Recent news
Here are the changes made to election dates and rules since our last edition, including legal decisions, executive actions, and legislation.
Roundup
Alabama: On Oct. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-3 to reinstate Alabama's prohibition against curbside voting.
On Sept. 30, Judge Abdul Kallon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued the original order lifting the state's ban on curbside voting. Kallon is a Barack Obama (D) appointee. On Oct. 13, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously affirmed Kallon's ruling. The panel included Judges Adalberto Jordan, Jill Pryor, and Barbara Lagoa. Jordan and Pryor are Obama appointees. Lagoa is a Donald Trump (R) appointee.
Secretary of State John Merrill (R) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to block Kallon's order. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in Merrill's favor. Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented. The court majority did not issue an opinion. Sotomayor wrote a dissent, which Breyer and Kagan joined. The five justices in the majority are Republican presidential appointees. The dissenting justices are Democratic appointees.
Lawsuits
To date, we have tracked 402 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.
California: On Oct. 20, Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) sued the Republican Party of California to compel it to release information on its deployment of unofficial mail-in ballot return drop boxes and the individuals who have used them.
California law allows mail-in voters to designate anyone they choose to return their ballots. Those returning ballots on behalf of other voters cannot be paid on the basis of how many ballots they return. California Republicans have installed unofficial drop boxes at various locations throughout the state. Becerra and Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) allege this violates state law, which defines a vote-by-mail ballot drop box as "a secure receptacle established by a county or city and county elections official whereby a voted vote-by-mail ballot may be returned to the elections official from whom it was obtained." Republicans say their ballot drop boxes have been placed on private property, with the consent of property owners, and comply with the state's ballot collection laws.
On Oct. 12, Becerra and Padilla sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Republican Party, asking it to stop using unofficial drop boxes and furnish the state with information about their number and locations. The state also asked for information about the voters who returned ballots via these drop boxes. The Republican Party partially complied, removing some drop boxes but declining to provide the requested location and voter information. On Oct. 16, Becerra issued "multiple subpoenas and investigative interrogatories" to obtain the requested information. As of Oct. 20, the Party had not responded to these filings, prompting Becerra's suit. The case is pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court.
Iowa: On Oct. 21, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a state law barring county election officials from sending absentee/mail-in ballots to voters who omitted information on their ballot application forms.
A law enacted this summer requires county election administrators to contact applicants directly to obtain required information missing from their absentee/mail-in ballot applications. Election officials cannot fill in missing information using the state's voter registration system, as they could under the previous law governing the absentee/mail-in ballot application process.
The plaintiffs – the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa and Majority Forward – sued Secretary of State Paul Pate (R), alleging the new law is a "severe burden on the right to vote."
By a 4-3 vote, the state supreme court ruled in favor of Pate. In an unsigned opinion, the majority wrote, "[We] are not persuaded the statute imposes a significant burden on absentee voters. It is not a direct burden on voting itself. … Indeed, the plaintiffs offer no evidence that the challenged statute will in fact deny any Iowan the right to vote by absentee ballot." Justices Thomas Waterman, Edward Mansfield, Christopher McDonald, and Matthew McDermott formed the majority. Waterman and Mansfield are Terry Branstad (R) appointees. McDonald and McDermott are Kim Reynolds (R) appointees.
Justice Dana Oxley dissented, writing: "After carefully reviewing the evidence in the record about the likelihood that thousands of Iowans will not receive their requested absentee ballot in time to vote because of the cumbersome new process put in place by the legislature during the heart of the pandemic ...I conclude the plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits[.]" Chief Justice Susan Christensen and Justice Brent Appel joined Oxley's dissent. Oxley and Christensen are Reynolds appointees. Appel is a Tom Vilsack (D) appointee.
North Carolina: On Oct. 22, Republican lawmakers petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate North Carolina's original deadline for returning absentee/mail-in ballots. That deadline was postmarked on or before Nov. 3 and received by Nov. 6.
The North Carolina State Board of Elections extended the receipt deadline for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to 5 p.m. on Nov. 12. A U.S. district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declined to intervene and block the extension, prompting the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This appeal is the latest in a series of court actions involving North Carolina's absentee/mail-in voting procedures. Click here for more information.
Today: Who serves in a state or local government if election results are unknown?
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 who serves in state and local governments if election results are unknown.
When new terms in office begin after an election varies by state and office. In many cases, an official’s term begins several months after the general election. For example, state legislators in 31 states assume office in January after the November election. At that point, many potential disputes over election results will likely be resolved and the winner of an election would assume office immediately after the term of the previous officeholder ends.
In some cases, though, an official term begins immediately after the general election. In Alabama, for example, state legislators assume office the day after they are elected.
In these circumstances, it is possible that recounts, lawsuits, or other disputes over election results could prevent a winner from being determined in time to assume office on the standard date. Some states have constitutional provisions or statutes allowing incumbents to continue fulfilling their official duties until a successor assumes office, even if that occurs after the end of the incumbent’s term. These incumbents are sometimes called holdover officials.
To read more about the answer to this question and how it applies in specific states, 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 23:
- Nebraska (in-person)
- Utah (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- October 24:
- Iowa (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Massachusetts (in-person, mail-in postmarked, online)
- October 26:
- Colorado (mail-in received, online)
- Montana (mail-in postmarked)
- Washington (mail-in received, online)
- October 27:
- Connecticut (in-person, mail-in postmarked, online)
- October 29:
- Early voting begins:
- October 24:
- October 26:
- October 27:
- October 29:
- Early voting ends:
- Absentee/mail-in voting request deadline:
- October 23:
- Arizona (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Idaho (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Nebraska (in-person, mail-in received)
- Texas (mail-in received)
- Virginia (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- October 24:
- Alaska (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Florida (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Iowa (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
- South Carolina (mail-in received)
- October 26:
- Colorado (in-person, mail-in received)
- Washington (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- October 27:
- District of Columbia (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Hawaii (in-person, mail-in received)
- Kansas (in-person, mail-in received)
- Kentucky (in-person, mail-in received)
- North Carolina (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Oklahoma (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Pennsylvania (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Tennessee (in-person, mail-in received)
- New York (mail-in postmarked, online)
- New Jersey (mail-in received)
- California (mail-in received)
- Arkansas (mail-in received)
- October 28:
- Massachusetts (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- West Virginia (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- October 29:
- Alabama (in-person, mail-in received)
- Wisconsin (in-person, mail-in received, online)
- Illinois (mail-in received, online)
- Maine (mail-in received, online)
- Absentee/mail-in voting return deadline:
And a dose of calm
|
