Voting Rights, Registration and Requirements

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares44 Views

    Justice Dept. Explores Using Criminal Charges Against Election Officials

    by

    Such a path could drastically raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, bringing the department and the threat of criminalization into the election system.Senior Justice Department officials are exploring whether they can bring criminal charges against state or local election officials if the Trump administration determines they have not sufficiently safeguarded their computer systems, according to people familiar with the discussions.The department’s effort, which is still in its early stages, is not based on new evidence, data or legal authority, according to the people, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. Instead, it is driven by the unsubstantiated argument made by many in the Trump administration that American elections are easy prey to voter fraud and foreign manipulation, these people said.Such a path could significantly raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, thrusting the Justice Department and the threat of criminalization into the election system in a way that has never been done before.Federal voting laws place some mandates on how elections are conducted and ballots counted. But that work has historically been managed by state and local officials, with limited involvement or oversight from Washington.In recent days, senior officials have directed Justice Department lawyers to examine the ways in which a hypothetical failure by state or local officials to follow security standards for electronic voting could be charged as a crime, appearing to assume a kind of criminally negligent mismanagement of election systems. Already, the department has started to contact election officials across the country, asking for information on voting in the state.Ballots from the 2024 general election locked in a secure warehouse area of the Ada County Elections Office in Boise, Idaho, last November.Natalie Behring for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares117 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Punts Decision on Louisiana Voting Map Until Next Term

      by

      The justices asked that the case, which has implications for the political power of Black voters, be reargued next term.The Supreme Court declined on Friday to weigh in on Louisiana’s contested congressional voting map, instead ordering that new arguments be scheduled during its next term.There was no explanation offered for why the justices did not make a decision or set a date for new arguments. All but one paragraph in the six-page order was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissent.Justice Thomas wrote that it was the court’s duty to hear such congressional redistricting challenges and that the justices had “an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly.”It is the latest twist in a winding legal battle over whether Louisiana drew congressional districts that fairly empower all voters after the 2020 census. The case has been closely watched, given that a decision striking down Louisiana’s map could affect the balance of power in the narrowly divided House of Representatives.For now, the state’s latest map, which the State Legislature approved in January 2024, will remain in place. That map paved the way for a second Black Democrat, Cleo Fields, to join Representative Troy Carter, a New Orleans-area Democrat, in the state’s congressional delegation. It was the first time in decades that Louisiana had elected two Black members of Congress, and allowed Democrats to pick up a second seat in the state.One-third of the state’s population is Black.“Although we hoped for a decision this term, we welcome a further opportunity to present argument to the court regarding the states’ impossible task of complying with the court’s voting precedents,” Liz Murrill, the Louisiana attorney general, said in a statement shared on social media.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares183 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Blocks Trump Voting Order Requiring Proof of Citizenship

      by

      A judge ruled that President Trump likely exceeded his authority with elections changes that included punishing states that didn’t stop counting ballots after Election Day.A federal judge sided with a coalition of states on Friday that had sued to stop stringent new voting ID requirements that President Trump laid out in an executive order in March.The ruling went further than a previous court decision to block most of the key aspects of Mr. Trump’s efforts to overhaul election law by executive order. In addition to indefinitely blocking provisions that would allow the federal government to require proof of citizenship for new voters, the judge’s ruling on Friday blocks a directive for Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against states that continue counting ballots beyond Election Day.In her opinion, Judge Denise J. Casper of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote that the states were likely to succeed in showing that the order exceeded President Trump’s authority and risked disenfranchising some of the electorate. The ruling blocked the order from taking effect until the resolution of the case.“The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections,” Judge Casper, an Obama appointee, wrote.In April, another judge in Washington, D.C., delivered a similar ruling that found much of the executive order likely unconstitutional. But that order, issued by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, stopped short of blocking the provision that sought to force an Election Day deadline on states for counting mail-in ballots.Thirteen states currently allow counting of mail-in ballots beyond Election Day if they were sent on time, and since the case before Judge Casper was brought by a coalition of 19 states that included the 13 “ballot recipient states,” she found they had standing to challenge that provision. Her order also blocked a provision that would withhold federal funding from states that failed to comply with the deadline.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About the Legal Battle Over a North Carolina Supreme Court Race

      by

      The Republican challenger has embarked on an extraordinary effort to reverse his election loss that critics say is testing the boundaries of post-election litigation.In North Carolina, the Republican candidate for a State Supreme Court seat has refused to concede to the Democratic incumbent, even though two recounts by a state elections board confirmed that he lost the November election by a few hundred votes.The Republican challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, who currently sits on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, has instead embarked on an extraordinary monthslong effort to toss out scores of ballots. The race is the last in the nation to be uncertified.Judge Griffin’s challenge has ping-ponged through federal and state courts. The Democratic incumbent, Justice Allison Riggs, appealed a recent State Supreme Court decision that could lead to thousands of military and overseas ballots being tossed. On Tuesday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit temporarily blocked the ballot verification process that had been ordered by the State Supreme Court. Many of the ballots in question come from Democratic-leaning counties, so their removal could lead to the election being overturned.As the case continues through the court system, Judge Griffin and the North Carolina Republican Party have drawn criticism from democracy watchdog groups, liberals and even some conservatives who worry about a dangerous precedent being set for future elections.Here’s what to know about the case.What happened after the November election?Justice Riggs was declared the winner of the State Supreme Court race by 734 votes, an unusually small margin. Judge Griffin sought to verify that margin by requesting recounts. After the State Board of Elections reaffirmed Justice Riggs’s victory twice, Judge Griffin filed a protest with the board, which has a Democratic majority.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Wisconsin Voters Approve Amendment Requiring Photo ID to Vote

      by

      The state has required voters to use photograph identification for nearly a decade, but an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution was seen as making it more difficult to roll back that rule.Wisconsin voters on Tuesday approved an amendment to the State Constitution to strengthen a current law requiring photo identification at the polls, The Associated Press said, a victory for Republicans who sponsored the effort.For close to a decade, state law has required the use of photo ID when voting at the polls in Wisconsin.But a constitutional amendment was seen as making it far more difficult to roll back the voter ID law, even under a state Supreme Court with a liberal majority or if the State Legislature fell under Democratic control. The measure was brought by Republicans, who control a majority of seats in the State Legislature and had pressed for the amendment for years.Conservatives have steadily and successfully pushed for stricter voter ID laws across the country, suggesting that they are needed to combat widespread voter fraud. Election experts say that voter fraud in American elections is exceedingly rare.Democratic leaders opposed the effort for the amendment in Wisconsin, arguing that it would disenfranchise voters including students, older people and particularly Black voters, who studies have shown are less likely to carry photo identification than white voters. While Black voters make up only about 5 percent of Wisconsin’s electorate, they overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates.Democrats also questioned why the amendment should be a priority at all, saying that Republicans were neglecting more pressing matters facing the state such as affordable child care, public education and gun control.Last week, President Trump stepped into the fray on voter ID requirements, issuing an executive order seeking to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote. Democrats responded with a lawsuit on Monday, arguing that the president’s order was unconstitutional and that he has no explicit authority to regulate elections.Thirty-six states ask for or require voters to show some form of identification at the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan group.Polls show that voter ID laws enjoy broad bipartisan support, with a Pew Research survey conducted in January finding that 81 percent of voters agree with a requirement that all voters should show government-issued identification to cast ballots.Wisconsin voters also strongly support voter ID laws, according to polls in recent years. A 2021 survey by the Marquette University Law School showed that 92 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Democrats favored requiring photo ID to vote. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Sue Trump Over Executive Order on Elections

      by

      Nearly every arm of the Democratic Party united in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday night, arguing that a recent executive order signed by the president seeking to require documentary proof of citizenship and other voting reforms is unconstitutional.The 70-page lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., accuses the president of vastly overstepping his authority to “upturn the electoral playing field in his favor and against his political rivals.” It lists President Trump and multiple members of his administration as defendants.“Although the order extensively reflects the president’s personal grievances, conspiratorial beliefs and election denialism, nowhere does it (nor could it) identify any legal authority he possesses to impose such sweeping changes upon how Americans vote,” the lawsuit says. “The reason why is clear: The president possesses no such authority.”The lawsuit repeatedly argues that the Constitution gives the president no explicit authority to regulate elections, noting that the Elections Clause of the Constitution “is at the core of this action.” That clause says that states set the “times, places and manner” of elections, leaving them to decide the rules, oversee voting and try to prevent fraud. Congress may also pass federal voting laws.As Democrats debate how best to challenge the Trump administration’s rapid expansion of executive power, the lawsuit represents one of the first moments where seemingly every arm of the party is pushing back with one voice.Such unity is further evidence that Democrats still view the issue of democracy as core to their political brand, as well as a key issue that can help them claw back support with voters as they aim to build a new coalition ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In February, Democrats sued the Trump administration over attempts to control the Federal Election Commission. Weeks earlier, the D.N.C. joined a lawsuit over new voting laws in Georgia.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      N.C. Elections Board Rejects G.O.P. Effort to Toss 60,000 Ballots

      by

      The ruling comes in a dispute over a State Supreme Court race that the Democratic incumbent won by 734 votes.The North Carolina State Board of Elections rejected on Wednesday a Republican bid to throw out more than 60,000 votes in a closely contested election for a State Supreme Court seat that an incumbent Democrat won by 734 votes.Two recounts showed that Associate Justice Allison Riggs, the incumbent, had eked out a slim victory out of some 5.5 million ballots that were cast. The losing judge, Jefferson Griffin, a Republican, argued that the state’s failure to enforce technical aspects of registration and election laws should disqualify scores of thousands of voters, most or all of whom cast otherwise legal ballots.The Democrat-controlled elections board disagreed, in a series of votes that went largely along party lines. Republicans on the board called for further hearings to gather more evidence on the issues.“The idea that someone could have been registered to vote, came to vote and then has their vote discarded is anathema to the democratic system,” the board’s Democratic chairman, Allan Hirsch, said at the meeting.The chairman of the state Republican Party denounced the decision, saying that “the board’s continued efforts to engineer political outcomes for Democrats is shameful.”Judge Griffin, who currently sits on the State Court of Appeals, could appeal the ruling to a State Superior Court, kicking off a legal process that could end at the same State Supreme Court where Justice Riggs sits. Republicans hold a 5-to-2 majority on the court, which has been bitterly divided along partisan lines in recent years.The ruling on Wednesday also rejected attempts by three Republican state legislators to overturn their narrow losses on the same grounds.In a protest against the election results filed last month, Judge Griffin argued that upward of 60,000 voters should be disqualified because the state failed to enact one part of a 2004 law requiring new voters to provide a driver’s license or Social Security number when applying to vote. Voters who failed to list numbers should be ineligible, he said, even if they were unaware of the requirement.His complaint also sought to disqualify overseas voters who failed to submit a photo ID with their ballots in accordance with a new voter ID law. Those overseas voters also were not told of the requirement.Lawyers for Justice Riggs, as well as the state Democratic Party, argued that federal law bars throwing out votes for lack of a driver’s license or Social Security numbers. They also said that state law setting out the rules for overseas votes does not require a photo ID. More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Activists File ‘Bad-Faith’ Ballot Challenges, Pennsylvania Officials Say

      by

      Right-wing activists and G.O.P. state lawmakers have questioned the eligibility of some 4,000 people who requested ballots.One by one, they testified under oath: a military spouse who moves every three years. A man just back from six months of traveling around the country. A graduate student temporarily away for school.All were eligible voters who had cast a mail ballot in Chester County, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia, before Election Day. And they, along with more than 200 others, had their votes challenged by a single activist, who questioned whether they met residency requirements.Some 4,000 such ballot challenges were delivered to 14 election offices across the critical battleground state by Friday, the deadline. The challenges represent an escalation of a tactic that has been used increasingly since the 2020 election. While thousands of voter registrations have been contested since then, the Pennsylvania cases could toss out votes already cast — a move election officials say they have rarely seen on this large a scale.Many of the challenges were submitted by activists who have mobilized around Donald J. Trump’s falsehoods about rigged elections. Election officials warn that the challenges not only threaten to disenfranchise voters, but they also propel unnecessary skepticism about the integrity of the election.“These challenges are based on theories that courts have repeatedly rejected,” the Pennsylvania Department of State said in a statement, adding that they were made in “bad faith,” appeared coordinated and were meant to “undermine the confidence in the Nov. 5 election.”A leading activist in Pennsylvania disputed state officials’ characterization of the effort. Heather Honey, the activist, said the challenges “could not be in better faith.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Allows Iowa to Challenge Voters It Suspects of Being Noncitizens

      by

      A federal judge ruled on Sunday that Iowa may continue challenging hundreds of potential ballots cast in the election on the basis that the voters might be noncitizens, a move that critics say could disenfranchise legitimate voters.Iowa’s secretary of state, Paul Pate, a Republican, issued a letter to county commissioners last month challenging the status of 2,176 people on voter rolls, saying that they had previously identified themselves to a state agency as noncitizens. The plaintiffs in the case were four recently naturalized U.S. citizens whose voting status was challenged, despite being eligible to vote. They had asked the court for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to rescind the letter and restore the status of any voters removed from the rolls.But Judge Stephen H. Locher of the Southern District of Iowa, who was appointed by President Biden, said that a small minority of the 2,176 registered voters — about 12 percent, or about 250 people — “are indeed registered voters who are not United States citizens,” and that granting an injunction “effectively forces local election officials to allow ineligible voters to vote.”It is a felony for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election, potentially resulting in jail time, a fine and deportation.Judge Locher also pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week that allowed Virginia to purge about 1,600 people from its voter rolls in supporting his decision to allow the challenge to go forward.But he also expressed concern at some of the directives in Mr. Pate’s letter, which he said directed local election officials to challenge the legitimacy of a voter on the list “even when the local officials themselves do not suspect the person is ineligible to vote” and “require voters on the list to file provisional ballots even when they have proven citizenship at the polling place.”In a statement, Mr. Pate said that the ruling was “a win for Iowa’s election integrity,” adding that his role “requires balance — ensuring that on one hand, every eligible voter is able to cast their ballot while ensuring that only eligible voters participate in Iowa elections.” More