisors called Heap’s latest letter “shocking,” “appalling,” and “outrageous.” They criticized Heap for not appearing at the meeting, which they said they’d asked him to attend — albeit on short notice.

Democratic Supervisor Steve Gallardo repeatedly said that he believed Heap, a Republican, was purposefully setting up this year’s elections to “fail” and called him “a coward.” Meanwhile, Supervisors Tom Galvin and Kate Brophy McGee sparred with fellow Republican Mark Stewart, the only supervisor who criticized the board’s handling of the situation.

After the meeting, the recorder’s office fired back with a statement, accusing the board of “attempting to seize control over ballot drop boxes” and calling supervisors’ remarks “political theater.” The office also insisted that it had not discussed the proposed drop box locations with the board’s elections department and did not know about them until the planned vote appeared on a public agenda.

But Elections Director Scott Jarrett said he has been meeting for months with recorder’s office staff for routine “menu of service” meetings in preparation for upcoming elections. He said he brought up drop box locations during those discussions.

Ultimately, the board unanimously approved a slate of voting locations — including the drop box sites — for the primary election.

This latest dispute is just the most recent in a larger fight between Heap and the board over election administration in the state’s most populous county. Heap contends that the board usurped much of his power in a deal it struck with his predecessor months before he took office. He has refused to abide by that agreement, which maps out how his office and county supervisors split election responsibilities, and sued the board last year when negotiations over a new agreement turned contentious.

In April, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney handed Heap a legal win in the case, ordering the supervisors to return control of several election-related functions and information technology staffers to the recorder’s office. The board of supervisors has since appealed that decision.

Both sides are publicly acknowledging concerns about their ability to administer this year’s elections as the primary creeps closer. Heap’s statement said the board’s appeal “creates serious legal and operational concerns, particularly this close to major elections.” Brophy McGee and GOP Supervisor Debbie Lesko wrote in a letter to him Wednesday that the county “cannot proceed through the remainder of an important election year with the status quo.”

“The current level of confusion and conflict is not sustainable and does not serve the interests of county staff, election workers, or the public,” they wrote.

Supervisors historically choose drop box locations

County supervisors have long set ballot drop box locations under a provision of the state’s election rulebook that directly authorizes them to do so.

It reads: “All ballot drop-off locations and drop-boxes shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors (or designee).”

But Heap is now arguing that only he can designate such sites — and that the rulebook, which carries the force of law but can’t contradict statutes, is wrong.

In his letter to the board, Heap’s attorney, James Rogers, cited a state law that references the recorder’s ability to establish “early voting locations.” The following sentence of that statute, ARS 16-542, further specifies that such locations “shall require each elector to present identification … before receiving a ballot.” That would appear to suggest that the locations referenced in the law are ones where voters can cast a ballot in person, as that’s when they are required to show ID. Nonetheless, Rogers wrote in his letter that he believed the statute assigned drop boxes “exclusively to the recorder.”

“A ballot drop box is, under any reasonable interpretation of the plain meaning of the statutory text, an ‘early voting location,’ as it is a physical site where voters may deliver their voted early ballots during the early voting period,” he said.

Another statute, ARS 16-411, states that boards of supervisors can “designate one or more sites for voters to deposit marked ballots until 7:00 p.m. on the day of the election.” Rogers said he interprets that law as suggesting that the board has the ability to do so only on Election Day, not during early voting.

“These statutory provisions carefully circumscribe the board’s authority to maintain drop boxes: Only on Election Day and only at voting centers and polling places,” Rogers wrote, later adding that supervisors “cannot simply assume powers” that aren’t specifically prescribed to them in writing. “No statute grants the board authority to establish drop boxes during the early voting period.”

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney’s recent decision in the legal battle between the board and the recorder’s office didn’t specifically assign drop boxes to either entity.

His order noted that Heap held authority over “voter registration, voter list maintenance, the distribution and signature verification of early ballots, and in-person early voting.” The board, he wrote, was in charge of “drawing precinct boundaries, selecting Election Day voting locations, preparing ballots, supplying polling locations, hiring poll workers, tabulating ballots, and canvassing.” His conclusions were based in part on the statutes that Rogers cited.

Heap’s attorney threatens charges for ‘ballot harvesting’

Rogers’ letter further alleges that supervisors could be opening themselves and their workers up to felony charges by maintaining control over drop box locations.

He pointed to ARS 16-1005, which prohibits a person or entity from collecting ballots by “misrepresenting itself as an election official or as an official ballot repository.”

“Any person or entity involved in establishing or operating such unauthorized drop boxes is committing a class 5 felony,” Rogers wrote, adding that bipartisan teams of workers who collect ballots from drop boxes could be charged with “criminal ballot harvesting.”

Supervisors broadly condemned that threat. Galvin said anyone attempting to “put handcuffs” on workers would have to go through the board first.

“The four of us will be the first ones to step in front of them and say, ‘Take us,’” Galvin said, referencing all of his colleagues except Stewart.

He added that Heap — who was elected to his seat with support from activists who questioned the integrity of the county’s elections — was fanning the flames of voter fraud conspiracies.

“We are stuck in this hamster wheel of the 2020 election,” Galvin said. “That is the basis of it — over and over and over again — and someone has to call out the recorder and say, ‘Cut it out.’”

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

Here’s how Pennsylvania’s primary has been going so far

2026-05-15T19:10:37+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.

Just days remain before Pennsylvania’s May 19 primary, when voters will select nominees for state and federal elections this November.

The governorship, congressional seats, and control of the state House and Senate are all on the ballot.

Some counties have already experienced issues with mail ballots, potentially affecting voters’ ability to easily cast them. Others are looking to Tuesday’s election as a chance to learn how they can make operations run more smoothly.

Here’s what’s happened so far.

Some counties stumble on mail ballots

In almost every election, at least one county encounters some administrative issue that impacts voters. Whether it was Chester County leaving thousands of voters out of its poll books last November or the Department of State sending the wrong voter file to Fayette County in 2025, human error almost inevitably causes a hiccup somewhere.

This year is no exception: Several counties have had issues already with their mail ballots.

The highest-profile case so far involves ballots being sent to an outdated list of voters in Lehigh County, where there is a competitive primary for the Democratic nomination for the 7th Congressional District.

The county mistakenly used a voter file from last year to send out this year’s mail ballots. While many of last year’s mail voters had also requested mailed ballots this year, which minimized the impact, the mixup still meant more than 4,000 voters either got a ballot they didn’t request or failed to receive one they were expecting. The county responded by issuing new ballots to affected voters, canceling invalid ballots, and contacting voters to explain their voting options.

Lehigh County isn’t alone. In Butler County, near Pittsburgh, roughly 50 mail ballot return envelopes were printed without the county election office’s return address, making it more difficult for voters to return them. In York County, the county’s mail ballot vendor mistakenly sent 237 voters ballots for the wrong district. In those counties, election officials are working with USPS to deliver the ballots or reissuing correct ballots, respectively.

Earlier this year, Votebeat and Spotlight PA also reported that Chester County sent out mail ballot applications with voters’ first and last names reversed, though the county and state said the applications were still valid to use.

Counties looking to make improvements

Luzerne County is switching to hand-marked paper ballots and away from the touch-screen ballot-marking devices it has used since 2020. The county experienced issues with its previous voting machine vendor — such as misspellings on ballots and test ballots being left in unofficial results — and in 2025 decided to make the switch. At the time, the election director said the switch would give the county more in-house control over designing and testing ballots.

Chester County, which has had multiple issues in the last year, is bringing in an outside consultant to assess the county’s election operations. A spokesperson for the county confirmed that The Elections Group, a consulting firm, will be onsite after the election “to meet with staff and observe post-election activities.”

“Our goal is to use their input to support the implementation of our Voter Services Action Plan,” county spokesperson Andrew Kreider said via email, referring to the plan developed to address issues in the election department.

The state was also planning a test — this one for internet-connected e-pollbooks — but postponed the experiment until at least next year because of unresolved technical questions and low county participation in the pilot program. Election directors say the devices, already widely used in the state without internet connections, can help quickly address Election Day issues and monitor turnout.

What election officials are thinking about

With no marquee race at the top of the ticket this primary election as both gubernatorial candidates are uncontested, election officials are expecting low turnout — and potentially a smoother Election Day.

During the 2022 midterm, the Republican primary races for the U.S. Senate and governor were contested, providing a draw for voters.

“This one I think is going to be a lot like last year’s primary,” said Thad Hall, the Mercer County elections director. “I think my county and a lot of counties are going to be lucky to get 25% turnout.”

Weather is his biggest concern right now, Hall said, as it is for many elections. Election Day could see temperatures in the 90s, with the chance for storms in parts of the state. Those factors can both depress turnout as well as present logistical challenges, such as if power goes out at a polling place.

Dauphin County Election Director Chris Spackman said right now he is working on getting the county’s pollbooks finalized and putting together the materials his poll workers will need on Election Day.

There are always things election officials can’t predict that could pop up, he said, such as if a judge of elections gets sick and they need a last minute replacement.

“I don’t like to predict turnout because I want 100 percent,” he said. “But realistically looking at historical numbers in gubernatorial primaries, the turnout is going to be lower than the general election.”

But ideally, Spackman said, it will be a day of high turnout and wide margins.

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

Pennsylvania’s mail ballot dating rules have been in flux for years. Here’s what you need to know.

2026-05-08T09:00:00+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.

As some Pennsylvania voters prepare to vote by mail in this month’s primary election, they could be forgiven for not knowing what they need to do with the date line on their ballot envelope.

Court rulings have flip-flopped on the requirement several times since Act 77, the law that implemented no-excuse mail voting, went into effect in 2020. For some elections since then, counties had to reject mail ballots that lacked a proper date; for others, they didn’t.

The rule has resulted in thousands of otherwise qualified ballots being rejected and left many voters confused about what they need to do to have their votes counted.

Here’s what voters need to know for the May 19 primary.

What do I need to do with the date line for this election?

Don’t write your birthday. Don’t write the day you registered to vote.

Fill out the current date in the date line just below the signature space, which also needs to be filled out.

During elections when counties were required to reject ballots for missing or improper dates, writing birthdays was among the most common mistakes voters made.

In 2023, the Pennsylvania Department of State made changes to the ballot return envelope to reduce the number of ballots rejected for date issues. The department prefilled the year portion of the date line, which did indeed lead to fewer errors.

Will my ballot be rejected if it has an improper date?

Currently, counties cannot reject mail ballots for lacking a proper date. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled in 2024 that it was unconstitutional for counties to reject ballots for missing or improper dates. Last year, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld a separate ruling that said the requirement to date the return envelope violated voters’ First Amendment rights.

That could change, however, as both the state case and federal case are being appealed. Election officials still recommend that voters date their return envelope.

Why does the envelope need a date in the first place?

Simply put, because the law says it does.

When lawmakers passed Act 77 in 2019, it said voters must “date and sign the declaration” on the return envelope. The declaration affirms that the voter is qualified to vote and that they have not cast another ballot.

The language was carried over from the state’s existing law governing absentee voting, which was written before counties used technology to track ballots and voters.

Why has this been so contentious?

Some voting-rights advocates, such as Common Cause, the NAACP, and the ACLU, believe the dating requirement does not serve any legitimate purpose and has disenfranchised otherwise eligible voters.

They argue that the state’s ballot tracking system records when counties send a ballot out and when they receive it back, meaning the date isn’t needed to determine if the voter cast the ballot within the time allowed for the election. Proponents of keeping the date argue the written date could serve as a backup check if the tracking system fails, but election officials also timestamp ballot envelopes when they are received back from the voter, which can serve as a backup as well.

Another argument for keeping the date is that it could help in detecting voter fraud, such as if someone requests a ballot, dies, and another person casts the ballot. This happened in Lancaster County in 2022, but opponents of the date requirement point out that, even if the date line had not been filled out in that case, there were other factors that would have detected the fraud.

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

New voting requirements? Troops at the polls? We asked 37 election experts what could disrupt the 2026 elections.

2026-04-17T09:00:00+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.

There are always unanswered questions heading into any election. But usually those questions are more along the lines of “who’s going to win?” and less “will the federal government interfere with the election?”

But here in 2026, President Donald Trump’s broadsides against the legitimacy of U.S. elections and efforts to overhaul election laws have generated lots of uncertainty — and anxiety — about whether this will be a normal election year. Election officials and voters alike are left to wonder whether there will be new requirements for voters, physical interventions at the polls, or attempts to overturn results after the fact.

Despite seemingly endless speculation, no one knows for sure how likely any of these things is. But to get the most well-informed assessments, we turned to the people who spend the most time thinking about elections.

We asked 37 experts in the field of election administration — academics, lawyers, former election officials, etc. — to answer 26 questions about the likelihood of various scenarios coming to pass in the 2026 midterms.

Their answers reflect a general sense of cautious optimism about the most dire scenarios — such as an election getting overturned — and skepticism that the federal government will successfully change voting rules. But they also still believe the election will face serious challenges, including federal agents potentially showing up at polling places.

Election experts say new federal laws are unlikely, but split on state laws and court intervention

Since retaking office in 2025, Trump has pushed aggressively for the federal government to set more rules around how elections are run, promoting legislation that would require registering voters to prove their citizenship with documentation and issuing two election-related executive orders. (The first executive order has largely been blocked in court, though the administration has appealed. The second is currently under litigation, and the conventional wisdom is that it will be halted as well.)

However, experts were skeptical that these measures would ever take effect. Thirty-four of our 37 respondents said it was unlikely that the federal government would successfully require new registrants to prove their citizenship for the midterms, and 32 said it was unlikely that the federal government would successfully require all voters to show an ID or restrict the use of no-excuse absentee or mail ballots. (They provided their answers before Trump issued his second executive order, which sought to regulate mail voting through the U.S. Postal Service.)

Likewise, virtually all respondents thought it was unlikely that the federal government would restrict the hours or locations of in-person voting or limit or eliminate the use of voting machines to tally ballots in the midterms.

However, experts were more open to the possibility that some of these policies could take effect in individual states. Although none thought it was likely that a significant number of states would limit or eliminate the use of voting machines, about a quarter of respondents thought it was at least somewhat likely that a significant number of states would restrict the use of no-excuse absentee or mail ballots in the midterms. About one-third thought it was at least somewhat likely that a significant number of states would strengthen their voter ID requirements or restrict the hours or locations of in-person voting.

Even more respondents, 15 of the 37, thought it was at least somewhat likely that a significant number of states would pass proof-of-citizenship requirements before the election — perhaps unsurprisingly, given that such laws were working their way through several state legislatures at the time. Those laws have since passed in Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah, although Florida’s does not take effect until 2027 and Mississippi’s is limited in scope.

Overall, though, most experts didn’t expect states to significantly change their election laws this year. Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame, pointed out that many states have part-time legislatures that won’t be in session between now and the election. “I expect new legislation in the months ahead that might affect the 2026 election to be negligible,” Muller said.

If there are going to be major election-law changes before the midterms, experts expect them to come from the third branch of government: the judiciary. Seventeen experts said it was at least somewhat likely that pre-election court rulings would significantly alter election rules shortly before the midterms, although 19 still said that was unlikely.

In follow-up interviews, those who thought this was likely said that they were keeping an eye both on currently pending cases — such as a U.S. Supreme Court case that could require all mail ballots to arrive by Election Day — and those that have not yet been filed. That said, a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year will probably encourage litigants to bring any cases challenging election rules well before the election, making last-minute rule changes less likely.

Experts expect federal agents to disrupt the 2026 election

For many election officials and voting advocates, the nightmare scenario for the 2026 midterms is if federal agents, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, attempt to disrupt voting or the counting of ballots. It’s already illegal for armed troops to visit voting locations, and the Trump administration has repeatedly said that it will not send ICE agents to polling places this year. However, new Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin has declined to absolutely rule it out, and a majority of the experts we surveyed expected something like this to happen.

Twenty-seven of the 37 respondents said it was at least somewhat likely that the federal government would deploy some form of military or law enforcement at or near polling places in the midterms. A slight majority said it was likely that Trump would ask the National Guard or federal agents to seize voting equipment during the election, and over three-quarters said it was likely that Trump would ask them to seize voting equipment after the election. (It’s worth noting that respondents gave these answers just a few weeks after the FBI raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, and Trump said that he regretted not asking the National Guard to seize voting machines after the 2020 election.)

Multiple respondents told Votebeat that the seizure of voting equipment was more likely after the election because the election results will be known at that time. “Before the election, no one will know where seizing equipment or ballots could shift pivotal races,” said Christopher Mann, the research director at the Center for Election Innovation and Research. “After the election, a bad actor will have a better picture of where seizing voting equipment or ballots can shift the overall outcome.”

Twenty-eight experts said it was at least somewhat likely that there would be physical threats to voters or polling places in the midterms, including 11 who said it was very likely. (They were perhaps recalling 2024, when a string of bomb threats forced some polling places to close temporarily, though election officials were able to minimize disruptions to voting.) However, experts were divided on whether these threats would deter people from voting. Twenty-one experts said it was unlikely that a significant number of voters would decide not to vote because of threats or physical intimidation, while 16 said that was likely.

Notably, experts were not very confident about their predictions about armed intervention in the midterms. Some also pointed out that, even if it’s likely that Trump might order federal agents to interfere in the election, that doesn’t mean they will succeed. “Election officials, courts, and other state and local officials are going to stop any attempt to seize voting equipment or ballots,” Mann predicted.

And some experts emphasized that even if there are incidents at specific polling places, they expect the election overall to run smoothly. “I’m an optimist, which probably led to many of my answers,” admitted Jeff Greenburg, a retired election official in Pennsylvania and a senior adviser at the Committee of Seventy, a Philadelphia-based government watchdog group. But Greenburg said he doesn’t expect that physical threats to voting “will significantly impact elections nationwide. I have faith and trust in our election officials, as well as the rule of law, and believe in the end every vote cast will be counted.”

Losers may claim fraud, but it’s unlikely an election gets overturned

Election experts of all stripes are confident that U.S. elections are secure. All 37 respondents said it was unlikely that a significant number of ineligible voters would cast ballots in the midterms, including 35 who said it was not at all likely. Experts also unanimously said that it was unlikely that voter fraud would influence the outcome of a 2026 congressional race.

However, that isn’t expected to stop candidates from questioning the election results. Almost three-quarters of experts thought it was at least somewhat likely that a significant number of losing candidates would claim fraud influenced the outcome of the election. All 37 thought it was likely that at least one congressional or statewide election would be legally challenged, with 30 calling it very likely.

At the same time, though, most experts don’t expect those challenges to succeed. Thirty-one of the 37 respondents thought it was unlikely that any congressional or statewide elections would be successfully overturned.

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

One line in Trump’s order would reshape how long states have to store election records

2026-04-06T09:00:00+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.

Deep inside the executive order on mail voting President Donald Trump signed March 31 is a technical-sounding line: “States and localities should preserve, for a 5-year period, all records and materials — excluding ballots cast — evidencing voter participation in any Federal election (e.g., ballot envelopes, regardless of carrier).”

But the line is a bigger deal than it sounds like, should the executive order go into force (it’s currently facing four federal lawsuits asserting the president exceeded his authority with it).

Right now, federal law requires such records to be kept for 22 months. The order more than doubles that requirement, and does so without specifically defining what counts as evidence of “voter participation in any Federal election.”

That puts state and local election administrators in a familiar bind: trying to comply with a sweeping directive without clear boundaries, and without any obvious plan for how to store what could be a massive increase in materials. County budgets and state laws — and the realities of available physical and digital storage — weren’t built with this kind of expansion in mind.

The order’s use of the word “should” is telling, said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former DOJ voting rights attorney. Taken as a whole, he argued, the order is broadly unconstitutional. And in this specific instance, its language appears to acknowledge a key limitation: the president cannot compel local jurisdictions to retain more election records than federal law requires.

The 22-month retention period in existing law was deliberately chosen, he said — long enough for investigators to pursue credible evidence, but finite, so election administrators can prepare for the next federal cycle.

“You can’t have every election that’s ever been held be stored constantly forever,” Becker said. “Paper takes up room, and voting machines have to be reprogrammed for the next election.”

The sentence in the order explicitly exempts cast ballots from the five-year retention period, though it isn’t clear why. The White House did not respond to a request to explain that. Still, the order would include storage of a wide range of materials that show a voter cast a ballot and how that ballot was processed. In practice, that could include envelopes with voter information and signatures, poll books and electronic check-in records, absentee ballot logs that show when ballots were sent and returned, provisional ballot envelopes and affidavits, and more.

Overwhelming numbers of boxes, bytes, and mandates

The scale of election record storage is already substantial. Across a federal election cycle, jurisdictions manage thousands of sealed boxes of ballots, envelopes, and related materials that must be securely stored and organized for potential audits. That amount of paper takes up a lot of space. In Fulton County, Georgia, for example, the FBI seized roughly 700 boxes of election materials related to the 2020 election from a single jurisdiction. That was just a subset of what Fulton County stores, and an even smaller subset of what the state stores. Across Georgia, thousands of boxes full of hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper from across every election held in the past 22 months are stacked and waiting. That helps illustrate the type of storage space that would be required to comply with this provision.

Available evidence suggests storage space is already a constraint, particularly for under-resourced jurisdictions. Many rural counties have few secure storage facilities that could accommodate this influx of paper, and some counties struggle even more to retain digital files.

Tammy Patrick is the chief program officer at the Elections Center, a resource hub and training center for local election officials. She told Votebeat this week that many elections offices “don’t have a designated computer.” In some smaller counties, election work is part time and resources are shared with other less-than-full-time offices. Ultimately, the capacity of various elections offices to expand their physical and digital storage demands will differ widely by jurisdiction.

In some cases, digital storage limits have already affected operations, like in Bexar County, Texas, where accumulated election data strained system capacity and delayed primary results earlier this month. Election offices also already handle thousands of physical records that must be kept in secure, often climate-controlled environments. Texas officials have warned that paper-based systems create “new challenges for storing and securing materials.” Those needs have grown as more and more counties returned to the use of paper ballots and other physical records. Groups like the Bipartisan Policy Center have for years noted that “many election offices are under-resourced, with limited storage capacity.” The system mandating this election-records Tetris is built on a relatively short list of federal laws. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1960, states must preserve “all records and papers” related to federal elections, including ballots and ballot envelopes, for 22 months. Separately, the National Voter Registration Act requires states to keep voter registration and list maintenance records for at least two years. Together, these laws set a mandatory baseline that already gives the federal government access to a wide range of election materials.

State laws build on that baseline in uneven and disparate ways. Many mirror the 22-month rule for ballots and ballot envelopes but extend retention for other records, particularly those documenting voter participation. For example, California keeps ballots and vote-by-mail envelopes for 22 months but retains voter participation records, such as rosters showing who voted, for up to five years. Texas uses detailed records schedules that require multi-year retention for materials like poll lists, voter registration files, and administrative records, sometimes allowing electronic storage.

The executive order layers another requirement on top of all of that.

The order also directs the attorney general and federal agencies to “take all lawful steps to deter and address noncompliance with Federal law,” including to prioritize enforcement of statutes covering non-citizen voting, voter registration fraud, and a range of other voting-related crimes.

Becker said the rhetoric is part of a familiar pattern — “a drumbeat that we hear from this administration that prosecutions are coming.” Trump has echoed that message repeatedly, including in remarks at the World Economic Forum in January.

Read in that context, the five-year retention provision appears designed to preserve records that could be relevant to future investigations. Ballot envelopes and related participation records can contain voter-identifying information, signatures, tracking information, and other data showing whether and how a ballot was issued, returned, and processed.

Still, Becker said he’s telling election officials not to worry.

“The executive order can say whatever it wants to. It can say that the AG can investigate people and have them do a little dance. Ultimately, what the attorney general does — what the DOJ does — is investigate violations of federal law,” he said. “It’s hard to investigate criminal wrongdoing when none has taken place.”

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

We still have questions about Trump’s new executive order on elections

2026-04-06T09:00:00+00:00

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

When reviewing President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail voting on Tuesday evening, election lawyer Aaron Blacksberg noticed something odd.

The order provides for the creation of not one, not two, but three separate lists:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security must use various federal databases to compile a list of citizens over age 18 residing in each state and send it to the chief election official in that state.
States are invited to send the U.S. Postal Service a list of eligible voters to whom the state intends to provide a mail-in or absentee ballot.
The U.S. Postal Service must provide each state with a list of people “who are enrolled with the USPS” to get their ballots delivered by the Postal Service in that state. The Postal Service would not be allowed to deliver any ballots from people not on this list.

But Blacksberg, the federal policy counsel for the Institute for Responsive Government, noticed that the order doesn’t specifically say what, if anything, these three lists have to do with one another.

“This executive order doesn’t make clear how the administration will even do what they say they’re doing, which is limiting mail-in voting based on who they say are citizens and eligible voters,” Blacksberg said.

Blacksberg’s guess is that the U.S. Postal Service will take List 2 (the list of mail voters provided by the states) and cross-reference it with List 1 (the list of adult citizens, though the order says Homeland Security is providing that to states, not USPS) to generate List 3 (the list of people allowed to vote by mail).

But the order doesn’t actually specify any of that.

Blacksberg noted that the order directs the U.S. Postal Service to propose rules by May 30 governing the process of creating List 3, so we may get more clarity then. But as of right now, the first two lists aren’t explicitly required to be used for anything at all. They just … exist.

Of course, many experts and state officials say the president doesn’t have the authority to mandate the steps outlined in the executive order anyway, and multiple federal lawsuits challenging it have already been filed. But the Case of the Three Lists is only one of several mysteries about how the order would actually work, should courts allow it to go into effect.

The White House also released a fact sheet on Tuesday that aimed to summarize the order and make it easier to understand — but it ended up muddling at least one key provision instead.

As mentioned, the executive order decrees that the Postal Service “shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual” (emphasis ours) who isn’t on List 3. But the fact sheet says, “The Order requires the USPS to transmit ballots only to individuals” on List 3. Those, of course, are different things.

Presumably the language in the executive order, not the fact sheet, is what’s operative. But the error in the fact sheet raises questions about what the White House thinks its own order does.

One thing that’s clearer in the order is how Homeland Security should assemble the list of citizens over 18 residing in each state. It calls for the list to be “derived from Federal citizenship and naturalization records, [Social Security Administration] records, SAVE data, and other relevant Federal databases.” SAVE is a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services database the Trump administration overhauled last year and has been urging election officials to use to verify voter citizenship.

But that specificity doesn’t mean the process will be straightforward. “It’s not a feasible thing to do with any accuracy for every citizen in the country over 18,” said John Davisson, deputy director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit that advocates on privacy rights.

He said that while, in theory, multiple federal databases could be combined to verify residency, in practice there is “no reliable way” to integrate systems that weren’t designed to communicate with one another, or for this purpose.

Doing so would almost certainly result in incomplete or inaccurate results, Davisson said. In addition, the order notes the need to comply with all applicable federal laws, including the Privacy Act. That law, Davisson said, places strict limits on the government’s ability to acquire and use personal data, but how those restrictions would apply here is unclear, since the agencies’ plans for compiling the lists will depend on rulemaking that has not yet been developed.

Votebeat this week sent the White House a list of questions about the executive order and how it would work, including to ask how the different lists it calls for would interact with each other and about the differences between the language in the order and the White House fact sheet.

A White House spokeswoman, Abigail Jackson, responded with a general statement saying, in part, “Election integrity has always been a top priority for President Trump.”

But Jackson did not respond to any of our specific questions.

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

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

Trump administration sued by states over mail voting executive order

2026-04-03T20:11:05+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.

A coalition of Democratic officials from 23 states, including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington, are suing the federal government over President Donald Trump’s new executive order to regulate mail voting.

The lawsuit, which is being filed in Massachusetts, says the order violates the U.S. Constitution by usurping the states’ power to administer their own elections. The Constitution delegates states the primary authority to run elections, subject to rules set by Congress, but gives the president no role.

“The U.S. Constitution makes clear that elections are to be run by the states, and here in Pennsylvania, we believe that the administration of elections should be nonpartisan,” Shapiro said in a statement.

Trump has long claimed, without evidence, that mail voting is rife with fraud and has sought to curtail it. On Tuesday, he signed an executive order that directs the U.S. Postal Service not to deliver mail ballots from any voter not on a pre-approved list of voters who will receive mail ballots and requires each authorized mail voter’s envelope to have a unique barcode.

The order also directs the Department of Homeland Security to create a list of adult citizens residing in each state and provide that list to states 60 days before a federal election.

The order isn’t Trump’s first attempt to push into how states run elections. Last March, he issued an executive order that, among other things, tried to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. States sued over that order on similar legal grounds, and courts have so far blocked most of that order’s major provisions.

This week’s lawsuit named Trump, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Social Security Administration, the U.S. Postal Service, and several federal officials as defendants.

“The President’s latest attempt to interfere with the States’ administration of their elections is as unprecedented as it is unconstitutional,” the lawsuit said. “Neither the Constitution nor any act of Congress confers upon the President the authority to mandate sweeping changes to States’ electoral systems or procedures.”

The lawsuit is at least the fourth that has been filed against the executive order since Trump signed it late Tuesday. Two separate coalitions of voting-rights advocacy groups sued Thursday, with one filing a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts and the other in Washington, D.C. Democratic Party groups filed the first lawsuit in Washington, D.C., Wednesday.

“Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections and ensure only eligible American citizens are casting ballots,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said. “President Trump campaigned on securing our elections and the American people sent him back to the White House to get the job done.”

Shapiro, along with Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt, a Republican, had immediately decried the order when it was signed on Tuesday and signaled legal action was forthcoming.

Shapiro joined the lawsuit in his capacity as governor, rather than on behalf of the state. Suing on behalf of a state is a responsibility that generally falls to the attorney general, and Pennsylvania’s current attorney general Republican Dave Sunday.

The attorneys general who joined the suit represent Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.

The new lawsuit is only the latest judiciary clash between the Trump administration and the states over election issues. The U.S. Department of Justice has sued 30 states, including Pennsylvania, plus the District of Columbia over their refusal to turn over complete versions of their voter rolls. The Pennsylvania Department of State argues turning over the data would be illegal because it contains private information.

Pennsylvania’s motion to dismiss that case is currently pending.

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

Votebeat editor-in-chief Carrie Levine contributed.

Arizona officials prep for new mail-ballot dropoff procedures that aims to speed up counting

2026-04-02T21:04:55+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.

Alexandra Flahive approached the “polling place” with a mail ballot in hand.

But upon entering, she opted not to drop it off and have the signature on its envelope checked, as hundreds of thousands of Arizonans typically do on Election Day. Instead, she waited in line, checked in on an electronic pollbook, and presented a voter ID.

Then, she handed the ballot to a poll worker, who stamped it with a message in bright-red ink: “ID verified.” At the end of another line, a worker slashed open the ballot envelope. Flahive removed the ballot, feeding it into a vote-counting machine.

Thus, her vote was cast. Or, at least, it would have been, if this had been a real election.

Flahive, communications and outreach manager at the Maricopa County Elections Department, was one of a few hundred people helping the county conduct a test run of this year’s election, which will feature a brand-new voting option.

Arizona voters can now show ID when dropping off mail ballots, avoiding signature verification

In Arizona, voters have long had the option of dropping off their mail ballots at polling places. Under state law, voters must show identification to cast ballots in person, but those dropping off ballots are allowed to skip that step — as well as any associated lines at the polls.

Instead, they just have to sign the envelope that contains their ballot and place it in a secure box at the polling site. Trained staff later compare that signature to signatures the voter has on file before counting their vote.

That process, called signature verification, is a key safeguard against fraud. But it also takes time — and as the state has morphed into a key electoral battleground, there has been increasing consternation with how long it takes to count so-called “late early” ballots dropped off in the final hours of voting.

In 2024, state lawmakers passed legislation requiring election officials to offer a new option. Like Flahive, voters in the upcoming midterm election will have the option to wait in line and show a driver’s license, passport, or similar form of identification, instead of dropping their ballot off to go through signature verification. This option would allow their votes to be processed sooner and counted more quickly.

The mock election, held at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center in Phoenix, represented one of the first tests of that new process. Officials from several other counties — including Coconino, Pima, Pinal, and La Paz — traveled to watch it in action.

It appeared to run relatively smoothly. About 300 mock voters moved through the simulation in an hour and a half — less than the two hours that officials had designated for the exercise.

Jennifer Liewer, the deputy elections director of Maricopa County, said the simulation represented a high-turnout scenario at one of the county’s vote centers on Election Day, with “pretty much every possible issue that we could think of occurring.”

“It was really about stress-testing the system,” she said, adding that officials also use the mock election to “look at the little things” that could save voters time and improve their experience at the polls. “We want to try to figure out what could go wrong, so we kind of threw everything possible at the poll workers and at the system to see where there were breaking points.”

She rattled off some of officials’ main takeaways. They’re exploring the best pathways for voters who come to drop off their ballots to move throughout polling places, an effort to minimize crowds and lines. For now, they’re anticipating adding three extra poll workers to each site to assist voters utilizing the new option. And, while training those staffers, officials intend to focus heavily on different things that could go wrong with the new process.

“We’re going to be tabulating ballots that people have brought from home, and we feel like we’re going to see a higher likelihood of torn ballots or erroneous marks or overvoting,” Liewer said. “So, we’re just really focusing on ensuring that those tabulation clerks are extremely comfortable and knowledgeable with how the tabulators operate.”

But one key question remains unanswered. In the simulation, one out of every three voters used the new process to cast their mail ballot. It’s unclear how many will choose to do so in the state’s upcoming primary and general elections — and, as a result, how much the new process will actually speed up the count.

Tammy Patrick, a former election official in Maricopa County and chief programs officer at the Election Center, said some likely will choose to participate, even though it adds another step for them at the polls. Voters, she said, are increasingly being told that “they shouldn’t trust the system” and that their vote could be “negated or rejected.”

“The question is, would it increase the number of ballots counted and included in that first initial count on election night?” Patrick said. She theorized that the new process might lead to a slight increase in that number, but that still would likely represent a “small” percentage of total voters.

“In most cases, providing voters with more options is a good idea,” she said. “But the question remains, to what extent and to what expense.”

Lines may deter voters from using the new process

One factor likely to influence how many voters participate in the new process is how long lines are at the polls.

Liewer said there are rarely lines during the primary, but they sometimes occur during the general election. In Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, she said lines typically max out at 30 to 40 minutes long.

But most counties are bracing for a lengthy ballot in the November election as state lawmakers consider sending dozens of proposals to voters for approval. That could mean that voters see slightly longer waiting times this year — particularly on Election Day.

This year, voters who opt to ID-verify their mail ballot will be in the same lines as other voters in most counties. Liewer said Maricopa County will offer only one line for all voters at its polling sites. Elections Director Eslir Musta of Coconino County, located about 100 miles north of Phoenix, said he plans to do the same.

Officials said the decision largely comes down to logistics. Most voting sites don’t have room to accommodate two lines. Additionally, officials worry that separate queues would confuse voters. Plus, it would require completely separate pollbook stations and make it harder for poll workers to report accurate wait times.

Alexandra Flahive, communications and outreach manager at the Maricopa County Elections Department, works during a mock election on Wed., April 1, 2026 in Phoenix, Arizona. Officials aimed to test out a new process that would require voters to show ID to have their mail ballots counted sooner, avoiding signature verification. It is intended to speed up election results.

“We have limitations with our staff and equipment,” Liewer said.

But as usual, voters dropping off mail ballots for signature verification will be able to skip the line at the polls. That raises questions about how many will be willing to wait to get their IDs verified.

“We want to be realistic with people,” Liewer said. “We’re prepared for you, but we don’t know how many will take advantage of it.”

Change means new costs for local election officials

One thing is clear: The new voting option stands to cost counties a significant chunk of change.

In Maricopa County, the price tag is expected to come to at least $1.07 million — a number that encompasses the cost of new tabulators and new full-time staffers to manage additional machines and poll workers.

That figure doesn’t include the expense of adding three poll workers at each voting site, which officials said is still being calculated as they prepare to present a budget for the upcoming midterm election to county leaders.

The total cost of the change will likely be lower in other counties.

Maricopa County uses on-site tabulation on Election Day, meaning that voters insert their ballots into counting machines located at each polling site. That required it to purchase 550 new tabulators to use specifically for mail ballots at the polls — two per site, in case one breaks down.

Most other counties use a central count model in which ballots are placed into secure boxes and transported back to election offices for counting after the polls close.

“It’s a slightly different process — more simple, and not as involved with all these moving parts,” said Musta, of Coconino County.

Still, he said counties will need to segregate ID-verified mail ballots into a separate container and add new poll workers to help voters through the process.

“There’s a lot of new information for poll workers and a lot of training,” he added.

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

Trump issues second executive order on elections, giving U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail voting

2026-04-01T00:43:36+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.

This story has been updated.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday issued a second executive order on elections, this one giving the U.S. Postal Service unprecedented oversight over who is voting by mail, a move experts and state election officials said will quickly draw legal challenges.

The order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” says that states can send the U.S. Postal Service a list of voters “to whom the State intends to provide a mail-in or absentee ballot” 60 days before any federal election, and directs the Postal Service to create “unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes” for those voters.

The Postal Service would only be authorized to deliver ballots from people on an approved list, which states would be allowed “to routinely supplement and provide suggested modifications or amendments” to.

Separately, the executive order also directs the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration and use other federal databases to create a list of all adult citizens residing in each state and send it to the state’s chief election official, though it noted that voters would still be required to register to vote in accordance with state law.

While signing the executive order Tuesday evening, Trump told reporters at the White House that the order was about ensuring voter integrity. “We want to have honest voting in our country, because if you don’t have honest voting, you can’t have, really, a nation.”

Experts say executive order is legally and logistically dubious

Experts said the order will be immediately challenged and that, practically speaking, even if it weren’t, it would be difficult to implement before the November election.

“The president has no power to direct the creation of any of these lists or to restrict the delivery of mail ballots to any given list,” said Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, which represented plaintiffs suing over Trump’s first executive order on elections.

Trump issued that order just over a year ago. Among other things, it attempted to require registering voters to provide documented proof of citizenship and prohibit the counting of mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward. However, federal courts have repeatedly ruled the president lacks the authority to rewrite election law and have so far blocked the order’s major provisions.

Lang said those court rulings “provide a clear roadmap” for challenges to this one.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to make laws governing elections, not the president. Despite that, the White House has promised for months that a second executive order on elections was forthcoming, sparking widespread speculation about what it would include. The order Trump issued Tuesday was less sweeping than some had expected.

Rick Hasen — a professor of election law at the University of California Los Angeles — said the executive order is “pretty mild, given what could have been, but it’s still unconstitutional and not something that could really be implemented in time.”

Asked whether the U.S. Postal Service and Department of Homeland Security could realistically implement the changes in time for the November election, Hasen was blunt: “No way.” He added that if the administration attempted to move forward anyway, “courts would stop it.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. Postal Service, Jeffery Adams, reached by phone, did not immediately respond to questions about whether the agency would, or could, comply with the executive order. “We’re reviewing the executive order right now,” he said.

Even in the absence of immediate court intervention, Hasen warned the effort “is going to conflict with all kinds of state laws that provide for a late sending of mail-in ballots to newly eligible voters and to voters who simply put in a late request.”

More fundamentally, Hasen emphasized that the proposal misunderstands the constitutional structure of election administration. “The fundamental point is that the Constitution doesn’t give DHS any power over elections,” he said. “The power to run state elections rests with the states. The power to run federal elections rests with the states,” except where Congress chooses to act — and, he noted, “the president is not Congress.”

Small changes, big consequences for ballot design

To facilitate much of the tracking envisioned in Trump’s new order, it mandates that all mail ballots use official election envelopes with Postal Service intelligent mail barcodes, whose design would have to be approved by the Postal Service.

Tammy Patrick, chief programs officer at The Election Center, a nonprofit association of election officials, noted the order draws on a ballot-tracking barcode system she helped develop with the Postal Service. She said barcodes and official election mail logos are legitimate best practices — but that the executive order misapplies them without providing funding or a path to implementation.

The system was designed to help the Postal Service identify and prioritize ballots, not to serve as a universal mandate — and many local election offices lack the capacity to implement it, she said.

Patrick also said the proposal conflicts with state laws and voting timelines. “The vast majority of states” allow absentee ballot requests much closer to Election Day, in some cases as late as the “Monday before Tuesday elections,” meaning the changes could disenfranchise voters, including “conceivably tens of thousands” who move shortly before an election.

Patrick said ballot envelope design is “way more complicated than one would ever believe it to be.” Even small changes — like folding ballots for machine processing — can affect how they’re tabulated. She noted that resources to implement barcodes and automation vary widely across jurisdictions, and many states have strict legal requirements limiting changes.

“More than a third of our election offices don’t have a full-time employee. Some of our election offices don’t have a designated computer,” she said. Given those constraints, she believes it will be impossible for many offices to comply.

State election officials express alarm about the order

State election officials agreed that the order would upend the way they do their jobs and, were it to go into effect, would be extremely challenging to implement. Multiple state officials, including those in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin, also signaled that they plan to sue.

Wisconsin Elections Commission chair Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, said she was most concerned by the requirement that states provide the Postal Service with a list of mail voters at least 60 days before an election, noting that Wisconsin law allows voters to request mail ballots far closer to Election Day. Jacobs said she was not reassured by the fact that the executive order allows states to suggest additions to the list. “What if the federal government says no? What happens to those voters?”

The executive order also holds that states violating it would forfeit their federal funding. It’s not clear if the order threatens to withhold just federal money designated for elections, or further federal funds beyond that. Jacobs said Wisconsin wasn’t counting on getting additional federal funds for elections but that it would be “rather extreme” for the state to lose additional federal funding.

The executive order also appears to authorize the U.S. attorney general to prosecute election officials who send ballots to ineligible voters, even unknowingly. Jacobs called that measure a “great way to make sure nobody wants to work in elections.”

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, called the executive order “a disgusting overreach from the federal government.” He said it would upend the state’s voting, which is predominantly conducted by mail, and pledged to fight it in court.

“This move is nothing more than a push to weaponize the sensitive personal information of voters in this country, an effort my office will continue to fight unrelentingly,” he said in a statement.

Arizona’s mailed ballots also already have tracking barcodes on the outer envelope. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, said the state’s existing vote-by-mail system has “been used safely and securely for decades” and accused Trump of “trying to control who gets to vote.”

“We will use every legal tool available to defend Arizona’s elections, Arizona’s voters, and Arizona’s constitutional right to run its own elections,” she said.

In Colorado, a state where nearly everyone votes by mail, Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, said elections officials are “already in conversations with our attorneys general.”

“We look forward to this unconstitutional overreach being stopped by the judiciary,” she said.

Other officials similarly expressed confidence that the order would not stand up in court.

“It’s just an empty threat,” said Scott McDonell, the clerk of Dane County, Wisconsin, adding that his attorneys had told him not to even worry about it.

“The courts will strike it down faster than a cheetah on meth,” he said.

Trump is still pushing other election law changes

Trump has tried passing his election agenda through legislative means, but so far he hasn’t had much success. Two bills that would require documented proof of citizenship to register to vote, the SAVE Act and the SAVE America Act, have passed the House but stalled in the Senate, where the filibuster rule effectively means legislation needs 60 votes to pass. The president has repeatedly called on Republican senators to eliminate the filibuster and pass the legislation, which he has said is his top priority, but they’ve so far been reluctant to do so.

Republicans have had a bit more luck changing election law in GOP-led states, multiple of which have passed proof-of-citizenship requirements and moved mail-ballot receipt deadlines up to Election Day.

But Trump, who has long railed against mail voting, has repeatedly signaled that piecemeal action would not be enough. He has previously posted on social media that he would “lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS” and said in February that “Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”

The executive order does not address other items from Trump’s elections wish list, but at the signing ceremony, Trump hinted he may not be done trying to change election policies. “We’d like to have voter ID, we’d like to have proof of citizenship,” he said. “That’ll be another subject for another time. We’re working on that.”

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.

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

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

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

What to know about Supreme Court oral arguments in late-arriving mail ballots case

2026-03-23T20:33:48+00:00

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

The Supreme Court justices peppered lawyers with probing questions Monday during oral arguments over whether states should be able to decide whether to count mail ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterwards.

The case before the court arises from state and national Republicans’ challenge of a Mississippi law that allows ballots postmarked by Election Day up to be counted as long as they arrive five business days later. The justices must rule on whether Election Day is the deadline for voters to cast their ballots, or whether federal law instead requires ballots to be received by elections officials by that date.

Much of the argument turns on whether federal statutes defining Election Day as “the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November” means that’s the deadline for election officials to to receive voters’ ballots, rather than allowing ballots that were mailed by that date.

Some of the conservative justices asked questions meant to probe the limits and implications of what states could permit.

Justice Samuel Alito said the state’s position raises “some difficult line-drawing problems.” He and others also raised questions about whether the justices should consider concerns that late-arriving ballots could shift the outcome of an election and create a perception of fraud.

The liberal justices, though, said the question is whether Congress has specifically preempted states from allowing post-Election Day grace periods, noting that the text of the federal statutes gives them little to go on. And many of the justices also asked how it’s possible to construe the law as prohibiting states from counting ballots received after Election Day but not, for example, prohibiting early voting, which the Republicans’ lawyers said they do not seek to challenge and believe differs.

If the court were to rule that ballots must be received by Election Day, it could force an abrupt shift for this year’s closely watched midterm elections, potentially confusing voters and affecting whether hundreds of thousands of mail-ballot votes are counted. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked lawyer Paul Clement, representing Republicans, whether a June ruling would be so close to the November elections as to create problems, and Clement said it would not, since mail ballots would not yet have been sent out.

Currently, 14 states and the District of Columbia allow grace periods for late-arriving mail ballots, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. A Votebeat analysis of data from the 2024 election found that at least 750,000 ballots eligible to be counted arrived after Election Day that year. Groups representing military and overseas voters have warned they could be disproportionately affected, and election experts have also said tightening the receipt deadlines could disenfranchise voters affected by slow postal service through no fault of their own.

It’s difficult to predict the effects of changing the deadline, and there’s little data on the partisan breakdown of the late-arriving ballots. Voters from both parties use mail ballots, though in 2024, Democrats reported doing so more often than Republicans. If the receipt deadline were to change, at least some voters would likely cast their ballots early enough to meet the earlier cutoff.

Clement said the federal statutes apply only to federal general elections, not primaries or other elections, so a ruling in their favor would leave open the possibility that states would allow grace periods for late-arriving mail ballots in other elections.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly railed against the counting of late-arriving ballots and pushed for strict new limitations on mail ballots in federal elections. He and other Republicans have said such ballots are a vehicle for fraud. Numerous academic studies have found no increased risk when compared to other types of voting.

In an executive order a year ago, Trump ordered the U.S. Justice Department to “take all necessary action” against states that count ballots received after Election Day, and said federal funding should be conditioned on states agreeing not to do so. At least 15 states sued over those provisions, and federal courts have so far largely blocked them from going into effect.

The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, began in 2024, when the national and state Republican parties and other plaintiffs sued Mississippi. The plaintiffs claimed Mississippi’s statute didn’t comply with federal law. A federal judge sided with the state, but the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiffs, prompting Mississippi to appeal to the Supreme Court.

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

How many voters could be affected by earlier mail ballot deadlines? We ran the numbers.

2026-02-11T18:24:24+00:00

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

President Donald Trump’s sweeping attempts to overhaul the way U.S. elections are run have mostly run into dead ends in the courts. But his administration and allies have successfully tightened rules around at least one of his biggest pet peeves: the counting of mail ballots that are received after Election Day.

Since the 2024 election, four states — all Republican-controlled — have changed their election laws so that they no longer accept mail ballots that arrive after Election Day. And while 14 states and Washington, D.C., still do so as long as those ballots are postmarked by Election Day, more of those ballots could be rejected in future elections due to recent changes to U.S. Postal Service procedures. To top it all off, a pending U.S. Supreme Court case could make it illegal for any jurisdiction to count ballots that arrive after Election Day, period.

Taken together, these changes have the potential to impact, and even disenfranchise, thousands of voters. At the same time, the share of voters whose ballots may be affected constitute only a small fraction of the overall electorate, according to a Votebeat review of data on mail ballots arriving after Election Day.

Votebeat contacted the 19 jurisdictions where voters in the 2024 general election could return their ballots after Election Day and still have them counted. Across the 13 that provided information, more than 750,000 ballots were received after Election Day, representing 0.1-3.1% of the total turnout in those states.

However, voting patterns in 2026 may not look the same as they did in 2024. Voter-education efforts are already underway in some states to urge mail-ballot voters to return their ballots earlier in the future, likely shrinking the number of voters who could be harmed by these changes.

4 red states have already changed their mail ballot deadlines

In the 2024 election, several states allowed mail ballots to arrive after Election Day as long as they were postmarked by then. But in 2025, in line with Trump’s executive order, four of those states — Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah — reversed course and enacted laws making Election Day the deadline for ballots to be received. Other states are considering similar changes. A bill to eliminate the grace period recently passed the state House in West Virginia.

All four states that changed their laws are fully controlled by the GOP. Republicans control both legislative chambers and the governorship in North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah, and they have supermajorities in both chambers in Kansas, allowing them to override Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto.

Despite Democratic objections to these changes, the number of voters affected should be very low. Data is not available on the number of ballots that arrived after Election Day 2024 in North Dakota and Utah, but in Ohio and Kansas, relatively few voters took advantage of this grace period.

In Ohio, just 7,579 mail ballots were received after Election Day and counted, representing just 0.1% of the state’s total votes cast that year. An additional 1,944 mail ballots were received after Election Day but didn’t count, either because they arrived too late after Election Day or for some other reason.

In Kansas, only 2,110 ballots were received and accepted after Election Day, or 0.2% of the total vote. An additional 603 ballots arrived too late to count, and 104 ballots that arrived after Election Day were also rejected because they lacked any postmark whatsoever.

As low as they are, these numbers could decrease even further in future elections. Election officials are already working to inform voters in these states of the new deadline, which will hopefully lead to them returning their ballots earlier. For instance, officials in Wyandotte County, Kansas, told a local news outlet they would be telling voters about the new rules via postcard. In Utah, election officials are advising voters to make use of dropboxes if they are worried their ballot will not be delivered in time via the mail.

But the changes are causing issues in at least one state. Local election officials in Ohio are warning that that state’s new deadline could put additional strain on election offices and require that they hire more workers to process ballots.

Postmark delays could affect mail ballots

Even with the above changes, there are still 15 jurisdictions, representing 43% of 2024 voters, that allow mail ballots to arrive “late” — as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. But late last year, the U.S. Postal Service caused a stir when it issued new guidance declaring that mail might not be postmarked on the same day it is dropped off.

In other words, even if a voter mails their ballot on Election Day, it may not be postmarked until the next day — which would lead to its rejection.

The Postal Service clarified that the new guidance “does not change any existing postal operations or postmarking practices”; it has long been the case that mail is postmarked only once it reaches a processing facility, not necessarily on the day that it’s dropped off at a mailbox or post office. However, the Postal Service did say these lags have become more common following 2025 changes to its collection procedures.

It’s difficult to say how many ballots will be affected by these changes in 2026. Votebeat doesn’t have data on how many ballots were dropped off in 2024 on Election Day itself, and it’s unclear how many more of those ballots might receive delayed postmarks than in 2024. But the number of ballots that arrived after Election Day but were still counted in 2024 can serve as a reasonable ceiling for the number of ballots at risk.

In some places, that number was very small, according to data from state and local officials. For instance, in Mississippi, 1,140 ballots arrived after Election Day that were postmarked on time and accepted. That was just 0.1% of the total votes cast in the state that year. In Washington, D.C., that number was 1,062 ballots, or 0.3% of the total votes cast. In Oregon, it was approximately 13,000 ballots, or 0.6% of the total vote. In West Virginia, it was a tiny 449 ballots, or 0.1% of the total vote.

Barring major changes to voters’ ballot-delivery habits in 2026, the postmark changes should have only minuscule effects on elections in these places.

In other states, these numbers are higher, but they’re still relatively small. In Illinois, 106,521 ballots arrived after Election Day that were postmarked on time and accepted, or 1.9% of the total votes cast in the state. In California, 373,116 ballots arrived after Election Day with valid postmarks (although some of those were rejected for other reasons, like a bad signature), or 2.3% of the state’s total vote. Washington had the highest share of its ballots arrive after Election Day properly postmarked: 3.0%, or approximately 120,000 ballots.

So if voters in these states return their mail ballots in 2026 on the same schedule as they did in 2024, around 2-3% of their voters are at risk of being disenfranchised due to the new postmark rules. But that doesn’t mean they will definitely be disenfranchised. Some of these ballots were certainly mailed before Election Day, meaning they would still likely be postmarked on time even if not the day they were dropped off. And, of course, even some of the ballots mailed on Election Day may still be postmarked on time, given that the new policy doesn’t preclude ballots from being postmarked on the day they are mailed.

There’s one more big caveat: Voters in 2026 probably won’t return their mail ballots on the same schedule as they did in 2024. Many of them will likely hear about the new postmark guidance and decide to return their ballots earlier, use a ballot drop box or bring them to a post office and request a manual postmark (which remains an option for voters afraid of processing delays).

States have also started educating voters about the changes. For instance, Oregon updated its guidance in October to tell voters to mail their ballots a week ahead of time, or else to use a drop box. Many states that do not accept ballots after Election Day, such as Pennsylvania, engage in voter-education campaigns each cycle to make sure voters return their ballots on time

(There’s one other possibility here too. Because the new postmark guidance isn’t actually a change in how post offices operate, it’s possible that many of the ballots that will be rejected as a result of it have already been going uncounted due to late postmarks. Thankfully, this does not appear to be a major issue based on the limited public data available from 2024. Only a few states keep track of how many mail ballots are rejected because of invalid postmarks, but in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, those numbers were just 0.04%, 0.22%, and 0.12% of the electorate, respectively.)

The Supreme Court could require ballots to arrive on Election Day

Finally, it’s also possible that the 15 remaining jurisdictions that accept mail ballots after Election Day will be forced to join Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah in discarding the practice by the 2026 midterms. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing properly postmarked ballots to be counted if they are received within five business days of Election Day.

Opponents of the state law, which include the Republican National Committee, argue that allowing the ballots to be counted conflicts with federal law, which says that federal elections are to be held the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and that counting ballots that arrive after this date risks “chaos and suspicions of impropriety.”

Mississippi argues an “election” is the “conclusive choice” of voters, and voters make that choice by Election Day, even if election officials don’t receive the paper evidence of that choice until a few days later.

Arguments in the case are expected on March 23, with a ruling by early July.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules against Mississippi, it could ban the counting of all ballots received after Election Day nationwide as well, regardless of postmark date. As detailed above, that would still impact only a small percentage of ballots — between 0.1% and 3%, depending on the state. But it would, on average, be more than in Kansas and Ohio, as well as more than would be affected by the new postmark guidance alone.

Officials in the 15 jurisdictions that could be affected are concerned about how voters would adapt.

“Such a ruling would impact our [military and overseas] voters, who have had that additional mailing time for decades, and our Legislature would need to choose how to reconcile that with our absentee ballot laws,” said Debra O’Malley, director of communications for the secretary of the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Spokespeople for both the Illinois State Board of Elections and Washington secretary of state’s office said their respective states were monitoring the case. A ruling that bans the acceptance of ballots that arrive after Election Day would likely require election officials to undertake a large-scale voter reeducation campaign in the states where the practice is still allowed.

“We’re aware of that potential but at this point there’s not a concrete plan for adapting to the ruling,” Matt Dietrich, the Illinois spokesman, wrote in an email. “But we’re certainly prepared to help our election authorities and voters adapt should the ruling affect General Election mail deadlines.”

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

Mail ballot application error adds to Chester County’s woes

2026-02-06T21:12:46+00:00

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

A Pennsylvania county election office that was already facing criticism for a 2025 election snafu and an alleged hostile work environment is dealing with another error.

Roughly 145,000 mail ballot applications sent out in Chester County this week for the 2026 elections were printed with the first and last names of voters reversed, according to the county. However, the applications can still be used as they are, the county and state said.

The error comes three months after the county misprinted its pollbooks for the 2025 municipal election and two months after The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote an article tying the county’s high staff turnover to what critics described as the election director’s heavy-handed management style.

On Monday, the county sent out mail-in ballot applications to voters on its annual mail voter list, sometimes referred to as the permanent list. The list comprises voters who, when applying for a mail ballot the prior year, indicated they wished to be sent an application the following year. Counties around the state mail out those applications around this time each winter.

Chester County officials said they became aware of the reversed names on Wednesday afternoon, but they didn’t post a notice about it on the county website until Friday morning, after the county was contacted by Votebeat and Spotlight PA.

“The County has confirmed with the Pennsylvania Department of State that voters can still complete and submit their applications to Voter Services, either online or using the paper applications, and they will be processed correctly,” spokesperson Andrew Kreider said via email.

Kreider added that the error occurred “during the printing process used by the County’s printing vendor.”

Matt Heckel, a spokesperson for the Department of State, confirmed the applications are still valid. He also said no other county reported similar issues with the vendor Chester County uses.

Thad Hall, election director for western Pennsylvania’s Mercer County, said the data for the applications comes from a spreadsheet from the Department of State. His office sends out its applications itself, but in the past it has also used a vendor.

Hall said counties typically send a letter informing voters they are on the annual list and telling them they can apply again for mail ballots; on the back of that letter is the application. His process involves using a template letter and performing a mail merge to populate that letter with voters’ names and addresses from the spreadsheet. Before sending out the materials to voters, he checks that they were generated properly, and when he used a vendor for this task, the vendor would send him a sample to check for accuracy.

Chester County’s election director, Karen Barsoum, confirmed that the vendor performed the merge and that a sample was sent back to the county for an accuracy check. Barsoum declined to say which employee or division of the office performed the check.

She said the accuracy check was more focused on confirming that the proper information, such as voter ID number or address, was connected to the right voter rather than whether the names were in the correct order.

Hall, the Mercer County director, said at this year’s conference of county election officials, organizers are planning to host panel discussions on leadership, delegation, and having effective vendor interactions.

“We will be doing panels that address these specific issues that have come up twice in Chester County,” he said. “We want to give people the tools to avoid these election pitfalls.”

The mail ballot application mishap comes on the heels of a contentious county meeting Tuesday night at which residents expressed their frustration over the county’s two other recent controversies.

During the November 2025 election, human error resulted in pollbooks getting printed without third-party and independent voters, forcing thousands of people to vote provisionally. (Virtually all of those people’s ballots were eventually counted.) Investigators determined that human error was compounded by the fact that the county did not have adequate processes in place to detect and prevent such problems.

Although the investigation did not conclude that Barsoum management style contributed to the county’s turnover, some commenters at the meeting called for Barsoum to be fired, arguing that her poor leadership had led to the department’s issues. A local blogger and radio station have also called for her ouster.

Following that meeting, county officials declined to comment on Barsoum’s future employment status, and Barsoum told Votebeat and Spotlight PA she had no intention of resigning.

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

What you need to know before voting in Texas’ March 3 primary elections

2026-01-28T11:00:00+00:00

Texans will have more of a say over who their state elected officials will be during the 2026 primaries.

Texas Republican and Democratic voters will pick which candidate they want to represent their interests and their party on the ballot for the November general election. In a state where Republicans dominate state government and where many legislative and congressional districts often are drawn to favor them, the primaries are often very significant. Yet, only a fraction of citizens in Texas vote in primary elections.

There are more than 18 statewide elected officials up for election, along with Texas’ members of Congress, state lawmakers, district-based judges, and local elected officials. With the new congressional maps redrawn to boost the number of Texas Republicans in Congress, some Texans will have to vote in new congressional districts.

Here’s what you need to know about primaries and the voting process. Stay tuned for more guides about candidates in the following weeks. In the meantime, you can use this tool to see how state lawmakers — some of whom are up for election this year — voted on major bills in the past legislative session.

What to do if you still don't have your Texas voter registration card

What’s on the ballot?

Here’s a quick glance at the federal, state, and local elected offices that are up for election this year, according to the Texas Secretary of State.

Federal

1 U.S. senator (John Cornyn’s seat)
All U.S. representatives under new congressional maps after they were redrawn in 2025

State (statewide races)

Texas governor
Lieutenant governor
Attorney general
Comptroller of public accounts
Commissioner of General Land Office
Commissioner of agriculture
One Railroad Commission member (Jim Wright’s seat)
Four members of the Texas Supreme Court
Three members of the Court of Criminal Appeals
Three members of the 15th Court of Appeals

State (regional district-based races)

Eight members of the State Board of Education
Sixteen state senators for districts
All 150 state representatives
Several chief justices of Courts of Appeals
Various regional Courts of Appeals judges

Depending on where you live, lower-level judges and local county offices could also appear on the ballot, including:

County judges
County Courts at Law
Justices of the peace
District clerks
County clerks
County treasurer
County surveyors
County commissioners (precincts 2 and 4)
Various district judges, including on criminal and family courts.

See all the 2026 primary candidates here.

What about third party and independent candidates?

The Libertarian and Green parties have their own nomination process at conventions that typically take place later in the spring. The Libertarian Party of Texas’ state convention is scheduled for April 10-12. The Green Party of Texas has said its county and district conventions will take place in March, followed by a state convention on April 11.

Independent candidates, such as Mike Collier, who announced he is again running for lieutenant governor but not within the Democratic Party, will appear on the ballot in the November general election.

What dates do I need to know?

Feb. 2 is the last day to register to vote and to submit an address change for the midterm election.

You can report an address or name change online. You should do this if you’ve moved since the last time you voted, especially if you have moved to a different county or political subdivision or have legally taken a different name.

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

You can check to see if you’re registered and verify your information through the Texas Secretary of State’s website.

You’ll need one of the following three combinations to log in:

Your Texas driver’s license number and date of birth.
Your first and last names, date of birth and county you reside in.
Your date of birth and Voter Unique Identifier, which appears on your voter registration certificate.

Read more about voter registration requirements further down in this story.

Feb. 20 is the last day to apply to vote by mail.

When do I need to drop off or mail an application to vote by mail?

Applications for mail ballots must be received by the early voting clerk in your county — not postmarked — by Feb. 20. Applications can also be submitted by fax or email, but the county must receive a hard copy within four business days. They can also be dropped off in person.

You can download an application here or request one be mailed to you here.

If you’re looking to vote by mail, give yourself as much leeway as possible. You’ll need to budget for the time it will take your county to get your ballot to you in the mail after you apply.

What is the deadline to mail my completed ballot?

The deadline for mail-in ballots to be returned to the county is Election Day, March 3. If a ballot is postmarked by 7 p.m. locally on Election Day, it’ll be counted if the county receives it by 5 p.m. on March 4. The U.S. Postal Service recommends mailing your ballot at least one week before the deadline, if not sooner.

Absentee ballots can also be delivered in person to the county elections office with a valid form of ID while polls are open on Election Day.

Completed ballots from military or overseas voters are accepted if they’re received by March 9. (Military and overseas voters can go through a different ballot request and return process.)

Read more about vote-by-mail requirements in this section.

Early voting in person runs from Feb. 17-27. If you can’t vote inside of a polling place because of an illness or disability, curbside voting may be available to you. Read more about what qualifies as a disability and about curbside voting options here.

Who is eligible to vote early?

Anyone registered to vote may vote early, but it must be done in person unless you qualify to vote by mail.

Where am I allowed to vote early?

Voters can cast ballots at any polling location in the county where they are registered to vote. Check your county elections office’s website for early-voting locations.

Election Day is March 3.

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election Day.

Are polling locations the same on Election Day as they are during early voting?

Not always. Check where polling locations are open in your area before you head to cast your ballot. In some counties, Election Day voting may be restricted to locations in your designated precinct. Other counties allow voters to cast their ballots at any polling place on Election Day.

Read more about voting options for those who can’t vote in person in this section.

What dates do I need to know for the primary runoff election?

Runoff elections will take place on May 26. The deadline to register to vote in the runoff election is April 27. The deadline for counties to receive applications to vote by mail is May 15. Early voting will occur from May 18-22.

Who can register to vote in Texas?

U.S. citizens in Texas can register to vote if they are 18 or older or if they will be 18 by Election Day.

Citizens in the state cannot register to vote if they have been convicted of a felony and are still serving a sentence, including parole or probation, or if they have been deemed mentally incapacitated in court. Here are more specifics on eligibility.

Eligible people experiencing homelessness can vote, as long as they provide on their registration an address and description for where they are residing, such as a shelter or a street intersection. If needed, their mailing address can be different, but a P.O. Box address is usually not considered a residence address in Texas.

Students studying in Texas who are from other states can also choose to register to vote in the state with their dorm or Texas address.

How do I register to vote?

You must complete and submit a paper voter registration application by Feb. 2.

You can find this at county voter registrars’ offices and some post offices, government offices, and high schools. You can also print out the online application and mail it to the voter registrar in your county. Download your application here. You can also request a postage-paid application through the mail, but this will take some time to receive.

Applications must be postmarked by Feb. 2. You can request the postmark at your local post office.

If you’re worried about the registration deadline, you can also complete or deliver an application in person to your county’s elections administrator. Find yours here. You can also register through organizations that have volunteer registrars like the League of Women Voters, which often hold voter registration events.

Additionally, you can register to vote through the Texas Department of Public Safety while renewing your driver’s license. You may be able to register to vote online if you’re also allowed to renew your license online. This is the only form of online registration in the state.

After you register to vote, you will receive a voter registration certificate within 30 days. It’ll contain your voter information, including the Voter Unique Identifier number needed to update your voter registration online. If the certificate has incorrect information, you’ll need to note corrections and send it to your local voter registrar as soon as possible.

The voter registration certificate can also be used as a secondary form of ID when you vote if you don’t have one of the seven state-approved photo IDs. More information on that here.

Do you have to reregister to vote?

Once you register to vote, you generally remain registered, but there are various reasons why you may want to verify your registration status. For example, you need to update your registration after a name or address change. You can make those updates online here.

What does it mean if my voter registration is ‘in suspense’?

If a county receives a nondeliverable notice after sending a voter registration certificate or suspects an address change, a voter is placed on a “suspense list” and asked to confirm their address. Voters on the suspense list can update or confirm their address before the voter registration deadline to ensure their ability to vote. Voters marked as “in suspense” can also fill out a Statement of Residence when voting by mail or at the polls if they still live in the same county where they registered. (See the next question for options for voters who have moved to a different county.)

If no action is taken by a suspended voter, they are removed from the voter rolls after about four years, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s office.

Federal law prevents the state from removing registered voters within 90 days of a federal election unless the voter has died, been convicted of a felony, or been declared mentally incapacitated.

If you’re concerned about your voter registration, you can verify it online here.

What if I moved after the voter registration deadline?

You must reside in a Texas county by the voter registration deadline to vote in the upcoming election unless you qualify for absentee voting. You can read more about absentee and mail-in voting here.

You can vote at your previous polling location if you moved within the same county or political subdivision. Or you can vote at your new polling location on a ballot limited to the elections you would qualify to vote in at both polling locations, such as federal and statewide races. Limited ballots are available only during early voting at a “main early voting polling place,” which is usually the office of the election administrator or county clerk who runs elections in your county. The main early voting polling place should be noted in a county’s list of early voting locations.

What if I run into issues with my voter registration?

If you have questions or concerns about your registration, you can find your county’s voter registration contact here.

Inside polling locations, there are typically “resolution desks” where poll workers can address registration issues.

You can also find frequently asked questions from the Secretary of State’s office at votetexas.gov.

How do I know if I’m eligible to vote by mail?

This option is fairly limited in Texas. You’re allowed to vote by mail only if at least one of the following applies:

You will be 65 or older by Election Day.
You will not be in your county for the entire voting period, including early voting.
You cite a sickness or disability that prevents you from voting in person without needing personal assistance or without the likelihood of injuring your health.
You’re expected to give birth within three weeks before or after Election Day.
You are confined in jail but otherwise eligible (i.e., not convicted of a felony).

College students who are registered at a residence in Texas, such as a parent’s home, but are studying out of state can apply for absentee ballots.

If you are voting absentee and want to see what will appear on your ballot, you can get a sample ballot from your county. In most cases, sample ballots can be found on your county’s election website.

What identification do I need to vote by mail?

Texas rules for voting by mail require voters to provide an ID number on both their application for a ballot and the carrier envelope used to return a completed ballot. This must be one the following ID numbers:

A driver’s license number
A state ID number
The last four digits of their Social Security number
Texas election ID certificate number (this is a photo ID issued by DPS and is different from the number found on your voter registration certificate)

If you don’t have any of these, you can also check a box indicating you haven’t been issued this identification.

This identification rule was added by the Texas Legislature in 2021. Some voters have had their ballots or applications rejected because they didn’t provide an ID number or the number they provided did not match the one the state had for them.

If you don’t have a license number on file or are unsure about which ID number you provided, the secretary of state has previously suggested contacting your local voter registrar to ask about how to add one of the required numbers to your voter registration record.

Other voting advocates have suggested voters include both their driver’s license or state ID number and the last four digits of their Social Security number, if they have both, to avoid issues.

What counts as a disability to qualify to vote by mail?

The Texas election code’s definition for disability is broader than other federal definitions. A voter is eligible to vote by mail if they have a “sickness or physical condition” that prevents them from voting in person without the likelihood of “needing personal assistance or of injuring the voter’s health.”

What kind of postage do I need to return my mail-in ballot?

Some counties may pay postage for you. Local elections offices should have the specifics once ballots are finalized. That said, if you don’t have enough postage, your ballot is not supposed to be returned to you. Instead, the Postal Service said its practice is to deliver the ballot and bill your election administrator.

What if there’s an issue with my mail-in ballot?

Texas will allow voters to correct their mail-in ballots if the ballots are at risk of being rejected for a technical error, including missing information or signatures. This also applies to issues with the applications for those ballots. County officials are responsible for alerting voters if there is a defect with their application or ballot.

Voters can use a new online ballot tracker to check the status of both their application to vote by mail and their ballot. The tracker can be used to make corrections and is available here. The deadline to correct mail-in ballot applications is Feb. 20. The deadline to correct the envelope of a mail-in ballot is March 9. Corrections may also be submitted by mail – if election officials determine there’s enough time to do so – or in person at a county’s early voting clerk’s office.

How does primary voting work?

During primary elections, you’ll be selecting candidates from the same party. At the polls, you’ll choose whether you want to vote in the Republican or Democratic primary. Some counties will host what’s known as a joint primary, which means everyone checks in at the same desk and uses the same voting machines. In other counties, there will be separate check-in stations and lines for either party.

How can I find which polling places are near me?

By Feb. 11, county election offices should post on their websites information on polling locations for Election Day and during the early-voting period. The Secretary of State’s website will also have information on polling locations closer to the start of voting. However, polling locations may change, so be sure to check your county’s election website before going to vote.

What form of ID do I need to bring?

You’ll need one of seven types of valid photo ID to vote in Texas:

A state driver’s license (issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety)
A Texas election identification certificate (issued by DPS)
A Texas personal identification card (issued by DPS)
A Texas license to carry a handgun (issued by DPS)
A U.S. military ID card with a personal photo
A U.S. citizenship certificate with a personal photo
A U.S. passport

Check out this story for more details.

What if I don’t have a valid photo ID?

Voters can still cast votes if they sign a form swearing that they have a “reasonable impediment” from obtaining a proper photo ID. Those voters will also have to present one of the following types of supporting identification documents:

A valid voter registration certificate
A certified birth certificate
A court-admissable document that confirms your birth and establishes your identity (which may include a foreign birth document)
A current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other document that shows the voter’s name and address. This can be the original document or a copy, except for government documents that contains a voter’s photo, which must be the original.

If you have a valid photo ID but forgot it, you can cast a provisional ballot but will have to visit the local voter registrar’s office by March 9 to present an acceptable ID or documentation in order for the ballot to be counted. A registered voter without a valid photo ID or any of the supporting documents can also cast a provisional ballot.

Are there rules at the polls?

Cellphones, cameras, computers, and other devices that can record sound or images cannot be used within 100 feet of voting stations (where ballots are marked). There are usually traffic cones or signs indicating this. Campaigning, including wearing clothing or other items that publicize candidates, political parties, or measures on the ballot, is also banned beyond this point.

A new law also bans the use of wireless communication devices, like cellphones, in the same room where voting is taking place. Voters are allowed to use written notes to cast their ballot at the discretion of election officers, who determine if the material counts as campaigning.

Firearms, including handguns, are also prohibited at polling places, according to Texas law.

What are my rights as a voter?

If a registered voter’s name does not appear on the list of voters because of an administrative issue, they have the right to cast a provisional ballot.

Voters are entitled to get written instructions about how to cast a ballot or to ask a polling place officer or worker (they can not ask who or what to vote for).

If a voter makes a mistake while marking their ballot, they have a right to use up to two additional ballots to make corrections.

Voters generally have the right to cast their ballots in secret and should not be subject to intimidation.

Voters with disabilities or limited English proficiency can also get interpretation, assistance or other accommodations to vote.

A state law passed in 2023 also allows voters with disabilities or mobility problems to skip the line at their polling location and requires each polling location to have a designated parking spot for curbside voting.

Texas law says voters have the right to vote during work hours without being penalized or losing pay, but this may not apply if a worker has two hours before or after their shift is done to vote.

On Election Day, voters have the right to cast their ballot as long as they’re in line by 7 p.m.

At the polls, voters can talk to election officers or poll workers if they run into issues.

The Secretary of State’s office has a helpline at 1-800-252-VOTE (8683) where state attorneys are available to assist voters and election officials with questions.

A coalition of voting rights groups runs voter protection hotlines in several languages. Disability Rights Texas also offers a helpline for people with disabilities.

What if I was planning to vote in person but can no longer do so?

If you didn’t apply to vote by mail but are unable to go to a polling place, consider requesting an emergency early voting ballot or using curbside voting. Contact your county elections office for more details.

Emergency ballot: These ballots can be requested if you become sick or disabled close to an election and are unable to go to a polling place on Election Day. To qualify, you must designate a representative to submit an application in person on your behalf and have a certified doctor’s note. The application must be received by your county’s early voting clerk before 5 p.m. on Election Day.

Your ballot must be returned by the same designated representative before 7 p.m. on Election Day to be counted. Read more about the process here.

Emergency ballots are also available, through a different process, for individuals who cannot vote on Election Day due to the death of a close family member. Read more about that process and requirements here.

Curbside voting: You can contact your county elections office to determine if you’re eligible for curbside voting, which must be made available at every polling place for voters with disabilities who are unable to enter a polling location. A new law requires curbside voters to fill out a form attesting that they are physically unable to enter a voting location.

How do I know if my provisional ballot was counted?

If you voted with a provisional ballot because of an administrative issue or photo ID problem, you should receive a notice by mail saying whether your ballot was counted in the local canvass, which is the final tally of votes. These notices must be mailed by March 23, according to the state’s election law calendar.

What about regular ballots?

Counties keep track of when people have voted but a voter’s choices are anonymous once ballots are submitted and added to the official count of votes. To ensure vote counts are accurate, counties test election equipment multiple times, including in a public test conducted before an election.

What voter data is public?

Voting history is public. This includes primary election history, meaning the primary you voted in may be disclosed in the rosters of voters that counties are required to post. Your ballot choices are not public.

Disclosure: The Texas Secretary of State has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers disputes Madison’s argument that absentee voting is a privilege

2026-01-26T20:01:40+00:00

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

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers criticized an argument by Madison and its former city clerk that they shouldn’t be held liable for losing 193 absentee ballots because absentee voting is a “privilege,” writing in a court filing that accepting such an argument would “lead to absurd results.”

The argument is key to the city’s defense against a lawsuit that seeks monetary damages on behalf of the 193 Madison residents whose votes in the November 2024 election weren’t counted. It was first presented by the former clerk, Maribeth Witzel-Behl, citing a provision of state law, and then adopted by the city.

If courts accept the argument that absentee voting is a privilege and not a right, the Democratic governor said in a friend-of-the-court brief, election officials would be free to treat absentee ballots in ways that diminish people’s right to vote. For example, he wrote, they would be under no obligation to send voters replacement ballots if ballots they left in a drop box were damaged, and clerks could effectively disqualify ballots from politically disfavored precincts by intentionally not signing their initials on the ballot envelopes.

Experts say that for a governor to intervene in such a local matter is rare and underscores how seriously Evers views the potential implications. In an earlier communication with the court, the governor said the argument from the city and Witzel-Behl “ignores longstanding state constitutional protections.”

Barry Burden, a political science professor at UW-Madison, said Democrats are likely conflicted by the case, seeking to prevent election administration failures like those in Madison while also resisting arguments that could weaken protections for absentee voting in Wisconsin.

“They’re in a weird place to be criticizing absentee balloting in Madison, one of the most Democratic cities in the state,” he said, adding that he thinks the governor “is speaking for the Democratic Party in getting involved in this case” to convey that it is an “isolated incident,” and that the party does not share the position that “absentee voting should be treated any differently in terms of the protections that are given to voters than people who vote in person.’”

In his filing Friday, the governor noted that about 45% of ballots in the 2024 presidential election were absentee.

“The constitutional right to vote,” Evers wrote, “would mean little if close to half of all voters in Wisconsin were deprived of it because they chose to legally cast an absentee ballot.”

Witzel-Behl, former clerk, stands by the ‘privilege’ defense

The lawsuit against Madison officials is a novel type of case in seeking monetary damages over the loss of voting rights. A liberal law firm called Law Forward filed the case against the city and the clerk’s office, along with Witzel-Behl and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick in their personal capacities, alleging that through a series of errors that led to 193 absentee ballots getting lost in the November 2024 election, election workers disenfranchised the voters and violated their constitutional rights.

As part of their defense, attorneys for Witzel-Behl argued in a court filing that by choosing to vote absentee, the 193 voters “exercised a privilege rather than a constitutional right,” and that she therefore couldn’t be held financially liable for the lost ballots. Madison later joined that argument.

Law Forward rejected the argument in a response filed in late December, calling it a “shocking proposition.”

Attorneys for the city and the former clerk submitted their own briefs last week.

Attorneys for Witzel-Behl reiterated their argument that absentee voting is a privilege and not a constitutional right, adding that “an error in the handling or delivery of an absentee ballot is not the constitutional equivalent of barring the door to the voting booth.”

While absentee ballots should normally be counted, they argued, not counting them because of an unintentional error isn’t a constitutional violation that they should be financially liable for.

Rather than following court precedent, they said, the plaintiffs seek to create a “new, foundationless doctrine allowing monetary damages for the mishandling of an absentee ballot.”

Other defendants zero in on novel monetary claim

In a separate brief, Verbick, the deputy clerk, said he “does not, of course, dispute that Plaintiffs have a right to vote” but rather alleges that there’s no path for the plaintiffs to seek monetary damages for the city’s error.

The city, in another brief, similarly said that no court case cited by Law Forward allows plaintiffs to seek damages for ballots that are unintentionally mishandled.

Allowing such claims, outside attorneys for the city warned, would push courts into “dangerous, untested waters.”

“As other courts have cautioned,” they said, “exposing local election officials to financial liability for unintentional disenfranchisement would thrust courts into the minutia of any given election, a role for which courts are unsuited.”

In a separate statement, the city said it believes that all forms of voting, including absentee voting, should be “encouraged, promoted and protected.” But it argued against attaching a dollar amount to a mishandled vote.

Doing so, it said, “would end up regularly costing cities, towns and municipalities hundreds, thousands — or in this case millions — of dollars that could otherwise be spent improving voter access and elections processes.”

Absentee voting has changed substantially since law’s enactment

The law cited by Witzel-Behl’s attorneys labeling absentee voting a privilege — one that may require more regulation than in-person voting — dates back to 1985. It was enacted after judges in a series of Wisconsin court cases called for more liberal interpretation of absentee voting rules. While it has previously been used to invalidate absentee ballots on which voters did not follow procedure, it has so far not been used in support of a locality failing to properly count votes.

“Absentee voting has changed so radically in the 40 years since the law was written,” Burden said. “It was used by a very small number of voters, it was more difficult to use, there were more witness requirements at the time, and clerks were not really as amenable to absentee voting as they are today.”

Today, absentee voting is an expected and routine part of elections.

“So to treat it as kind of a special class with different rules or rights, maybe in the 1980s that made more sense,” Burden said. “But now it’s as important as any other kind of voting and so it seems more peculiar, I think, to treat it in some different way.”

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

Postal Service changes mean Texas voters shouldn’t wait to mail voter registrations and ballots

2026-01-21T10:00:00+00:00

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

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

The new policy means that even if a voter drops their mail ballot in a box by Election Day, it could be rejected if it’s not postmarked on that day. A voter registration application also could miss being postmarked by the Feb. 2 deadline.

That means it’s important to mail voter registration applications and mail ballots early, or bring election mail to a post office and request a manual postmark.

In Texas, there’s no way to register to vote online. The state requires voters to submit a voter registration application to county voter registrars in person or by mail. Mailed applications must be postmarked by Feb. 2 in order for a voter to be eligible to cast a ballot in next month’s primary election.

Mail ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and received by 5 p.m. on the following day in order to be counted.

Here’s what you need to know about the deadlines and procedures for registering and voting by mail:

When is the Texas voter registration deadline for the primary?

In order for a voter to be eligible to vote in the March 3 primary election, their voter registration application must be submitted to the county voter registrar or postmarked by Feb. 2.

Voters can register to vote at any time prior to the deadline. You can print out this form, sign it, and submit it.

What is the Texas mail-in ballot application deadline?

If you qualify to vote by mail, you must first fill out and submit a mail ballot application. For the coming March primary, all mail ballot applications must be received by the end of business on Feb. 20. That time of day varies by county.

What’s the deadline to mail in my ballot?

Election officials can tally mail-in ballots that are postmarked before 7 p.m. on March 3, which is Election Day, and received by 5 p.m. on March 4.

Can I drop it off in person instead?

Yes, but only on Election Day, when voters are permitted to drop off their mail ballot in person at the elections office. Voters are allowed to deliver only their own ballot, and must bring a photo ID. Mail-in ballots cannot be dropped off in person during the two weeks of early voting or any other time prior to Election Day.

What if I live abroad or I am a member of the military overseas?

The deadline to receive ballots from overseas voters is Monday, March 9. The carrier envelope must have a postmark showing it was in the mail by 7 p.m. on March 3 (Election Day).

For military voters who mailed ballots domestically or from overseas and who submitted a Federal Post Card Application, the deadline is also March 9. The carrier envelope does not need to have any postmark.

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

New federal ruling is latest defeat to Trump administration’s election agenda

2026-01-13T20:10:57+00:00

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

A federal judge on Friday became the third one to block key provisions of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at revising election rules nationwide, ruling that the Constitution gives states and Congress —not the president— the authority to exercise power over elections.

The administration signaled it is likely to appeal the decision, the latest blow to Trump’s agenda on elections.

His March executive order sought to require proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form, mostly ban the use of machine-readable codes when tallying ballots, and prohibit the counting of ballots postmarked Election Day but received afterwards.

The administration has appealed two earlier rulings in other cases against the executive order. The cases could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, but election law experts told Votebeat the president faces long odds.

The White House has said the president is planning a second executive order on elections, though it’s unclear what will be in it, and federal court rulings so far show the approach has limitations.

“The court is very clear that the Constitution gives no authority to the president to do any of these things, and that federal law doesn’t either,” said Derek Clinger, a senior staff attorney with the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative.

The president has also pushed for congressional action to change federal election laws, though federal legislation so far has stalled. He’s called on state lawmakers to advance his policy goals and some states, including Ohio, have repealed grace periods for mail ballots postmarked by Election Day but not received until afterwards.

In rulings in the two related elections executive order cases last year, federal judges struck down provisions of the order requiring those who registered to vote using the federal voter registration form to provide documentary proof of citizenship and requiring federal voter registration agencies to “assess” the citizenship of individuals who receive public assistance before providing them a voter registration form.

“It keeps getting worse for him,” David Becker, an election lawyer who worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and now leads the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research, said about Trump. “The more courts look at this executive order, the more they come to the conclusion that the president vastly exceeded his constitutional authority.”

Court ruling meant to ‘restore the proper balance of power’

In his Friday ruling, U.S. District Judge John Chun sided with the states of Oregon and Washington in his ruling against provisions of Trump’s order. He ruled against aspects of the order that require documented proof of citizenship on a federal voter form, call on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to revise certification guidelines to prohibit certain voting machines, and stop absentee ballots arriving after Election Day from being tallied, even if they are postmarked by Election Day.

He also struck down provisions of the executive order tying federal election funding to complying with the proof-of-citizenship provisions and the one banning ballots arriving after Election Day from being processed.

Chun, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, cited a long history of federal authorities — courts, politicians, and the Founding Fathers — recognizing the potential dangers in giving the president unilateral presidential powers of elections.

The intent of his decision, he said, was to “restore the proper balance of power among the Executive Branch, the states, and Congress envisioned by the Framers.”

Chun specified that his rulings blocking provisions denying election funding and banning ballots arriving after Election Day would apply only to Oregon and Washington, states that primarily rely on mail voting and which brought the lawsuit. But he barred the U.S. EAC from altering the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship and altering the agency’s Voluntary Voting System Guidelines to exclude machines that tally ballots using barcodes or quick-response codes.

The Department of Justice didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Executive order fails in court but inspires some action elsewhere

There are just two available constitutional paths for people in the federal government to change election policy in the states, Becker said: an act of Congress or persuading a state Legislature to change state election law.

Outside of some Republican-majority states banning mail-voting grace periods, he added, Trump’s desire to change state-level voting policy has been largely ineffective — states have hardly changed their practices.

Clinger said that the executive order is having a more tangible impact within the federal government.

For example, he said, the order instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to prioritize violations of election laws. The agency has filed 23 lawsuits so far against states unwilling to provide unredacted voter data to the government, which the Justice Department said it needs to make sure federal election laws are properly followed, and many of those lawsuits cited Trump’s executive order.

“Even if the executive order isn’t accomplishing its goals, it does come off as marching orders to the rest of the federal government to pursue related goals,” he said.

Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University who advised President Joe Biden’s administration on democracy and voting rights, said Trump’s election agenda boils down to “project power that he doesn’t have,” in hopes that the public will lose confidence in election results “even if the rules don’t change one bit.”

Levitt said doesn’t think the public will buy the hype, mostly because Trump and his allies don’t appear to have an actual plan for advancing their agenda. As he has in the past, he likened it to a South Park episode in which gnomes steal underpants as part of a three-step scheme — except they can’t explain the step between collecting the underpants and turning a profit.

A strategy missing the middle, Levitt said, “encapsulates quite a bit of the Trump administration’s approach to elections.”

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

Postmarks, interference, physical threats: Election officials brace for the 2026 elections

2026-01-12T10:00:00+00:00

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

Election officials from around the country gathered at a conference in Virginia this week, giving us — and one another — a chance to hear what they’re thinking and worrying about as they plan for the midterm elections this year.

One of their most pressing concerns: the mail.

Updated guidance from the U.S. Postal Service about how it processes mail and when postmarks are applied has sparked widespread concern in recent weeks about whether more mail ballots will be at risk of ultimately not being counted.

Fourteen states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands count mail ballots received within a certain period after Election Day, as long as they’re postmarked by Election Day. In a notice in the Federal Register that took effect Dec. 24, the Postal Service announced that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it, which could affect ballots dropped in mailboxes on Election Day, for instance.

Speaking at the conference, which was organized by the Election Center, a nonprofit association of election officials, U.S. Postmaster General David Steiner acknowledged the new regulation had sparked “a lot of confusion,” and said it was meant to clarify existing postmarking practices.

Adjustments to the Postal Service’s transportation operations mean that some mail won’t arrive at a processing facility on the same day it’s mailed, according to an agency fact sheet. That means postmarks applied at the processing facility may not match the date the mail was given to a letter carrier or dropped off, the agency said, which is what’s raising concerns about whether some ballots mailed by the deadline could still not get counted.

Earlier in his career, Steiner was a tax accountant, he told the gathering, “and anyone that ever practiced tax accounting knows that there’s only one way to make sure that that tax return that has to be postmarked by April 15 is actually postmarked on April 15”: lining up at the post office and requesting a manual postmark.

Steiner urged the election officials in attendance to inform voters that they can request manual postmarks at post offices with a date that reflects when the ballot was mailed. He promised that the agency would continue to take steps to prioritize the timely delivery of election mail, but said voters need to mail ballots at least a week before the receipt deadline. “We want to make sure that every ballot is delivered, and mailing early is a big part of that,” he said.

Election officials in recent years have repeatedly voiced frustrations with mail delays and urged voters to cast their ballots earlier, so the current questions aren’t entirely new.

But they’re occurring now against a backdrop of rising concern over the federal government’s role in elections, and especially President Donald Trump’s repeated attacks on mail ballots. Trump has suggested he might attempt to curb their use through an executive order.

If Trump, or any president, issues such an executive order, “have you gamed out what you’ll do?” Judd Choate, Colorado’s state elections director, asked a panel of postal officials following Steiner’s address. Colorado is one of several states where people vote primarily by mail.

Panelist Adrienne Marshall acknowledged she was asked the same question at a different event over the summer.

“Of course, by the Constitution … we are required to deliver the nation’s mail,” she noted.

Marshall said that, without her legal team there, she was “not sure” how exactly her agency would respond to a theoretical executive order, but said she believes any executive order on mail ballots would likely be aimed more at election officials than the Postal Service.

The Colorado Department of State said it’s prepared for various scenarios that might affect the 2026 election cycle, but a spokesman wouldn’t comment on specifics.

Another session at the conference aimed to prepare election officials for potential election interference, covering a range of scenarios from how to handle Justice Department and congressional observers to the implications of placing polling sites or ballot drop boxes on federal property.

At a session with an FBI representative, election officials raised questions about the threats against them and election workers, a constant refrain since the 2020 presidential election.

And at a session with two members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Vice Chair Thomas Hicks, a Democrat, told election officials to take every opportunity to educate members of Congress about election needs. He noted that two long-serving members of Congress who were instrumental in passing the landmark Help America Vote Act of 2002 — Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican — are retiring after this year, leaving what he described as “a huge, huge void, and that’s a bipartisan void.”

Election officials’ list of worries, in other words, remains long.

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

Madison’s defense in missing-ballot case: Absentee voting is a ‘privilege,’ not a right

2026-01-08T21:06:12+00:00

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

The city of Madison, Wisconsin, and its former clerk are arguing in court that they can’t be sued for failing to count 193 absentee ballots in the 2024 presidential election, in part because a Wisconsin law calls absentee voting a privilege, not a constitutional right.

That legal argument raises questions about how much protection absentee voters have against the risk of disenfranchisement — and could reignite a recent debate over whether the law calling absentee voting a privilege is itself unconstitutional.

That law, which appears to be uncommon outside of Wisconsin, has been cited repeatedly in recent years in attempts to impose more requirements and restrictions on absentee voting, and, at times, disqualify absentee ballots on which the voters have made errors. It does not appear to have been invoked to absolve election officials for errors in handling correctly cast ballots.

Nonetheless, the law has become central to the defense presented by Madison and its former clerk, Maribeth Witzel-Behl, in a novel lawsuit seeking monetary damages on behalf of the voters whose ballots went missing.

The suit, filed by the law firm Law Forward, names the city and the clerk’s office as defendants, along with Witzel-Behl and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick in their personal capacities, and cites a series of errors after the 2024 election that led to the ballots not being counted in alleging that they violated voters’ constitutional rights.

In defending against that claim, attorneys for Witzel-Behl argued in a court filing that by choosing to vote absentee, the 193 disenfranchised voters “exercised a privilege rather than a constitutional right.”

Witzel-Behl’s filing argues that the 193 disenfranchised voters did, in fact, exercise their right to vote, but chose to vote absentee and therefore place the ballots into an administrative system that “can result in errors.”

“The fact that Plaintiffs’ ballots were not counted is unfortunate,” the filing states. “But it is the result of human error, not malice. And that human error was not a violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to vote.”

Matthew W. O’Neill, an attorney representing Witzel-Behl, declined to comment.

The city’s attorneys have now adopted the same argument, filings show.

Asked about the city’s legal defense, Madison’s current clerk, Lydia McComas didn’t address the argument directly but told Votebeat that the city is committed to counting all eligible votes “regardless of how they are cast.”

Phil Keisling, a former Oregon secretary of state, said he wasn’t aware of other states with similar laws. He said he found the city’s argument wrong and offensive.

“The right to vote, if there is a state constitutional right to vote, should have nothing to do with the form that a voter chooses,” he said.

Law passed to clarify absentee voting requirements

The law that Madison cites in its legal defense was enacted in 1985, long before absentee voting became widespread. The stricter language about the regulation of absentee voting came after judges in a series of Wisconsin court cases called for more liberal interpretation of those regulations.

The law states that while voting is a constitutional right, “voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place.” A subsequent provision states that absentee ballots that do not follow required procedures “may not be counted.”

The law appears similar to a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that drew a distinction between the right to vote and the right to receive absentee ballots. That decision has since been interpreted — and misinterpreted — in a “number of ways by a number of people wanting to trim back mail voting,” said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University.

After the Wisconsin law was enacted, the state election board clarified the Legislature’s position that failing to comply with procedures for absentee ballot applications and voting would result in ballots not being counted. The board did not suggest the law could be used to excuse municipalities that improperly discard legally cast ballots.

Absentee voting has long been available in Wisconsin but surged in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and has been extensively litigated since then.

The law calling absentee voting a privilege was central to a lawsuit that resulted in a 2022 statewide ban on ballot drop boxes; another lawsuit to prohibit voters from being able to spoil ballots and vote a new one; and President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election outcome in Wisconsin.

A later lawsuit led to the reinstatement of drop boxes in 2024. In that case, plaintiffs argued that the law “unconstitutionally degrades the voting rights of all absentee voters by increasing the risk of disenfranchisement.” The court, then led by liberal justices, declined to overturn the statute but disagreed with an earlier interpretation that absentee voting requires heightened skepticism.

Experts say Madison’s defense misinterprets the law

Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA Law School and expert on election law, said he didn’t think the law itself was problematic, adding that states have various laws controlling absentee voting. The U.S. Constitution, he noted, doesn’t require any state to offer absentee voting.

But “once the state gives someone the opportunity to vote by mail,” he said, “then they can’t — as a matter of federal constitutional law — deprive that person of their vote because they chose a method that the state didn’t have to offer.”

The city and Witzel-Behl’s use of the law in this instance “seems to be wrong,” said Hasen.

Attorneys for Law Forward in a court filing called Witzel-Behl’s argument a “shocking proposition.”

“There is no right to vote if our votes are not counted,” Law Forward staff attorney Scott Thompson told Votebeat. “And this is the only case I’m aware of where a municipal government has argued otherwise.”

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

How the U.S. Postal Service’s new guidance on postmarks could affect mail voters

2026-01-07T10:00:00+00:00

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

Mail voters in 18 jurisdictions may need to take extra care to ensure that their ballots aren’t rejected under new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service about how it processes mail.

In a notice in the Federal Register that took effect Dec. 24, the Postal Service announced that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. The change could affect thousands of people who vote by mail in places that allow mail ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day but postmarked by Election Day.

Those policies are in effect in 14 states — Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia — along with the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The new guidance means that, even if a voter delivers their ballot to the Postal Service by Election Day, it may nevertheless be rejected if it is not postmarked that day.

However, voters in these places who mail their ballots on Election Day can still try to ensure that their ballots will count by bringing it to a post office and requesting a manual postmark indicating when it was dropped off.

States move to educate voters

States are already taking steps to educate voters so they aren’t disenfranchised. For instance, Oregon updated its guidance in November to tell voters to mail their ballots a week ahead of time, or else to use a drop box.

“I’m deeply concerned that USPS is doubling down on making it harder for Oregonians, especially rural Oregonians, to vote,” Secretary of State Tobias Reed said. “We’re already taking action, providing updated guidance to make sure every legal vote gets counted, and we’ll continue to sound the alarm: This is a threat to Oregonians’ right to hold government accountable.”

In response to criticism, the Postal Service clarified that the new rule “does not change any existing postal operations or postmarking practices” but rather codifies how postmarks have long been applied. The announcement said that mail is postmarked once it reaches a processing facility, which may not be the same day that it’s dropped off at a mailbox or post office. It noted, however, that these lags have become more common since the implementation of the Regional Transportation Optimization initiative in 2025. Under that initiative, mail that is dropped off more than 50 miles away from a regional hub is collected the next day rather than the same day.

“As explained in the Proposed Rule, postmarks applied at originating processing facilities have never provided a perfectly reliable indicator of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece, and this fact will become more common under RTO,” the Postal Service wrote in the Federal Register. “Therefore, to the extent that customers currently have this view of the postmark, it does not reflect the realities of postal operations.”

The Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy research organization, found that under USPS’ new Regional Processing and Distribution Center network, nearly 50% of post offices are more than 100 miles from their processing center, meaning the mail dropped off at those post office is subject to getting postmarked at least one day late.

According to the Brookings report, some of the 14 states that accept properly postmarked ballots after Election Day, such as California, carry a low risk of postmark delays, but in more rural states such as Mississippi and West Virginia, more than 95% of ZIP codes are at a high risk of postmark delays.

Trump opposes accepting ballots after Election Day

President Donald Trump has long railed against mail voting for what he sees as its susceptibility to fraud. In August, he said in a social media post that he would “lead a movement” to get rid of it.

And he’s taken particular issue with the practice of allowing mail ballots to be received after Election Day. In March 2025, he issued an executive order that asserted in part that federal law prohibited ballots from being counted if they arrived after Election Day. While the president does not have authority over how elections are run, several states changed their statutes following that executive order. The Republican National Committee is also arguing in a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court that accepting mail ballots after Election Day violates federal law.

Jennifer Morrell, CEO of The Elections Group and a former election official, agreed that the new rule is just a clarification of current practices and said that, to an extent, election officials have always had to contend with postmark issues or late-arriving mail.

She noted that postmark issues can affect not only ballots, but also other election-related mail, such as voter registration applications. For instance, Tennessee allows voters to register so long as the postmark on their mailed application shows it was sent by the deadline.

“I think the main thing for election officials is going to be where do we get the resources, where do we get the expertise, to do more voter outreach and communication,” she said. “How are we going to inform voters of what they need to do so that their registration form arrives on time, so that their mail ballot arrives on time, so that their ballot can be counted? To me, that’s the bigger question.”

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

Arizona’s Maricopa County reports higher rate of ballot rejections for mismatched signatures

2025-11-20T23:03:43+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.

Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap said his office rejected 5,903 mailed-in ballots in the Nov. 4 election over mismatched signatures — or roughly 838 for every 100,000 ballots cast, more than double the rate of the 2024 general election.

Heap, a Republican who took office in January after campaigning on a platform of election integrity, said he put new practices in place to verify signatures on mail-in ballots that sped up the process, made it more secure, and will boost public trust in elections.

But Heap’s report on Wednesday, which came during the canvass of the countywide jurisdictional election, troubled three of the five members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, who questioned him about the results.

Board Chairman Tom Galvin, a Republican, emphasized the disparity in rejection rates between this year’s election and the 2024 presidential election, when officials rejected 7,220 ballots for bad signatures, or about 396 for every 100,000 cast.

“If you increase the number of signatures being rejected, do you think that increases the trust in elections?” Galvin asked Heap during the canvass.

He said he’s concerned that if the rejection rate continues to climb, candidates in the 2026 election may file suit to demand that rejected ballots be counted.

Heap said he’s trying to increase trust through bipartisan verification, transparency and multiple security checks.

Arizona’s signature verification process

In Arizona, voters who mail in their ballots sign an affidavit on the envelope, and it is the job of county recorders to verify the signatures by comparing them with sample signatures on file.

Arizona law requires counties to notify voters when they flag an inconsistent or missing signature, and the law gives voters until three days after Election Day for jurisdictional elections to call, text, or visit county offices to confirm that the signature belongs to them, a process called curing. If the voter does not cure the ballot by the deadline, it is rejected.

A 2024 Votebeat investigation in partnership with the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting found that the number of ballots rejected for questionable signatures in Maricopa County tripled between the 2020 presidential election and the 2022 midterms under Heap’s predecessor, Republican Stephen Richer.

Richer implemented a stricter signature verification process in response to false claims of voter fraud and pressure from his own party.

The investigation found that flaws in the county’s signature verification process could lead to disenfranchisement that disproportionately affected voters who are younger, newly registered, or unaffiliated with a political party. Voters whose signatures change with age and voters with disabilities also tended to be flagged for questionable signatures.

Arizona has had elections decided by a few hundred votes in recent years, so even a small number of rejected ballots could affect the outcome.

Heap says his approach sped up reviews

The Nov. 4 election included 30 jurisdictions and 48 contests and one countywide election to decide a tax increase for a public-health district. All 2.7 million registered voters in the county received a ballot in the mail.

Maricopa County's new signature verification process starts with bipartisan teams that examine a signature simultaneously.

Heap and his staff said the fact that it was all done by mail may have contributed to the high rejection rate, because it brought out voters who haven’t voted by mail in several cycles or even decades and who have only one signature on file to compare.

“I think it’s the nature of this type of election compared to a regular election,” Heap said.

Heap, who was a critic of how Maricopa County administered its elections before he took office, said his new signature verification process starts with bipartisan teams that examine a signature simultaneously. A questionable signature will go to a supervisor to determine if it needs to go to a third level of examination.

Under the previous administration, he said, one person reviewed a batch of 250 to 500 ballots and then rechecked their work before sending questionable signatures to a supervisor to determine if the ballot needed to be cured.

He said that process took far too long, especially when the county was buried with “late early” ballots, or ballots that voters on the Early Voting List would drop off on Election Day at a designated site rather than sending in the mail.

Heap said at the canvass that his office was able to get through the late-early ballots in 8.5 hours, compared with 48 hours in last year’s primary. Jennifer Liewer, a deputy elections director for Maricopa County, later told Votebeat that it took the county a day to handle the 2024 primary ballots.

“In the end, signatures either match or they don’t,” Heap said.

Tension between Heap and supervisors

Heap shares election duties with the Board of Supervisors, and they’re locked in a fierce legal battle over the division of election responsibilities. The county recorder handles campaign finance, voter registration, and early voting.

Supervisor Kate Brophy McGee, a Republican, said at the canvass that she would like to know more about the rejected ballots, such as which parts of the county they are from, to identify whether there was a problem that led to so many rejected ballots.

“It’s my belief that people don’t fill out their ballots and sign it — whether it’s on a steering wheel, their lap or whatever — with the idea of mailing it in and not having it be counted,” Brophy McGee said.

Galvin said Thursday that he understands Heap’s intent and that the supervisors’ board has no authority to force him to handle the process differently, but he said the recorder should consider the feedback.

“The increased rate was staring us in the face,” Galvin said. “How could we ignore it?”

Batch of ballots misplaced

County staff also briefed supervisors on a batch of ballots that were misplaced and found on the last day voters could cure them.

Elections Director Scott Jarrett, who works for the supervisors board, said election workers at a Glendale voting location took two sealed bins containing 2,288 ballots, in their envelopes, and placed them in a dropbox to wheel them to a truck for transport to an elections warehouse.

The driver did not tell anyone at the elections warehouse that the bins were in the box, and they weren’t discovered until a few hours before the cure deadline on Nov. 7. Liewer later told Votebeat it was eight hours before.

Jarrett said the chain of custody on the ballots was intact.

Workers with the Recorder’s Office worked frantically to process the ballots and deal with the ones that needed to be cured. Staff contacted the voters whose signatures were questionable every three hours, said Ray Valenzuela, who is in charge of early voting for the Recorder’s Office.

All but 16 of the ballots were cured and counted. Jarrett said the county is now looking into real-time tracking.

Correction, Nov. 20: An earlier version of this story misstated the time limit under state law for Arizona voters to cure their ballots. It is three days after Election Day for jurisdictional elections, and five days for federal elections. This story has also been updated to include comments from Jennifer Liewer, a Maricopa County deputy elections director, and clarify that both Heap and Liewer were referring to the 2024 primary ballots.

Contact Votebeat at az.tips@votebeat.org.

Arizona early-voter list would be abolished under proposed ballot measure

2025-11-18T23:18:48+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.

A Republican state lawmaker who is also running for secretary of state has introduced a proposed ballot measure that would overhaul early voting in Arizona by eliminating the early-voter list, shortening the time to cast early ballots, and requiring proof of citizenship to receive an early ballot.

State Rep. Alex Kolodin, who as a lawmaker and a former lawyer for the Arizona Republican Party has pushed to abolish the state’s early-voter list, said in a press release that he’s pushing legislation to put the measure on the ballot because “Arizonans are tired of excuses and chaos on Election Day.”

Kolodin said in a statement that his proposal would improve identification standards and ensure timely election results. He did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

Some provisions of his proposed measure are already in state law, including a poll closing time of 7 p.m. on Election Day and a voter ID requirement.

But others would eliminate a fixture of Arizona elections, the Active Early Voter List, which allows voters to sign up to receive a mail ballot automatically for each election they’re eligible for. Under Kolodin’s proposal, only voters who have provided proof of citizenship would get an early ballot, and they would have to ask for one every two years.

The early-voting list was already due for changes under a law passed in 2021. Starting in 2027, a voter will be removed from the list if they don’t cast their mail ballot for two consecutive general election cycles — a four-year period. That includes statewide general and primary elections, as well as local candidate elections.

Requiring requests every two years, as Kolodin proposes, “is a highly unpopular idea,” said Alex Gulotta, the Arizona director for nonprofit voting advocacy group All Voting is Local. “It’s counter to the way the people of Arizona have executed their right to vote, and if they put it on the ballot, voters are going to vote against it.”

Former Secretary of State Ken Bennett, a Republican, also questioned whether, under the proposal, voters would have to ask for a mail-in ballot just once every two years, or whether they would have to make separate requests for the primary and the general election.

“That would be a nightmare,” Bennett said. “I don’t know if they thought through that wording, but they better be careful.”

The proof-of-citizenship requirement could also raise a legal question.

Arizona voters in 2004 passed Proposition 200, which requires documentary proof of citizenship to vote.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona could not require proof of citizenship for voters who register with a federal voter registration form that the state is required to accept, because the federal form did not require such proof. But the justices allowed the state to keep the requirement in place for voters who register with a state form, to vote in state and local elections. Voters who register using the federal form must be permitted to vote in elections for president and for Congress.

Bennett was in office when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013, and he made the decision to split Arizona’s voter rolls, creating a list of federal-only voters.

Earlier this year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voided many provisions of a 2022 Arizona law that added a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal form applicants to vote by mail, as well as requiring proof of citizenship to vote in presidential elections.

Bennett said he sees other problems with Kolodin’s legislation.

For example, the legislation also proposes ending early voting no later than 7 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day. Bennett said that language should be adjusted to make sure not to invalidate any mail ballots that are returned to elections officials over the weekend or on Monday and Tuesday.

The legislation is a concurrent resolution, meaning it doesn’t require the governor’s approval and goes directly to voters on the November 2026 ballot if the Legislature approves it.

State Sen. Shawnna Bolick, a Phoenix Republican, introduced a mirror resolution in her chamber. Introducing duplicate legislation in each chamber allows it to move on a fast track. Bolick did not respond to a request through the Senate spokesperson for an interview.

Contact Votebeat at az.tips@votebeat.org.

Republican voters drive increase in mail ballot requests in Pennsylvania

2025-10-27T19:30:07+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.

With one day left for Pennsylvanians to request a ballot to vote by mail, state data shows voters of both parties are turning to that method in record numbers — and Republicans have seen a particularly strong rise.

According to data from the Pennsylvania Department of State, as of Monday, more than 1.1 million voters had requested a mail ballot.

That’s up 17% from the 2021 municipal election, the most comparable recent election, and up 9% from 2023, when higher-profile local races such as district attorney and county commissioner were on the ballot.

The increases could be a sign that voters are more interested in the judicial retention races on this year’s ballots than they have been in other races in recent municipal elections.

The last day to request a ballot is Tuesday, Oct. 28.

“The numbers struck me,” said Chris Borick, a professor of political science at Muhlenberg College in Allentown. “Having that type of activity at this point does suggest that voters are a bit more engaged this time around.”

Republican voters appear to be driving the trend. While Democrats still make up the majority of mail ballot requests, 66%, Republicans now make up a greater share than they did four years ago. The number of mail ballots requested by GOP voters has risen to roughly 277,000 from 205,000 in 2021, a 35% increase. The Democrats’ total, by comparison, is up just 9%

As of Monday, voters of both parties had returned roughly 52.5% of their ballots.

This is despite Republican leaders sending mixed messages to voters on the safety of mail voting.

President Donald Trump has derided mail voting as susceptible to fraud and said in an August social media post that he would “lead a movement” to get rid of it. But local and state Republicans have been encouraging people to vote by mail.

Just last week, Rep. Dan Meuser, a Republican once considered a top contender for governor, promoted the option in a social media post shared by the state party.

“Things change for a lot of us, so if you can vote early, vote early,” he said. “Send your mail ballot in.”

While the Republican interest in mail voting has been growing steadily in recent election cycles, the increase for this year’s typically low-turnout municipal election may have to do with the year’s highest-profile race: a judicial retention election that will decide whether several appellate judges initially elected as Democrats get to stay on the bench for 10 more years.

Republicans have been urging voters to vote “No” on three state Supreme Court justices, and two lower court justices. They hope a no vote will open up the possibility of flipping the ideological majority of the state Supreme Court court during the 2027 municipal election. Millions of dollars have already been spent in the race on a type of election that historically received little attention.

The state Supreme Court plays a crucial role in elections, settling high-profile legal disputes. Republicans are citing some of those recent rulings as a reason to vote no.

Borick, the Muhlenberg professor, said so far, he is seeing signs that the retention races are driving greater interest in this election, compared with previous municipal elections. However, he said the numbers of mail ballot requests aren’t a definitive indicator.

The ultimate question, which can’t be answered until Election Day, is whether they represent an actual increase in turnout or just voters who typically go to the polls shifting to voting by mail, he said.

“I’m confident that the Republican efforts to reach out to the voters and make them more comfortable with mail ballots has shown some results,” he said. “Now, again, will those be some different voters? I think Republicans are optimistic it will maybe get on the margins, some folks that wouldn’t have shown up…and therefore add to their totals.”

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

What Pennsylvania voters need to know ahead of November’s election

2025-10-23T16:42:25+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.

Pennsylvanians will head to the polls next month to vote in some distinctive contests.

The highest profile race this year is for three state Supreme Court justices hoping to remain on the bench. Also on the ballot, representing the smallest possible constituency, are candidates seeking to be precinct-level election workers.

And if you haven’t voted by mail since the 2024 presidential election, there are some changes that could affect you.

Here is what you need to know ahead of the Nov. 4 municipal election:

What are judicial retention elections?

In Pennsylvania, judges and justices on the state’s appellate courts are elected for 10-year terms. As their terms come to an end, jurists run for retention, which means another 10-year term.

When they first run for office, judges run in the primary and declare a political party. But when they run for retention, they’re not running against any other candidate, and no party affiliation appears next to their name on the ballot.

Voters will be asked to simply vote “yes” or “no” on whether the judges and justices should serve another term.

Yes-or-no retention races are the most common way state Supreme Court judges run for additional terms, but Pennsylvania’s combination of initially partisan elections followed by nonpartisan retention races is less common.

Retention campaigns in Pennsylvania are almost always successful. Only one state appellate judge, Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro, has ever lost a retention race.

If a judge loses a retention vote, the governor, Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, would appoint a replacement to fill in until the next municipal election in 2027. The appointment is subject to confirmation by the GOP-controlled state Senate.

Who are the judges up for retention?

Five statewide appellate court judges are up for retention this year, including three state Supreme Court justices.

Commonwealth Court Judge Michael Wojcik is running for another term, as is Superior Court Judge Alice Dubow, although that court does not handle election law issues.

On the state Supreme Court, Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht will be on the ballot.

All five initially ran as Democrats, and the Pennsylvania Bar Association has recommended all five for retention.

Republicans are vigorously campaigning against retaining the judges, especially the state Supreme Court justices, and have repeatedly highlighted their rulings on election law cases. The justices have ruled on everything from gerrymandered congressional maps to rules surrounding mail voting. A key case on mail ballots is currently pending before them, and more election law cases are sure to arise during the 2026 midterm elections.

What are the races for election judge and inspector?

Voters will see a race on their November ballot that is uniquely Pennsylvanian: an election to choose their poll workers, the people who run their voting precincts.

Pennsylvanians have been voting on poll workers since at least 1799.

Some New England states have elected town officials who oversee polling places as part of their job. But according to a report from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Pennsylvania is the only state that directly elects officials whose sole responsibility is overseeing elections at the precinct level.

On the ballot are two races for three positions total. Voters will select one candidate for judge of elections and one for inspector of elections.

During the primary, Democratic and Republican voters in each precinct are supposed to nominate one candidate for judge, and each party nominates one candidate for inspector. In the fall, the election judge candidate with the most votes assumes the position. Of the two inspector candidates, the one who gets the most votes becomes the majority inspector, and the second-place candidate becomes the minority one.

The candidate spaces are often blank on the November ballot, since many races go without candidates in the primary. Poll workers are often elected with just a few write-in votes in the November election. If no one is elected, county officials will appoint poll workers.

How will mail voting be different this year?

Since the 2024 presidential election, there have been two important court rulings on mail voting.

First, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August that it is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania counties to reject mail ballots on the grounds that the return envelopes are undated or misdated. Counties have rejected ballots in the past for these reasons, and legal fights over the issue have gone on for years.

However, the issue is not yet settled. The case could still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and another case on the same issue is currently pending before the state Supreme Court. Election officials recommend always signing and dating your mail ballot return envelope, regardless of what recent court rulings say.

Last month, the state Supreme Court ruled that if counties know a mail ballot has a disqualifying error, such as lacking a signature on the return envelope, they have to notify voters before rejecting the ballots. These notifications will typically be sent to the email address the voter used when applying for a mail ballot.

The last day to request a mail ballot is Oct. 28

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

Dearborn, Michigan, had to reprint thousands of ballots because of an error. Who pays for that?

2025-10-17T09:00:00+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.

Taxpayers will be on the hook for reprint costs after Dearborn, Michigan, printed and mailed out thousands of ballots that listed an incorrect candidate. But it’s unclear whether paying the bill will be the responsibility of the city or Wayne County.

City officials estimate that Dearborn printed about 10,000 ballots that incorrectly listed Mohammed Shegara as a candidate for City Council even though he dropped out of the race in April. Roughly 9,000 of those went out to voters, City Clerk George Darany told Votebeat.

To reprint and resend corrected ballots cost about $3,600, Darany said. The postage part of that, 21.3 cents per ballot, came out of the city’s account already, but no one has been billed yet for the reprint part, which is about 15 cents a ballot.

Darany said the error involved officials in both the city and county clerk’s offices — the county is responsible for designing the ballot — so the city may ask the county to shoulder part of the cost. County officials, for their part, say the cost should fall squarely on Dearborn.

When his office submitted the lists of candidates to the county in the spring, Darany said, officials noted multiple times that Shegara had dropped out of the race by the city’s deadline.

“Unfortunately, when we received the proof ballot (from the county), his name was still on it,” Darany said. His staff found and pointed out other errors, he said, but “we didn’t notice that person’s name.” (Shegara told the Detroit Free Press that he was confused when he saw his name on the ballot.)

Several people in the Dearborn Clerk’s office review the ballot, including the deputy clerk and the elections supervisor, but Darany is the final signoff.

While Wayne County officials designed the ballot, they said Dearborn should pay for the reprint, particularly as the ballot contains only local races: Dearborn’s mayor is up for reelection, as is Darany. The entire City Council is also on the ballot, alongside a proposal to expand the council and divide the city into wards for council representation.

“In this case, the Dearborn City Clerk and the Dearborn City Election Commission failed to correct the error on the ballot proof prior to approval,” Dorian Tyus, spokesperson for Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett, wrote in an email Wednesday.

The city clerk’s office and the city’s election commission “will be responsible for the cost of reprinting the ballots in this case,” Tyus wrote.

Genya Coulter, election systems analyst at the Open Source Election Technology Institute, said such issues with ballots are more common than people realize, particularly in places like Michigan where so many communities run their own elections.

In Owosso last summer, a misplaced decimal point meant a heading in a millage question was different from the question itself. No one caught the error until a few weeks before the election, “despite multiple rounds of proofreading,” City Clerk Amy Kohagen said at the time. (In an interview with Votebeat, she recalled the time years ago when a county ballot had the word “public” misspelled as “pubic.”) Reprints have also been required after candidates were incorrectly left off the ballot or after incorrect color coding meant voters got the wrong ballot for their precinct.

Coulter said Dearborn officials did the right thing after discovering the error by publicizing the problem early and immediately implementing a solution

That quick acknowledgement meant that only a small number of residents — about 5% of absentee voters — had actually returned the incorrect ballots before the problem was noticed, Darany said. Voters should have their new ballots, marked with a bright green sticker, in their hands already.

If voters return both ballots, the original ballot will be spoiled and the correct one will be processed. For voters who return the initial ballot but not the corrected one, poll workers will have to copy their choices onto a corrected ballot and process that one. Only one ballot will ultimately be counted for each voter.

That’s already a familiar procedure for the city, Darany said. Last year, the city had to process about 350 ballots that way because overseas and military voters’ ballots “come back on a form,” and the choices have to be copied onto a ballot for counting, he said.

This year, he expects that even with the error, that number of ballots that need to be copied over will be the same or lower. The city will have extra people on standby to help.

As for the cost, Darany figures the city is still ahead of the game.

“One thing people don’t know is that we were planning at the end of the November to give the City Council a report letting them know how much we saved this year on elections because we did some consolidations, which means fewer workers, fewer tabulators to test and so on,” Darany said. “We were prepared to give the council a letter saying we had saved $27,000 this year amid our effort to make our elections more efficient. Now it just might be $27,000 minus that $3,600.”

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

Duplicate mail ballots are issued to dozens of Pennsylvania voters

2025-10-09T14:38:30+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 handful of Pennsylvania counties mistakenly issued duplicate mail ballots to a few of their voters in recent weeks.

Why that happened is unclear — state and county officials gave different explanations — but they cautioned that the error would have not resulted in anyone being able to have their vote counted twice.

State and county officials said they have found that a total of 68 potential duplicate mail ballots were mistakenly issued. In some of these cases, they said, the ballots may not have reached voters, as the mistake may have been caught after a second ballot label was generated but before a duplicate ballot was actually mailed to the voter.

In Luzerne County, in northeast Pennsylvania, 31 voters received duplicate mail ballots, WVIA reported Tuesday. State officials initially said that the problem was isolated to that one county, but acknowledged a small number of other counties experienced similar issues — although potentially for different reasons — after inquiries from Votebeat and Spotlight PA.

Using publicly available information on mail ballot requests, Votebeat and Spotlight PA identified a few other counties that appeared to have issued duplicate ballots. Election officials in Dauphin, Montgomery, and Carbon counties confirmed that some voters in their counties had been issued or received duplicate mail ballots as well.

Emily Cook, election director for Luzerne County, told WVIA that the cause was an unknown problem with the state election management system, known as SURE.

But Jonathan Marks, deputy secretary of the commonwealth, said the duplicate labels were created in a variety of ways, and at least some stemmed from user error as counties tried to fix an issue with the first mail ballot. SURE’s user interface has shortcomings, he acknowledged, and resolving one issue can create another if counties don’t use the ideal method. Marks said the state is looking at how to improve it.

The Department of State said counties sometimes print duplicate labels for other reasons, such as damage to the original label. “A duplicate label’s existence does not automatically mean an error has occurred,” the department said in a statement.

Both county and state officials stressed that the duplicate ballots have been canceled, and could not be cast or counted. In addition, each ballot return envelope has a unique barcode associated with the voter. When a county receives a ballot back, the code is scanned into the SURE system and it marks the voter as having voted. If a second barcode tied to the same voter were to be scanned, the system would reject the ballot.

After learning of the duplicate mail ballots in Luzerne, state election officials audited the SURE system to check for any additional duplicates, and found 37 potential cases across seven other counties.

In Dauphin County, which includes Harrisburg, Election Director Chris Spackman said the county was informed by the department on Tuesday that “a routine internal review of the SURE system” had discovered a single duplicate ballot sent to a Dauphin voter. Spackman added that his deputy was informed by a contractor who helps the department manage the SURE system that the error was the contractor’s, but he knew no other details.

Megan Alt, a spokesperson for Montgomery County, west of Philadelphia, said the county had notified the state Wednesday morning of a potential duplicate, and workers subsequently discovered three other voters who had received duplicate ballots “as a result of files received from the state’s system.”

Carbon County’s election director, Jennifer Ketchledge, confirmed that her county issued 20 duplicate labels for mail voters. She said the department reached out to her Tuesday and informed her, and the county canceled the additional ballots.

“I have no clue” why it happened, she said, adding that the state was looking into it.

Even if two mailing labels for ballots are generated for the same voter, Ketchledge said the vendor that handles the county’s mail ballot printing and shipping would catch it before the duplicate ballot was actually sent.

Cook, the Luzerne election director, did not respond to a request for comment, but county officials told other news outlets the SURE system shouldn’t allow such errors to happen.

“Assuming that the state’s excuse is accurate, how broken is the SURE system if it cannot safeguard against a county inadvertently sending two labels for the same voter?” Luzerne County Manager Romilda Crocamo told The Citizens’ Voice Wednesday.

“There is nothing sure about the SURE system,” Crocamo added. “The upgrades to SURE system can’t happen soon enough.”

The state said the SURE system’s primary safeguard “is a mechanism that prevents recording more than one ballot per voter in a single election.”

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

Counties must notify voters if their mail ballot was rejected, Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules

2025-09-29T13:52:53+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.

Voters must be notified if election officials are going to reject their mail ballots because of an error such as an incorrect date or missing signature on the return envelope, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that Washington County erred in not notifying 2024 presidential primary voters that their mail ballots would be rejected, leaving them unaware their votes would go uncounted.

“We must interpret the Election Code and its statutory procedures in a way that ‘favors the fundamental right to vote and enfranchises, rather than disenfranchises, the electorate,’ Justice Kevin Dougherty said, writing for the majority. “Reading the Code as allowing county boards to withhold readily available information from voters does not serve that goal.”

The decision, in combination with another ruling last year from the high court, means that voters across the state will have at least some rights to be notified and have some recourse if their mail ballots are at risk of being rejected because of mistakes.

Before the 2024 primary, the Republican majority on Washington County’s board of elections opted not to notify voters of mistakes with their mail ballots that would cause their votes to be disqualified, such as a missing date or signature, or being returned without a secrecy envelope. That left voters with no way to know about those errors or fix them to ensure their vote could be counted.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had previously ruled that state law doesn’t require counties to give voters a chance to fix errors with their ballots, but it also doesn’t prohibit the practice either. As a result, many counties adopted such a process to tell voters of their mistakes and give them another chance, referred to as “notice and cure.”

More than half of counties do this, according to a Votebeat and Spotlight PA analysis.

During the primary, Washington County gave voters no warning if their ballot had an error that would result in it being rejected, even though it acknowledged receiving them. When Washington County received a mail ballot back from a voter, it used only generic codes in the state’s ballot tracking system to indicate the ballot had been received, rather than more specific codes that could indicate whether there is a problem that prevents the ballot from being counted. These codes generate distinct emails to voters, and the more specific codes would have generated emails that informed voters their ballots were at risk of rejection.

Ultimately, Washington County rejected 259 mail ballots during the primary for issues with a signature or date on the outer envelope, or for being returned without an inner secrecy envelope. That was roughly 2.2% of mail ballots returned to the county.

Statewide, roughly 8,500 ballots in the 2024 primary, or 1.22% of those returned, were rejected for one or more of those errors, according to an analysis of Pennsylvania Department of State data.

Some counties, including Allegheny, send the defective ballot back to the voter with instructions on how to fix the error, as well as a new return envelope. That method enabled voters there to fix nearly 62% of the defective mail ballots in the spring primary. Chester County tells voters to come into the elections office with ID and fix it in person. Delaware County cancels the defective ballot and issues a new one.

The ACLU and Public Interest Law Center sued Washington County — on behalf of seven voters, the local NAACP branch, and the Center for Coalfield Justice — arguing that by not informing the voters that their ballots were at risk of rejection, the Washington County had violated the voters’ constitutional due process rights and denied them the opportunity to challenge the decision or cast provisional ballots.

Washington County Court of Common Pleas Judge Brandon Neuman agreed with the organizations, writing that under the state Election Code, voters have a right to challenge the decision by a county board of elections to reject their ballot, and to cast a provisional ballot. If they don’t know their ballot was rejected, he wrote, they can’t exercise those rights.

He ordered the county to change its process for what codes it uses when receiving ballots, so voters better understand that their ballot is at risk of rejection.

Washington County appealed the decision to Commonwealth Court, joined by state and national Republican groups that had intervened in the case. Last September, Commonwealth Court upheld the lower court ruling 2-1 that the county had to provide notice so that the voters’ due process rights could be maintained.

Shortly before the 2024 presidential election, the state Supreme Court also ruled that if a county rejects a voter’s mail ballot, they must count a valid provisional ballot if the voter casts one on Election Day.

In combination, the two rulings mean some version of “notice and cure” should exist in most counties in the state.

Michael Morse, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who is researching the effect of different “notice and cure” policies, said the court’s ruling was “promising but limited.” He noted that the court’s opinion applies only to counties that choose to segregate mail ballots to identify defects ahead of Election Day.

The case was one of the last remaining major pieces of litigation stemming from Act 77, the 2020 law that enacted no-excuse mail-in voting in Pennsylvania.

Another case pending before the state Supreme Court, which has yet to be decided on, deals with whether ballots should be rejected if voters fail to write a date on the ballot return envelope.

Correction, Oct. 2, 11 a.m.: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated the scope of the court’s recent ruling. Some counties may not have a de facto “notice and cure” policy as a result of the two court rulings if they don’t segregate mail ballots to identify errors ahead of Election Day.

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

Fight over Pennsylvania’s mail-ballot date requirement approaches the endgame

2025-09-22T09:00:00+00:00

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

When Pennsylvania’s highest court gathered in Philadelphia on Sept. 10 to hear arguments on whether voters must write the date on their mail ballot return envelopes, a lawyer for Republican groups told justices that eliminating the requirement could prompt a flood of election law challenges.

It’s probably a little late to worry about that.

Election litigation hit unprecedented heights across the country during the 2024 election cycle, according to an expert who tracks it, a sign that courts are increasingly being asked to settle partisan battles over election administration.

And Pennsylvania’s mail ballot dating requirement could very well be the most litigated of all.

Lawmakers adopted the requirement that voters sign and date the outside mail ballot envelope as part of a larger election law, Act 77, in 2019. The legal disputes center on whether the requirement can be enforced and whether it serves any practical purpose.

Since Act 77 was enacted, courts have made at least nine different rulings that have switched the way counties must deal with undated or misdated mail ballots, and the rules voters must follow. The back-and-forth decisions have flummoxed voters, frustrated election administrators, and kept taxpayers perpetually on the hook for litigation bills.

“The deluge of cases and the deluge of decisions, it gets confusing,” said Andrew McGinley, vice president of external affairs at the Committee of Seventy, a Philadelphia-based government watchdog group.

At separate points in separate cases brought under differing legal rationales, state appellate courts have said undated ballots should be counted, and said the requirement couldn’t be enforced. Federal courts have said it violated federal law, only to have those decisions vacated on appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up the issue in one case, while invalidating rulings in another.

It’s all over a requirement which both judges and election officials have said serves no functional purpose in running elections. But election experts and attorneys hope the saga is nearing an end as the state Supreme Court hears one ongoing case, and a parallel proceeding makes its way toward the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conflicting court decisions have roiled elections

As the court cases have dragged on, state and local election officials have redesigned Pennsylvania’s mail ballot envelope and educated voters about the dating requirement. Those steps have helped reduce the percentage of mail ballots rejected for lacking a proper date — as well as missing signatures or secrecy envelopes — by more than half, from 1.31% in the 2022 general election to just 0.57% during last year’s higher-turnout presidential election.

But that hasn’t settled the legal dispute.

Opponents of the ballot dating requirement say courts must strike it down to avoid allowing the state to impose hurdles on voters without good cause. Those backing the requirement say it does have a purpose, such as detecting fraud or as the record of last resort to document when the ballot was cast.

Since the requirement passed, thousands of voters have had their ballots set aside and their votes rejected because they forgot to write that date, even though they were otherwise eligible.

On at least three occasions, decisions have dropped just before or after voters cast their ballots, changing the rules during an election.

“Obviously it’s not helpful for us to have this lack of clarity on what the law is going to be for every election,” said Thad Hall, elections director for Mercer County. “In many cases when they’ve switched the court decision, it has come down right before we’re canvassing, right when we’re canvassing, and it makes it difficult for us in how we handle things.”

In late November 2023, a federal district court in western Pennsylvania ruled that the requirement violated a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says a voter’s ballot cannot be rejected for reasons that are immaterial to the voter’s eligibility. That ruling came right when counties were in the middle of finalizing their vote totals.

Some counties included improperly dated ballots in their count for that election, some didn’t, and the decision reshaped the outcome of at least one local race.

In the eight elections since 2020 where an order to not count the ballots has been in effect, tens of thousands ballots have been rejected for lacking a date, according to Votebeat and Spotlight PA analysis, data from lawsuits, and figures from the Pennsylvania Department of State. A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of State said a complete figure for ballots rejected in the five years the law has been in effect is unavailable due to how data was tracked in the earlier years of no-excuse mail voting.

At least some of that is because the back-and-forth has confused voters, the current case before the state Supreme Court suggests.

One of the plaintiffs in that case, Susan Kinniry, forgot to date her return envelope for a September 2024 special election. She received an email saying her ballot would not be counted, but didn’t attempt to fix the error, because three days after she got the email, the state’s Commonwealth Court ruled that rejecting ballots for lacking a date violated the state’s constitution.

By that standard, Kinniry’s ballot would have been counted. But then, just before the election, the state Supreme Court stayed the Commonwealth Court’s ruling, meaning it ultimately didn’t count after all.

What purpose does the date on a ballot envelope serve?

Kinniry and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which represented her alongside The Public Interest Law Center, argue that disqualifying the ballot for lacking a date violates the “free and equal elections” clause of the state constitution. That clause says that “no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”

The ACLU, along with lawyers for the state Democratic Party and the city of Philadelphia, say the requirement violates the clause because it burdens the voter without furthering a compelling government interest. They say, as they have in other cases and as the federal courts have determined in previous rulings, that the voter’s handwritten date plays no role in election administration.

That’s because when a mail ballot is sent from a county or its vendor to a voter, the barcode on the envelope is scanned and the date on which it was sent is recorded in the state’s election management system, known as SURE. The date is also recorded when a ballot is returned to the county, and workers physically stamp the envelope with a return date. The handwritten date plays no role in determining whether the ballot was received in time to be counted.

Lawyers representing Republican Party groups and the state’s attorney general, arguing in favor of keeping the requirement, said the date can serve other purposes, including as a backstop if the SURE system fails.

But Ben Fabens-Lassen, a lawyer for Philadelphia’s Board of Commissioners, said in that “unlikely instance,” there is “simply no way” election officials would use the handwritten date, since they have the physical stamp as a backup.

John Gore, the lawyer representing Republican Party committees in both the federal and state cases, also said the date could help officials prove fraud. He pointed to a fraud case from Lancaster County where a woman returned her deceased mother’s mail ballot and wrote a date on it that was after the woman had died. That helped prosecutors show the ballot had been cast fraudulently, Gore argued.

But Daniel Volchok, who represented the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, countered that the date was just one of six elements detectives had used in that case to make that determination, and removing it wouldn’t have changed anything.

Justices were clearly wrestling with the same questions when they heard the case earlier this month.

“If there is no purpose in a requirement, I struggle with how an election can be ‘free’ if there is a trick,” Chief Justice Debra Todd said. Justice Christine Donohue said it was “uniquely without purpose.”

On the other hand, Justice Kevin Brobson suggested the date shows when voters signed the attestation on the return envelope, showing exactly when they attested that certain facts are true.

A rising tide of litigation

Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA Law School who tracks election litigation, says the two-year federal election cycle of 2023-24 saw more election lawsuits than any other period since the beginning of his database, in 1996.

“Political operatives recognized that in very close elections, the rules of the game matter a lot,” he said.

Hasen said while it’s rare that litigating over technical issues in election law can change the outcome of a race, it’s not impossible.

For example, in 2008, Al Franken, a Democrat, initially lost a bid for a Minnesota U.S. Senate seat to incumbent Republican Norm Coleman by a few hundred votes. But the close margin triggered a legally required recount, during which attorneys for Franken argued that some absentee ballots had been improperly rejected and should be counted. Franken ultimately won.

Hasen said there have always been cases like that — post-election disputes in close races over which ballots to count — but part of what sets the current moment apart is that we are now also seeing pre-election disputes over what ballots should be counted.

Derek Muller, an election law professor at Notre Dame Law School, has pointed to another contributing factor: a 2014 federal campaign finance change allowed fundraising specifically for election litigation. Hasen said the change created an incentive to pursue more cases, “because otherwise you’re kind of leaving money on the table.”

Even against that backdrop, Hasen said the amount of litigation over Pennsylvania’s mail ballot dating requirement stands out. Factors that could be fueling it, he said, include the commonwealth’s status as a swing state, a perception that less restrictive mail ballot rules help Democrats and hurt Republicans, and a general sense that it’s unfair to reject a ballot that election officials know was received on time and would otherwise be counted.

“If Pennsylvania were not so polarized, or if one party controlled the legislature and the governor’s office, then you could well see a legislative fix for this problem,” he said.

Is the end near?

Either the case currently before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or another one pending in the federal courts could theoretically settle the question for good.

Adam Bonin, a Philadelphia-based Democratic election lawyer, is representing a voter from central Pennsylvania, Bette Eakin, who argued that rejecting mail ballots for issues with the date on the outer envelope violates voters’ First Amendment rights, since voting is considered an expression of free speech.

A federal district court judge agreed with that argument in March, and a panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it in August.

The Republican National Committee is asking the full bench of 3rd Circuit judges to rehear the case. At the state Supreme Court hearing, Gore suggested the 3rd Circuit’s ruling could ultimately be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And if the state Supreme Court rules for the ACLU, Republicans could in theory appeal that to the U.S. Supreme Court, too, if they believe the state court overstepped.

But other than that, “there’s not too many steps left,” Bonin said.

“I’ve got to believe, after three to four years of litigating this same issue in different iterations, we’re finally going to get to a place where this disenfranchisement trap goes away,” said Stephen Loney, the ACLU’s senior supervising attorney who argued the case on Sept. 10

Of course, even if the courts finally manage to end the back-and-forth on the dating requirement, there are plenty of other election cases still pending in Pennsylvania.

“There’s still outstanding issues about ‘notice and cure,’ pre-canvassing, all these pieces,” noted McGinley, of the Committee of Seventy, “and that requires the legislature to act to clarify a lot of these different issues that have come up as a result of Act 77.”

And still more court cases are certain to follow.

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

Clarification, Sept. 23: This article was updated to reflect that The Public Interest Law Center is co-counsel alongside the ACLU in the state Supreme Court case.

Pennsylvania counties can’t reject mail ballots over missing date, federal appeals court rules

2025-08-26T21:45:53+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.

What happened?

It is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania counties to reject mail ballots on the grounds that the envelopes are undated or misdated, a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday in a long-running legal battle over the state’s mail ballot dating requirement.

The judges found the dating requirement to be a minimal burden on voters, but said there was not a sufficient state interest to justify enforcing it. “Weighing the burden that practice imposes on Pennsylvanians’ constitutional right to vote against the State’s interest in the practice, the balance of the scales leads us to hold that it does not comply with our Constitution,” the judges concluded unanimously, upholding a decision earlier this year from a federal district court judge.

What’s the dispute?

As Votebeat has previously reported, Act 77, the 2019 law that created no-excuse mail voting in Pennsylvania, says a person must sign and date the mail ballot return envelope for their vote to be counted, but election officials have said this date is not used for determining whether the ballot was received by Election Day.

Since then, some Pennsylvania counties have rejected thousands of ballots because the envelopes lacked a proper date, and counties have had varying policies about whether to notify voters and give them a chance to correct the error.

The validity of the dating requirement has been disputed for years, with state and federal courts going back and forth.

Who are the plaintiffs and what are they seeking?

An Erie County voter whose ballot was rejected in 2022 joined with Democratic Party groups and advocacy groups, including the American Federation of Teachers, Common Cause Pennsylvania, and the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, to challenge the enforcement of the dating requirement across Pennsylvania.

The Republican National Committee, the state Republican Party, and the Republican Party’s U.S. House campaign arm filed the latest appeal to defend the state’s dating requirement.

What happens now?

The ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more Votebeat coverage of the legal fight over Pennsylvania mail ballots:

Pennsylvania can’t reject improperly dated ballots, federal court rules, March 31, 2025
Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear latest case over undated mail ballots Jan. 17, 2025
Pennsylvania Supreme Court stops 3 counties from counting undated, incorrectly dated ballots, Nov. 18, 2024
Philadelphia must count undated and misdated mail ballots from September election, Pa. court rules, Oct. 30, 2024,
Pennsylvania Supreme Court restores date requirement for mail ballots, voiding lower-court ruling, Sept. 13, 2024
Mail ballots can’t be rejected over improper date on envelope, Pennsylvania court rules, Aug. 30, 2024
Pennsylvania’s rule on dating mail ballots faces new challenge in state court, May 29, 2024

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

Trump’s latest pivot and the endless battle over mail ballots

2025-08-25T09:00:00+00:00

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

President Donald Trump has long criticized the integrity of mail ballots. But leading up to the 2024 election, Republicans spent millions of dollars encouraging supporters to vote early, including by mail, hoping to bank votes ahead of Election Day. Even Trump encouraged his supporters to use them.

“ABSENTEE VOTING, EARLY VOTING, AND ELECTION DAY VOTING ARE ALL GOOD OPTIONS,” Trump, then the Republican nominee, posted on social media in April 2024.

That embrace didn’t last. In a new social media post this week that was full of false claims about elections — and signaled solidarity on the topic with Russian President Vladimir Putin — Trump promised to “lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS,” among other things, and wrote that an executive order “to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections” is coming.

Trump is only the latest to swing between support and skepticism of mail voting, a method that has divided the parties for decades.

Mail voting has been in use in American elections since the Civil War, though even then, as now, there were differences in how states administered it. Today, all states allow some form of it, and 28 states allow voters to cast ballots by mail for any reason. Eight states, including Republican-dominated Utah, as well as Washington D.C. allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail.

A bipartisan 2005 report from a commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican, concluded that absentee ballots were the greatest potential source of fraud, a finding often cited by critics of the method.

Voter fraud happens, but experts agree that it’s exceedingly rare and leaves a long paper trail. Election officials have multiple safeguards designed to catch any attempt.

Since 2008, an MIT Election Lab project called the Survey of the Performance of American Elections conducted after every federal election has asked voters whether they support running all elections by mail. Republican support was typically flat, while growing numbers of Democrats and independents supported the idea. Then, in 2020, when the pandemic supercharged mail ballot use, Democratic support spiked, while Republican support declined.

The partisan gap shrank considerably in 2024, the survey found, even as mail ballot use dropped from pandemic-fueled heights. But it’s still a bigger gap than it was before the pandemic. The survey also found Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe that voter fraud, including absentee ballot fraud, happens frequently.

Public opinion, of course, shifts. As Votebeat has reported, Republicans in 1991 made Arizona one of the first states in the country to allow voting by mail with no excuse, and the option has been wildly popular. But by 2022, against the backdrop of Trump’s claims about mail-in ballots, Republicans in the state were trying (so far unsuccessfully) to eliminate the option.

Even Carter and the Carter Center urged states to expand mail voting in 2020 during the pandemic, stressing the commission’s earlier conclusion that fraud was rare when safeguards were in place.

It isn’t clear what steps Trump will take to attempt to limit use of mail ballots. Under the Constitution, states have authority over the “time, place and manner of elections.” Congress also has some authority. Any attempt by Trump to eliminate mail voting by fiat would be quickly challenged in the courts, and legal experts stress it would be unlikely to succeed. Federal judges have already blocked key provisions of an executive order on elections Trump issued in March, citing his lack of authority over elections.

Comments from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt this week signaled a legislative effort could be in the works.

“The White House continues to work on this, and when Congress comes back to Washington I’m sure there will be many discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill, and also our friends in state legislatures across the country, to ensure that we’re protecting the integrity of the vote for the American people,” she said.

Ultimately, the fight isn’t just in the courts — it’s in public perception. And there, the verdict is far from settled.

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

Fact-checking Trump’s latest claims about mail ballots and voting machines

2025-08-18T22:23:19+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.

President Donald Trump returned to social media Monday with another barrage of unsubstantiated statements about the integrity of elections, following a meeting in which Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly claimed that U.S. elections were “rigged” because of mail‑in voting.

Seizing on that assertion — despite there being no credible evidence to support it — Trump promised on Truth Social to “lead a movement” to phase out mail‑in ballots and voting machines, and promote “watermark paper.” He suggested he would implement these changes with an executive order ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The post contains many other false, misleading, or unsubstantiated statements about the use of mail ballots, including claims Trump and his allies have made before — even as more Republican officials have tried to encourage voting by mail.

His claims notwithstanding, courts have repeatedly rejected allegations of widespread fraud tied to mail ballots, and many democracies around the world use them. And under the Constitution, he has no explicit authority over the “time, place and manner” of elections. Experts say that an executive order like the one Trump describes in his post would be immediately challenged in court and unlikely to take effect.

Beyond that, any major change to voting by mail before the 2026 midterms would be a logistical nightmare for election administrators, and it would disproportionately affect voters who rely on it most, including overseas service members, veterans, and people with disabilities.,

Here’s a fact check of some of the key claims in his post.

What Trump said:

“States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them.”

Fact:

Trump’s claim that states are “merely an agent” of the federal government in elections is false, and contrary to decades of Republican orthodoxy on this point.

The Constitution gives power to Congress and the states — not the president — to the states to regulate the time, manner, and place of elections.

Meanwhile, Republicans for decades have framed states’ rights as a fundamental principle. This stretches back to Barry Goldwater in the 1960s, through Ronald Reagan’s emphasis on “federalism,” and into recent decades where GOP leaders have framed decentralization of power as protection against “big government.”

Voting has been a primary example for that very point.

For example, after the contentious 2000 presidential election, Republicans fiercely defended Florida’s right to set its own recount rules. GOP leaders and state attorneys general argued in the Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder (2013) that federal oversight of state election laws was unconstitutional. Over the last decade, Republicans in Congress have opposed Democratic efforts to pass federal voting-rights legislation like the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, arguing they represented “federal takeovers” of elections. Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2019 called the legislation “a one-size-fits-all partisan rewrite by one side here in Washington.”

In 2020, when Democrats proposed federal requirements to expand mail voting due to COVID-19, Republicans fought them off. And when Trump floated the idea of delaying the November election, Republican senators like McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio reminded him that Congress and the states control election timing and procedures.

What Trump said:

“We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting. All others gave it up because of the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD ENCOUNTERED”

Fact:

Many democracies use mail voting, including Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and Australia. Some use it more extensively than the U.S. No country has “given it up” because of widespread fraud. Fraud is rare in countries that use vote by mail, as it is here.

Germany has been using vote by mail since the 1950s; in its 2021 federal election, about half of German voters cast their ballots through the mail. In Switzerland, nearly all voters receive their ballots by mail, and more than 70% of voters return them in the same way. The United Kingdom allows any voters to request a mailed ballot, and about 20% of voters take advantage of the policy. The vast majority of European countries allow at least some form of mail voting, especially for citizens living abroad or for those with disabilities.

What Trump said:

Voting machines are “Highly ‘Inaccurate,’ Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial” and “cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election.”

Fact:

Paper ballots still have to be counted — either by hand (which is slow and error-prone) or by machine. That’s why nearly every state that uses paper ballots still relies on scanners to tally them quickly and accurately.

Existing federal law also requires the use of at least one voting machine in every single precinct in the country, for use by voters who have disabilities that make casting a paper ballot difficult. Trump cannot invalidate federal law through an executive order, so voting machines aren’t going anywhere.

Watermarks are not a standard or proven safeguard, though some states do have them (or something like them). The places that use them still use machines to count these ballots.

What Trump said:

“Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM. ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING, and everybody, IN PARTICULAR THE DEMOCRATS, KNOWS THIS.”

Fact:

There is no evidence that one party “cheats” with mail ballots. Voting by mail is used by Republicans and Democrats alike, and in jurisdictions led by Republicans and Democrats. In fact, Republican voters are often more likely to use mail voting, especially in states like Arizona and Florida, where Republicans championed the practice until recently. In fact, there’s no evidence that vote by mail benefits either party over the other — multiple academic studies have reached this conclusion.

What Trump said:

“ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING.”

Fact:

Mail‑in voting has consistently been shown to operate extremely securely due to robust safeguards. In states like Pennsylvania, counties that offer ballot curing — the ability to correct errors like missing signatures — report significantly lower rejection rates, demonstrating that the system isn’t rigged, but rather is responsive and adaptable.

Votebeat’s coverage highlights what research studies have shown repeatedly: Instances of fraud in mail-in voting remain exceedingly rare. Even when ballots get rejected, that’s typically due to procedural mistakes — not attempts at manipulation or deceit. Election administrators across the country work under strict, bipartisan protocols, including signature checks and secure handling procedures, to protect integrity. Courts and election officials routinely affirm the reliability of mail ballots when these protocols are followed. In both routine practice and under close scrutiny, mail-in voting stands out as both secure and trustworthy.

What Trump said:

“I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS…by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections.”

Fact:

Courts have ruled that Trump does not have the authority to unilaterally change federal election rules, as they consider several lawsuits challenging his March executive order.

In halting some provisions of that executive order, for example, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in April that “our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States — not the President — with the authority to regulate federal elections.” That ruling blocked Trump’s direction to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to take steps to require voters to prove citizenship when registering to vote.

A federal judge in Massachusetts later blocked the same provision of the order, writing that Trump exceeded his authority. That judge also blocked parts of the order telling the U.S. Justice Department to enforce a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day.

Nothing stops Trump from leading an informal movement, however. He’s arguably been doing that for years already, and while it has had some impact on policy, voters haven’t really changed their habits much.

Jen Fifield contributed reporting.

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

After 2020’s mail-ballot blip, many Americans are embracing in-person voting again

2025-07-21T09:00:00+00:00

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

After years of speculation about the “death” of in-person voting, the latest national data shows a bit of a rebound: Americans are returning to the polls in person.

According to a new MIT report titled “How We Voted in 2024” — released exclusively to Votebeat — more than 7 in 10 voters showed up to a polling place to vote, either early or on Election Day. And while voting habits are still shifting after the pandemic, some clear patterns are emerging.

Voting by mail, which surged to 43% of ballots cast in 2020, dropped to 29% in 2024. That’s still above the 21% seen in 2016 and 13% in 2012, suggesting that voting from home remains more popular than it once was. At the same time, in-person voting made a comeback. In 2020, just 31% of voters cast their ballots on Election Day, down from at least 60% in previous presidential election years. In 2024, the figure rebounded to 40%. Early in-person voting also continued its slow rise, reaching 31% last year.

Together, these trends show that while some pandemic-era habits are sticking, many voters are returning to the polling place — either early or on Election Day, said Charles Stewart, a political scientist who heads the MIT Election Lab and wrote the report.

Other things are leveling out as well. The partisan divide on vote by mail is narrowing, Stewart said. “Election administration continues to be very salient to Republicans,” he said, while Democrats have “kind of gone back to their business.”

What’s driving the shift to in-person voting?

The drop in mail voting was largely driven by Democrats reverting to in-person voting. In 2020, 60% of Democrats voted by mail; in 2024, that number dropped to 37%. Republicans remained less enthusiastic about mail voting, with 24% using the method in 2024, down from 32% in 2020.

Stewart said the shift likely stems from Republican messaging. GOP leaders resisted expanding early and mail voting during the pandemic, but that’s changing. The ultimate goal is voter turnout, and GOP consultants and strategists were “worried about being hamstrung by Democrats” when it came to getting voters to the polls, he explained. While Donald Trump remains skeptical of mail voting, Stewart said, many Republican political consultants actually favor early voting because it lets them “focus on the voters who actually need to be delivered to the polling place on Election Day.”

Also notable: even though more people resumed voting in person, fewer voters had to endure long wait times. Only 11% of Election Day voters waited more than 30 minutes, down from 14% in 2020. Early voters fared even better, with just 15% experiencing such wait times.

Stewart has been studying lines and wait times for years, and said he was worried that as states began to offer fewer polling locations, problems with long wait times might grow. That the opposite happened suggests to Stewart that fewer people are voting on Election Day than in many past elections, and that states have reduced the number of polling places accordingly. States like Georgia and South Carolina that once had infamously long lines apparently no longer do.

New hubs for voting

Public schools, once the archetypal backdrop for Election Day news photos, are falling out of favor as polling places. In 2024, just 22% of Election Day voters cast their ballots at a school, down from 28% in 2020. Community centers are now the most common polling places, used by 32% of Election Day voters and 26% of early voters.

That shift has been happening over many years, driven in part by security concerns and access challenges at schools, particularly after COVID, and increased attention to school safety. The trend could make it harder to find enough polling sites in some places that don’t have other large, accessible community spaces.

A quiet comeback

The return to in-person voting has not led to chaos at the polls. On the contrary, voters largely reported positive experiences:

98% had no issues with registration or equipment.
83% said their polling place was “very well-run.”
86% of Election Day voters observed no disruptions.

That’s not to say everything went perfectly. Some voters did report confusion finding polling places, and there were more incidents of improper photo-taking inside polling locations. But overall, voters seemed to like what they saw when they got there.

As we head toward the 2026 midterm elections, these trends are worth watching. The in-person voting infrastructure, strained and overhauled in 2020, is now being called back into service. And if the 2024 data is any guide, voters may be just fine with that.

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

Pennsylvania redesigns envelopes for provisional ballots to cut down on rejections

2025-07-14T18:29:37+00:00

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

Pennsylvania election officials on Monday announced a redesigned provisional-ballot envelope that they hope will lead to fewer ballots being rejected for technical errors.

“Improvements to envelope design might seem like a small thing, but it has a huge impact on the ability for Pennsylvanians across the commonwealth to have their votes counted,” said Seth Bluestein, a Republican city commissioner for Philadelphia, which worked with the Department of State on the new design.

Philadelphia plans to use the new design in its November municipal elections. The state also consulted election officials from Berks, Greene, Butler, and Mercer counties.

Provisional ballots are meant to be a fail-safe for voters at the polls, to be used when there are questions about eligibility or whether someone has already voted. Each one is placed in a separate envelope, giving election officials a chance to verify that the ballot should be counted before it is added to the tally.

But such ballots can be rejected for technical reasons, such as a missing voter signature on the envelope. The envelope redesign is meant to make that less likely, and follows a similar redesign of the return envelopes for mail ballots.

That redesign in 2023 contributed to a 57% drop in mail-ballot rejections last year, said Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt, and he’s hoping for similar results from the provisional-ballot envelope redesign.

With the mail-ballot envelopes, Schmidt was able to require that counties use the new design. But for the provisional-ballot envelopes, for now, it’s up to counties to choose whether to adopt the new design. Schmidt said that as an incentive, the department is offering counties financial assistance to buy the new envelopes.

The new design makes it clearer where voters and poll workers must sign the envelope. It more clearly delineates which section is to be filled out by the voter or poll workers, officials said, and it provides clearer instructions at which stage of the provisional voting process each section is to be filled out.

There are several reasons why a voter might need to use a provisional ballot. For example, a first-time in-person voter who lacks identification, or a voter who isn’t registered when they think they are, may have to use a provisional ballot. Absentee and mail voters who lose their ballots and show up to vote in person will also be assigned a provisional ballot.

Since no-excuse mail voting was introduced in 2020, use of provisional ballots has ballooned. That’s likely because when a voter is recorded as having asked for a mail ballot, but then shows up to vote in person without turning that mail ballot in, they must vote provisionally, so election officials can ensure that the person hasn’t already voted.

About 26,000 provisional ballots were cast in the 2016 presidential election, before the state had no-excuse mail voting, according to data tracked by the Pennsylvania Department of State. In the 2024 election, that number nearly quadrupled to almost 100,000.

Along with that increase, a greater share of ballots are being rejected for technical errors on the exterior envelope, where voters sign an affidavit, Votebeat and Spotlight PA reported in April. Pennsylvania election officials said this is likely due to a combination of factors — including inadequate poll worker training and general unfamiliarity with a process that was once rarely used.

In the 2024 general election, nearly 5% of provisional ballots, or more than 4,800, were rejected for affidavit envelope errors, up from fewer than 1% in 2016.

Bluestein said such errors represented the second-highest category of ballot rejections in the 2024 general election, behind voters not being registered.

Like mail ballots, provisional ballots require voters to handwrite information on the exterior envelope. Mail ballots can be rejected if voters don’t date and sign the envelope.

Provisional ballot envelopes have even more requirements that could trip up an eligible voter. Voters have to sign the outer affidavit envelope in two separate places and write their address. Two poll workers have to sign and date the envelope, too, and check a box with the reason the voter used a provisional ballot.

Thad Hall, election director in Mercer County who consulted on the redesign, said he thinks the new envelope is much more intuitively designed and will reduce rejections.

“The old form was designed by lawyers and it doesn’t flow well,” Hall said. “The newer one flows a lot better.”

Hall said some counties may opt to deplete their current stock of envelopes or wait until next year to adopt the new design, so they don’t have to reprint poll worker instruction manuals for November. But he expects most counties will eventually adopt it.

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

Madison clerk violated laws in 2024 ballot snafu, state report alleges

2025-07-09T21:38:57+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.

Former Madison Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl violated multiple state laws when her office failed to count nearly 200 absentee ballots in the 2024 presidential election, according to a draft report released Wednesday by the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

The commission cited a lack of leadership in the clerk’s office, referring both to Witzel-Behl and the deputy clerk who assumed control during her vacation shortly after the election.

Witzel-Behl, who was put on leave by the city after the error and then resigned, broke state law by failing to supervise absentee ballot handling, neglecting post-election processes, and by not training poll workers to check the bags used to transport ballots, the commission concluded.

“There is no evidence that the City Clerk took any steps to investigate the uncounted ballots once they were brought to her attention,” the commission wrote. “The evidence demonstrates that the City Clerk began her vacation on November 13 and then had little to do with the supervision of her office until almost a month later.”

The draft report follows a months-long investigation into the 193 ballots that went missing on Election Day. The ballots were found over the next several weeks — some of them before final certification of results — but were never counted. Commission Chair Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, jointly led the investigation alongside Republican commissioner and former Chair Don Millis.

For months, Madison election officials have been saying that the ballots that went uncounted were delivered to two polling sites but weren’t unopened. But the commission found no evidence the ballot bags were ever delivered. A chief inspector at one site testified he was confident there was no unopened bag in the supply cart sent to his ward.

The errors have already prompted significant changes in Madison’s election processes. Officials have overhauled ballot tracking procedures, which Madison and Dane County leaders say should prevent a repeat of the 2024 mistake.

Still, the commission emphasized “it is essential that the public understands what has occurred, so that municipalities throughout the state can review their own processes and make certain that they too do not find themselves in this very unfortunate situation.”

The commission’s sharp criticism extended beyond Witzel-Behl, noting that “the staff of the City Clerk’s office failed to take any action regarding those ballots.”

Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick said that his post-election involvement was “minimal” and that he didn’t think it was his job to do anything about the missing ballots, the commission’s findings state.

“However, he did not attempt to speak to the City Clerk about the matter,” the review continues. “There was nobody who took responsibility for these ballots. It was always someone else’s job.”

Madison Interim Clerk Mike Haas said in a statement that the city is reviewing WEC’s report and that he hopes that it can provide lessons that prevent similar errors in the future. He did not respond to a request for further comment.

Former clerk violated laws, gave contradictory statements

The report focused on lapses in training by the clerk’s office. For example, it said, Witzel-Behl stored absentee ballots in green courier bags, but didn’t mention that in poll worker training, and the bags weren’t labeled as carrying absentee ballots. She also failed to train poll workers that absentee ballots could also be stored in red security carts, which the commission said contributed to the ballots going uncounted. That lack of training broke state law, the commission stated.

The commission also found that Witzel-Behl violated a law requiring her to supervise absentee ballot handling. In her deposition, she “could not answer basic questions about absentee ballot handling procedures in her office.”

The commission’s report highlights contradictions between Witzel-Behl’s actions in office and deposition testimony. Although she claimed not to know about the uncounted ballots until December, the commission said she messaged an election worker in late November with instructions on how to handle the first batch of uncounted ballots.

Upon learning of the missing ballots in November, the commission said Witzel-Behl should have alerted the city attorney, County Board of Canvassers, and the commission, and immediately investigated her office’s procedures — but she didn’t.

The commission also alleged she violated laws by printing pollbooks too early, failing to oversee poll workers, and inadequately preparing for the city’s review of election results.

Draft findings include several orders for Madison to comply with

The report lists draft recommendations that the commissioners will vote on at their July 17 meeting. These include requiring the Madison Clerk’s Office to create a plan detailing which employee oversees which task; printing pollbooks no earlier than the Thursday before each election; clearly labeling and tracking the bags carrying absentee ballots; checking all ballot bags and drop boxes before the city finalizes election results; and explaining how it’s going to comply with each of the orders.

Witzel-Behl’s office printed pollbooks for the two affected wards on Oct. 23 — nearly two weeks before Election Day — despite state guidance to print them as close to the election as possible.

Had they been printed later, absentee voters whose ballots had already been returned would have been marked automatically, alerting poll workers that those ballots were in hand but not yet counted.

But printing pollbooks no earlier than the Thursday before an election could be challenging, said Claire Woodall, who was formerly Milwaukee’s top election official. Cities like Madison and Milwaukee must print tens of thousands of pollbook pages, often using private printers, and distribute them to chief inspectors.

“It seems like you’re rushing a process” with the Thursday requirement, Woodall said. “The last thing you want is for voters to show up at 7 a.m. and discover you don’t have the correct pollbook.”

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

New study shows lasting effects of Texas’ ID requirements to vote by mail

2025-05-28T10:00:00+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.

Some county election officials across Texas say the number of people voting by mail has dropped since 2020, but they’re not sure why.

New research suggests that the recent overhaul of state election laws could explain some of the drop.

A study from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School looked at Texas voters whose mail ballots or applications to vote by mail were rejected in the 2022 primary, after the state enacted new identification requirements for mail ballots, among other changes. Many of those voters, the study found, appear to have switched to other voting methods or, in some cases, stopped voting.

The study found that 30,000 voters in that primary — or 1 out of 7 voters who started the process to vote by mail — had either their application or ballot rejected, and that “roughly 90% of these individuals did not find another way to participate in the 2022 primary.”

The authors said their findings show the potentially lasting effects of restrictive voting policies on even the most engaged voters.

About 85% of voters whose applications or ballots were rejected had voted in general elections in 2016, 2018, and 2020, said co-author Kevin Morris, a senior research fellow and voting policy scholar with the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program.

“This is a group of people that are super highly engaged in the political process,” Morris told Votebeat. “They have a long history and habit of voting, so to see these effects among them is a big deal.”

The peer-reviewed study, co-authored with political scientists from Barnard College and Tennessee State University, is set to be published later this year in the Journal of Politics and was shared with Votebeat.

After Senate Bill 1, more rejections, less participation

Texas has long had strict limits on voting by mail, allowing it only for certain groups of people, including voters age 65 and up and people with disabilities. Voters who are eligible must apply to use mail ballots each year. If their application is accepted for a primary election, they’ll automatically get a mail ballot for that year’s general election as well. If the application is rejected, they have to reapply.

In 2021, state lawmakers tightened the restrictions as part of an election law overhaul called Senate Bill 1. The legislation required voters to write their driver’s license or personal identification number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number, on the mail ballot application or mail ballot envelope — whichever number they originally used to register. If the ID number was missing or didn’t match the number on file, the application or ballot could be rejected.

The March 2022 primary, the first statewide election after the legislation took effect, saw a dramatic increase in rejection rates: 12,000 absentee ballot applications and more than 24,000 mail ballots were rejected, amounting to a 12% rejection rate statewide, far higher than in previous years. In the 2020 presidential election, by comparison, the rejection rate was 1%.

Mail-voting applications and ballots of Asian, Latino, and Black Texans were rejected at much higher rates than those of white voters after the ID requirement was added, according to an earlier study by the Brennan Center.

For the more recent study, researchers obtained individual-level data on mail-voting ballot applications and mail ballots in the 2022 Texas primary from litigation documents and public-records requests to the Texas Secretary of State. They looked at the demographics and the voting history of the roughly 215,000 Texans who requested a mail ballot for that primary, and drilled down to the 30,000 voters who had either their application or ballot rejected.

More than 3,000 voters whose mail-voting applications were rejected voted in person instead in the 2022 primary.

Out of the more than 18,000 voters whose mail ballots were rejected, only 344 voted in person. The others did not ultimately vote in the primary.

The study said the rejections increased what it called the “cost of voting,” because voters had to “try to sort out why their mail ballot did not arrive, re-apply for an absentee ballot, and seek out details about where to vote in-person.”

“I can’t speak to any law other than SB 1,” Morris said, “but this does provide some evidence that the effect of being disenfranchised does make people even less likely to vote into the future.”

County officials observe the impact of new restrictions

Before the passage of SB 1, mail voters were not required to provide identification numbers, and although they still had to apply each year, election officials were allowed to send them reminders to resubmit their applications. The new law made such unsolicited reminders illegal.

In some counties, election officials said they’ve personally observed how the law’s requirements have affected voter participation and the way people vote.

Lisa Hayes, the elections administrator in Guadalupe County east of San Antonio, said that participation in mail voting rose in 2020, when the state allowed voters to hand-deliver their mail-in ballot during the early voting period because of the pandemic. During that year’s presidential election, Guadalupe County sent out more than 8,000 mail-in ballots to qualifying voters, and 90% were returned.

Since the new requirements passed in 2021, fewer people are voting by mail, Hayes said, and she’s seen voters become more frustrated.

For the November 2022 general election, the county sent out 3,354 mail-in ballots to voters. The return rate for that election was 81%. The return rate for the November 2024 presidential election went up slightly up to 84%, she said.

SB 1 included a provision that allows voters to correct errors on their application. Hayes said that in the period leading up to an election, her office is constantly answering calls from frustrated voters whose applications need to be corrected and resubmitted.

If the voter’s mail-voting application is missing one of the two required ID numbers, a signature, or the explanation of why they qualify to vote by mail, the elections office mails the voter a notice and a new application so they can correct it. Hayes said if voters correct one issue but fail to fix another, they must start the process over.

“Unfortunately, the voters have to jump through so many hoops to get into that corrective-action loop, that they just get frustrated and they give up,” Hayes said. In some cases, voters will send in two or three corrected applications before they get approved. Others opt to vote in person instead.

“These are the voters we’re supposed to be trying to help,” she said. “They need the help. They need to vote by mail. It’s not just a convenience for them, it’s a need. So of course they’re frustrated.”

Diana Leggett, 83, volunteers helping people who live at assisted-living facilities and nursing homes in Cooke and Grayson counties in North Texas. In 2022, she focused on helping seniors to navigate the new mail ballot rules.

“When you’re 90 years old, you’ve voted all your life, but you sure as heck don’t remember what you put down the first time you registered to vote,” Leggett said, referring to the requirement that ID numbers match what’s on file. “Some don’t have a driver’s license anymore or don’t know the number.”

When residents had their mail ballot applications rejected, she said, they often didn’t try again.

To keep voters from becoming frustrated, election officials have had to find ways to ensure voters are aware of the requirements to vote by mail.

Kaleb Breaux, election administrator for Collin County in North Texas, said his staff recalls the 2022 primary as a “rough mail ballot election.”

The county had over 7,000 mail-in ballots, and over 700 were rejected due to the new ID requirements, he said. To help voters, he said, his office began to insert instructions with the applications and the ballots “to help draw voters’ attention” to the sections with the new requirements. And it helped.

In the November general election, Breaux said, the county rejected just 85 ballots for ID requirement issues.

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

Why Maricopa County recorder sought to send ballots to rural voters who didn’t ask for one

2025-05-21T18:38:56+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.

When Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap proposed sending mail ballots for a July election to a group of voters who hadn’t requested them, the suggestion seemed to come out of nowhere.

Heap’s plan especially shocked his fellow Republicans, including the county supervisors, who have been clashing with him over election policy and who quickly voted to try to block it. GOP Chairwoman Gina Swoboda told Heap in a letter that his plan would be ill-advised and illegal.

But Heap has defended his plan as a way to avoid disenfranchising rural voters who would otherwise have to drive unreasonably long distances to vote in person.

And there’s some history that helps explain why Heap, who is aligned with the GOP’s arch-conservative Freedom Caucus and who campaigned on a platform of “election integrity,” would suggest such a move.

Some rural voters would face ‘significant drive times’

The July 15 special primary election is being held to replace U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Democrat who represented Arizona’s 7th Congressional District until he died in March. At a May 5 supervisors meeting, Heap said that for this election — the first he’s overseeing as recorder — he planned to mail ballots to a small number of rural voters who have not requested them.

About 60,000 of Maricopa County’s voters live in that congressional district, in communities including Avondale, Gila Bend, and areas in between. The majority will have a polling place within a mile or so of their house on Election Day.

But a few dozen voters in the rural southern part of the county live miles away from any city, and face a much longer trip to the nearest polling place. County staff said they needed to find a site for a polling place that fell within the bounds of the congressional district — so as not to confuse nearby voters who live outside the district into thinking that they could vote in this election — and the closest option is about 30 miles away from where these voters live.

That leaves these voters with “significant drive times” for this summer’s election, Sam Stone, Heap’s chief of staff, said at the meeting.

So Heap’s plan was to mail ballots to the 34 voters in this rural area, in the Bullard and Mobile precincts, who aren’t already on the early-voting list.

Past recorder sent unsolicited ballots to rural voters

Stone also told supervisors that the county has in past elections sent out ballots to a small number of rural voters who didn’t request them. And that’s true.

Votebeat confirmed with Helen Purcell, a Republican who was the Maricopa County recorder for decades until 2016, that she used to do this on rare occasions. But there were some important differences in the circumstances, and that was before the enactment of a state law prohibiting it.

Purcell said in a phone interview that this was back when the county restricted voters to casting ballots at their precinct location. Now, Maricopa County voters can vote or drop off a ballot at any polling site in the county.

In cases where there was nowhere within the precinct to have a polling place, and the closest option to co-locate a precinct was far away, Purcell said, she would send the voters a mail ballot. She offered an example of voters who live in Sunflower, which is 30 miles northeast of Fountain Hills.

After Purcell left office, her successor, Adrian Fontes, a Democrat who is now secretary of state, moved to send out ballots to Democratic voters for the party’s 2020 presidential preference election, citing the COVID-19 pandemic. Then-state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, sued, and a court blocked Fontes’ plan, saying that state law didn’t explicitly authorize Fontes to do so.

Mailings were banned, without a solution for rural voters

In 2021, after the battle with Fontes, the Republican-dominated Legislature and Republican Gov. Doug Ducey enacted a law that more explicitly says that recorders and election officials cannot mail ballots to voters who do not request one.

So when Heap proposed his plan on May 5, the supervisors immediately questioned its legality, and they voted to exclude the proposal from the overall election plan they approved that day. (It’s unclear whether the supervisors actually had the authority to block Heap’s plan.)

Shortly afterward, County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, also a Republican, sent Heap a letter confirming that the plan would have been illegal.

Heap posted a long statement on social media explaining his position. He said that without his plan, the supervisors would “disenfranchise dozens of rural Maricopa County voters” by leaving them with no reasonable access to a polling location.

“For decades the Board has never raised an objection to this approach; however, they now use it to gaslight the public in a juvenile attempt to score cheap political points and create chaos,” Heap wrote.

He said his office would soon notify the rural voters that there won’t be a polling location near their precinct, and advise them that they can receive a ballot in the mail if they request it.

While most of the county supervisors seemed concerned about Heap’s initial plan, the lone Democrat on the board, Steve Gallardo, said he supported expanded voting options and was worried about rural voters’ access to the ballot box in the future. Officials need to come up with a plan to support such voters, he said.

“This is not going to be the last time we come across that situation,” Gallardo said.

Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org.

Texas charges 6 in Frio County with violating law against ‘vote harvesting’

2025-05-07T21:45:38+00:00

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced charges Wednesday against six people — including five public officials — in what his office described as a “vote harvesting scheme” in Frio County, a part of his yearslong election integrity investigation.

The six people indicted were Frio County Judge Rochelle Camacho; a former county election administrator; two Pearsall City Council members; one Pearsall school board member; and one other person. Five of the six were arrested on May 2; Camacho will be processed later, according to a release from Paxton’s office.

“The people of Texas deserve fair and honest elections, not backroom deals and political insiders rigging the system,” Paxton wrote in a statement. “Elected officials who think they can cheat to stay in power will be held accountable. No one is above the law.”

Additional details on the indictment were not immediately available. Audrey Gossett Louis, the district attorney for the region, said in a statement: “Violating the privacy or voting rights of our elderly or disabled community members will be met with zero tolerance.”

Ballot collection, or “harvesting,” a term used by many in the Republican Party, refers to the process of designating someone else to return a voter’s ballot. It’s allowed under federal law, but some states have restrictions, such as not allowing the person collecting the ballots to be compensated, or not allowing them to collect more than a certain number of ballots, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Paxton brought the charges under Texas’ Senate Bill 1, passed in 2021, which makes it a third-degree felony for a person to knowingly provide or offer “vote harvesting services” — or the collection of ballots — in exchange for compensation, unless the person is employed as a caregiver for a voter who is eligible to vote by mail. Those voters include Texans who are 65 or older on Election Day or who are unable to vote in person due to illness or who will be away from their county throughout the election. Under the law, organizers of voter outreach efforts and volunteers could spend up to 10 years in prison and be fined up to $10,000 for violating the law.

And while a federal court ruling from September challenging the constitutionality of the law halted the state’s ability to investigate those cases, Paxton appealed that decision, which gave the state leeway to continue. The case remains under appeal.

The limits on voter assistance in SB 1 are one of several pieces of the law. Some expand access — such as a provision that increases early voting hours in smaller, mostly Republican counties. But mostly, the law restricts how and when voters cast ballots. It specifically targets voting initiatives used by diverse, predominantly Democratic Harris County, the state’s most populous, by banning overnight early voting hours and drive-thru voting, which were popular among voters of color in 2020.

The Texas Tribune attempted to contact several of the defendants with available contact information Wednesday, but none responded.

Former Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa described past investigations conducted under the law as politically motivated, and designed to intimidate voters. He said Republicans investigate alleged election fraud only in Latino and Democratic strongholds like the Rio Grande Valley.

Frio County has a population of about 18,000 and is southwest of San Antonio.

Democratic attorneys general sue Trump over elections executive order

2025-04-03T22:58:16+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.

Democratic attorneys general in 19 states are together suing Trump over his sweeping executive order on elections, saying that it is an illegal attempt to usurp state control of elections that “would cause imminent and irreparable harm” if the courts don’t intervene.

The March 25 order, which Trump wrote would protect the integrity of elections, would require people to prove their citizenship when registering to vote. It would also set a national mail ballot receipt deadline of Election Day, require the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to rewrite voting machine certification standards, withhold federal funds from states that don’t use compliant machines, and require states to share their voter rolls with federal agencies.

The order “sows confusion and sets the stage for chaos in Plaintiff States’ election systems, together with the threat of disenfranchisement,” the states wrote in the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on Thursday. The attorneys general emphasized that Congress has never required proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and that states have the authority to dictate the deadline for mail ballots.

They also say that Trump cannot force states to require proof of voter citizenship, and threatening to withhold funding for not complying with provisions in the order violates the U.S. Constitution’s principles of federalism and separation of powers, and adds requirements on the money that weren’t imposed by Congress.

The attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin are named plaintiffs. All are Democrats. The litigation was led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford.

In a news release about the lawsuit, Bonta called the executive order a “blatantly illegal power grab and an attempt to disenfranchise voters.”

“Neither the Constitution nor Congress authorize the President’s attempted voting restrictions,” Bonta said in the release. “We will not be bullied by him. We will fight like hell in court to stop him.”

At a news conference announcing the lawsuit Thursday, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said the executive order is unacceptable and unconstitutional.

“I will not allow our Legislature’s lawmaking ability to be trodden on by a wannabe king,” Mayes said.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said at the news conference that the executive order weakens election security.

“It is the very nature of our decentralized elections of our country that is a strength against foreign interference,” Fontes said, adding, “I don’t want Elon Musk and his crew of incompetence taking those voter rolls away from our office.”

Because Arizona law already requires proof of citizenship to vote in state and local elections, the state is not joining the challenge to that provision.

The state officials’ lawsuit comes on the heels of three others challenging the order, which is titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” Earlier this week, Democrats and civil rights organizations filed three separate lawsuits in federal court in Washington, D.C., which have been consolidated before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

Two of them were filed by arrays of nonprofit groups, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, and others. Another was filed on behalf of Democratic national party committees and leadership.

The lawsuits all challenge the idea that Trump can order the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to change the federal voter registration form to require documents proving citizenship. Right now, the form requires voters to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, but does not require documents to prove it.

It could cost some states millions to replace their voting machines to comply with the new rules.

Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org.

Pennsylvania can’t reject improperly dated ballots, federal court rules

2025-03-31T22:39:27+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.

What happened?

Pennsylvania counties can’t reject a voter’s mail ballot solely because they forgot to put the date on the return envelope or put a wrong date on it, a federal judge wrote Monday in a ruling that likely applies to the upcoming primary. The ruling is the latest — and likely not the last — in a long-running legal battle over enforcing the date requirement that has bounced around state and federal courts.

U.S. District Judge Susan Baxter of the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled Monday that rejecting mail ballots for issues with the date on the outer envelope violates voters’ First Amendment rights, since voting is considered an expression of free speech.

Misdated mail ballots are ones where a voter writes a date on the envelope that is outside of the range between when the county can first send the ballot and the day of the election.

What’s the dispute?

Act 77, the 2019 law that created no-excuse mail voting in Pennsylvania, says a person must sign and date the mail ballot return envelope for their vote to be counted, but election officials have said this date is not used for determining whether the ballot was received by Election Day.

Since then, Pennsylvania counties have rejected thousands of ballots because the envelopes lacked a proper date. The validity of the dating requirement has been disputed for years, with courts going back and forth. This case argued that rejecting ballots for lacking a proper date created a burden on the voter which was not justified by a compelling state interest, an argument Baxter relied on in her ruling.

Baxter, a Trump appointee, said that while dating the envelope was only a “minimal” burden, she determined that the government hadn’t asserted any legitimate reason why it should be imposed on voters. While the Republican National Committee argued it could be used to detect fraud, Baxter noted the only case it cited as evidence was detected through other means.

Another case on the issue is pending in Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Voters represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center argue the dating requirement violates the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the state constitution, which bars any interference with “the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”

Who are the plaintiffs?

Bette Eakin is a voter from Erie County whose 2022 general election mail ballot was rejected for lacking a date. She, along with national Democratic Party groups and the campaign of U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, sued all 67 counties in the state for rejecting improperly dated ballots. Republican groups intervened to defend the requirement.

What happens now?

The Pennsylvania Department of State and the court did not immediately say if this standard applies to the upcoming May 20 municipal primary, although a lawyer representing Eakin said it should apply. Republican groups that intervened in the case could appeal the decision to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A representative for the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether they would appeal.

Read more of Votebeat’s recent coverage of challenges to the dating requirement:

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear latest case over undated mail ballots Jan. 17, 2025
Pennsylvania Supreme Court stops 3 counties from counting undated, incorrectly dated ballots, Nov. 18, 2024
Philadelphia must count undated and misdated mail ballots from September election, Pa. court rules, Oct. 30, 2024,
Pennsylvania Supreme Court restores date requirement for mail ballots, voiding lower-court ruling, Sept. 13, 2024
Mail ballots can’t be rejected over improper date on envelope, Pennsylvania court rules, Aug. 30, 2024
Pennsylvania’s rule on dating mail ballots faces new challenge in state court, May 29, 2024

Trump orders an overhaul of how elections are run, inviting a likely legal challenge

2025-03-26T02:37:05+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.

President Donald Trump issued a sweeping executive order Tuesday that would dramatically change the administration of U.S. elections, including requiring people to prove their citizenship when registering to vote, but experts and voting rights advocates said they expect the order to face quick legal challenges.

The order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” also would change the certification standards for voting systems, potentially forcing states to rapidly replace millions of dollars in voting equipment, and it would prohibit the counting of ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterwards, which 18 states and Washington, D.C., currently permit.

Voting rights advocates and legal experts said the bulk of the executive order will certainly be challenged in court, as the Constitution grants authority over elections to states and to Congress, not the president. Should it take effect, they say, millions of voters could be disenfranchised.

Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center, said: “There are many moving parts here, but the short answer is that none of this is within the province of the president, and I would expect that he’ll be met with legal challenges.”

Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA Law School and expert on election law, told Votebeat he expects litigation over the issue to be filed immediately.

Hasen said the order assumes that the White House has more power over independent agencies — in this case the U.S. Election Assistance Commission — than was previously understood. “It was thought to be that he has no power over the Election Assistance Commission,” he said. “This would be quite the sea change.”

While much of the order may ultimately be unenforceable, he said, it offers insight into Trump’s election priorities: “It’s a messaging document even if it’s not successful.”

Trump and his allies have made repeated claims of voter fraud, especially involving the 2020 election, and suggested that it is widespread enough to affect the outcome of elections, even though audits, recounts, and the courts have consistently found no evidence of significant problems. While signing the executive order Tuesday, Trump said that “this country is so sick because of the elections, the fake elections, and the bad elections, and we’re going to straighten it out one way or the other.” He also promised his administration would take “other steps” on elections in the coming weeks.

Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies in some instances to withhold federal funds from states that are unwilling to comply, or share information with federal agencies as laid out in his order. It’s unclear how effective a cudgel that will be. States have long complained that Congress allocates little money for elections, and much of it has long since been spent. In its most recent spending legislation, Congress allocated $15 million in grants that must be divided among the 50 states and U.S. territories.

“I would love for there to be more of a pool of money at jeopardy here,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in California, who was a civil-rights official in the U.S. Justice Department and a former adviser on voting rights to the Biden administration.

“‘Would you like me to take away a penny?’ That’s what he’s essentially saying to states,” he added wryly.

Many officials were still assessing the ramifications of the executive order Tuesday, though it drew quick praise from Trump’s supporters and some Republican secretaries of state, including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who lauded the citizenship documentation requirement. Some provisions, such as directing the Justice Department to prioritize enforcement of laws against voting by noncitizens, fall within a more traditional view of presidential power.

But some Democratic secretaries of state said they were considering asking the courts to intervene. In Michigan, the Secretary of State’s Office did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday afternoon, but Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson wrote a post about the order from her personal social media account and tagged state Attorney General Dana Nessel.

“If the election denier-in-chief tries to interfere with any citizen’s right to vote, we’ll see him in court,” wrote Benson, who is running for governor. Nessel’s office said it was reviewing the order.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said that he and state Attorney General Kris Mayes are already discussing whether to sue over what he described as “an attempt to federalize elections.” He also called the order “a massive unfunded mandate.”

Fontes said he believes the intent of the order is to make it look as though something improper occurred in the conduct of the election, so you can justify “canceling the election later.”

“It’s very methodical, and very, very dangerous,” he said in an interview with Votebeat Tuesday. “You have to pay attention not to what the executive order says, but what the end game may be. I believe the end game may be that Donald Trump wants to stay in office in perpetuity.”

Push for proof-of-citizenship laws accelerates

Trump and other Republicans have long been calling for requiring proof of citizenship when people register to vote, which they have portrayed as a necessary check against the threat of voting by noncitizens.

Noncitizen voting is already illegal and carries harsh legal penalties — including prison time and loss of residency status — and audits and investigations have found it to be extremely rare. People who register must already attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury.

Nonetheless, Republicans have accelerated their push for federal and state-level legislation to require proof of citizenship for new registrants, and in some cases, already-registered voters.

As early as next week, the GOP-controlled U.S. House could consider a bill, known as the SAVE Act, to require documented proof of citizenship. Multiple states have passed such legislation, and others, including Michigan and Texas, are considering it. Arizona already requires documentation of citizenship to vote in state and local elections, but after a legal fight that went to the U.S. Supreme Court years ago, must permit voters without such proof to vote in federal elections.

Congress has considered imposing this type of requirement before, but so far, it hasn’t adopted it.

Trump’s executive order would circumvent Congress to require documented proof of citizenship by ordering the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to update a national mail voter registration form that most states are required to accept under the National Voter Registration Act.

Levitt said courts might be reluctant to let the president give the EAC such powers while Congress is considering legislating similar actions under its own authority.

And there are other considerations. Six states are exempt from the NVRA, including Wisconsin, where, in 2023 a conservative Waukesha County judge blocked election officials from using the federal form.

“Under the Constitution, states are, in fact, tasked with the administration of elections,” said Ann Jacobs, the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s Democratic chair. “So you’d have a conflict between a federal law and a state judge.”

In addition, voting rights advocates have said millions of Americans do not have ready access to documentation that would meet the requirements, or the ability to show it to election officials in person. In Michigan, for example, many local clerks work only part-time, which means it can be hard for a voter to go in person to show documentary proof of citizenship.

“This would impact Michigan’s rural voters tremendously,” said Barb Byrum, the clerk in Ingham County, Michigan.

Byrum said she thought such a requirement could be the end of online voter registration. And automatic registration, which Michigan residents use when they get a drivers license or state ID, “appears to be essentially nullified,” said Michael Siegrist, the clerk in Canton Township, Michigan, a Detroit suburb.

This could increase the workload for local election officials, which has already grown in recent years because of what Siegrist called a “gross misunderstanding of how secure our voter rolls are.”

“What I find most concerning about all of it is that there are some points where it’s a regurgitation of election conspiracies, whether it’s this false notion that non-citizens are voting or election systems are attached to the internet,” he told Votebeat by text message.

More instructions for the EAC on voting machines

Donald Palmer, chair of the EAC, said the agency is reviewing Trump’s order “and determining the next steps in enhancing the integrity of voter registration and state and federal elections.”

“We also anticipate consulting with state and local election officials,” he said in a statement.

State and local officials deal with the EAC on a largely voluntary basis. The agency oversees the minimum standards used to test and certify voting machines — Voluntary Voting System Guidelines — which many states have adopted.

The order requires the EAC to update the guidelines to disallow the use of QR codes or similar barcodes that get printed on ballots produced by voting machines, and to require the use of voter-verifiable paper records. Within 180 days, the order says, the EAC must review and potentially recertify voting systems under these updated standards, rescinding certifications based on previous guidelines.

VVSG standards were updated in 2021 to require paper records, but they currently do not ban QR codes. The executive order encourages all states to use machines compliant with the new standards, and directs both the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to “heavily prioritize” allocating funding to local and state agencies whose systems are compliant.

While the new standards have been approved, there are currently no voting machines on the market that have been certified to these standards. So no jurisdiction in the country currently uses such systems — nor could they begin to within 180 days, because none are available for purchase.

Levitt said the president does not have the authority to direct the EAC to update guidelines that were previously passed by the independent agency. “He’s presenting this as an order I don’t think they have to pay attention to,” he said.

Many jurisdictions — including some in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and the entire state of Georgia — use systems that record votes as a barcode printed on the ballot, along with a written record of the voters’ selections. Some critics of this process have argued that since the machine actually records votes via the barcode and not the written text, and since humans cannot read barcodes or QR codes, systems like this do not actually produce voter-verifiable records.

This became an issue in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, in 2023, when a programming error caused the written portion of the results to incorrectly display voter’s choices in a judicial retention race, but county officials said the barcodes recorded the selections accurately.

Order says late-arriving ballots can’t be counted

The executive order also asserts that federal law does not allow mail and absentee ballots to be counted if they arrive after polls close on Election Day. It relies on the same logic as a ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently invalidated a Mississippi statute that allowed counting ballots that arrived up to five days after the election. The ruling has been criticized by legal experts, and similar litigation is working its way through federal courts in California.

Eighteen states, plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, allow ballots that are received in the days after the election to be counted, as long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day. The number of days varies by state. Utah — which Trump carried by more than 20 points — counts ballots received up to the day the vote is canvassed, which may be more than a week after Election Day.

Most likely to be impacted by a change in the rules are military voters, who are given leeway in several states if their ballots arrive late. In Michigan, for example, voters amended the state Constitution in 2018 to allow military and overseas voters six extra days to get their ballots in as long as those ballots are postmarked by Election Day. Trump’s order allows no exception for military ballots, and would throw the Michigan law into doubt, said Byrum, the clerk in Ingham County.

DOGE gets power to inspect voter rolls

The executive order envisions a new role for federal agencies in scrutinizing the voter rolls maintained by states and municipalities. It allows the Department of Government Efficiency, the newly created arm of government led by billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk, and the Department of Homeland Security to view publicly available voter files and other unspecified “available records” to ensure the rolls are being cleaned to federal standards.

Trump attempted something similar when he established his Presidential Commission on Election Integrity in 2017, shortly after he took office in his first term. Delbert Hosemann, then the Republican secretary of state in Mississippi, said at the time that the commission could “jump into the Gulf of Mexico” before he would comply with the request for records.

“Trump has more control over the party than he had before,” said Hasen. “Now, of course, [Hosemann] couldn’t call it the ‘Gulf of Mexico.‘”

Levitt said he does not anticipate as much Republican pushback either. But he said he does not believe states are OK with “giving Elon the voter rolls and having him tell us what to do with them.”

DOGE is already facing multiple lawsuits about data privacy as it prods other areas of the government for purported waste. Levitts said he expects the same here. Every complaint in those lawsuits, he said, “applies on steroids to DOGE deciding to amass a national voter file, which is essentially what this is.”

Correction, March 26, 4:35 p.m.: A previous version of this story misstated when the U.S. Election Assistance Commission adopted the most recent version of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. It was in 2021, not last year.

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

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s interim editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. She edits and frequently writes Votebeat’s national newsletter. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at jfifield@votebeat.org.

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

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

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

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Texas’ ID number rule for mail ballots is struck down in federal court

2025-03-24T16:16:25+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.

What happened?

A federal judge struck down Texas’ requirements for ID numbers on mail ballot applications, ruling that they are unconstitutional and discriminate against voters with disabilities.

The law required voters to write their driver’s license number, personal identification number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number — whichever number they originally used to register — on their mail ballot application and mail ballot envelope. But voters didn’t always remember which number they had used, and if they failed to include one, or included one that wasn’t on file, their ballots were rejected.

Texas restricts mail-in voting largely to voters with disabilities and elderly voters.

U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez said the requirements will remain in effect through municipal elections scheduled for May 3, because it’s too close to the election to change the process.

What’s the dispute?

The decision is the latest ruling in the consolidated challenge to SB1, the sweeping overhaul of election laws that Texas lawmakers passed in 2021. Rodriguez previously found that certain provisions restricting voter assistance violated the federal Voting Rights Act and could not be enforced. The judge had also struck down a provision that required election officials to reject mail-in ballot applications and ballots that did not include the identification numbers. That ruling is being appealed.

Who are the plaintiffs?

A coalition of plaintiffs, including voting rights groups such as the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, have challenged multiple provisions of the law, and the case is ongoing. The plaintiffs argue that various provisions of the sweeping law have made it harder for voters of historically marginalized communities to cast ballots, with some alleging the effect was intentional.

What are they asking for?

The plaintiffs want the courts to rule that the law is unconstitutional. In addition, they’re seeking an injunction that would prohibit the state from further enforcing the challenged provisions of the law.

What happens now?

The state is expected to appeal. Rodriguez’s previous rulings in the case are currently under appeal in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read more Votebeat coverage of challenges to SB1:

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

Pennsylvania’s varied ‘curing’ policies affect voters’ chances of getting their ballot counted

2025-02-04T11:00:01+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.

Counties that allow mail voters to fix errors that could otherwise get their ballots disqualified rejected fewer ballots during the 2024 general election, a Votebeat and Spotlight PA analysis has found.

Overall, just 0.57% of mail ballots statewide were rejected due to voter errors, such as an improper date, a missing signature on the return envelope, or failure to use the ballot secrecy envelope. That’s less than half the rejection rates of 1.22% in the primary election and 1.31% in the 2022 general election.

However, according to the analysis, the rate was even lower in counties that allow voters to fix, or “cure,” their mail ballots — just 0.49% in those counties were rejected for technical deficiencies on average, compared with 0.59% in counties where curing isn’t allowed. The numbers mean 17% fewer voters had their ballots rejected in the curing counties.

That difference highlights the disparity in the rules Pennsylvania voters face based on where they live, said Jeff Greenburg, a senior adviser on election administration for the Philadelphia-based nonprofit Committee of Seventy. He considers inconsistency the state’s prime election administration problem.

“The number one issue is that we are having a conversation about counties doing things differently,” Greenburg said.

A ruling this past October from the state Supreme Court allows all voters who make such disqualifying mistakes with their mail ballots to cast a provisional ballot on Election Day and have it counted, so long as there are no other errors.

Some counties go beyond that. Thirty-eight counties allow voters to fix errors with their mail ballots in some way — according to information gathered by Votebeat and Spotlight PA ahead of the election — though exactly how varies widely.

Allegheny County, home to Pittsburgh, is one of the counties that send the defective ballot back to the voter with instructions on how to fix the error, as well as a new return envelope. Chester County tells voters to come into the election office with their ID and fix it in person. Delaware County cancels the defective ballot and issues a new one.

Twenty-six counties do not allow any kind of second chance, and the policy in three others is unclear.

The lack of uniformity stems from ambiguity in the law that brought mail voting into the mainstream in Pennsylvania. Act 77, the 2019 law that expanded mail voting beyond absentee ballots — which required a specified reason — says voters must place their ballot in a secrecy envelope, and place that envelope in a return envelope that they must sign and date. Failure to do one of these things will prevent the county from counting the ballot.

But the law is silent on what, if anything, counties can do to help voters fix those errors, and court decisions in the years since have established that the choice is up to county election officials.

Greenburg, who served as election director in Mercer County for several years before Act 77 was implemented, said that when absentee ballots were the primary form of mail voting, curing was not an issue for most counties.

“We made efforts to contact voters to give them the opportunity if they forgot to sign or had a missing date,” he said. “I think you will find that most counties were doing something similar in that era.”

Now, as mail voting has grown exponentially with Act 77, counties have gone from having to decide how to deal with a handful of errant ballots to hundreds or potentially thousands of them. And they continue to revise their policies.

The Pennsylvania Department of State has made changes to the return envelope to try to reduce the number of flawed mail ballots counties have to deal with. A Votebeat and Spotlight PA analysis following the 2024 primary found that those changes helped reduce the number of ballots facing rejection, and further changes the department made to the date section of the envelope appear to have helped cut that number even more.

The department’s own analysis, which was verified by Votebeat and Spotlight PA, found that the state’s overall ballot rejection rate for the 2024 general election — which would include ballots rejected for being returned late or the voter failing to provide ID — was roughly 1%. That’s down from 2.4% in the primary.

Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt credited the reduction to voter education efforts and the envelope changes, and said the administration is pleased with the improved numbers.

“The Department of State will continue to work with county elections officials to ensure every eligible Pennsylvanian’s legally cast vote can be counted in 2025,” Schmidt said in a statement.

Counties have tended to view the lack of precise language in Act 77 on curing in one of two ways: either as a green light for the practice, or as a barrier.

“None of this is authorized by statute,” Indiana County Solicitor Matthew T. Budash told the county’s commissioners when they voted to adopt a curing policy ahead of the 2024 election. “But it is not prohibited, either.”

Other counties, like Snyder, take the opposite view.

“Our board has consistently taken the stance that the law does not tell us. It doesn’t say we ‘shall’ cure ballots,” county Commissioner Joe Kantz told Votebeat and Spotlight PA in October.

Other non-cure counties have argued that it gives mail voters the ability to change their initial votes, an option not provided to in-person voters.

“I don’t think that voters should be able to correct” their ballots, Bradford County Commissioner Doug McKlinko said during an October meeting where the county voted to discontinue its curing practice.

But Greenburg said counties have never given in-person voters only “one bite at the apple.” Ballot tabulation machines at polling places will reject ballots that have more candidates selected than a race allows — known as “overvotes” — and poll workers typically alert provisional-ballot voters if they forget to sign or date the envelope that goes with it.

With voters taking advantage of curing options, “they’re not saying to the county, ‘I made a mistake on the ballot, I want a new ballot,’” he said. “They made a mistake on their envelope.”

Curing policies like the one in Delaware County, where the county cancels the original mail ballot and sends out a new one, would theoretically allow voters to change their votes. Other counties allow voters to come into the office only to fix problems with the envelope such as signature or date, though this usually doesn’t give voters who forget to use the secrecy envelope a way to fix their error.

Giving mail voters some ability to fix mistakes to ensure their ballot can be accepted, as in-person voters have, is “only fair,” Greenburg said, “but we need the General Assembly to take the lead, in collaboration with election officials, so that we are doing this uniformly across the commonwealth.”

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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear latest case over undated mail ballots

2025-01-17T19:55:25+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.

What happened? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Friday that it will take up a case, Baxter v. Philadelphia, on whether requiring voters to date mail ballot envelopes violates the state constitution.

What’s the dispute? Pennsylvania’s 2019 no-excuse mail voting law, Act 77, says mail voters must sign and date their ballot return envelope for their vote to be counted. Thousands of voters have had their ballots rejected in every election because the envelopes lacked a proper date. The validity of the dating requirement has been disputed for years, but the issue in the current case is whether it violates the “free and equal” election clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which bars any interference with “the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” Voting rights advocates argue that because election officials do not use the handwritten date to determine a ballot’s eligibility, it represents an unnecessary — and unconstitutional — burden that interferes with voting.

Who are the plaintiffs? The plaintiffs are Brian Baxter and Susan Kinniry, two Philadelphia voters whose mail ballots in September 2024 special elections were rejected for lacking a date. They’re represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center. On the other side are Republican groups that have sought to defend the requirement. Other groups have also intervened on either side, including the Pennsylvania Department of State, the state Democratic Party, and state House and Senate Republicans.

What are they asking for? They initially asked a local court in Philadelphia to declare that the Philadelphia Board of Elections had violated their constitutional rights by deciding not to count the ballots. The court agreed, as did the Commonwealth Court, an appellate court. Republican groups challenged the decision to the state Supreme Court.

What happens now? The Supreme Court is taking up the case and has directed the plaintiffs to notify the state attorney general of the Republicans’ challenge. Republican Dave Sunday, who will be sworn in soon as attorney general, can choose whether to intervene in the case. The court may then order written or oral arguments on the case.

Read more of Votebeat’s recent coverage of challenges to the dating requirement:

Pennsylvania Supreme Court stops 3 counties from counting undated, incorrectly dated ballots, Nov. 18, 2024
Philadelphia must count undated and misdated mail ballots from September election, Pa. court rules, Oct. 30, 2024
Pennsylvania Supreme Court restores date requirement for mail ballots, voiding lower-court ruling, Sept. 13, 2024
Mail ballots can’t be rejected over improper date on envelope, Pennsylvania court rules, Aug. 30, 2024
Pennsylvania’s rule on dating mail ballots faces new challenge in state court, May 29, 2024

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

Pennsylvania legislative preview: Will long-discussed election proposals finally get through?

2025-01-15T16:51:41+00:00

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

Pennsylvania lawmakers beginning their new legislative session this month are preparing to debate what changes, if any, should be made to the way the state’s elections are run.

Once again, Republicans are planning to champion expanded voter ID requirements, while Democrats want to answer county calls for more time to process mail ballots and implement early voting.

Their discussions will follow a highly scrutinized presidential election that ran smoothly compared with the 2020 contest, when counties were slow to produce unofficial results and faced a barrage of fraud claims.

Aside from a new law providing state funding for county election offices, no major changes have been made to Pennsylvania’s elections in the past four years, despite plenty of discussion about it.

One top lawmaker hopes Donald Trump’s election — and Democrats’ ready cooperation in accepting and certifying it — will open up space for more fruitful legislative talks during the two-year session.

“Hopefully there’s an ability to move on some of these election reforms without some of the vitriol and hyperbole that unfortunately overtook the GOP after being defeated in the 2020 presidential election,” state House Majority Leader Matt Bradford (D-Montgomery) said in an interview.

A few areas for possible bipartisan agreement

Polling from the Pew Research Center released in December showed that confidence in elections had increased roughly 30% since 2020, driven by increased trust among Republicans.

Despite that increase, some right-wing election integrity activists at the national level are continuing to pursue the priorities they’ve been pushing since the 2020 election. That goes for Pennsylvania as well, where Republican legislators have said they will reintroduce prior legislation on issues like banning mail-ballot drop boxes and satellite voting offices and repealing mail-in voting, or at least suspending it for three years.

But there are areas of agreement and for potential compromise between the parties.

State Sen. Pat Stefano (R-Bedford) is asking colleagues to join him to end the annual mail voter list, where voters can sign up to receive a mail ballot application automatically every year. Election officials say that program confuses voters who do not remember enrolling for it.

He also wants to make it so that only the Department of State and county election offices can send out ballot applications, which many third parties now send out on their own. Mail ballot applications sent to voters by third parties are often also confused for actual mail ballots.

At least one Democrat appears to support these ideas. State Rep. Joe Webster (D-Montgomery) plans to introduce similar bills aimed at reducing confusion on both issues.

A bipartisan group of state senators wants to combat the use of artificial intelligence to generate content that fraudulently misrepresents candidates. The potential for AI to disrupt elections and spread misinformation is something Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt has also warned about.

As for House Democrats’ priorities, Bradford pointed to a collection of bills the caucus put forward last session. They would create early voting, address the lack of uniformity in voting rules among counties, and give counties time before election day to prepare mail ballots for counting, a process known as precanvassing.

The precanvassing bill has already been reintroduced for this session by state Rep. Scott Conklin (D-Centre).

“Obviously there would need to be some give and take by both sides to get [those issues] over the finish line,” Bradford said, “but we are hopeful again as we move past the election craziness of 2020 that our Republican friends can engage meaningfully on election reforms.”

Debate over mail ballot preprocessing continues

Precanvassing has been the most sought-after reform for county election offices since the introduction of no-excuse mail voting in 2020. The increase in mail ballot volume has strained the resources of county governments, and they have advocated for a system used in many other vote-by-mail states, where election administrators can start precanvassing before election day to spread out the work. Currently, Pennsylvania counties cannot start processing mail ballots until 7 a.m. on election day.

Lawmakers made a last-ditch effort to pass such a bill in the run-up to the 2024 election, but it stalled in the state Senate, where Republican leadership has maintained that any election reform must be paired with stricter voter ID requirements.

State Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R-Indiana) says that tightening voter ID requirements is still “fundamental” to his caucus’s priorities.

“Current law is that a first-time voter has to demonstrate that they are who they say they are, and we see no reason that shouldn’t be enshrined as something that is consistently done when an individual exercises their right to vote,” he said in a separate interview.

Public polling shows a majority of Pennsylvania voters support requiring ID to vote. Bradford said that House Democrats are ready to discuss it, and noted that in the last session, he and other members of his caucus supported expanding voter ID rules to all voters whenever they vote.

Pittman said that he thought counties managed the 2024 election well, and that any changes to election laws should be done cautiously with that in mind. He said that he thinks the county’s efficiency in processing mail ballots during the presidential election, for example, shows that precanvassing is not a necessity.

“When there’s a perception that the rules have changed … it leads to suspicion, and we cannot have a lack of confidence in our electoral process, perceived or real,” he said. “And anything that we do in statute going forward has to be done in a way that makes sure that it does not somehow erode the confidence in our process.”

Election reform has remained elusive in Pennsylvania, but the long break before the next federal election and growing trust in elections could provide a new window of opportunity.

“Municipal years are the most critical when it comes to making changes,” said Jeff Greenburg, a senior adviser on election administration for the Philadelphia-based nonprofit Committee of Seventy. “The time to do it is now, so counties are not doing it in a presidential year.”

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

The Votebeat stories that made a mark on us in 2024

2024-12-23T10:00:00+00:00

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

Good morning,

Happy holidays to all the dedicated, smart, witty readers of this newsletter, and welcome to our last edition of 2024! Thanks for supporting our work this year. Before we all go our separate ways to celebrate the holidays, we asked Votebeat’s reporters to highlight some of their most memorable stories of the year. Here are their selections:

From Jessica Huseman:

In Shasta County, Calif., fights over elections have left wounds that just won’t heal

This story is from California, a state Votebeat does not typically cover. There, longtime election administrator Cathy Darling Allen faced a more concentrated version of the problems plaguing elected officials across the country — intense scrutiny and mistrust from local residents, spurred by conspiracy theories about Donald Trump’s loss in 2020. The situation became so overwhelming that Darling Allen chose to retire before her term officially ended, and after she was diagnosed with heart failure due to stress.

I was able to spend time in Shasta County and with Darling Allen and her staff, untangling how the situation there became so toxic. I found county leaders who lied to their constituents, a concentration of political extremism, and growing anxiety among lifelong residents that Shasta County had fundamentally changed for the worse.

From Jen Fifield in Arizona:

How Arizona tackles a language barrier to provide Navajo voters a ballot they can listen to

In Arizona, the Navajo Nation is a crucial voting bloc. High turnout on the nation in 2020 helped Joe Biden win the state. Yet about 7,000 voting-age Navajo residents in the state can’t read English proficiently, making it difficult for them to vote. The state is required to translate the ballot for those voters, but courts have found that election officials haven’t done enough to meet these requirements. We wanted to take a closer look.

In a partnership with Indian Country Today, we gained access to a crucial, typically closed meeting in which Navajo speakers tried to translate culturally sensitive and highly controversial ballot propositions into Navajo. That included a measure to secure abortion access in the state. Our story found that the lack of transparency into the process made it difficult for the Navajo community to ensure the ballot was properly translated on these key issues. The story was broadcast across Navajo Nation, on TV through our partnership with Indian Country Today, and in print in community papers serving the reservation. Voting rights groups used the story to continue to call for better translation services.

Signed, sealed, rejected: How Arizona’s system for verifying mail ballots is hurting key voters

Election margins are tight in Arizona, and races can turn on just a few hundred ballots. But in 2022, I noticed that the number of ballots rejected for mismatched voter signatures had tripled, to around 1,800 in Maricopa County alone. I knew the signature review process was designed to block potential fraud, but I also knew, from my time talking to voters in the state, that many voters didn’t even know the importance of the signature. I set out to figure out if this system was working as intended.

In a monthslong project with the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting, we found that many signatures had been rejected not because they were fraudulent but simply because they were sloppy — meaning that ballots with legitimate signatures were not getting counted. This was often the case for younger and newer voters who only had an e-signature on file. This flaw in the system will be an important target as lawmakers look for ways to improve voting in the state.

From Hayley Harding in Michigan:

No, Michigan does not have more voters than residents eligible to vote

In Michigan, misunderstandings about how the state maintains its voter rolls quickly blew into something bigger as Elon Musk and other conservative activists spread bad information across social media. Michigan has about 8.4 million registered voters and only about 7.9 million residents older than 18. But that’s the result of Michigan’s proactive voter registration policies — everyone eligible to vote is registered when they get a driver’s license in the state, for instance. There are only about 7.2 million active voters in Michigan, with the remainder on the rolls being the dormant records of people who have left Michigan or died, but whose records haven’t yet been removed because of federal laws that restrict such removals.

Votebeat’s reporting on this issue helped to slow the spread of incorrect information and restore trust in the state’s election system during the critical last few weeks before the November election.

From Carter Walker in Pennsylvania:

This Pa. activist is the source of false and flawed election claims gaining traction across the country

Missing voting machine documents raise concern about Pa. county’s testing processes

These two stories share a common theme: They didn’t end with the 2024 presidential election.

In the first story, I took an in-depth look at how Pennsylvania resident Heather Honey had quietly become one of the most influential voices in the conservative election integrity movement. By meticulously fact-checking her report and advocacy on ERIC, an obscure multistate coalition for voter list maintenance that’s been the subject of conservative pushback, we demonstrated how the Lebanon County-based researcher often omitted facts and selectively analyzed data in a way that produced flawed conclusions.

The second story detailed how simple process missteps can lead to big election problems. Before each election, counties must test voting machines to ensure they are functioning properly. After voters in Northampton County noticed a programming error in the 2023 municipal election, it was immediately apparent that officials had not properly tested the county’s machines. They admitted as much. By reviewing thousands of documents, despite the county’s heavy restrictions on my access, I showed that the county’s testing documentation was incomplete, inconsistently filled out, and, in more than 150 instances, missing entirely.

Election administrators are going to continue to make mistakes, and outside observers are going to continue to misinterpret how our elections infrastructure works. That didn’t end on Nov. 5.

From Natalia Contreras in Texas:

How Texas’ paper-based voter registration system has led to the disenfranchisement of some voters

This investigation was sparked by the problems I experienced while registering to vote in Texas. I set out to understand exactly how the voter registration process works in this state, talking to about a dozen election officials, and multiple voters and volunteer deputy registrars. They all confirmed that I wasn’t alone in having filled out a voter registration application but still being left off the voter rolls. Nor was I the only one who had also registered at the Department of Public Safety as a failsafe, while still not being added to the rolls. This happens often to people who try to register in Texas, and means that some voters who think they’re registered aren’t able to cast a ballot. The crux of the problem, my reporting found, is the state’s refusal to adopt online voter registration.

Texas ballot-numbering lawsuit leaves election officials puzzled

Together with colleagues at the Texas Tribune, I reported on how since 2021, in an effort to increase transparency, Texas lawmakers have put some voters’ ballot secrecy at risk.

By the time we reported this, one longtime Texas poll watcher, Laura Pressley, had already sued the state and local election officials, alleging that they violated her and other voters’ right to a secret ballot. In her lawsuit, she said she used publicly available records to come up with an “algorithmic pattern” that helped her find the ballot choices of more than 60,000 voters in Williamson County. Pressley alleges that the state isn’t complying with a century-old Texas law that says ballots have to be numbered sequentially starting with 1. In the course of my reporting, I found that Texas is one of only a few states that still number their ballots at all. Most don’t, to prevent ballot secrecy breaches. Bills that lawmakers say would further expand election transparency have already been filed, but I have yet to see one that would address the ballot secrecy issues. I am on the lookout for it as the legislative session gets underway in January.

From Alexander Shur in Wisconsin:

Under Wisconsin’s ‘drawdown’ election law, one person’s error can cost another person their vote

I’ve reported on all sorts of issues in my career, but none provoked such a visceral reaction from my sources as this one. My national contacts in the election community were appalled to hear that when Wisconsin polling place records show more ballots cast than the number of voters who correctly checked in, election workers, under state law, can resolve the discrepancy through a “drawdown” — that is, by randomly pulling a number of voters’ (likely) legitimate ballots to toss out. Every Wisconsin clerk I spoke with for this story found the idea of conducting a drawdown a distressing, last-resort option. Some said they would never do it again.

I set out to understand why Wisconsin continued to use this practice — first implemented a year after the state’s founding — while almost every other state that once had it has since disavowed it. The answer, I learned, has nothing to do with election workers finding the practice fair or useful. Much the opposite. But the Legislature hasn’t stepped in to change the state’s drawdown law, and the practice continues to jeopardize properly cast ballots — a risk that can change election outcomes. It’s just one example of Wisconsin having some election laws on the books that are widely disliked by election workers.

As Votebeat prepares for 2025, we want to know what journalism would best serve your needs and interests. What should we report on in the upcoming year? Please give us your thoughts in this short survey.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court stops 3 counties from counting undated, incorrectly dated ballots

2024-11-18T22:53:50+00:00

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

Pennsylvania’s highest court has directed three counties not to include undated or misdated mail ballots in their November election results.

Such ballots have been the subject of years of litigation in various courts, and became an issue again after Bucks, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties moved to count them for the Nov. 5 election.

These are the ballots where a voter has neglected to write the date on the return envelope or written something incorrect, like their birthday. There are roughly 1,500 or so ballots in play in the three counties, likely not enough to change the outcome of the U.S. Senate race that is spurring the litigation.

Pennsylvania calls off recount in Senate race after Casey concedes to McCormick

Still, the legal action highlights an unsettled area of policy that has long frustrated people in charge of running elections in Pennsylvania.

Attorneys for the counties had argued that officials there had constitutional concerns about rejecting the improperly dated ballots.

They pointed to Commonwealth Court, which has ruled multiple times this year that rejecting mail ballots solely for an improper date violates the state constitution’s free and equal elections clause.

On Monday, a 4-3 majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court told the three counties not to include undated and misdated ballots in their counts. It clarified that the Commonwealth Court rulings do not apply to the Nov. 5 election.

Here’s how to understand the background leading up to the decision:

What exactly is an undated mail ballot?

A mail ballot in Pennsylvania comes with two envelopes: an inner secrecy envelope and an outer return envelope.

There is a field on the return envelope for the voter to write “today’s date” — meaning, the date they fill it out.

An undated ballot is one where the voter left that field blank. A “misdated” ballot is generally understood to be one on which a voter wrote a date outside a range described in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling — between when counties begin mailing out ballots and Election Day, when they are due.

The Pennsylvania Department of State directed counties to pre-print the full year — 2024 — on the envelope to help voters avoid writing the wrong date, like their birthdays, previously one of the most common errors.

Is counting undated mail ballots ‘illegal’?

The first way to understand the issue is based on what state law has to say about these ballots. The Pennsylvania Election Code requires voters to date and sign the return envelope in order for the ballot to be accepted and counted. However, this enforcement of this provision has been heavily litigated over the past several years.

You may have seen headlines like this one from Fox News: “Pennsylvania Democrats openly admit to counting illegal ballots in McCormick-Casey race.” Or this one from the Washington Post editorial board: “Democrats thumb their nose at the rule of law in Pennsylvania.”

These pieces reference the decisions in Bucks, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties to accept and count improperly dated ballots.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order on Monday cited a ruling it made in 2022 that “the Election Code’s command” to date ballots “is unambiguous and mandatory.”

But in the years since, both state and federal courts have been asked to consider other legal challenges to the rule, including most recently an argument that it violates the state constitution.

In August, the Commonwealth Court — one of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts — ruled that the dating requirement violates the free and equal elections clause of the state constitution. It ruled the same thing in October in response to a case stemming from a Sept. 17 special election in Philadelphia.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has yet to rule on the merits of such a challenge and repeatedly declined to do so ahead of the Nov. 5 election.

Instead, it threw out the August ruling on a technicality. And then, on Nov. 1, it ruled that Commonwealth Court’s decision in the Philadelphia case would not apply to the general election.

The three counties in turn argued that they had to consider whether rejecting someone’s improperly dated ballot this election would violate their constitutional rights, since the high court had not ruled on the issue.

The counties did not believe that Nov. 1 ruling prohibited them from “independently assessing whether rejecting mail ballots with voting errors cast is consistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution and the statutorily prescribed process for counting votes,” their attorneys argued.

The court made itself clear Monday afternoon, telling the counties to “comply with the prior rulings of this court in which we clarified that mail-in and absentee ballots that fail to comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Election Code shall not be counted for the purposes of the election held on November 5, 2024.”

One state Supreme Court justice, Kevin Brobson, admonished the counties for what he said was an overstepping of their authority.

Local election officials do not have the authority “to ignore Election Code provisions that they believe are unconstitutional,” he wrote. “Only the courts under our charter may declare a statute, or provision thereof, unconstitutional.”

What happens now?

Monday’s order stems from suits filed by the national and state Republican parties asking the high court to stop the counties from counting the improperly dated ballots. They asked the court to use its authority to immediately intervene in pressing issues, which it did in issuing Monday’s order.

Two lawsuits in Philadelphia and Bucks counties challenging the counting decisions were also filed last week by the campaign of U.S. Senate candidate Dave McCormick, the status of which is now unclear given the state Supreme Court’s ruling. McCormick, a Republican, leads Democrat Bob Casey, the incumbent, by fewer than 18,000 votes in a race that is currently being recounted because of the narrow margin.

The larger issue of whether rejecting improperly dated ballots is unconstitutional is still unresolved, although that may soon change. Republicans have appealed the Commonwealth Court ruling on the Philadelphia case to the state Supreme Court.

“I think the way the court handled this really did some harm to the election process in some ways,” said Quinn Yeargain, a professor of state constitutional law at Michigan State University and formerly of Widener University in Pennsylvania.

Yeargain said the courts have clearly known this issue was going to come up and have been presented with multiple opportunities to address it, but have “repeatedly refused to do so.”

“I really take some offense to this high and mighty ‘How dare you?’ particularly in Brobson’s concurrence, because the court has not provided guidance,” Yeargain said. “I don’t think the courts are going to be able to play that game of ‘not it’ forever. They are eventually going to have to deal with it. It is not going away.”

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

Efforts to challenge Pennsylvania voters’ mail ballot applications fizzle

2024-11-08T22:44:09+00:00

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

Update, Nov. 9, 2024: This story has been updated to include comments from PA Fair Elections and Heather Honey.

All of the more than 4,000 mail ballot challenges filed in Pennsylvania in the past two weeks have been withdrawn or dismissed. The resolution of the challenges means the voters’ ballots will be counted, barring any other disqualifications, such as signature or date issues.

“It’s encouraging that every one of those challenges has been dismissed or withdrawn,” said Al Schmidt, secretary of the commonwealth.

The challenges were submitted in many instances by right-wing activists associated with PA Fair Elections, a group led by Heather Honey, a Pennsylvania researcher whose data analysis methods have produced inaccurate or flawed conclusions in the past.

Two state senators, Cris Dush and Jarrett Coleman, submitted challenges in four counties, all of which were withdrawn. Neither responded to a request for comment Friday.

In all, there were challenges to the eligibility of thousands of mail voters filed in 15 counties across Pennsylvania by Nov. 1, the deadline for such objections.

“I don’t know whether this challenge is disingenuous or just misplaced,” Patrick Judge, one of 52 voters challenged in Lawrence County, said at a hearing Friday. He said that the challengers may have a point that the state’s voter rolls could be managed better, but that seeking to invalidate the votes of U.S. citizens who followed the rules as they stand now is not the way to raise that concern.

Judge’s ballot wasn’t rejected. Still, at the hearing he said the challenge didn’t feel very democratic. “I feel very disenfranchised right now, for what I am not sure,” Judge said.

Pennsylvania law requires that someone must be a resident of the state to be an eligible voter. It also established a process by which — for a fee of $10 — anyone can challenge a person’s application for a mail ballot on the grounds that the applicant is not qualified to vote.

The bulk of the challenges focused on overseas voters, who are permitted to cast ballots because of a 1986 federal law called the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, or UOCAVA. The law established that U.S. citizens and military personnel living overseas can still vote by absentee ballot in the state where they last lived, though if they have no immediate plans to move back they can participate only in elections for federal offices like president, not state and local races.

Many challengers claimed that they were not looking to contest the voters’ eligibility to vote, but rather the practice of not registering the voters before issuing them ballots. But the effect of the challenges, had they been successful, would have been to invalidate the voter’s ballots. County officials argued the challengers were misinterpreting the requirements of UOCAVA and state law, and how these two statutes interact.

Other challenges were based on a comparison of the voters’ addresses in the state’s mail ballot request file against addresses connected to the voters’ names in a U.S. Postal Service database. Experts and officials have criticized this method of comparison for its propensity to produce false matches or misconstrue why the person requested a change in their mailing address.

Over the past week, counties held hearings on the challenges, featuring questioning by county officials and testimony from the voters. They concluded either with officials dismissing the challenges or the challengers withdrawing them. In many cases, officials said there was a lack of evidence. Several challengers withdrew their challenges after Election Day.

The hearings also revealed who the challengers were. In at least seven counties, the person filing the challenge had attended PA Fair Elections meetings in the past or identified themselves as working with the group.

An unsigned statement from the group denied that the challenges were in any way coordinated or approved by them. Honey, the leader of the group, separately rejected any suggestion that the group was involved.

In Lycoming County, a challenge was filed by Karen DiSalvo of the Election Research Institute, another group led by Honey. DiSalvo previously denied that her challenges were filed in association with the group.

One of the challengers was Patricia Bleasdale, who has attended PA Fair Elections meetings and submitted 143 challenges in Delaware County based on change-of-address forms.

At a hearing Thursday, Bleasdale acknowledged that she hadn’t done the analysis herself and had gotten the information from an outside group, which she did not name.

Ashley Lunkenheimer, chair of the county board of elections, expressed frustration with Bleasdale’s actions.

“Do you understand what you’ve done here?” Lunkenheimer said. “We have 143 voters that we have notified that they may not have their mail-in ballots count in a really important election ... You’ve done that with not actually having looked to see if each of them filed a national change-of-address form.”

Voters targeted by Bleasdale’s challenges testified as well. Nicholas Maston invited Bleasdale to visit his home 1.6 miles away from where the hearing was held to verify his residency. The filing against him cited a years-old change-of-address to a home in Chicago, but didn’t acknowledge a more recent record changing his address to his current Delaware County home in August.

The claim that his vote in Pennsylvania should be ineligible “is to me a very serious allegation, and that’s why I’m here today,” he said. “In addition to the assumptions that were made leading to this database and leading to these challenges being flawed, the data itself is flawed.”

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

Milwaukee starts over with counting of absentee ballots, after open locks are discovered on tabulators

2024-11-06T00:06:51+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.

Milwaukee election officials started counting the city’s absentee ballots all over again Tuesday afternoon after an observer noticed that the panel doors on the city’s 13 tabulators weren’t properly closed.

By the time city officials decided to restart the counting around 4 p.m., over 30,000 absentee ballots had already been fed into the tabulators, Milwaukee spokesperson Caroline Reinwald said. The city had more than 106,000 absentee ballots in total by midday Tuesday.

A Republican observer at the city’s central counting facility pointed out that the panel door that covers a tabulator’s on and off switch — and, in at least some cases, slots for inserting USB drives to export election results — was unlocked after workers had been using the tabulators for several hours. Milwaukee Election Commission Executive Director Paulina Gutiérrez then went from tabulator to tabulator, monitored by representatives from the Democratic and Republican parties, to secure each one between 2 and 2:30 p.m.

City election officials said that there was no indication any of the tabulators had been tampered with — and that it would have been clear if somebody had accessed them. The slots are used at the end of the night, when election officials insert USB drives to export election results before driving them to the county to submit the data.

Milwaukee setback stands out in otherwise orderly Wisconsin election

If the off buttons were “tampered with, it would completely turn off,” Gutiérrez told Votebeat. “That would be very evident of tampering, so we just properly locked them and resealed them.”

There were no USB drives in any of the tabulators, she added.

The decision to restart the count, city spokesperson Jeff Fleming said, was “out of an abundance of caution.”

“We have no reason to believe that there was any compromise to any of the machines,” he said. “But because they were not fully sealed — human error — … we are going to zero them all out again and rerun the ballots that had already been processed.”

Re-tabulating all of the ballots may take up to three hours, Fleming said. City officials initially said the count could go until 2 or 3 a.m.

Votebeat spoke with multiple Republicans at central count who were aware of the oversight. None said they were concerned about any possibility of tampering.

Before the decision to restart the tabulation process, Republican Party of Milwaukee County Chair Hilario Deleon, who watched Gutiérrez reseal each machine, told Votebeat that he doesn’t think anything nefarious happened.

“I’m not worried about it, although it is a concerning thing when those things are supposed to be locked,” he said.

“Both observers were able to see whether or not there’s flash drives in any of the machines. There’s no flash drives in the machines. There should be no flash drives until the end of the night,” he said, adding that he appreciated Gutiérrez’s transparency.

Paulina Gutiérrez, executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, middle, works on securing the tabulation machines after learning that the doors of the machines at the central counting facility at the Baird Center were not properly sealed on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024.

But Deleon expressed frustration over the decision to restart counting and said local Democrats and city election officials disregarded his view on that matter.

“Let them continue doing their job,” he said. “So many more ballots still have to be counted. Why are we adding more time onto this?”

“It’s just going to be extra work for everyone, and any chance to get these numbers maybe by midnight or 1 a.m., that might have just been pushed back,” he said.

Jefferson Davis, a former Menomonee Falls village president and conservative election activist who has promoted conspiracy theories, similarly said he wasn’t concerned.

“We had observers at each station as they were taken, and we didn’t see anything that would cause us concern,” he said.

Davis told Votebeat that he welcomed the decision to restart the count as a transparency measure.

Milwaukee election officials typically follow a checklist at central count to ensure that the tabulators are secure, and that thumb drives carrying vote totals end up where they’re supposed to, aren’t tampered with, and remain tracked through a full chain-of-custody process. It appeared one of the earlier steps of closing the panels wasn’t done correctly.

Claire Woodall, Gutiérrez’s predecessor as Milwaukee election chief, said there are multiple layers of security to prevent tampering, of which the seal is “the most visible but superficial.”

“Rigorous cross checks exist in the election system, including audit logs that track every action on the tabulator,” she said. “I am confident that this was human error in how the doors [were] closed and seals placed, as no one present at Central Count has presented any concerns of tampering.”

Ann Jacobs, a Democratic commissioner on the Wisconsin Elections Commission, also watched Gutiérrez as she resealed and locked each tabulator.

“Elections are run at the municipal level, and at this point, it is up to the Milwaukee Election Commission and the Milwaukee city attorney’s office to decide what their plan is, in light of what’s happened,” she told Votebeat.

National Republicans — long critical of the heavily Democratic city and its elections — decried the mistake.

“This is an unacceptable example of incompetent election administration in a key swing state: voters deserve better and we are unambiguously calling on Milwaukee’s officials to do their jobs and count ballots quickly and effectively,” Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley and Co-Chair Lara Trump wrote in a media statement.

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

Early voting by Republicans helps drive surge in absentee ballot numbers in Wisconsin

2024-11-04T21:48:09+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 early voting period finished Sunday, and a couple of things are clear: Voting by absentee ballot, which spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic, remains very popular, and Republicans are coming around to it despite mixed messages from party leaders.

As of Nov. 4, a day out from the election, voters cast and returned over 1.5 million absentee ballots, including nearly 950,000 cast at early voting sites. Ballots are still arriving by mail — the deadline for them to reach clerk’s offices is 8 p.m. on Election Day — but already, the total number of returned absentee ballots exceeds the total from the 2008, 2012, and 2016 presidential elections.

“Clerks were a little surprised by turnout,” Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe said on Friday. “Everything still went really smoothly, but I think our local election officials were surprised to see the volume of in-person absentee.”

The volume was so high, Wolfe said, that the commission bought extra absentee ballot return envelopes in case municipalities ran out. None had run out as of Friday, she said.

Republican areas coming around to absentee voting

Statewide, the total number of returned ballots is about 20% lower than it was at this point in 2020, when COVID-19 pushed voters to rely on mail voting far more than usual.

As of Monday, no county had received more returned ballots than it had at this point in the 2020 election, but the six counties closest to their 2020 levels — Washington, Adams, Waukesha, Ozaukee, Florence, and Walworth — have Republican majorities.

In Walworth County, a southern county with just over 100,000 residents, county and municipal election staff anticipated an embrace of early voting, but “I don’t think we thought it was going to be the volume that it is,” County Clerk Susi Pike said. “It’s a lot different than any other election, for sure.”

A Wisconsin voter’s guide to dealing with Election Day pitfalls and problems

One municipality in Walworth County that typically had early in-person voting only by appointment had open early-voting hours this time around, Pike said.

Voters like the availability of in-person early voting, Pike said, because it provides more flexibility and reduces the likelihood of people not being able to vote if, for example, weather is bad on Election Day.

The state doesn’t track the partisan breakdown of the early voting data, but polling shows a growing Republican embrace of voting before Election Day — at least, some versions of it.

Among likely voters in Wisconsin who said they would vote early in person, 52% support Donald Trump while 47% support Kamala Harris, a Marquette Law School Poll released Oct. 30 showed. Among those who planned to vote by mail, 70% support Harris, while 30% support Trump.

The percentage of Republicans voting early by mail and in person has increased since the last presidential election.

In 2020, 78% of Republicans planned to vote on Election Day, while 12% planned to cast a ballot early in person and 7% planned to vote by mail, according to the Marquette Law School Poll. In 2024, 70% of Republicans planned to vote on Election Day, with 19% planning to cast a ballot early and 10% by mail.

That change has come as Republican leaders emphasize early voting, a departure from 2020, when Trump and his allies baselessly alleged widespread fraud related to the casting of absentee ballots.

“We can’t keep walking into Election Day 100,000-200,000 votes down and expect we’re going to make it up in 13 hours between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.,” Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Brian Schimming said.

Still some Republicans, including Trump, have persisted in casting doubt on some absentee voting methods. Trump has already said without evidence or explanation that this election is rigged, and U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde, a Wisconsin Republican, called for monitoring drop boxes to ensure people aren’t “jamming fake ballots.”

In solidly Republican Washington County, voters have already returned about 54,000 ballots, just 2% fewer than at this point four years ago.

Voting by absentee ballot voting was less embraced in some outstate, mostly Republican counties. As of Monday, seven counties had 40% or fewer absentee ballots in this election than in 2020, and all but one voted for Trump that year.

In Clark County, where voters have returned under 2,000 absentee votes compared with nearly 3,500 in 2020, County Clerk Christina Jensen said voters typically wait until Election Day to vote.

Still, Jensen added, the pandemic changed county residents’ voting habits, and she fielded more calls about early voting this year than any year before it.

In Wisconsin’s Democratic strongholds of Dane and Milwaukee counties, voters continued to embrace early voting. Dane County voters had returned over 202,000 ballots, the elections commission stated on Monday, compared with just under 249,000 at this point in 2020. Milwaukee County voters returned about 230,000 this time around, compared with 314,000 at this point in 2020.

Early voting ran smoothly despite persistent printing delays

Even with higher in-person early voting numbers than ever before, early voting ran relatively smoothly. But voters faced long lines and delays across the state for several days, especially during the first week of early voting, because of a printing issue related to the state’s voter registration and election management system.

It remains unclear what caused the printing problem, but it resulted in up to 15-minute wait times to print each label that election officials typically stick on every absentee ballot, usually before voters cast their vote. The election commission encouraged local election officials to hand-write the information usually printed on the label, like a voter’s name and address, which some did.

The issue went away for most of the second week of early voting, but popped again on Friday as election officials across the state tried to print 20,000 labels in an hour, said Ann Jacobs, a Democratic commissioner on the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Wolfe, the administrator, credited the increase in early voting turnout to “a lot more awareness on all of the options that are available.”

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

Philadelphia must count undated and misdated mail ballots from September election, Pa. court rules

2024-10-30T19:05:31+00:00

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

Update, Nov. 1, 2024: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified in an order Friday that this ruling does not apply to the Nov. 5, 2024, general election. This story has been updated with comment from the RNC.

Philadelphia must count mail ballots from the September special elections that were submitted with return envelopes that voters incorrectly dated or failed to date, a state appellate court ruled Wednesday in a decision that doesn’t explicitly apply to the November general election.

While the ruling applies narrowly, it raises the possibility of additional action by the state Supreme Court and gives county officials yet another ruling to consider when deciding how to handle ballots this November.

In the 3-2 ruling Wednesday, the state’s Commonwealth Court said that the city had to count ballots from mail voters who made dating errors in the Sept. 17 special elections for two vacant legislative seats.

The ruling said a local Philadelphia court got it right when it said rejecting the ballots violated the state constitution.

“We hold that the trial court did not err in ordering the County Board to count the 69 undated and incorrectly dated absentee and mail-in ballots cast in the [special elections] on the basis that not counting those ballots violates the free and equal elections clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution,” Judge Ellen Ceisler wrote for the majority.

In a footnote, Ciesler wrote that the case “relates to a special election that has already occurred, and not the 2024 general election.”

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Matthew Wolf said the majority decision risked “causing confusion on the eve of the 2024 General Election.” Judge Patricia McCullough raised the same concern in a separate dissent.

“There simply was and is no reason to decide this question now, and the Majority certainly has not done so in ordinary course,” McCullough wrote. “Both the trial court and this Court should have declined to issue rushed and novel constitutional rulings that surely will confuse the expectations of both voters and county boards of elections alike.”

The decision leaves unresolved constitutional questions about counting undated or misdated ballots in the November election, though it does not force officials to count them.

“Of course we hope they will, because if [rejecting them is] unconstitutional in September it is unconstitutional in November,” said Andy Hoover, a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which along with the Public Interest Law Center brought the case on behalf of two voters. “And if they or any county don’t, this ruling sets up post-election litigation.”

While an appeal in the case could prompt the state Supreme Court to step in next, for now, other counties aren’t bound by the ruling.

“The order certainly does not expressly apply to all counties,” said Adam Bonin, a Philadelphia-based Democratic election lawyer, who was not part of this case but has been involved in other lawsuits challenging the dating requirement. But Bonin said all county attorneys need to take note of the fact that a state court has ruled that disqualifying ballots for these reasons violates the constitution, and advise their counties accordingly.

After the September special elections, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and Public Interest Law Center sued Philadelphia on behalf of two voters who neglected to date their ballot envelopes, which officials rejected. The groups argued that under a provision in the state constitution, the city could not reject the ballots for such a trivial paperwork error.

The argument is identical to one made by the groups in a separate case this summer. The Commonwealth Court ruled in the groups’ favor in that case in August, but the state Supreme Court voided the decision on procedural grounds in September. The high court then also declined an ACLU request to exercise its authority to bypass the usual court process and immediately decide the dating issue.

The ACLU and Public Interest Law Center hailed Wednesday’s ruling as a victory.

“We applaud the Commonwealth Court for its ruling recognizing the rights of voters, and we hope that every county will abide by this ruling in its processing of mail ballots next month,” said Mimi McKenzie, legal director of the Public Interest Law Center. “Because today’s decision may not be the last word on this issue, we still advise voters to date their return envelope, take any opportunity they have to cure mistakes, or vote provisionally on election day if they made a mistake on the envelope date.”

In the Philadelphia case, a local judge ruled that the city erred in not counting the ballots on the grounds that it violated the state constitution’s free and equal elections clause, but the city and Republican groups that intervened in the case appealed that ruling to the Commonwealth Court.

The city commissioners appealed on the grounds that they did not want to be in a scenario where Philadelphia was the only county counting the ballots or was required to count the ballots for the special elections but not the November general election.

“The Board appreciates the Commonwealth Court’s ruling in this case, which will enable the Board to avoid inconsistency, comply with the Election Code, and uphold the voting rights of electors under the Pennsylvania Constitution,” Ava Schwemler, a spokesperson for the city said. “We are grateful for a resolution on this matter to guide consistent and equitable election operations.”

Schwemler said the city will not be appealing to the state Supreme Court.

Republican groups that intervened in the case argued the ACLU and Public Interest Law Center’s case had procedural defects, and the Philadelphia court’s ruling violated a legal principle of not changing the rules close to an election.

“The Department is pleased with the result, which won’t interfere with the upcoming election and will only serve to enfranchise voters who otherwise would have their votes thrown out for meaningless mistake,” said Amy Gulli, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of State.

Following the Nov. 1 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, RNC Chairman Michael Whatley hailed the order as a victory.

“This is another big win for election integrity and Pennsylvania voters,” he said in a statement. “For the fifth time, we have successfully defended the state’s dated ballot requirement.”

Bonin said he anticipated the state Supreme Court will take up the issue soon.

“I assume that the state Supreme Court is going to bring clarity to this between now and when the counties are counting their ballots,” he said. “They have had multiple opportunities to bring finality to this. … The only way that this issue goes away is if all the courts close all the doors.”

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

Group seeks to block mail ballots for hundreds of Pennsylvania voters, based on flimsy USPS records

2024-10-30T08:45:00+00:00

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

A group of citizens are challenging hundreds of mail ballot applications in southeast Pennsylvania, claiming they were submitted by voters who have moved to a new address that disqualifies them from voting in the state.

The challengers, apparently working as organized activists across multiple counties, are claiming that these voters are ineligible for a mail ballot because the address in the state’s mail ballot request file does not match an address connected to the voter’s name in a U.S. Postal Service database. This method of cross-checking has been regularly criticized by election experts as insufficient to confirm that the records refer to the same person.

The challenges filed with counties claim the voters are no longer Pennsylvania residents and thus are not eligible voters and cannot receive a mail ballot. The challenges apparently cite data from the Postal Service’s National Change of Address database showing a record that someone matching the voter’s name has filed an address change for mail delivery.

Pennsylvania law requires that someone must be a resident of Pennsylvania to be an eligible voter but does not require that their Pennsylvania address be where they receive mail.

A coalition of voting rights groups is pushing back against the challenges, calling them a “malicious attempt” to disenfranchise voters.

“We are very concerned about the validity and intent of these challenges, deliberate abuse of the election system, and the time and energy it will take for our local election officials to address them,” said Susan Gobreski, president of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. “We will defend the freedom to vote for all Pennsylvanians.”

According to Pennsylvania law, mail ballot applications can be challenged up until 5 p.m. the Friday before the election — for a fee of $10 each — on the grounds that the applicant is not qualified to vote.

The challenges appear to be a coordinated effort. Broad and Liberty, a conservative Philadelphia-based news outlet, reported Monday that it had reviewed a list of the 865 challenges, targeting voters registered in Bucks, Chester, Montgomery, and Delaware counties. Broad and Liberty did not name the group behind the effort, and reported that the challenges are mostly targeting Democratic voters’ applications.

Votebeat and Spotlight PA confirmed with Bucks County that its election office had received 191 challenges Friday from the same person. Spokesperson Jim O’Malley said a hearing by the board of elections would need to take place to determine the validity of the challenges, and that the hearing had not yet been scheduled.

Chester County spokesperson Rebecca Brain said the county had received 212 challenges, all using the same standard phrasing, and that a board of elections hearing was scheduled for Friday to review the challenges.

Megan Alt, a spokesperson for Montgomery County, said the county has not received any challenges yet, but would address them if they come. Jim Allen, elections director in Delaware County, said someone did recently come in with 140 challenge forms, but when they were informed they needed to use the county’s affidavit, they took all 140 forms and left.

According to a petition reviewed by Votebeat and Spotlight PA, the person filing challenges in Chester County is Diane Houser. Houser is a plaintiff in a lawsuit brought this summer by a right-wing group called United Sovereign Americans challenging the state’s voter roll maintenance.

Houser did not immediately return a call or email seeking comment.

Such challenges using USPS data may also be occurring in other states. A lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas, this month seeks to challenge thousands of registrations based at least in part on what the lawsuit describes as a “simple comparison” of the change of address data to the county voter rolls.

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research, said USPS change-of-address data can be unreliable on its own for determining voter eligibility because it does not contain unique ID numbers for individuals, birthdates, or driver’s license information, and often doesn’t differentiate between family members with the same or similar names, like a senior and junior.

While election officials do use this data for list maintenance, they use it in combination with other sources such as driver’s license records to improve confidence that they’ve got the right person.

“No data scientist would ever consider matching a National Change of Address file to another file and say with confidence this is the same person,” Becker said. “And of course you definitely don’t want to say that when you are in close proximity to an election and might disenfranchise someone.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, in a letter to all 67 counties, is cautioning them that deeming the applications ineligible on the basis of the challenges would violate the law, since the only requirement to receive a mail ballot is that a person be a registered voter. The ACLU asserts that the USPS data can not be used to distinguish between a person’s plan to temporarily relocate or to permanently move, and thus is insufficient alone to prove the voter is not qualified.

The letter also reminded counties that it is too late to remove voters from voting rolls, as federal law prohibits systematic removals within 90 days of an election.

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

These Pennsylvania counties give voters a chance to fix errors on their mail ballots

2024-10-23T23:13:26+00:00

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

Update, 7:10 p.m., Oct 23, 2024:This story has been updated with news of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision on provisional ballots.

Update, Oct. 26, 2024: This story has been updated to reflect changes this past week to Indiana County’s policy, as well as information on Mifflin County’s policy.

Voters in most Pennsylvania counties will have the chance to fix errors with their mail ballots during this election and spare them from being rejected, according to a review of county policies by Votebeat and Spotlight PA.

Thirty-eight counties allow voters to fix errors with their mail ballots in some way.

The practice, referred to as notice-and-cure, is a policy some counties have adopted to inform voters of errors with their mail ballots that put those ballots at risk of rejection and allow those voters to correct the mistakes.

At least 26 counties, however, will not offer voters the chance to fix errors, according to the survey. But in light of a new ruling from the state Supreme Court, counties will at least have to accept valid provisional ballots cast on Election Day by those voters.

The rules that can lead to mail ballots being rejected are outlined in Act 77, the 2019 law that expanded mail voting in Pennsylvania. It requires that voters place their ballot in a secrecy envelope before placing that envelope in the return envelope, and that voters sign and put the current date on the return envelope. Failing to do one of these things will prevent the county from counting the ballot.

Precisely how voters can fix these mistakes varies from county to county, creating a patchwork of policies around the state that can sometimes be confusing for voters and advocates to keep track of.

Some counties, including Allegheny, send the defective ballot back to the voter with instructions on how to fix the error, as well as a new return envelope. Chester County tells voters to come into the elections office with ID and fix it in person. Delaware County cancels the defective ballot and issues a new one.

How successful curing is also depends on the method. A spokesperson for Allegheny said that voters there fixed nearly 62% of defective mail ballots in the spring primary using its method. Data from Fayette County shows a roughly 50% cure rate this past election. In Venango County, roughly 40% of ballots at risk were fixed and counted.

The variation comes from the fact that curing is not a process defined by the state’s election code. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that while counties aren’t required to offer an opportunity to cure, the law doesn’t prevent them from doing so either.

Some counties have interpreted that lack of clear direction to mean that they shouldn’t allow curing.

“Our board has consistently taken the stance that the law does not tell us, it doesn’t say we ‘shall’ cure ballots,” said Joe Kantz, chair of the Snyder County Board of Commissioners. “So because of that, we don’t. Because when people go outside of what the law tells them to do, that’s not usually a good thing.”

Kantz, who formerly served as the chair of the Election Reform Committee in the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, said many other counties take that viewpoint. He said he “would love nothing more” than to have uniformity across the state, but he said that requires legislators to “do their job.”

“I’m not saying either side is wrong or right, but what we need is clear definition in the law,” he said. “This is a pretty simple issue: Either we are going to cure, or we are not going to cure. So give us some clarity in the law.”

Since 2020, the legislature has tried to clarify what curing means and whether counties should be able to allow it, but no legislation has made it through Harrisburg’s partisan gridlock.

The state Supreme Court has just resolved one such question, and stands to provide clarity on another.

The court ruled late Wednesday in one case, from Butler County, that dealt with whether voters whose mail ballots are rejected have the right to cast provisional ballots at their polling place on Election Day and have those votes counted. The 4-3 decision found that these ballots must be counted.

The other case, from Washington County, deals with whether counties are required to notify voters when they are going to cancel the voter’s mail ballot due to defects. The court has yet to rule on that case.

For now, counties continue to navigate this lack of clarity on their own. Just last week county commissioners in Bradford County, which previously allowed curing, voted to discontinue the practice, while Indiana County changed course in the opposite direction, voting to allow curing.

The analysis by Votebeat and Spotlight PA also shows that, contrary to popular belief, notice-and-cure is not a strongly partisan issue. Thirteen counties that Joe Biden won in 2020 have implemented the practice, but so have 25 counties that Donald Trump won.

Fayette County, in south central Pennsylvania, is one of the Trump counties that have a notice-and-cure policy.

Sophia Murray and her husband, John, both submitted mail ballots to the county during the primary, but they had the wrong date on the envelope.

Sophia said she and John, who are both in their 70s, wrote the wrong year or day of the month. Data shows ballot errors tend to affect older voters more frequently. But the county called to let them know, and they both were able to fix the problem and have their vote counted.

“It was really great that they let us do that,” she said. “They let us save our vote.”

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

Correction, Oct. 29, 2024: This story has been updated to reflect that Cambria and Lackawanna counties do allow ballot curing in person at the county elections office.

Voters deserve second chance if mail ballots are rejected, Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules

2024-10-23T22:41:41+00:00

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

Update, Nov. 1, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court denied an application from the Republican National Committee and Pennsylvania Republican Party to halt the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Oct. 23 decision.

Marian Schneider, senior voting rights policy counsel at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said this means voters who make disqualifying mistakes when returning their mail ballot can cast a provisional vote on Election Day and have it counted.

“We think that was correct,” she said. “The Geneser case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was a very straightforward exercise of the court’s roles.”

An RNC spokesperson said the party was “disappointed” in the ruling but touted its other recent court victories in Pennsylvania.

This story was previously updated with comments from a Butler County commissioner and RNC spokesperson.

Pennsylvanians must be given a chance to vote on Election Day if their mail ballots have been rejected because of a disqualifying mistake, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

That means voters who fail to correctly sign or date the return envelope or fail to use a secrecy envelope are entitled to cast a provisional ballot on Election Day at a polling place and have it counted, as long as that ballot wouldn’t be rejected for some other disqualifying issue.

In a 4-3 decision, the court said that provisional voting was meant to assure access to the right to vote, while simultaneously preventing double voting.

Justice Christine Donohue, writing for the majority, noted that the Republican litigants argued that in order to maintain election integrity, provisional ballots should not be counted, but said the majority was “at a loss to identify what honest voting principle is violated by recognizing the validity of one ballot cast by one voter.”

“If appellants presume that the general assembly intended to disqualify the provisional ballot of a voter who failed to effectively vote by mail in order to punish that voter, we caution that such a construction is not reconcilable with the right of franchise,” she wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center, which brought the case on behalf of two voters, celebrated the ruling as a victory.

“Today’s decision affirms that if you make a paperwork mistake that will keep your mail ballot from counting, you have the right to vote by provisional ballot at your polling place on Election Day,” said Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center. “This reinforces the right to vote in Pennsylvania.”

The case began in Butler County, which rejected provisional ballots cast by two voters whose mail ballots for the April primary had been rejected earlier for being returned without a secrecy envelope. Provisional ballots are used at polling places by voters whose eligibility is in question but who still want to vote. Those ballots are counted only after the voter’s eligibility is confirmed, including a check to make sure no mail ballot from that same voter has already been counted.

The ACLU and Public Interest Law Center sued the county, arguing that the county had misinterpreted a section of the state’s election code in considering the rejected mailed ballots as “cast.”

The groups lost at the county court level, but that decision was overturned by the state’s Commonwealth Court in September. Republican groups that intervened in the case appealed it to the state Supreme Court. The ruling from the state’s highest court means it will apply statewide, not just in Butler County.

Pennsylvania law requires voters to sign and date their ballot return envelopes, and to place the ballot in an inner secrecy envelope before being placed in the return envelope, in order for the ballot to be counted.

Thousands of ballots are rejected each election for these issues. During the April primary, counties rejected roughly 8,500 ballots, or 1.22% of those returned, for lacking a signature, date, or being returned without a secrecy envelope, according to an analysis of Pennsylvania Department of State data.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently declined to weigh the merits of the dating rule on an emergency basis, meaning it will likely remain in effect for at least the Nov. 5 election.

In a dissent joined by two other justices, Justice P. Kevin Brobson wrote that the state’s election code was “clear and unambiguous” that Butler County “not only lacked the authority to count Electors’ provisional ballots, [but] the Election Code expressly prohibited the Board from counting them.”

Butler County Commissioner Kimberly Geyer said the county wasn’t looking to disenfranchise any voters, and the root cause of what is happening is ambiguities in the law and the legislature’s lack of action to address them.

“Attorneys from special advocacy groups, such as the ACLU, including the Pennsylvania Department of State, who is the State overseer of statewide elections, is utilizing the courts to rewrite the election laws,” she said. “The bottom line is this, counties are following the laws on the books, are then sued in court and the courts are making the final determination. Counties then are required to carry out the Supreme Court’s ruling.”

Claire Zunk, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, which intervened in the case, said Wednesday the party was disappointed in the ruling.

“The legislature has set clear, commonsense safeguards to protect the ballot, and those rules must be enforced. We will pursue all legal avenues to protect the vote for Pennsylvanians,” she said.

The case is one of three major cases on mail ballots the high court could rule on before the election.

In another case from western Pennsylvania, the ACLU and the Public Interest Law Center sued Washington County over its policy of not notifying voters of errors with their mail ballots. That case is currently before the state Supreme Court, where a decision is pending.

Another case brought by the two groups deals with whether mail ballot return envelopes need to be dated in order for the ballot to be counted. The groups have brought several iterations of this case; the latest one began after a special election last month in Philadelphia for an open seat in the state House, when the groups sued the city on behalf of voters for not accepting improperly dated mail ballots cast in the race.

That case is awaiting a decision from the state’s Commonwealth Court, and could be appealed up to the state Supreme Court after that.

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

Philadelphia aims to speed up mail ballot processing with new equipment

2024-10-16T19:34:38+00:00

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

Update, 3:00 p.m., Oct 16, 2024: After this story was published, the commissioners affirmed at a public meeting that they would use faster ballot-processing equipment this November. The story has been updated throughout.

A few relatively minor changes would allow Philadelphia to process mail ballots much faster and finish counting them much sooner after polls close on Election Day, an analysis by Votebeat and Spotlight PA has found.

The analysis found a wide disparity between Allegheny and Philadelphia — Pennsylvania’s two largest counties — in how quickly they counted mail ballots during the November 2022 election.

That year, Philadelphia processed ballots at a rate of 5,000 per hour, while Allegheny County, home to Pittsburgh and surrounding municipalities, processed more than 12,000 ballots per hour, based on an analysis of information provided by the counties, publicly available data, and data from the Pennsylvania Department of State.

While Philadelphia officials have publicly blamed counting delays on a state law that says poll workers can begin processing ballots only on the morning of Election Day, the analysis points to other culprits: outdated equipment and less staffing.

Public records show Philadelphia already has equipment that can open ballot envelopes much more quickly than its current equipment. Yet — until Wednesday, less than a month before the election — it was unclear if the city commissioners who make election decisions planned to use faster machines. That changed after the publication of this story, when the board agreed during a public meeting to move forward with using both types of machines on Nov. 5.

The stakes of an accurate yet swift ballot count couldn’t be higher, because each day that unofficial election results are delayed could breed more mistrust in the outcome.

In 2020, it took four days for the state to be called for Joe Biden, in large part due to the approximately 375,000 ballots Philadelphia was processing in that time. The delay led to conspiracy theories that fraudulent votes for Biden were added late in the counting process.

How Philadelphia and Allegheny diverge on the same task

Allegheny County and Philadelphia, for the most part, have similar processes.

The day starts with election workers checking the outer envelopes of mail ballots to ensure there are no defects that prevent them from being counted, such as a missing date or signature. The ballots are then run through a machine that opens the outer envelope. In both counties, workers then physically remove the secrecy envelope from the return envelope, and run the secrecy envelope through the opening machine, allowing access to the ballot inside. Then, workers take it out and flatten it so that the votes can be scanned and counted by a tabulation machine.

In comments to the Washington Post over the summer, City Commissioner Lisa Deeley said the barrier to having unofficial results on election night was that the city cannot, by state law, open mail ballot envelopes before 7 a.m. on Election Day. Commissioner Seth Bluestein made a similar comment to the Philadelphia Inquirer in September.

Getting a head start on that process before Election Day would require a change in the law. Many election officials, politicians, and the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania have advocated for such a change. But as many counties have shown in the years since the 2020 presidential election, with enough workers and the right equipment it is possible — albeit expensive — to count all mail ballots on Election Day.

Allegheny County election officials said the “secret sauce” to their county’s success is its high-speed envelope-opening machine. With an attachment, the Bluecrest Vantage mail sorter can open up to 50,000 envelopes an hour, according to the manufacturer. Allegheny County also uses three Opex Omation 306 machines for smaller ballot-processing jobs, which the manufacturer says can open 40,000 envelopes an hour.

By comparison, Philadelphia has 22 Opex machines called extraction desks, which can each open up to 3,600 ballots per hour, according to the manufacturer.

Records show that the Philadelphia City Commissioners office, which makes election-related decisions, purchased four of the faster Opex Omation machines over the summer. Philadelphia also has a Bluecrest machine it uses to sort ballots, not to open them.

At least one of the three commissioners, Deeley, does not want to use the new equipment this November to open envelopes. She made a motion at Wednesday‘s commissioners’ meeting to only use the extraction desks or hand letter openers to open both the secrecy and return envelopes.

Deputy City Commissioner Nick Custodio said Deeley opposes using the new Omation machines for opening ballots because they use a method that has been found with similar machines to damage the ballots inside. When that happens, election workers have to duplicate the ballot to tabulate it, a time-consuming process.

“Our priority is accuracy over speed,” Deeley said in an interview last Thursday. “It always has been and it remains that.”

However, Chairman Omar Sabir said last Friday a decision had not yet been made about the new machines.

“That’s like buying a Corvette and [you] don’t drive it,” he said. “We’ll do testing. We’ll see how it works. If it works the way we want it to work, we’ll use it.”

At Wednesday’s meeting, Deeley again expressed concern about the way the new machines open envelopes, saying she did not want to have the nation waiting on Philadelphia to recreate damaged mail ballots.

Joseph Lynch, director of election operations, said at the meeting he had tested the new equipment Tuesday and found no issues with it and would not recommend their use if he was not confident in their performance.

In a comment to Votebeat and Spotlight PA Wednesday, Forrest Lehman, elections director in Lycoming County, said he and many other counties also use the faster Omation machine. He said once it is adjusted properly, ballot damage rarely occurs.

Deeley’s motion was unsuccessful as no other commissioner seconded it, meaning that the city will use both sets of machines — each for a different type of job — in the upcoming election.

Other subtle differences between the two counties’ operations could also account for the disparity in speed.

Allegheny County will have a staff of roughly 200 to 220 people at its mail ballot processing facility on Election Day, while Philadelphia will employ two alternating day shifts of about 150 workers each, and 90 in a third overnight shift.

Philadelphia’s ballots are “batched” and kept together throughout all steps of the process and not mixed with other groups, to serve as another check on accuracy. Allegheny County does not keep ballots together in batches, a spokesperson said, though the county feels it can simultaneously prioritize accuracy, integrity, and speed.

“We have no concerns with our process,” Abigail Gardner, a spokesperson for Allegheny County, said.

Philadelphia also does what is called pollbook reconciliation, where it compares the names of people who cast ballots at in-person voting locations to those who sent in mail ballots, to ensure that no one who voted in person also voted by mail. This contributed to the delayed results in 2020, though it should be much quicker this year with the city’s adoption of electronic pollbooks, Deeley said.

Why mail ballot processing will be much faster than in 2020

A lot has changed in counties’ capabilities to process mail ballots since 2020, when Pennsylvania faced long waits for unofficial results, Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt said at a community event in Gettysburg last month.

Counties have learned how to organize their counting process more efficiently, figured out how to staff their counting operations with enough workers, purchased new equipment with the help of state funding, and seen a decline in mail ballot voting since the pandemic.

“So hopefully we’ll know the results earlier,” he said. “But ultimately, it always comes down to how close elections are and always has.”

Votebeat and Spotlight PA reached out to more than a dozen counties of varying sizes and asked them when they completed counting mail ballots in each of the four November elections from 2020 to 2023. By combining that with data on the number of mail ballots the county had to process from records maintained by the Department of State, the news organizations were able to calculate processing rates and project those estimates onto counties of similar size.

The results show what many election officials have said: Many, if not most, counties should be able to complete counting on Election Day, but counting in a few of the larger counties could run into Wednesday or Thursday. That would mean getting unofficial results should be quicker than in 2020, but perhaps not fast enough to contain misinformation and mistrust about the election.

In any case, Schmidt pointed out, just how quickly news outlets can declare a winner in the presidential race will ultimately come down to how close the election is.

As of Oct. 15, Allegheny County had approved more than 200,000 ballot applications, while Philadelphia had approved 182,000. In the November 2020 election, roughly 350,000 were returned to Allegheny County, and 375,000 ballots to Philadelphia. The last day to request a mail ballot is Oct. 29.

Prior to Wednesday’s meeting, Philadelphia was projecting it would finish tabulating 75,000 to 100,000 mail ballots by shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Day, Custodio said. Allegheny County is projecting it will be done with all of its ballots in about the same timeframe.

“We have every intention of completing [our mail ballot processing] on Election Day,” Jessica Garofolo, director of administrative services for Allegheny County, said.

That doesn’t mean counties wouldn’t benefit from having additional time before Election Day to prepare mail ballots for counting, a process known as pre-canvassing, Garofolo said.

“You have to keep in mind that we’re pulling a few hundred people from their normal county jobs,” she said.

Lisa Schaffer, executive director of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, said officials have learned a lot since the last presidential election about what resources and staffing it takes to process mail ballots efficiently and finish counting on election night.

“But we have always said that the point of pre-canvassing isn’t just to get results on election night,” she said. “The point of pre-canvassing is also to help counties use their resources better. … It would make election administration a lot more effective if we could run that processing of mail ballots beforehand and then shift our focus solely on the in-person election.”

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

Judge strikes down strict voter assistance rules in Texas’ 2021 rewrite of election laws

2024-10-12T02:33:33+00:00

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

Certain provisions of Texas’ sweeping 2021 voting law that restrict voter assistance violate the federal Voting Rights Act and cannot be enforced, a federal judge in Texas ruled Friday.

Among the rules struck down by U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez was a ban on compensation for anyone who assists a voter and a requirement for anyone who assists a voter to sign an oath under penalty of perjury that the voter qualifies to receive help.

Rodriguez also blocked provisions that require assisters to make certain disclosures about their relationship to the voter they are helping and a provision that restricts voter assistance given during door-to-door voter outreach operations.

Rodriguez based his decision on the section of the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act that guarantees voters with disabilities or literacy limitations the right to receive assistance from whoever they choose.

“This ruling will be most impactful for voters with disabilities, voters who have limited English proficiency, voters with literacy issues and the people who assist them,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, voting rights program director at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Although the judge has blocked any type of prosecution under these provisions, the rules and instructions on forms about requiring voter assisters from signing an oath are technically still in place for the upcoming Nov. 5 presidential election, because it is too close to the election to change the forms themselves.

“It’s a shame that we’re now going to go through yet another election where people continue to have their rights violated as a result of what the Texas Legislature did,” Morales-Doyle said. “But this is still a big win for voters in Texas.”

Last year, the state argued the provisions did not violate the Voting Rights Act and that it “permits state-law restrictions on who may serve as an assistor beyond the limitations provided in federal law.”

The sweeping voting law dubbed Senate Bill 1 — which changed how some Texans vote and how election officials administer elections — was championed by Texas Republican legislators in 2021. Its passage led to a dramatic fight with Texas Democratic lawmakers, who broke quorum in an attempt to prevent the law from moving forward. Democrats in Texas and nationwide accused Republicans of basing the new rules on unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud in the November 2020 election.

Soon after the bill was signed by Gov. Gregg Abbott, more than 20 state and national organizations filed suit, seeking to overturn the new law. The lawsuits were consolidated into this case. The groups claimed provisions of the new law violate federal statutes, including the Voting Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the U.S. Constitution.

In his Friday ruling, Rodriguez laid out a few scenarios that would put voters at risk under the law’s voter assistance provisions:

“A man helps his blind wife of 20 years cast her ballot at the polls without first securing a representation from her that she is ‘eligible for assistance.’ Even if he completes her ballot according to her exact instructions, he faces up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000,” he noted.

“While meeting with a client about his tax return, a staff member for a community organization that provides free income tax services agrees to help translate the man’s mail-in ballot,” Rodriguez wrote. “The client fills out his own ballot, with accurate translation assistance from the staff member. Even though the ballot reflects the client’s wishes, the staff member faces up to two years in prison, she and her employer may be fined up to $10,000, and the client’s ballot may not be counted.”

The two-month trial began in September 2023. Lawyers later presented closing arguments in February 2024.

Plaintiffs challenged dozens of provisions, including a ban on 24-hour and drive-through voting; a prohibition stopping election officials from distributing mail-in ballot applications to voters who did not request them and provisions that expand poll watchers’ access, among others. Rodriguez has yet to rule on the remainder of those. Phase two of the trial, over whether the law’s intent was to discriminate against voters of color, is still making its way through the courts, which won’t begin until Rodriguez rules on all the remaining challenges to the provisions of the law in its current phase.

Plaintiffs said these provisions of the law made it harder for voters of color, voters with disabilities, and voters who don’t speak English to cast ballots.

Additionally, plaintiffs said the law made it more difficult for some voting rights advocacy organizations, forcing them to divert resources away from other programs to expand voter education efforts.

For its part, the state claimed Senate Bill 1 was passed to resolve “irregularities during the 2020 election caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,” singling out the decision by Harris County, the state’s most populous, to offer drive-through voting, and several issues with Harris County’s election.

The list of plaintiffs includes several organizations advocating for Latino, Black, and Asian-American voters, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC and OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates, as well as groups advocating for voters with disabilities.

To support their claims, the parties relied on 52 witnesses during the trial including county election administrators from across the state, voters, lawmakers, representatives of the Texas secretary of state, and experts in political science and voting rights.

The judge had previously struck down other key provisions.

For example, the legislation created new requirements for Texans who qualify to vote by mail. They are now required to provide either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on their absentee ballot application and the envelope used to return their completed ballot, whichever matches the number the state has in its voter registration file. Last year, Judge Rodriguez said that provision is illegal, though it remains in effect pending an appeal making its way through the courts.

Earlier this month, Rodriguez blocked a provision that effectively criminalized door-to-door canvassing for ballot initiatives.

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

After Hurricane Helene, North Carolina and other states scramble to keep election on track

2024-10-04T14:14:46+00:00

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

The death toll from Hurricane Helene continues to climb in the mountain towns of western North Carolina. Emergency workers airlifted aid to hollows and hamlets cut off from roads half-swallowed by the storm. People without electricity, cellular service, or internet chainsawed through fallen trees and debris, searching for loved ones. Many won’t be able to return to their homes.

These people probably weren’t thinking about elections. But state and local election officials were. With Election Day barely a month away — and mail ballots about to go out — they had no choice.

On Monday and Tuesday, Karen Brinson Bell, executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said her office had been in touch with election staff around the region. Many were themselves without water, power, or Internet, and contending with impassable roads and damage to their homes. One worker who went to check on the Buncombe County elections office made the trip on foot, a distance she estimated at about 4 miles.

For all the devastation in these communities, somehow, the 2024 election must go on. “We can’t stop elections,” Bell said during a press call Tuesday.

As of Tuesday, Bell said the state board had confirmed that voting equipment, ballots, and ballot paper stock had apparently made it through the storm. The next step, she said, will be to get every county elections office open and operating; around a dozen in the 25 counties covered by the federal disaster declaration were still closed at the time of the call (the state board is tracking their status here, on a new website set up to help voters after the storm). The state has provided emergency kits to counties that requested them, including Watauga, Mitchell, and Haywood, each with clean laptops, cellphones, and devices to help them securely connect to the Internet.

Among the questions election officials were confronting last week: which early voting sites and polling places across the region will still be usable, and which ones are too damaged by mudslides or falling trees, or simply inaccessible by road; whether some polling locations must be merged, even if that means residents will have to travel farther to reach them; whether election workers who had planned to staff those sites can still report for duty; and how to respond to disruptions to mail delivery, which was suspended through much of the area.

“We do not have all the answers right now,” Bell acknowledged, “but we are diligently working to figure them out.”

State officials were also working through different scenarios that could require the elections board to use emergency powers, or seek special action from the state legislature, such as more funding or a grace period for absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day, something lawmakers previously eliminated.

The state’s election officials have coped with disasters before. After Hurricane Dorian in 2019, Bell reminded reporters, the National Guard helped them set up voting in a tent in Hyde County. This time, state election officials are reminding voters that lost or damaged absentee ballots can be reissued and sent to temporary addresses, and the state’s voter identification law includes an exception for victims of a natural disaster occurring within 100 days of Election Day (see other tips for voting after Helene in North Carolina here).

But no matter how diligently election officials work, the aftermath of a natural disaster has the potential to confuse voters and upset typical voting patterns.

It can also set long-term shifts in motion by reshaping the region’s electorate, displacing residents, and scattering college students.

In heavily flooded Asheville, officials said it could take weeks to restore water service. UNC-Asheville, Bell’s alma mater, said it had evacuated students and would not resume classes until at least Oct. 28. Smaller towns like Chimney Rock, a tourism magnet near Lake Lure, were reduced to fields of debris and splintered wood, and emergency workers had limited ability to reach the most remote and isolated communities.

The decisions election officials make in the next few days will carry great weight in this swing state, which is critical to Republicans’ White House strategy and where Democrats are hoping for a breakthrough. North Carolina “is a state that’s going to be decided at the margins,” said Christopher Cooper, a professor of political science at Western Carolina University, which has also suspended classes.

Trump won the state by around 75,000 votes in 2020, and carried most of the counties in western North Carolina. Buncombe County, which includes Asheville, and Watauga County, home to Appalachian State University, were islands of blue. The North Carolina counties included in the federal disaster declaration include roughly 17% of the state’s registered voters, including 1 in 5 five Republicans and about 1 in 8 Democrats.

Officials in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, South Carolina, and Tennessee were also assessing damage from Helene. In Georgia, state officials also said no election buildings were compromised, though counties are still assessing damage to polling locations and roads. There, too, equipment and ballot paper appear to have been spared.

While power is out in several counties, the Georgia Emergency Management Service estimates that it will be back well in time for the start of early voting. Still, the lack of power and internet is affecting military and overseas voters, whose ballot requests cannot be processed.

Gabriel Sterling, chief operating officer for the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, said the biggest concern is the U.S. Postal Service. “We have a list of ZIP codes where they just aren’t delivering right now, and we have to get absentee ballots out” in just over a week, he said. Sterling said that the state is working out a contingency plan for having ballots delivered by UPS or FedEx. “We aren’t there yet,” he said, “but we are getting everything lined up in case we have to pull the trigger.”

In Tennessee, Doug Kufner, communications director for Secretary of State Tre Hargett, said in an email that at least six Election Day polling locations in northeast Tennessee “have experienced damage or currently have driving accessibility issues because of bridge or road damage.” That number could rise as the damage is still being evaluated, he said. Two county election offices also sustained water damage.

Election officials are resilient and will overcome the challenges, he stressed, but “the heartache, shock, and devastation are massive.”

In Florida, election officials are surveying damage and working with USPS, said Mark Ard, a spokesman for the Florida Secretary of State’s Office. Mark Earley, the supervisor of elections in Leon County, which was in Helene’s path but didn’t see as much severe damage as some other areas, said election officials are still assessing needs. There may be time to make repairs to at least some damaged polling places, for example, he said.

Earley, a former head of the state elections supervisors association, said Florida state and local election officials have a history of working well together to determine, for example, what should be included in an executive order addressing election needs after a natural disaster. Gov. Ron DeSantis issued such an order Thursday, giving election officials in 10 affected counties flexibility to make changes to voting sites, as well as some other requirements.

Such events demand flexibility, Earley said. For example, he delayed sending mail ballots to county residents until after the storm had passed, hoping to avoid having them damaged en route, or somehow lost.

Beyond that, he said, election officials have to “stay strong” and make sure emergency management officials are aware of their needs.

He said concerns about life and limb take priority. “But certainly,” he added, “elections are critical infrastructure.”

Editorial Director Jessica Huseman contributed. Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s managing editor and is based in Washington, D.C. She edits and frequently writes Votebeat’s national newsletter. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Voting rights groups ask Pa. high court to take up mail ballot dating issue immediately

2024-09-25T18:06:50+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 coalition of voting rights advocates is trying again to get the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to conclusively decide whether voters need to date their mail ballot return envelope in order for their vote to be counted, likely the last chance to settle the question before the November election.

After the court rebuffed the plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds in a decision earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center asked the high court to exercise its authority to bypass the lower courts to directly address pressing legal matters.

Because the court previously did not rule on the merits of the case, the organizations, suing on behalf of a coalition of voting rights groups, are again arguing that the dating requirement violates the state constitution.

“The refusal to count timely mail ballots submitted by eligible voters because of an inconsequential error violates the fundamental right to vote recognized in the Free and Equal Elections clause,” the suit says. “The imminent threat of mass disenfranchisement warrants this Court’s exercise of its King’s Bench authority.”

It is unclear if the court will use its discretionary power to take up the case, but at least three of the court’s seven judges indicated they were open to such a move.

If the court does take the case, it could have a large impact on voters this November, as thousands of ballots are rejected each election for lacking a proper date.

Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting law, Act 77, requires voters to sign and date the outer return envelope of their mail ballots, and return the ballot in a secrecy envelope, in order for it to be counted.

During the April primary, counties rejected roughly 8,500 ballots, or 1.22% of those returned, for lacking a signature or date, or for being returned without a secrecy envelope, according to an analysis of Pennsylvania Department of State data. More than 4,400 of those were rejected for dating issues. Applications for nearly double the number of ballots returned in the primary have already been approved, and ballots will soon reach voters. More voters are expected to apply before the Oct. 29 deadline.

The dating requirement has been caught in nearly continuous litigation since Act 77 was implemented in 2020. Federal and state judges have ruled at various points that the date should not be required, but those rulings have since been overturned.

Earlier this month in the most recent case, brought by many of the same litigants, the state Supreme Court voided a lower court’s ruling that had found the requirement unconstitutional.

The ACLU and others had argued to the state’s Commonwealth Court that the provision violated the “free and equal elections” clause of the state constitution. That clause says that “no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”

In a 4-1 ruling in late August, the Commonwealth Court agreed with them. But the ruling was quickly appealed by Republicans to the state Supreme Court, which voided the lower court’s order in a 4-3 ruling, on the grounds that the lower court did not have the authority to hear the case.

The three Supreme Court judges who disagreed with the majority’s ruling wrote in their dissent that the high court should use its authority to take up the issue immediately.

The ACLU is not the only group asking the court to exercise this power. The Republican National Committee and Pennsylvania GOP last week asked the court to take up a case on whether counties were violating the law in regards to a mail ballot policy adopted in some counties.

The policy, known as notice and cure, is adopted in some counties where elections offices notify voters of errors on their mail ballot — such as lacking a proper date — and permit them to fix those errors.

In a statement, RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said the policy “ignores the law,” though the Pennsylvania Department of State disputes that characterization.

The court has not yet said whether it will hear that case either.

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

Pennsylvania court says county should have warned voters before rejecting their mail ballots

2024-09-24T20:46:34+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 Western Pennsylvania county that rejected hundreds of mail ballots in the April primary should have notified voters beforehand, a state appellate court ruled Tuesday. The ruling could add pressure on other counties to notify voters of errors with their mail ballots for the November election.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Commonwealth Court agreed with a lower court judge that Washington County erred when it adopted a policy to reject mail ballots without telling voters and had a duty to inform them of their errors.

“The current policy emasculates the Election Code’s guarantees by depriving voters … the opportunity to contest their disqualification or to avail themselves of the statutory failsafe of casting a provisional ballot,” Judge Michael Wojcik wrote for the majority.

The decision applies to Washington County and does not set a statewide legal precedent, but county attorneys are likely to take note of the court’s opinion when advising their boards of elections about how to handle mail ballots with errors.

The decision can be appealed to the state Supreme Court, where a ruling would have statewide effect.

The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center on behalf of voting rights groups and voters whose ballots were rejected under the policy.

“Voters in Washington County can be assured that, if they make a mistake with their mail ballot, they’ll be notified and have a chance to rescue their vote,” said Claudia De Palma, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center. “That’s a win for voters.”

Before this year’s April primary election, the Republican majority on Washington County’s board of elections opted not to notify voters of mistakes with their mail ballots that would cause their votes to be disqualified, such as a missing date or signature, or being returned without a secrecy envelope.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that state law didn’t require counties to notify voters and give them a chance to fix the error, but it didn’t say that the practice was prohibited either. As a result, many counties adopted such a process, referred to as “notice and cure.” At least 14 counties now do this.

Many others say they do not have notice and cure policies, or have not answered questions about their policy.

But unlike other counties without notice and cure policies, Washington County gave voters no warning if their ballot had a defect that would result in it being rejected, even though it acknowledged receiving them. When Washington County received a mail ballot back from a voter, it used only generic codes in the state’s ballot tracking system to indicate the ballot had been received, rather than more specific codes that could indicate whether there is an issue that prevents the ballot from being counted. These codes generate distinct emails to voters, and the more specific codes would have generated emails that informed voters their ballots were at risk of rejection.

Ultimately, the county rejected 259 ballots during the primary for issues with a signature or date on the outer envelope, or being returned without an inner secrecy envelope. Statewide, roughly 8,500 ballots, or 1.22% of those returned, were rejected for one or more of those errors, according to an analysis of Pennsylvania Department of State data.

The ACLU and Public Interest Law Center sued the county — on behalf of seven voters, the local NAACP branch, and the Center for Coalfield Justice — arguing that by not informing the voters that their ballots were at risk of rejection, the county had violated the voters’ constitutional due process rights and denied them the opportunity to challenge the decision or cast provisional ballots.

He ordered the county to change its process for what codes it uses when receiving ballots, so voters better understand that their ballot is at risk of rejection.

Washington County appealed the decision to the Commonwealth Court, joined by state and national Republican groups that had intervened in the case.

Nick Sherman, the Republican chair of the county’s board of commissioners, did not immediately return calls or emails seeking comment on whether the county would appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Pennsylvania GOP and the Republican National Committee also did not reply to a request for comment.

Under new rules that the Supreme Court established last month to resolve election disputes quickly, an appeal must be filed within three days.

The case is part of a flurry of litigation to be resolved before the November election over which mail ballots should be counted in Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state with a tight race between presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

In a case from another western Pennsylvania county, the state Supreme Court is weighing whether counties should have to count provisional ballots cast in person by voters whose mail ballots were rejected for reasons such as lacking a secrecy envelope.

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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court restores date requirement for mail ballots, voiding lower-court ruling

2024-09-13T20:32:20+00:00

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

Pennsylvanians who vote by mail must write a proper date on their ballot envelopes for their votes to be counted, under a decision Friday from the state Supreme Court that could affect thousands of voters this November.

The decision voids an Aug. 30 Commonwealth Court ruling that enforcing the requirement on ballot dating violated voters’ rights under the state constitution. The Supreme Court’s 4–3 decision was based on whether the lower court had jurisdiction in the case, not on the merits of the underlying claim, meaning that the constitutional argument could be made again in court.

Republicans who appealed the lower court’s decision argued to the state Supreme Court last week that the petitioners failed to include all counties as parties to the case, among other claims. The original suit, brought by the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center on behalf of a coalition of voting rights groups, targeted the Department of State, Allegheny County, and Philadelphia.

“The Commonwealth Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the matter given the failure to name the county boards of elections of all 67 counties,” the Supreme Court wrote in its order Friday. The inclusion of Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt as a named party was not enough to give the Commonwealth Court jurisdiction in the case, the order said.

Adam Bonin, a Philadelphia-based election lawyer who was not part of this case but has represented Democrats in other lawsuits challenging the dating requirement, said that, barring another ruling, voters will need to write a date on their ballot return envelope in order for their ballots to be counted.

In a statement to Votebeat and Spotlight PA, Gov. Josh Shapiro said it was “unfortunate” the court did not side with voters.

“It should be clear that voters who make an inconsequential dating error deserve to still have their valid vote counted,” he said.

Republicans called the decision a “victory for election integrity” in a critical swing state.

“This is a huge win to protect the vote in Pennsylvania that will protect commonsense mail ballot safeguards and help voters cast their ballots with confidence,” RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said in a statement.

Justice David Wecht dissented with the majority, and called for the Supreme Court to address the constitutional claims directly and quickly, given the fast-approaching election. The court should exercise its “King’s bench” authority to bypass the normal judicial process and have the parties submit briefs on the issue directly to the Supreme Court, Wecht said.

He was joined in his dissent by Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justice Christine Donohue.

Steve Loney, senior supervising attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said his group would continue its fight on behalf of the voting rights groups that brought the case.

“These eligible voters who got their ballots in on time should have their votes counted and voices heard,” he said in a statement. “The fundamental right to vote is among the most precious rights we enjoy as Pennsylvanians, and it should take more than a trivial paperwork error to take it away.”

A spokesperson for the ACLU said the groups involved had not decided what their next move would be or whether to seek a direct ruling on constitutional claim from the state Supreme Court.

[Update, Sept. 19, 2024: After the Supreme Court’s ruling, the ACLU and Public Interest Law Center moved to amend their filing in Commonwealth Court to include all 67 counties. On Thursday, the Supreme Court clarified that that was not sufficient for the Commonwealth Court to have jurisdiction, and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case.]

Federal judges have gone back and forth over whether enforcing the requirement violated federal voting law. The current case is the first to directly challenge this requirement under the state constitution.

It’s the latest of several challenges to the dating requirement since the state implemented its mail voting law, Act 77, in 2020. Act 77 required voters to sign and date the outer return envelope of their mail ballots, and return the ballot in a secrecy envelope, in order for them to be counted.

Thousands of ballots are rejected each election for dating issues. During the April primary, counties rejected roughly 8,500 ballots, or 1.22% of those returned, for lacking a signature or date, or for being returned without a secrecy envelope, according to an analysis of Pennsylvania Department of State data. More than 4,400 of those were rejected for dating issues.

The ACLU and the Public Interest Law Center initiated the challenge earlier this summer on behalf of a coalition of civil rights groups, arguing that enforcing the date requirement violated the “free and equal elections” clause of the state constitution. That clause says that “no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”

In August, a majority of a five-member panel of Commonwealth Court judges agreed with them.

“The refusal to count undated or incorrectly dated but timely mail ballots submitted by otherwise eligible voters because of meaningless and inconsequential paperwork errors violates the fundamental right to vote recognized in the free and equal elections clause,” Judge Ellen Ceisler wrote for the 4-1 majority.

The Supreme Court’s ruling means the requirement is back in place, Bonin said.

Bonin noted that the challenges to the date requirement are still active on multiple tracks. An NAACP challenge to the requirement under federal law could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said, and he is also representing clients challenging the requirement in a separate case.

The Pennsylvania Department of State was named as a defendant in the latest case, but did not defend the date requirement. In a statement, the agency said the decision was “disappointing” and left an important question unanswered.

“The Department hopes that this question is answered as soon as possible, for the sake of the voters and our county election administrators preparing for the upcoming presidential election,” the statement said.

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

Mail ballots can’t be rejected over improper date on envelope, Pennsylvania court rules

2024-08-30T21:23:16+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.

Not counting a voter’s mail ballot because they failed to properly date the return envelope violates their rights under the state constitution, a Pennsylvania appellate court ruled Friday.

Republicans said they would immediately appeal the ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. But if the decision stands, it could affect thousands of ballots and influence the outcome of close races.

The five-judge Commonwealth Court panel split 4-1 on the decision.

The case, brought by a coalition of civil rights groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania among others, is the latest of several challenges to the dating requirement since the state implemented its mail voting law, Act 77, in 2020.

Act 77 required voters to sign and date the outer return envelope of their mail ballots, and return the ballot in a secrecy envelope, in order for them to be counted.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs hailed the ruling. “This decision has strengthened the right to vote in Pennsylvania,” said Brent Landau, executive director of Public Interest Law Center, one of the groups that sued to challenge the requirement. “Mail ballots will no longer be rejected because of a meaningless requirement to fill out a date that isn’t used for anything.”

The suit named two of the state’s largest counties and the Pennsylvania Department of State as defendants. The department declined to defend the requirement in court and called the ruling a “victory.”

The Pennsylvania GOP and the Republican National Committee both intervened in the case to defend the requirement. In a statement, Claire Zunk, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, said the decision is “an example of the worst kind of judicial activism” and that the RNC would appeal the ruling “immediately.”

“Courts should not undermine election confidence and integrity by striking down commonsense election laws enacted by the people’s representatives,” she said.

Adam Bonin, a Philadelphia-based Democratic election lawyer, who was not part of this case but has been involved in other lawsuits challenging the dating requirement, said the ruling should apply statewide, even though only the Department of State and Philadelphia and Allegheny counties were sued.

During oral arguments earlier this month, a lawyer for the ACLU argued that if the state could not show a compelling interest for the date requirement, then the free and equal elections clause in the state constitution would bar officials from using the rule to reject ballots.

In the ruling, Ceisler highlighted the determination in previous cases that the date “is not used to determine the timeliness of a ballot, a voter’s qualifications/eligibility to vote, or fraud.”

“Therefore, the dating provisions serve no compelling government interest,” she wrote.

The state and national Republican parties had argued that the date could be helpful in detecting fraud, or could serve as a backup option for determining the receipt date of a ballot if electronic systems were to fail. They also asserted that, should the judges find the dating requirement invalid, all of Act 77 would have to be struck down, based on the way the law is worded.

But the majority disagreed, saying plaintiffs sought only “a declaration that enforcement of the dating provisions in a manner that excludes undated and incorrectly dated” ballots was unconstitutional.

In a statement, the Pennsylvania Department of State said the decision was a victory for voting rights.

“Multiple court cases have now confirmed that the dating of a mail-in ballot envelope, when election officials can already confirm it was sent and received within the legal voting window, provides no purpose to election administration,” the statement said. “This ruling makes clear a voter’s minor error of forgetting to date or misdating a ballot envelope cannot be a cause for disenfranchisement. Our Administration will always uphold Pennsylvanians’ right to vote and is pleased with today’s ruling.”

Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, tweeted that the court “got it right.”

The judge who dissented, Patricia McCullough, argued that the dating requirement “falls squarely” within the legislature’s authority to establish voting rules, and wrote that the majority ignored “more than a century” of state Supreme Court precedent on the free and equal clause of the state constitution.

The ruling could have a wide impact this November.

During the April primary, counties rejected roughly 8,500 ballots, or 1.22% of those returned, for failing to meet one or more of these standards, according to an analysis of Pennsylvania Department of State data. More than 4,400 of those were rejected for dating issues.

But those numbers are expected to be higher this fall, as more voters will turn out to vote in the presidential election and opt to cast their ballots by mail.

“If there was any real justification to this, we’d be in a different boat, but there isn’t,” Bonin said. “This is what the framers of the Pennsylvania Constitution meant by the free and equal elections clause.”

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

Pre-processing absentee ballots means faster results. Why isn’t every Michigan clerk trying it?

2024-08-27T09:00:00+00:00

Michigan clerks who took advantage of new laws that allow them to prepare absentee ballots for counting ahead of election day found during the August primary that they were able to get results out faster, but not without some hiccups.

Under expanded pre-processing laws in Michigan, election officials can take in returned absentee ballots, verify signatures, open the envelopes, ensure the correct ballot was returned, and scan them through the tabulator, but they can’t yet count the votes. In communities with more than 5,000 people, officials can begin doing this eight days before the election; in smaller towns, officials are allowed to do it the Monday before the election. Election workers don’t issue vote totals until polls close on election day.

Across the state, pre-processing meant that results came in faster after polls closed, Jonathan Brater, director of the state’s Bureau of Elections, told the state board of canvassers on Monday.

“It does speed the process up, and it makes election day a little easier to deal with, because hopefully you’ve gotten through the vast majority of your absentee ballots, and you’re just waiting for the last ones to come in,” Brater said.

Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Canton get a strong head start

For Detroit, it made all the difference, the city’s election director, Daniel Baxter, told Votebeat. The city used about five days of pre-processing, plus election day, and that allowed more than 80% of the absentee results to be reported by about 10:30 p.m., averting the worst of the long delays that can fuel concerns about wrongdoing in the elections, Baxter said.

“In 2020, when the numbers flipped from Trump to Biden, one of the issues people saw was there was a large dump of ballots cast in southeast Michigan,” Baxter said. That was because election workers could begin processing absentee ballots only on Election Day, and Detroit had more than 174,000 absentee ballots compared with only about 83,000 votes from Election Day.

With this year’s primary results, Baxter said, “we wanted to make sure the lion’s share were reported by the 11 o’clock news. We were successful in achieving that goal, and pre-processing helped tremendously.”

He expects that this fall, Detroit will be using all eight days allowed by state law.

In Howell, the largest city in Livingston County, officials tried out pre-processing for the first time during February’s presidential primary. They tried it for a single day and it worked well, Susie Jarson, deputy clerk and election coordinator, wrote in an email. The head start allowed inspectors to get through every absentee ballot they had up until that point and ease the pressure on the absentee ballot counting board on election day.

But during the August state primary, they weren’t able to do the same.

“We didn’t have a complete board of inspectors that were available that day,” Jarson said. “Inspectors of two different party affiliations (are) required, and that day we only had a small group available that was all part of the same party.”

Jarson said officials hope to be able to return to pre-processing in November, given the expectation there will be significantly more ballots than in August’s relatively low-turnout primary, but they’re waiting to see if they can pull it off.

In Canton Township, Clerk Michael Siegrist said pre-processing allowed teams there to finish counting absentee ballots before election day votes were counted. In Grand Rapids, several days of pre-processing helped the city get caught up by Sunday, meaning that on election day, workers had to handle only a few days’ ballots, said Robert Macomber, chief deputy clerk for Kent County.

It also helps that municipalities are given more days — and more freedom — to process ballots than they once were. When the law allowing for pre-processing was first signed into law in 2022, clerks in the state’s largest communities were given just the Sunday and Monday before the election to start processing, and they were limited in what they could do. Officials could only open the envelopes and verify signatures, but they couldn’t feed ballots into the tabulator yet. At the time, many clerks felt it simply wasn’t enough time to do the less time-intensive part of the job.

But with additional days and flexibility added into law in 2023, the option has helped to expedite results in places that choose to use it.

“Overall, yes, a benefit, and I think you’ll see the local clerks fine tuning the number of days needed for the General as they watch the absentee return rates in real time,” Macomber wrote in an email.

Flint didn’t use pre-processing, and results took a while

Some jurisdictions have not yet given pre-processing a go. In Flint, for instance, officials did not pre-process ballots during the primary, and results didn’t come in until the next morning, which bothered members of the City Council. During a council meeting earlier this month, members said it was “ridiculous that it takes so long.”

“For us to be the last one in the county to put out results, it just adds fuel to the flame for conspiracy theories and everything else,” council member Dennis Pfeiffer said, suggesting that maybe the city needed someone else working elections.

Davina Donahue, the Flint clerk, responded that the city had more than 5,000 absentee ballots, which slowed things down, in addition to having the most precincts among all the municipalities in Genesee County. Donahue did not respond to requests for comment from Votebeat.

MLive reported that Genesee County Clerk Domonique Clemons has encouraged Flint to pre-process ballots but that the city chose not to start processing until the day of the election.

In less populated parts of the state, clerks report that they largely aren’t using pre-processing because it simply isn’t necessary. In Dickinson County in the Upper Peninsula, County Clerk Carol Bronzyk said that none of the towns in her jurisdiction were doing it because they weren’t populous enough to need it. The largest town in Dickinson is Iron Mountain, which has about 7,500 people.

“Maybe someone would consider it in the future, but I just don’t think our communities are big enough or have enough votes to do it right now,” Bronzyk said.

In areas with more people, being able to get results out quickly means that results come in sooner. That will make a difference not just in the August primary, but also in November when all eyes are on Michigan as a swing state.

The expansion of pre-processing rules was a long time coming, Detroit’s Baxter said. He first started working in elections in 1985 and started handling absentee ballots in 1998.

“I’ve been looking to take advantage of something like that since then,” he said.

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

Primary election day in Wisconsin: The return of drop boxes and other things to watch

2024-08-13T09:00:01+00:00

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

It’s primary election day in Wisconsin, and early voting has provided a test run for newly legalized absentee ballot drop boxes.

Wisconsinites’ votes today will determine whether the Legislature can take control of how the governor uses federal funds, who will be their legislative and congressional candidates and, in the few counties with contested clerks’ races, who will manage elections after this year.

Don’t expect a big turnout. Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe said turnout percentages for elections like these typically run in the mid-teens to upper 20s.

That means clerks will likely have fewer ballots to count and some extra time to make sure their processes are running smoothly ahead of November, when they can expect more eyes on them and potential legal challenges. It’s also a time for clerks to make sure their drop boxes are in order (or, in Wausau, to dust off those rusty drop box locks just one more time).

Here’s what’s new and noteworthy for this election day and what to watch for.

The popularity of drop boxes

When drop boxes were last used heavily for a critical statewide election, in 2020, Wisconsin was in the middle of a pandemic, in-person voting options were more limited, and there was less political and legal pushback against the ballot return option. These factors made drop boxes immensely popular.

Now, all polling locations are open again, and drop boxes are more politicized, seemingly scarcer and, depending where you are, not as much in demand.

That said, drop boxes are still a voting option that many Wisconsinites like and are thrilled to see available again. Depending on where you live, your municipality may have more than a dozen drop boxes, or none at all. I’ll be watching out for how many voters use drop boxes and vote absentee in general compared with in-person voting.

I’ll also be watching out for third-party efforts to monitor drop boxes, though we’re not likely to see intense activity until November. As I reported in July, new Wisconsin Elections Commission guidance says voters who use drop boxes must return only their own ballots, unless they’re helping somebody who has a disability or is hospitalized. That means a person returning a spouse’s ballot could be considered as having cast a ballot improperly.

Election conspiracy theorists and a Republican U.S. Senate candidate are already publicizing plans to look for suspicious drop box activity: Are voters returning more than one ballot? Are suspicious people opening drop boxes in the wee hours? As election experts have told me, just the perception of wrongdoing could be enough for a drop box monitor to go public with accusations and create suspicion. I’m curious whether we’ll see such an incident in this election.

Lastly, with drop boxes, I’ll be looking out for how municipalities use them differently.

In Madison, for example, drop boxes closed at 5 p.m. on Monday; voters who have a ballot to drop off must take them to their polling place. In Milwaukee, however, the boxes are open until 6 p.m. on Tuesday. Are the early closing times, like Madison’s, confusing voters who try to return ballots to them on Tuesday? Will Milwaukee be able to gather absentee ballots from drop boxes quickly enough to avoid additional vote-counting delays?

Some legal changes appear imminent but not for this election. For example, a Dane County judge is requiring municipal clerks to provide electronic voting options for people with disabilities. But the order requiring those accommodations is for the November election, not August. A judge recently denied a motion by Republican lawmakers to stay that ruling as they appeal it.

County clerks face off (or, in most cases, don’t)

Wisconsin’s county clerks are up for election this year, and in the vast majority of cases, voters are just going to see just one name on the August and November election ballots. Only about 10% of Wisconsin’s 72 counties will have competitive county-clerk primaries or general elections.

Although municipal clerks are charged with running elections at the local level, county clerks still have significant election responsibilities. They’re tasked with uploading election night results, providing ballots and other election supplies to municipal clerks on time, training other election officials, and conducting recounts.

In most counties, you’ll have the same county clerk at the beginning of the next term. In some, the incumbent may get replaced by a deputy county clerk or a municipal clerk.

There’s one high-stakes race, in Washington County, where Clerk Ashley Reichert, a Republican, is facing a challenge from the right by Sue True, who is advocating radical changes in the way Wisconsinites vote.

“The way to restore our Constitutional Republic is simple,” True said in a blog post. “Pray, Remove the Machines, Vote in Person, Hand Count Paper Ballots.”

Aside from the fact that Wisconsin law requires voting machines in municipalities with 7,500 or more people, multiple reports have outlined how error-prone hand-counting ballots is.

Reichert appears to be favored to win — she has received endorsements from the county executive, legislators, and other local officials — but can True pull off an upset, or show that even a substantial minority of Washington County voters supports the election practices she endorses?

Election conspiracy theorists seek legislative seats

Over the last few years, Republicans in control of the Legislature have largely pushed the chambers’ most fervent election conspiracy theorists to the sidelines. Now, two of them are looking to return to or stay in the Legislature against center-right candidates.

Rep. Janel Brandtjen, formerly the head of the Assembly Elections Committee, was not only relieved of her chairing duties but also kicked out of private Republican meetings as GOP leaders say they lost trust in her.

Former Rep. Tim Ramthun, a Republican who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2022, was quickly shut down by legislative leaders when he proposed decertifying the 2020 election.

Brandtjen and Ramthun will be facing off against longtime Republican legislators on Tuesday. Do they stand a chance?

Brandtjen just might. Although she has lost the respect of many of her colleagues, she has former President Donald Trump’s support. Her opponent is Sen. Dan Knodl, currently Republican chair of the Senate Elections Committee. Voters backed Knodl over Brandtjen in a Senate primary in 2023.

This time, the district’s smaller. Do voters in Washington and Waukesha County prefer the candidate who has rallied behind Trump’s stop-the-steal rhetoric? Or do they prefer the center-right candidate in Knodl?

Ramthun, endorsed by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, also represents the GOP wing that’s focused on election conspiracy theories. Ramthun faces an unlikely bid against Sen. Dan Feyen, who’s backed by Republican legislative leaders and Wisconsin U.S. representatives.

It’ll be something of a surprise if Ramthun or Brandtjen wins. If they lose, it’ll be another sign that so-called election integrity is a losing message for Republicans.

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