Daily Brew: December 11, 2025
Welcome to the Thursday, Dec. 11, 2025, Brew.
By: Lara Bonatesta
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Wyoming could become the 41st state to specify who may return another voter's ballot
- Voters in eight states could decide on 12 ballot measures related to sex, gender, and LGBTQ issues in 2026
- Supreme Court weighs limits on presidential removal power in FTC case
Election results update: Albuquerque, New Mexico and Miami, Florida held runoff elections for mayor on Tuesday, Dec. 9. In Albuquerque, incumbent Tim Keller defeated Darren White 58%-42% with 100% of precincts reporting. In Miami, Eileen Higgins defeated Emilio Gonzalez in the 59.5%-40.5% with 100% of precincts reporting. Click here and here to read more about each city’s mayoral election.
Wyoming could become the 41st state to specify who may return another voter's ballot
The Wyoming Legislature’s Joint Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions Committee voted 11-2 last month to sponsor legislation limiting who may return another voter’s absentee ballot. This means the legislature could consider it during the state’s 2026 legislative session. Wyoming is one of 23 states with a Republican trifecta.
The bill would prohibit individuals who are not immediate family members or caregivers from returning another voter’s absentee ballot to a county clerk. The bill would allow nursing home staff to return up to five ballots per election cycle and require employees at those facilities to fill out an affidavit for each ballot they return.
Wyoming is one of 10 states, plus Washington, D.C., that do not specify in law who is allowed to return another voter’s ballot. Politicians have debated in recent years whether states should restrict who may collect and return absentee/mail-in ballots.
Forty states have laws specifying who can return an absentee/mail-in ballot. Politicians, advocacy groups, and researchers use a variety of terms when discussing these types of laws, including ballot harvesting, community ballot collection, ballot gathering, third-party possession of another's ballot, and ballot return.
Eighteen states allow voters to choose anyone to return a ballot on their behalf, with certain exceptions, such as candidates, employers, and union representatives. Sixteen states allow people with certain relationships to the voter, such as a family member or caregiver, to return a ballot.
Four states allow only voters to return their ballots, with exceptions for certain groups. Two states require voters to return their ballots by mail.
Some states have other policies that affect how ballots can be collected and returned. Fourteen states limit the number of ballots a single person can return. Three states have restrictions on compensating individuals who collect ballots.
Some states have approved other types of laws that proponents describe as addressing ballot harvesting, which apply to other parts of the absentee/mail-in voting process. For example, an Alabama law that took effect in July restricts who may return an absentee ballot application. The state already requires voters to return their own absentee ballots, with certain exceptions for voters casting a medical emergency ballot.
In 2025, legislators in 13 states introduced 16 bills on ballot collection practices. No states passed legislation on the topic.
One state adopted a law on ballot collection in 2024. Idaho HB599 established who may return a ballot, including a voter’s relative, a member of their household, or a caregiver. It also restricted relatives, household members, and caregivers from returning more than six total voted ballots.
Three states adopted three ballot collection laws in 2023, and two states enacted two such laws in 2022.
Click here to read more about ballot collection laws in each state.
Voters in eight states could decide on 12 ballot measures on sex, gender, and LGBTQ issues in 2026
Voters in eight states could decide on 12 ballot measures on sex, gender, and LGBTQ issues in 2026.
One measure has been certified for the ballot—Missouri Amendment 3. Eleven other measures could appear on the ballot in their respective states. These include citizen initiatives that have been cleared for signature gathering and legislative referrals that require additional votes.
Here’s a look at each measure, broken down by topic.
Medical procedures for transgender minors
Missouri: Amendment 3, which will appear on the state’s Nov. 3 ballot, states that “No gender transition surgeries shall be knowingly performed on children under eighteen years of age.” Amendment 3 would also prohibit the prescribing of hormone treatments or puberty-blocking drugs to minors, except for medical reasons "unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition." Amendment 3 would also prohibit abortion with certain exceptions and repeal the state constitutional right to abortion, which voters approved in 2024. While previous constitutional amendments have addressed the legal status of abortion, Amendment 3 is the first to address medical procedures for transgender individuals, including minors.
Colorado: An initiative has been cleared for signature gathering that would prohibit healthcare professionals from performing, prescribing, administering, or providing surgeries "to a minor for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics." The initiative would also prohibit the use of state and federal funds to pay for these procedures. Signatures are due Feb. 20, 2026.
Biological sex requirements for participation in school sports teams
Colorado: Another measure in Colorado would require school-sponsored interscholastic and intramural sports teams to be designated as male, female, or coed based on students' biological sex. Teams designated for females would be closed to male students, while teams designated for males would be closed to female students unless no comparable female team is offered. Signatures are due on Feb. 20, 2026.
Maine: Signatures for a biological sex requirements for school sports measure similar to the one in Colorado are due on Feb. 2, 2026.
Washington: An indirect initiated state statute in Washington would prohibit biologically male students from participating in sports designated for female students. The measure would also require students seeking to participate in a sport designated for female students to provide a health examination and consent form from their personal healthcare provider verifying their biological sex, based on "reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels." Signatures are due on Jan. 2, 2026.
Measures to prohibit discrimination or denial of rights based on gender identity or sexual orientation
Vermont: The Vermont Legislature passed a constitutional amendment in 2024 that would add the following to the Vermont Bill of Rights: "The State shall not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin." The Legislature must pass the amendment again during the 2026 legislative session for it to appear on the ballot.
Ohio: A proposed constitutional amendment in Ohio would state, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the State of Ohio or its political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed or religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression regardless of sex assigned at birth, pregnancy status, genetic information, disease status, age, disability, recovery status, familial status, ancestry, national origin, or military and veteran status." Signatures are due on July 1, 2026.
Oregon: A proposed amendment in Oregon would define the state’s prohibition on discrimination on account of sex to also cover discrimination based on pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, health decisions, gender identity, sexual orientation, and marital status. The initiative would also repeal the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, which voters approved in 2004. Signatures are due on July 2, 2026.
Missouri: A proposed initiative in Missouri would add sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, and gender identity to the list of categories protected from discrimination in housing, employment, and places of public accommodation. Signatures are due on May 3, 2026.
Amendments to repeal existing constitutional bans on same-sex marriage
In addition to the measure in Oregon, measures in Ohio, Missouri, and Virginia would also remove existing constitutional amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision made state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman unenforceable.
Between 1994 and 2012, 30 states decided on 34 measures to define marriage as between a man and a woman or prohibit same-sex marriage. Thirty-one were approved, and three were defeated. Between 2020 and 2024, California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Nevada voted to repeal previously approved measures banning same-sex marriage.
Click here to see our comprehensive coverage of ballot measures related to LGBTQ issues.
Supreme Court weighs limits on presidential removal power in FTC case
On Dec. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter. The case examines whether Congress may limit the president’s authority to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners. The case could also affect the Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
In Humphrey's Executor, the Court unanimously ruled that an FTC commissioner may only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That ruling established the modern framework for independent commissions. The central question in Trump v. Slaughter is whether that framework should still be in place or whether the Constitution requires broader presidential removal authority.
Trump v. Slaughter stems from the Trump administration’s March 2025 decision to fire two Democratic FTC Commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya (D) and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter (D). Following their terminations, Bedoya and Slaughter sued, and after a U.S. District Court judge ordered the federal government to reinstate Slaughter, the case made its way to the Supreme Court.
Here are key arguments and questions on both sides.
Arguments for the Trump administration
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said:
- The president must retain full removal authority over executive officers. He also said the requirement that the president can only remove FTC commissioners for cause is inconsistent with the Constitution and prevents the president from directing the executive branch.
- The Court should overrule Humphrey’s Executor or treat it as limited, and that more recent cases—such as Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen—have already limited it.
Justices asked whether a ruling for the administration would affect other independent federal agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, or the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Sauer said the Court could issue a narrow opinion and sever the FTC’s removal protection without disrupting unrelated statutory structures.
Arguments for Slaughter
Amit Agarwal, Slaughter’s lawyer, said:
- Congress acted within its authority when it established an independent commission designed to be nonpartisan and insulated from direct presidential control.
- The for-cause removal standard is statutory, not constitutional, and the president must follow the standard unless Congress amends it.
Justices asked whether Congress could expand removal protections to additional agencies, including Cabinet departments. Agarwal said Congress’s authority is not unlimited and said most Cabinet agencies exercise significant executive power that would constrain Congress’ ability to insulate department heads from removal. He also said upholding the FTC’s statute would not permit Congress to convert the entire executive branch into multi-member bodies independent of presidential oversight.
Precedent
Justices who questioned maintaining Humphrey’s Executor raised concerns about the broad delegation of authority to agencies not subject to full presidential control. Other justices said that overturning a unanimous structural decision would mark a significant shift in the administrative state. Justice Elena Kagan said that removing the for-cause protection could alter the longstanding balance Congress struck when it assigned quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial duties to independent commissions.
A ruling is expected by late June or early July.
Click here to see our full coverage of Trump v. Slaughter. To learn more about Humprey’s Executor and other cases that have addressed presidential removal authority, check our previous Daily Brew coverage from back in March.
