Recent news
Here are the changes made to election dates and rules since our last edition, including legal decisions, executive actions, and legislation.
Roundup
North Carolina: On Oct. 14, Judge William Osteen of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ordered election officials to enforce the state's witness requirement for absentee/mail-in ballots.
Osteen's order is the latest in a series of court actions involving North Carolina's absentee/mail-in voting procedures. On Sept. 22, the North Carolina State Board of Elections (SBE) announced a number of proposed modifications:
- Absentee/mail-in ballot receipt deadline extended to 5 p.m. on Nov. 12 for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day.
- Voters allowed to submit affidavits to their county election boards to correct the following ballot issues:
- Voter failed to sign return paperwork or signed in the incorrect place.
- Witness or assistant did not print name on return paperwork.
- Witness or assistant did not print an address on return paperwork.
- Witness or assistant failed to sign return paperwork or signed in the incorrect place.
The modifications resulted from a settlement between SBE and the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans. On Oct. 2, Wake County Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins, a Democrat, approved the terms of the settlement.
However, on Oct. 3, Judge James Dever of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina issued a temporary restraining order blocking the settlement. Dever also consolidated three related federal lawsuits involving the state's absentee/mail-in voting procedures and transferred them to Osteen. Dever is a George W. Bush appointee.
In his opinion, Osteen wrote, "By eliminating the witness requirement, SBE implemented a rule that conflicted directly with the statutes enacted by the North Carolina legislature." Osteen allowed the other ballot curing provisions, and the absentee/mail-in ballot receipt deadline (Nov. 12 for ballots postmarked on or before Nov. 3), to stand. Osteen is a George W. Bush appointee.
Lawsuits
To date, we have tracked 380 lawsuits and/or court orders involving election policy issues and the COVID-19 outbreak. Click here to view the complete list of lawsuits and court orders.
Here's the latest on noteworthy litigation. Examples of noteworthy litigation include, but are not limited to, lawsuits filed by presidential campaigns and major political parties, and cases decided by state supreme courts.
Wisconsin: On Oct. 14, Judge William Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin declined to intervene and block several Wisconsin cities from accepting election administration grants from a private nonprofit.
On Sept. 1, Facebook chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan, announced they would donate a combined $300 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR). The announcement of the grants said they were intended "to promote safe and reliable voting in states and localities during the COVID-19 pandemic." CTCL and CEIR made grants to local election administrators.
The plaintiffs–the Wisconsin Voters Alliance and six of its members–filed suit against cities of Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine, all of which received CTCL grant funds. The plaintiffs argued that the U.S. Constitution and state and federal laws bar cities from accepting and using private funds for election administration. The plaintiffs also argued that funds were granted predominantly to left-leaning localities with the goal of influencing electoral outcomes.
Griesbach wrote, "The risk of skewing an election by providing additional private funding for conducting the election in certain areas of the State may be real. The record before the Court, however, does not provide the support needed for the Court to make such a determination, especially in light of the fact that over 100 additional Wisconsin municipalities received grants as well. Plaintiffs argue that the receipt of private funds for public elections also gives an appearance of impropriety. This may be true, as well. These are all matters that may merit a legislative response but the Court finds nothing in the statutes Plaintiffs cite, either directly or indirectly, that can be fairly construed as prohibiting the defendant Cities from accepting funds from CTCL." Griesbach is a George W. Bush appointee.
Also in Wisconsin: On Oct. 14, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court ruling and reinstate a district court order extending the state's absentee/mail-in ballot return and online/mail-in voter registration deadlines. This is the third such petition to be filed with the high court in two days. For information about the other two petitions, see the Oct. 14 edition of this newsletter.
Today: Can states or courts call a redo election?
The Help Desk daily feature will answer one frequently asked question or provide a summary of key election dates and policies each day. Today we take a look at whether states or courts can call a redo election.
A redo election, also known as a revote or special election remedy, is the process of voiding election results and holding a new election. The specific reasons for calling a redo election vary, but might include deliberate efforts to obscure the results such as electoral fraud or mistakes like a broken voting machine.
Most commonly, states or courts only call for such a redo election if the number of ballots affected is large enough to change the outcome of the election or otherwise call the results into question. However, there have been instances when courts call a redo election even when the number of affected votes would not change the outcome or is unknown.
The most recent redo election for a federal office took place in 2018. The last federal redo election before that was in 1974. Most redo elections take place at the municipal or county level.
To learn more about how redo elections are called and examples from the past, click here.
What we’re reading today
Upcoming dates and deadlines
Here are the key deadlines for voter registration, early voting, and absentee/mail-in voting coming up in the next seven days. For coverage of all dates, deadlines, and requirements, click here.
- Voter registration deadlines:
- October 16:
- Nebraska (mail-in postmarked, online)
- October 18:
- October 19:
- Alabama (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- California (mail-in postmarked, online)
- Maine (mail-in received)
- Michigan (mail-in postmarked, online)
- Pennsylvania (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- South Dakota (in-person, mail-in received)
- Wyoming (in-person, mail-in received)
- Early voting begins:
- October 16:
- October 17:
- Massachusetts
- Nevada
- New Mexico
- October 19:
- Idaho
- Florida
- Alaska
- Arkansas
- Colorado
- North Dakota
- October 20:
- October 21:
- Absentee/mail-in voting request deadline:
- October 20:
- Maryland (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Nevada (in-person, mail-in received)
- New Mexico (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- October 21:
- Missouri (in-person, mail-in received)
- October 22:
- Indiana (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Absentee/mail-in voting return deadline:
And a spot of calm
|
