Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Election Help Desk: 11/2/20

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

%%subject%%

Friday's election changes
.
Election Help Desk

Ballotpedia's 2020 Election Help Desk

Welcome to Ballotpedia's Election Help Desk Newsletter. In each issue, we:

  • Detail the changes to election dates and procedures since our last edition
  • Track lawsuits from the presidential campaigns and major political parties
  • Answer one frequently asked question about the election
  • List upcoming election process dates and deadlines

We understand you may have questions about what to expect in elections at all levels of government, from the casting of ballots to the certification of final results. We'll send one more pre-election newsletter on Nov. 3. After that, you'll receive shorter updates about twice a day in which we track the number and status of called races, uncalled races, recounts, and potential lawsuits. 

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up to receive your copy here. 

Days until election day: 1

Forward This blank    Tweet This blank blank    Send to Facebook


Recent news

Here are the changes made to election dates and rules since our last edition, including legal decisions, executive actions, and legislation.

Roundup

Texas: On Oct. 30, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned a lower court's order requiring in-person voters to wear face coverings at the polls. 

Judges Priscilla Owen, W. Eugene Davis, and Leslie Southwick ruled unanimously on the matter, writing in their unsigned opinion, "A change in the election rules at this point alters the status quo[.] … [Gov. Greg Abbott's (R) and Secretary of State Ruth Hughs'] unrebutted evidence establishes that changing the election rules in the midst of voting would create disparate treatment of voters, and significant confusion and difficulty for voters and poll workers." Owen and Southwick are George W. Bush (R) appointees. Davis is a Ronald Reagan (R) appointee. 

Background: On Oct. 28, Judge Jason Pulliam of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas temporarily invalidated an exemption for polling places in Abbott's statewide mask mandate.

On July 2, Abbott issued Executive Order GA-29, which generally requires individuals to wear face coverings "when inside a commercial entity or other building or space open to the public, or in an outdoor public space, where it is not feasible to maintain six feet of social distancing." The order exempts individuals who are "voting, assisting a voter, serving as a poll watcher, or actively administering an election." This exemption is referred to as Exemption 8. 

On July 16, the Texas State Conference of the NAACP and Mi Familia Vota sued, alleging Abbott did not "consider how the failure of potential carriers of the coronavirus to wear a mask could put other voters at serious risk merely for exercising their right to vote." Plaintiffs alleged that because "Black, Latino, and Native American voters have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic," they "also face greater risks to their health by voting." 

On Sept. 7, Pulliam, a Donald Trump (R) appointee, dismissed the lawsuit, finding that, because the plaintiffs had not challenged a specific provision of the state's election laws, the court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. 

On Oct. 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially affirmed Pulliam's ruling. The appellate court instructed Pulliam to reconsider the legality of Exemption 8. In his Oct. 28 ruling, Pulliam said, "[This] court concludes its finding that the mask-mandate Exemption 8 is invalid and void does not 'materially or substantially affect the ongoing election,' and any disruption is outweighed by the racially discriminatory deterrent effect on Black and Latino citizens' fundamental right to vote."

Lawsuits

To date, we have tracked 421 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.

Litigation activity

Here's the latest on noteworthy litigation. Examples of noteworthy litigation include lawsuits filed by presidential campaigns and major political parties, and state supreme court cases.

Minnesota: On Oct. 30, Secretary of State Steve Simon (D) said he would not appeal a federal appellate court's order directing election officials to keep ballots received after Nov. 3 separate from the others "in the event a final order is entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining such votes to be invalid or unlawfully counted."

Simon said, "While Minnesota will comply with the Eighth Circuit's ruling to segregate the ballots received after Nov. 3, we need to emphasize that there is no court ruling yet saying those ballots are invalid. We absolutely reserve the right to make every argument after Election Day that protects voters." 

Background: On Oct. 29, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled 2-1 that the extension of Minnesota's absentee/mail-in ballot return deadline was likely unconstitutional "because the Secretary [of State] extended the deadline for receipt of ballots without legislative authorization." The court stopped short of invalidating the extension. Instead, it ordered officials to keep ballots received after Nov. 3 separate from those received on or before Nov. 3. 

Judges Bobby Shepherd and Steven Grasz formed the majority. Shepherd and Grasz are George W. Bush and Trump appointees, respectively. Judge Jane Kelly, a Barack Obama (D) appointee, dissented.

 

Wisconsin: On Oct. 29, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh declined to block a lower court's order that allowed several Wisconsin cities to accept and use election administration grants from a private nonprofit.

Each U.S. Supreme Court justice is assigned to certain of the thirteen circuit courts of appeal to field emergency requests. Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, is assigned to the Fifth Circuit.

Background: 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–sued the cities of Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine, all of which received CTCL grant funds. Plaintiffs alleged the U.S. Constitution and state and federal laws bar cities from accepting and using private funds for election administration. The plaintiffs also said 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.

Today: Poll open/close times

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 when polls will open and close on election day.

The opening and closing times for polling locations vary from state to state and in the District of Columbia. In some states, polling hours vary by city or county. In those states that conduct elections by mail, there are postmark deadlines and deadlines for voters to drop off their ballots in person. Some states permit voters who are in line at closing time to cast a ballot, but that provision can vary by jurisdiction. The table below lists the poll opening and closing times by state.

Poll open and close times

To read more about poll opening and closing times, 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:
    • November 3:
      • California (in-person)
      • Colorado (in-person)
      • District of Columbia (in-person)
      • Idaho (in-person)
      • Illinois (in-person)
      • Maine (in-person)
      • Michigan (in-person)
      • Montana (in-person)
      • Vermont (in-person, mail-in received, online)
      • Washington (in-person)
         
  • Absentee/mail-in voting request deadline:
    • November 3:
      • California (in-person)
      • Maryland (in-person)
      • New Jersey (in-person)
  • Absentee/mail-in voting return deadline:
    • November 3:
      • Arizona (in-person, mail-in received)
      • California (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Colorado (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Delaware (in-person, mail-in received)
      • District of Columbia (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Florida (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Georgia (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Hawaii (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Idaho (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Illinois (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Indiana (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Iowa (in-person)
      • Kansas (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Kentucky (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Maine (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Maryland (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Massachusetts (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Michigan (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Minnesota (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Montana (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Nebraska (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Nevada (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • New Hampshire (in-person, mail-in received)
      • New Jersey (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • New Mexico (in-person, mail-in received)
      • New York (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • North Carolina (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Ohio (in-person)
      • Oregon (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Pennsylvania (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Rhode Island (in-person, mail-in received)
      • South Carolina (in-person, mail-in received)
      • South Dakota (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Texas (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Utah (in-person)
      • Vermont (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Virginia (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Washington (in-person, mail-in postmarked)
      • Wisconsin (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Wyoming (in-person, mail-in received)
      • Mississippi (mail-in postmarked)
      • Missouri (mail-in received)
      • Tennessee (mail-in received)
      • Arkansas (mail-in received)
      • Connecticut (mail-in received)
      • Oklahoma (mail-in received)
      • West Virginia (mail-in postmarked)
      • Alaska (in-person, mail-in postmarked)

And a dose of calm

Calm 

Follow on Twitter   Friend on Facebook   Forward to Friend