|
Below is a high-level summary of important pending litigation, including litigation in which the RNC is involved, and other election law news.
See below for our newest lawsuit filed in Nevada.
State Litigation Highlights
ARIZONA
RNC v. Fontes, No. CV2024-050553 (Maricopa Cnty. Superior Ct.). On February 9, 2024, the RNC, Arizona GOP, and Yavapai County GOP filed a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of the 2023 Election Procedures Manual (“EPM”). Plaintiffs maintain that Secretary Fontes failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures when promulgating the EPM, including by imposing an unlawfully short 15-day period for public input. Plaintiffs also challenge numerous provisions of the EPM as inconsistent with state law, including EPM provisions that weaken safeguards against non-citizen voting and that restrict the ability to challenge early ballots. On February 14, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 18, Secretary Fontes and intervenor-defendants filed motions to dismiss the case and oppositions to our motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 8, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated reply in support of their motion for preliminary injunction and a response in opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss. Update: Oral argument on the motions took place on May 3.
Petersen v. Fontes, No. CV2024-001942 (Maricopa Cnty. Superior Ct.). On January 31, Senate President Warren Petersen and Speaker of the House Ben Toma filed suit challenging provisions of the EPM, including provisions that weaken protections against non-citizen voting and delay the start of reforms to the state’s active early voter list. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction the same day.
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, No. 2:21-cv-01423-DWL (D. Ariz.) (“MFV I ”). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in August 2021 challenging SB 1485, which authorizes the removal of voters from the permanent early voting list if they do not vote an early ballot in two consecutive election cycles and fail to confirm that they want to continue receiving early ballots. The RNC and NRSC are intervenor-defendants. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to SB 1003, which requires voters who submit an early ballot without a signature to cure the deficiency by 7:00 pm on Election Day. The case is currently in discovery.
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, No. 2:22-cv-00509-SRB (D. Ariz.) (“MFV II”). These consolidated lawsuits challenge HB 2492, which requires individuals who register to vote using the National Voter Registration Form to provide proof of citizenship in order to vote in presidential elections or vote early by mail, and HB 2243, which requires county recorders to investigate and remove non-citizens from voter rolls. The RNC is an intervenor-defendant. On September 14, 2023, the court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on several claims, including their claim that the NVRA preempts the proof-of-citizenship requirement. Trial on the remaining claims finished on November 6, 2023. On February 29, the judge issued a decision invalidating several provisions of the law, including the requirement that voters provide their birthplace on voter registration forms, the requirement to provide documentary proof of residence, and the requirement to conduct certain investigations of voters who officials have “reason to believe” are non-citizens. At the same time, the court upheld provisions requiring investigation of voters who do not provide documentary proof-of-citizenship and authorizing cancellation of confirmed non-citizens’ voter registrations. On March 22, the parties jointly moved for entry of an appealable judgment. Update: On May 2, the court entered a final, appealable judgment and the Republican Party of Arizona filed a motion to intervene.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, No. S-1300-CV-2023-00202 (Yavapai Cnty. Superior Ct.) (“AFEC I”). The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Restoring Trust and Integrity in Elections (RITE), and Arizona GOP filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State for authorizing the use of signatures that do not appear in a voter’s registration record to conduct signature-matching. On September 1, 2023, the court denied the Secretary’s motion to dismiss. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Oral argument occurred on January 18, 2024. On April 25, the court granted summary judgment for the Secretary.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, No. S-1300-CV-2023-00872 (Yavapai Cnty. Superior Ct.) (“AFEC II”). Plaintiffs challenge the lawfulness of using ballot drop boxes under Arizona state law. The parties filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. On April 25, the court granted summary judgment for the Secretary.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, No. CV2024-002760 (Maricopa Cnty. Superior Ct.) (“AFEC III”). On February 9, Plaintiffs, supported by America First Policy Institute, filed a challenge to provisions of the EPM, including provisions restricting the right to observe activities at drop boxes and polling places, for violation of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and due process. On March 20, Secretary Fontes filed a motion to dismiss. On April 16, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Strong Communities of Arizona v. Yavapai County, No. S-13000-V-2024-00175 (Yavapai Cnty. Superior Ct.). Plaintiffs, supported by America First Legal, challenge election administration procedures in Coconino, Maricopa, and Yavapai Counties. The challenged procedures include those related to chain-of-custody requirements, signature verification, and unstaffed drop boxes. On April 9, intervenor-defendants Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino filed a motion to dismiss. Update: On May 1, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an order staying trial court proceedings.
Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans v. Fontes , No. 2:22-cv-01374-GMS (D. Ariz.). Plaintiffs challenge provisions of SB 1260, which modifies the criteria for voter registration cancellations and removals of voters from the active early voting list and imposes penalties for aiding illegal voting. The Yuma County Republican Party is an intervenor-defendant. The court preliminarily enjoined two provisions of the law in September 2022. That decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed and argued.
COLORADO
Vet Voice Foundation v. Griswold, No. 2022-cv-033456 (2d Jud. Dist.). Plaintiffs challenge Colorado’s use of signature matching under the Colorado Constitution. The court denied the state’s motion to dismiss. Individuals supported by RITE, including RNC National Committeewoman Vera Ortegon, are intervenor-defendants. On January 3, the court issued an order holding that the challenged signature-verification provisions are non-severable from the mail-voting law. Plaintiffs have appealed that order.
FLORIDA
League of Women Voters v. Byrd , No. 4:21-cv-00186-MW (N.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs filed numerous lawsuits challenging SB 90, a Florida election integrity law. The lawsuits were consolidated with the above-captioned case. The RNC and NRSC are intervenor-defendants. In March 2022, the district court enjoined several provisions of the law, including restrictions on the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, regulations on the activities of third-party voter registration organizations, and prohibition on soliciting voters in polling places or near drop boxes. The court also imposed preclearance requirements on Florida under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.
The Eleventh Circuit mostly reversed the district court. See League of Women Voters v. Fla. Sec’y of State , No. 22-11143 (11th Cir. Apr. 27, 2023). The court held that the challenged provisions were not racially discriminatory in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments or the Voting Rights Act and reversed the district court’s preclearance decision. The Eleventh Circuit partially affirmed the district court’s holding that the solicitation ban is unconstitutionally vague. The court remanded the issue of whether any of the challenged provisions violate the constitutional right to vote for decision by the district court in the first instance. On September 21, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc.
On February 8, 2024, the district court dismissed the remaining claims and ordered the case closed.
Vote.org v. Byrd, No. 4:23-cv-00111-AW (N.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs challenge Florida’s law requiring wet signatures on voter registration applications under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The RNC and Republican Party of Pasco County are intervenor-defendants. The United States has filed a statement of interest in the case. On October 30, the court granted Florida’s and the Republican Intervenors’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On November 9, the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. Appellants filed their opening brief on January 25, 2024. The US Department of Justice submitted an amicus brief in support of appellants.
Florida State Conference of Branches and Youth Units of the NAACP v. Byrd, No. 4:23-cv-00215-MW (N.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs in consolidated cases challenge provisions of SB 7050 barring noncitizens and felons from conducting voter registration activities and prohibiting third-party voter registration organizations from retaining a voter’s personal information. The district court preliminarily enjoined the provisions banning non-citizens from registering voters and retention of voter information. The state appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. On March 5, the district court granted partial summary judgment for plaintiffs and enjoined the provision barring noncitizens from conducting voter-registration activities. A bench trial was held in April 2024.
GEORGIA
In re Georgia Senate Bill 202, No. 1:21-MI-55555-JPB (N.D. Ga.). This consolidated case consists of six lawsuits challenging SB 202, a Georgia election integrity law. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. Attempts to preliminarily enjoin provisions of the law before the 2022 general election were denied. In August 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined the law’s requirement that absentee voters include their birthdate on ballot envelopes and some of the prohibitions on providing food, drink, and gifts to voters in line at a polling place. The Intervenors and State of Georgia appealed those rulings on September 18, 2023, and that appeal remains pending. The court denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the law’s ballot harvesting and drop box restrictions. On October 11, 2023, the district court denied the DOJ’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that DOJ was not likely to succeed on its claim that the legislature enacted SB 202 for racially discriminatory reasons. On January 12, 2024, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction claiming that SB 202’s runoff provisions are racially discriminatory.
On October 30, 2023, the Republican Intervenors and State of Georgia filed motions for summary judgment, which are pending.
VoteAmerica v. Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-1390-JPB (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs in this unconsolidated case challenge certain provisions of SB 202, including its prohibitions on pre-filled absentee ballot applications sending applications to voters who already applied for an absentee ballot and its requirement that absentee ballot applications provided by third parties include disclaimers. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. On September 27, 2023, the court granted summary judgment for the state on several claims and allowed one claim to proceed to trial. On April 3, intervenor-defendants and defendants filed pre-trial briefs. A bench trial was held from April 15-18.
Vote.org v. Georgia State Election Board, No. 1:22-CV-01734-JPB (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs challenge Georgia’s law requiring a wet signature on absentee ballot applications. The RNC and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. The state’s motion to dismiss was denied in March 2023. Summary judgment motions are pending. On April 11, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a response in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On April 18, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case.
Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensberger, No. 1:21-CV-02070-JPB (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiffs in this unconsolidated case challenge certain provisions of SB 202, including the provision authorizing the State Election Board to temporarily suspend election superintendents who commit multiple violations of election law over multiple cycles. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Georgia GOP are intervenor-defendants. The state’s motion for summary judgment is pending. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment is scheduled for May 28.
IATSE Local 927 v. Mashburn, No. 1:23-cv-04929-LMM (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiff challenges Georgia’s requirement that absentee ballot applications be received 11 days before the election, arguing that federal law requires a 7-day deadline for presidential elections. On January 12, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss. On January 29, the plaintiff amended its complaint in response to the RNC’s proposed motion to dismiss, which highlighted the complaint’s legal deficiencies. On February 9, the RNC and Georgia GOP filed a reply in support of their motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Update: On April 30, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
IOWA
League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa v. Pate, No. 05771 CVCV061476 (Polk Cnty. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiffs challenge provisions of SF 413 and SF 568, including provisions banning absentee ballot harvesting and drop boxes. The RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Iowa GOP are intervenor-defendants. The trial date has been postponed while the Iowa Supreme Court resolved a dispute concerning discovery sought from non-party Iowa legislators. On February 23, 2024, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the legislators’ claims of legislative privilege with respect to the discovery sought. The RNC filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court.
KANSAS
League of Women Voters of Kansas v. Schwab, No. 2021-cv-000299 (Shawnee Cnty. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiffs challenged two election integrity laws, HB 2183 and HB 2332. The district court dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which held that election laws are subject to strict scrutiny under the Kansas Constitution and that the law’s ballot-harvesting ban and signature-verification requirements are unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court. On December 15, the Kansas Supreme Court held that appellants have standing to pursue a challenge to another provision of the law (prohibiting falsely representing oneself as an election official). On January 19, the Kansas Supreme Court consolidated the appeal regarding the ballot harvesting and signature-verification provisions with the appeal concerning the false representation of an election official and heard oral argument on February 20.
VoteAmerica v. Schwab, No. 2:21-cv-02253-KHV (D. Kan.). Plaintiffs challenge Kansas’s ban on out-of-state persons distributing mail ballot applications and on sending voters pre-filled applications. The district court enjoined these provisions. The case is on appeal to the Tenth Circuit. Oral argument was held on January 18, 2024.
MAINE
Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Bellows, No. 1:20-cv-00061-GZS (D. Me.). Plaintiff challenged Maine’s restrictions on the procurement and use of the state’s list of registered voters. The district court held that the challenged provisions were preempted by the National Voter Registration Act. The state appealed the decision to the First Circuit. On February 2, 2024, the First Circuit affirmed the district court.
MICHIGAN
RNC v. Benson, No. 24-000041 (Mich. Ct. Cl.). On March 28, the RNC, NRCC, Michigan GOP, and individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging Secretary Jocelyn Benson’s secret instructions to local clerks to presume the validity of an absentee voter’s signature. Three years ago, a court struck down this unlawful policy, yet Secretary Benson has nevertheless tried to re-impose it outside the public eye. The instructions violate the Michigan Constitution, which requires clerks to verify the identity of absentee voters by comparing the signature on the ballot envelope with the signature on file. Presuming the validity of a signature is inconsistent with this command. On April 5, the Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans and the A. Philip Randolph Institute filed a motion to intervene. On April 22, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary disposition and defendants filed a cross-motion. A hearing is scheduled for May 13.
RNC v. Benson, No. 1:24-cv-00262 (W.D. Mich.). On March 13, the RNC and two Republican voters filed a lawsuit challenging Secretary Benson's inadequate voter roll maintenance procedures under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act. The RNC initiated this action after discovering that 53 of the state’s 83 counties have more active registered voters than adult citizens and that 23 additional counties have unusually high registration rates exceeding 90%. Read more about the lawsuit in The Federalist. On March 22, Detroit Disability Power and Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans filed a motion to intervene. On April 4, the League of Women Voters of Michigan filed a motion to intervene. On April 5, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to DDP’s and MARA’s motion to intervene. On April 15, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On April 19, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the League of Women Voters of Michigan’s motion to intervene.
DeVisser v. Benson, No. 22-000164 (Mich. Ct. Cl.). Plaintiffs, which include the RNC and Michigan GOP, challenge Secretary of State directives restricting the rights of poll watchers. The court of claims struck down many of the directives before the 2022 election, but the Michigan Supreme Court stayed that decision pending appeal, so the directives remained in effect during the 2022 election. On October 19, 2023, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the court of claims, holding that the directives are unlawful. On November 30, 2023, the State filed a motion for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. On January 25, 2024, the RNC and Michigan GOP filed a response in opposition to the motion for leave to appeal.
Michigan Republican Party v. Donahue, No. 22-118123-AW (Genesee Cnty. Cir. Ct.). The RNC and Michigan GOP filed suit after the City of Flint failed to hire an equal number of Republican and Democrat poll workers for the November 2022 election. The court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing, and Plaintiffs appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. On March 7, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On April 18, Plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court.
MINNESOTA
Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans v. Simon, No. 62-cv-24-854 (Ramsey Cnty. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging the state’s absentee ballot witness requirement under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. On March 15, the RNC and Minnesota GOP filed a notice of intervention to defend the law. On April 12, Plaintiffs filed a motion opposing the RNC and Minnesota GOP’s intervention. On April 25, the RNC filed a memorandum in support of its motion to intervene and a proposed motion to dismiss. A hearing is scheduled for May 23. Update: On May 2, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a motion for a temporary injunction.
MISSISSIPPI
RNC v. Wetzel, No. 1:24-cv-25 (S.D. Miss.). The RNC, Mississippi Republican Party, and two individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on January 26, 2024, which asserts that Mississippi’s post-Election Day absentee ballot receipt deadline violates federal law. The federal Election Day statute requires federal elections to occur on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. This lawsuit will implicate the laws of seventeen states that count ballots that are received after Election Day. On March 5, the court entered a briefing schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment, which will conclude briefing by April 16. On March 26, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. You can view the RNC’s motion here. On April 9, Defendant Secretary of State filed a response in opposition to the RNC’s motion for summary judgment. The RNC also filed a response opposing defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. On April 11, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case. On April 16, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their cross motion for summary judgment.
MONTANA
Montana Public Interest Research Group v. Jacobsen, No. 6:23-cv-00070-BMM (D. Mont.). Plaintiffs challenge Montana’s law prohibiting voters from being purposefully registered to vote in more than one jurisdiction. On October 24, 2023, the RNC and Montana Republican Party filed a motion to intervene in the case. On November 6, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. On November 20, 2023, RITE filed an amicus brief opposing the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On December 1, the RNC and the Montana Republican Party filed a proposed brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 18, 2024, the court granted the RNC and Montana GOP’s motion to intervene. A hearing on the preliminary injunction motion occurred on March 20. On April 24, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Update: On May 1, Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction order and filed a joint motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal.
Montana Democratic Party v. Jacobsen, No. DV 21-0451 (13th Jud. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiffs in this consolidated case challenge several provisions of Montana law, including the ban on same-day voter registration, voter ID requirements, and ban on paid ballot collection. The district court held that these laws violate the Montana Constitution. The state appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, where RITE and Lawyers Democracy Fund filed amicus briefs in support of the state. On March 27, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court.
NEVADA
RNC v. Burgess, No. 3:24-cv-00198 (D. Nev.). On May 3, the RNC, Trump Campaign, and the Nevada Republican Party filed a lawsuit challenging Nevada’s post-Election Day ballot receipt deadline. Nevada counts mail ballots received up to four days after Election Day. This is inconsistent with the federal Election Day statute, because it unlawfully extends the day of the election past the date that Congress prescribed.
RNC v. Aguilar, No. 2:24-cv-00518 (D. Nev.). On March 18, the RNC and Nevada Republican Party filed a lawsuit challenging Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar’s inadequate voter list maintenance practices under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act. Three counties in Nevada have more active registered voters than voting-eligible adults, and two counties have implausibly high registration rates exceeding 90%. On March 20, several groups represented by Marc Elias filed a motion to intervene as defendants. On April 4, plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the groups’ motion to intervene. On April 11, proposed intervenor-defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to intervene. On April 15, the Secretary of State filed a motion to dismiss. Update: On April 29, the RNC and Nevada Republican Party filed a response to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
603 Forward v. Scanlan, No. 226-2022-CV-00233 (Hillsborough Superior Ct.). Plaintiffs challenge SB 418, which requires voters registering on Election Day who do not provide acceptable ID to vote by provisional ballot and submit proof of their identity within seven days. The NH Republican State Committee, supported by the RNC and RITE PAC, is an intervenor-defendant. On November 3, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing. On December 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On December 19, the New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted the case. On April 16, the NH Republican State Committee filed its response brief in the state Supreme Court.
DNC v. Scanlan, No. 226-2023-CV-00613 (Hillsborough Superior Ct.). After the court dismissed the complaint in 603 Forward on standing grounds, the DNC and New Hampshire Democratic Party brought another suit challenging SB 418. Plaintiffs claim that SB 418 violates a state constitutional provision requiring election results to be sent to the secretary of state within five days of the election (Count I) and violates procedural due process (Count II). The RNC and NH Republican State Committee, supported by RITE, intervened. On April 17, the court issued a decision granting RNC’s motion to dismiss with respect to Count I and denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Update: Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Count II and on April 30 filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of Count I.
NEW YORK
Stefanik v. Hochul , No. 908840-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Albany Cnty.). The RNC, and a host of lawmakers, party committees, county election administrators and voters supported by RITE, filed suit in New York state court challenging the recently enacted law authorizing no-excuse absentee voting as a violation of the New York state constitution, which permits absentee voting in only certain circumstances. New York voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment in 2021 that would have permitted no-excuse absentee voting. The DCCC, Senator Gillibrand, and several state representatives and voters intervened as defendants. The court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on October 13, 2023. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On November 13, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and cross-motion for summary judgment.
On December 4, Plaintiffs submitted a letter to the court requesting the preliminary injunction be entered promptly in light of the upcoming special election in the NY-03 congressional district. On December 26, the trial court issued an order denying the motion. Plaintiffs immediately appealed to the Appellate Division and filed a motion for preliminary injunction there. On January 16, the Appellate Division denied the motion.
On February 5, the trial court issued a decision holding that the no-excuse absentee voting law is constitutional. Plaintiffs immediately appealed to the Appellate Division. On February 15, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their opening brief on appeal. On February 29, the court granted Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motion for expedited briefing. On March 18, the defendants filed their response briefs. On March 25, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their reply brief. Update: Oral argument was held on April 29.
Fossella v. Adams, No. 85007/2002 (Richmond Cnty. Sup. Ct.). The RNC, New York GOP, and a bipartisan coalition of officeholders and concerned citizens, challenged a New York City law allowing non-citizens to vote in city elections. The trial court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs, holding that the city’s law violates state law. On February 21, 2024, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court, holding that the city’s law violates the New York state constitution. On March 23, Intervenor-Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Amedure v. New York, No. 2023-2399 (Saratoga Cnty. Sup. Ct.). A group of plaintiffs, including the New York Republican Party, are challenging certain absentee ballot voting procedures found in A.B. 7931 as inconsistent with the New York Constitution. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which remains pending. On February 16, 2024, defendants filed a motion for change of venue. On March 14, the court denied this motion.
NORTH CAROLINA
Voto Latino v. Hirsch, No. 1:23-CV-861-TDS (M.D.N.C.); Democratic National Committee v. N.C. State Board of Elections , No. 1:23-CV-862-TDS (M.D.N.C.). On October 10, 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly overrode the Governor’s veto of SB 747, which contains numerous important election-integrity provisions, including regulations on same-day voter registration, a requirement to return absentee ballots by Election Day, and legal protections for poll watchers. Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits shortly after the veto override challenging provisions of SB 747. The RNC and North Carolina GOP were granted intervention. and filed responses in opposition to plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction. On January 21, 2024, the court issued a narrow preliminary injunction requiring election officials to provide notice to same-day registrant-voters whose address verification card is returned as undeliverable, but otherwise allowing the challenged provisions of SB 747 to remain in effect. On April 9, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the DNC case, which the court granted one day later. Update: On April 29, the district court granted the joint motion to stay in the Voto Latino case. Thus, the provisions challenged in these lawsuits will be in effect for the 2024 election.
OHIO
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. LaRose, No. 1:23-cv-00026-DCN (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiffs challenge provisions of HB 458, including in-person voter ID requirements, deadlines for ballot curing, and restrictions on absentee ballot drop boxes. The Ohio Republican Party and two citizen poll workers supported by RITE are intervenor-defendants. The defendant and intervenor-defendants have filed motions for summary judgment. On January 8, the court granted the defendant’s and intervenor-defendants’ motions for summary judgment, upholding all challenged provisions of HB 458.
League of Women Voters v. LaRose, No. 1:23-cv-02414-BMB (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiffs are challenging Ohio’s restrictions on ballot harvesting. On January 19, 2024, the RNC and Ohio Republican Party filed a motion to intervene. On February 6, the court granted the motion to intervene.
PENNSYLVANIA
Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections, No. 1:22-cv-340-SPB (W.D. Pa.); Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Schmidt, No. 1:22-cv-00339-SPB (W.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs in both cases challenge the Pennsylvania law requiring mail-in and absentee voters to date their signatures on their ballot envelopes as a violation of the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. The RNC, NRCC, and Pennsylvania GOP are intervenor-defendants. This case follows the RNC’s win in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held that dated signatures were required under state law in order for a ballot to be counted. On November 21, 2023, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in the NAACP case, holding that rejection of mail ballots for lack of compliance with the dated ballot requirement violates the Materiality Provision. On December 6, the RNC, NRCC, and PA GOP appealed to the Third Circuit, which issued a stay pending appeal. Oral argument was held on February 20. On March 27, the Third Circuit issued a decision holding that the dated ballot requirement does not violate the Materiality Provision. The court agreed with the RNC’s arguments and held that the Materiality Provision applies only to the voter registration stage of the election process and does not apply to state laws governing how voters must cast their ballots. The Third Circuit is the first federal circuit court to address whether the Materiality Provision applies to ballot-casting rules, and its decision holding that it does not will be strong precedent in other cases across the country. On April 10, Plaintiffs, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and several counties filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Update: On April 30, the court denied the petition for rehearing.
Agovino v. County of Delaware, No. CV-2023-005232 (Delaware Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas). The Delaware County Republican Party is challenging a county ordinance that allows the county council to veto nominees for minority party member on the board of elections. The RNC and NRSC are supporting the county party in the litigation. On September 26, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. On December 13, the court granted the motion, holding that the ordinance violates Pennsylvania election law and guaranteeing that the Delaware County Republican Party may select its preferred member of the county board of elections.
French v. County of Luzerne, No. 3:23-cv-538-MEM (M.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs supported by Lawyers Democracy Fund are suing Luzerne County for constitutional violations in connection with the county’s failure to supply enough ballot paper to polling places on Election Day in 2022. The case is currently in discovery. On December 4, the court denied the county’s motion to dismiss and allowed most of the claims to proceed. On April 15, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
DeMarco v. Innamorato , No. GD-24-003062 (Allegheny Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas). On March 14, Allegheny County Councilman and Board of Elections Member Sam DeMarco filed a lawsuit, supported by RITE, against the Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato. The lawsuit alleges Innamorato did not obtain approval from the Board of Elections or receive public input as required by law before announcing a plan to utilize five ballot drop box locations for the April primary election. On March 18, the parties entered into a settlement agreement requiring the Board to vote on the adoption of ballot drop box locations at its next meeting, following which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their lawsuit.
Keefer v. Biden , No. 24-cv-00147 (M.D. Penn.). Pennsylvania state legislators filed this lawsuit challenging President Biden’s Executive Order 14019, Governor Shapiro’s automatic voter registration policy, and guidance and directives issued by the PA Department of State as violations of the state legislature’s authority under the Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. On February 16, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 1, the defendants filed motions to dismiss and oppositions to the motion for preliminary injunction. On March 26, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and a petition for certiorari before judgment with the U.S. Supreme Court.
TEXAS
La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott , No. 5:21-cv-00844-XR (W.D. Tex.). Plaintiffs in this consolidated lawsuit challenge SB 1, a Texas election integrity law. The district court denied the RNC, NRSC, NRCC, and Harris County and Dallas County Republican Parties’ initial motion to intervene. The party committees appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed and held the committees were entitled to intervene as of right. The State Defendants filed motions to dismiss on immunity grounds. The court mostly denied the motions, allowing the cases to proceed. The State Defendants filed interlocutory appeals, which remain pending in the Fifth Circuit.
On November 29, the district court issued an order enjoining the requirement that voters put their ID number on mail ballot applications and envelopes, holding it violates the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. The State and Republican Intervenors appealed and asked for a stay pending appeal. On December 15, the Fifth Circuit granted the motion for stay pending appeal, holding that the State and Republican Intervenors were likely to succeed on the merits. The ID requirement is therefore in effect while the appeal is pending. Trial on the remaining claims began on September 11 and finished on October 20.
VERMONT
Weston v. City of Winooski, No. 23-cv-00998 (Vt. Superior Ct. – Chittenden Unit). The RNC, Vermont GOP, and two concerned citizens challenge a law allowing non-citizens to vote in school board elections and on school budget questions. On November 6, the court dismissed the case on res judicata grounds.
WASHINGTON
Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs, No. 22-2-19384-1 SEA (King Cnty. Superior Ct.). Plaintiffs challenge Washington’s signature-matching process under the Washington Constitution. The RNC and Washington GOP were denied intervention, and the Court of Appeals denied review of this decision. The RNC and Washington GOP submitted an amicus brief in support of the state’s motion for summary judgment, which remains pending. On October 12, 2023, the court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment but certified two questions for discretionary review, which the Washington Supreme Court subsequently accepted.
WISCONSIN
Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2023-CV-001900 (Dane Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiffs challenge three Wisconsin laws regulating absentee ballots: the requirement that absentee ballots be witnessed, the prohibition on ballot drop boxes, and the Election Day deadline for curing absentee ballot deficiencies. The RNC, Wisconsin GOP, and Rock County and Walworth County Republican Parties filed a motion to intervene in the case, which was opposed by the plaintiffs and the WEC. On October 27, 2023, the court denied the motion to intervene. T he Wisconsin Legislature intervened in the case without opposition. The WEC and Legislature filed motions to dismiss. On January 24, 2024, the court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the facial challenges to each of the three laws. Plaintiffs appealed and filed a petition to bypass the Court of Appeals in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On March 12, the Supreme Court granted the petition to bypass the Court of Appeals and accepted the case for consideration. In its review, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will only consider whether it should overturn its 2022 decision in Teigen v. WEC which held that absentee ballot drop boxes are not permitted under Wisconsin law. On April 1, Priorities USA and Governor Evers filed opening briefs. Oral argument in the Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled for May 13. Update: On May 3, RNC, WI GOP, and RITE Pac filed an amicus brief in support of existing precedent holding that Wisconsin law does not authorize the use of drop boxes.
Liebert v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 3:23-CV-00672-SLC (W.D. Wis.). Plaintiffs challenge Wisconsin’s witness requirement for absentee voting under the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. On October 16, 2023, the RNC and the Republican Party of Wisconsin filed a motion to intervene as defendants. On October 25, the WEC filed a motion to dismiss. On October 30, the Wisconsin Legislature filed a motion to intervene. On December 5, the court granted the Wisconsin Legislature intervention and granted RITE’s motion to file an amicus. The court denied intervention to the RNC and Republican Party of Wisconsin. On December 6, the Wisconsin Legislature filed a motion to dismiss. On January 17, the court dismissed WEC from the case on sovereign immunity grounds but is allowing the suit to proceed against the commissioners. The court further stated it will defer a ruling on the merits of the case in light of two pending state-court cases in Dane County raising similar issues, Priorities USA v. WEC, No. 2023-CV-1900, and League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. WEC, No. 2022-CV-2472. The parties subsequently filed motions for summary judgment.
Kormanik v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2022-CV-1395 (Waukesha Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiff challenges unlawful WEC guidance allowing voters who have already returned their absentee ballots to “spoil” their ballot and revote. The RNC, Wisconsin GOP, and RITE are supporting the Plaintiff. On November 29, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the WEC’s guidance is unlawful. On January 16, 2024, the court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Plaintiff. On March 5, intervenor-defendant Rise, Inc. appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. On April 4, Rise, Inc. filed a petition to bypass the court of appeals with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On April 18, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the petition for bypass.
Rise, Inc. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission , No. 2022-CV-002446 (Dane Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief regarding the information required under law for a witness’s street address to be considered properly completed on an absentee ballot witness certificate. The RNC, Wisconsin GOP, and RITE supported plaintiffs in a previous case and obtained a judgment temporarily enjoining the WEC’s guidance allowing election officials to fill in missing address information. The WEC subsequently withdrew this guidance. The plaintiffs from that separate case attempted to intervene, but their request was denied. The Wisconsin Legislature is an intervenor-defendant. On January 2, 2024, the court issued a decision holding that a witness’s address information is sufficient if it enables officials to be able to communicate with the witness. In a related case (League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. WEC, No. 2022-CV-2472), the court held that rejecting ballots for missing or incorrect address information violates the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. On January 30, the Wisconsin Legislature appealed the decisions. On February 27, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied the Wisconsin Legislature’s motion for a stay pending appeal. On April 3, the Wisconsin Legislature filed its opening brief in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2022-CV-1324 (Racine Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiff challenges WEC’s dismissal of his administrative complaint against the City of Racine’s use of mobile voting sites. On January 8, 2024, the court held that the use of mobile voting sites is inconsistent with Wisconsin election law. On February 9, Racine filed a notice of appeal. On April 1, the trial court denied the defendants’ and intervenors’ motions to stay the decision pending appeal.
Braun v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2022-CV-1336 (Waukesha Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiff supported by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) challenged Wisconsin’s use of the national voter registration form as illegal because WEC had never lawfully adopted it and because it failed to meet statutory requirements. On September 5, 2023, the court ruled in favor of WILL that the use of the national form was illegal and enjoined WEC from issuing any guidance that the form can be used in Wisconsin unless it is legally adopted.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT LITIGATION
The RNC filed amicus briefs across the country opposing efforts to disqualify President Trump from primary and general election ballots. The RNC filed amicus briefs in Colorado, Maine, Michigan, and Minnesota. The RNC also filed amicus briefs at the United States Supreme Court in support of President Trump. On March 4, the Supreme Court unanimously held that states may not disqualify President Trump from the ballot. The Court agreed with the argument in the RNC’s amicus briefs that states are not authorized under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to disqualify federal candidates from the ballot.
Other News
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released its Physical Security Checklist for Polling Locations, a resource tailored for election workers to assess potential security threats.
An Arizona state senator introduced a budget proposal for the creation of a searchable database that would include the digital image of each ballot cast, a list of voters who voted in each election, and a record of how voting machines counted each vote.
California state senators will consider a bill that would prohibit cities from imposing voter ID requirements. The bill was introduced in response to a ballot measure passed by Huntington Beach residents that would require people to show voter ID in municipal elections.
US Senators Rick Scott (R-FL) and Roger Marshall (R-KS) are filing the “Demanding Citizenship in DC Elections Act,” a bill that would require any individual who votes in a DC election to provide proof of citizenship. In 2022, the D.C. Council passed a bill that allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections.
Officials confirmed that Coffee County, Georgia, was the victim of a malicious cyberattack last month and the county’s connection to the statewide voter registration system was temporarily taken offline as a precaution.
The Michigan Senate voted in favor of overhauling the state’s election recount laws. Among other changes, Democratic-led SB 603 would only allow for recount petitions when a party believes there has been an “error” in the election and would double per-precinct fees a petitioner must pay for a recount.
The New Mexico Secretary of State’s office launched a new campaign aimed at combating potential issues on election campaigns related to artificial intelligence.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose directed county election officials to verify the accuracy of their voter rolls in advance of November’s election.
Ohio lawmakers are considering a bill that would further strengthen the state’s voter identification laws.
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed HB 3156 into law, banning the use of ranked-choice voting in the state.
The Berks County Board of Elections in Pennsylvania voted to refer a voter fraud complaint to the Berks County District Attorney’s Office for further investigation.
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow county election workers to begin processing ballots up to seven days before Election Day.
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster asked South Carolina Law Enforcement to investigate claims that the state Department of Health and Human Services is providing voter registration forms to noncitizens.
Voters in three South Dakota counties will decide during their June 4 primary whether the counties should ban the use of vote tabulator machines in future elections.
|
