State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Arizona Proposition 309 puts more stringent voter ID and mail-in requirements on ballot

· ·

By Sarah Bradley

Proposition 309, the “Arizonans for Voter ID Act,” is on the ballot this November. Proposition 309 includes provisionsthat would affect the state’s voter identification laws and add additional requirements to mail-in voting affidavits. Proponents have stated that it will increase election security, while opponents have expressed worry about its effect on voter participation. 

Arizona has allowed no-excuse mail-in voting since 1991, and—until recently—it has had significant bipartisan support. In 2007, the state legislature created the Permanent Early Voting List, which automatically sends a mail-in ballot for every election to every voter who opted in. 75% of Arizona voters are currently on the list. Early voting by mail is the most popular way to vote in Arizona, regularly used by more than 80% of Arizona voters. However, in the aftermath of the 2020 election, there has been a significant push to restrict, or even eliminate, mail-in voting in the state.

Proposition 309 adds additional requirements to the affidavit that mail-in voters must submit with their ballots. The affidavit would require the voter to provide an “early voter identification” number, their date of birth, and their signature. The early voter ID number can be (a) the voter’s driver’s license or nonoperating license ID number, (b) the last four digits of the voter’s social security number, or (c) the voter’s ID number from the statewide voter registration database. Current law only requires the individual to sign the affidavit. Election officials are currently required to confirm the signature and contact the voter regarding any inconsistencies. Proposition 309 would further require confirmation of the early voter ID number and date of birth. 

Supporters of Proposition 309’s mail-in voting measures state that the current signature-only requirement is a critical vulnerability in the state’s mail-in voting system, and that the new addition creates parity between in-person and mail-in voters. They argue that the current system is overly permissive, allowing ballot harvesting and trafficking. 

Detractors of the mail-in voting measures criticize them as being an invasion of privacy that would eliminate votes and drastically increase the time needed to verify ballots. They point out that the early voter ID number requirement prevents the ability to vote anonymously by  linking the individual to their ballot, and that providing personal information increases opportunities for identity theft. Critics also highlight the likelihood that a high number of ballots would be discarded when returned without a completed affidavit, comparing Proposition 309 to a similar Texas law that caused about 13% of ballots—nearly 23,000 votes—to be thrown out in the state’s primary election earlier this year.

The Arizona Advisor Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has previously criticized the state’s current in-person voter ID requirements for being unnecessarily restrictive, but Proposition 309 would tighten the laws even further. The current law requires voters to present either a photo ID that includes their name and address, or a combination of two alternate forms of identification without photos, such as utility or credit card bills. Proposition 309 would require all in-person voters to present a photo ID in the form of an Arizona driver’s license or nonoperating identification license, a tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification issued by a tribal government, or a US government-issued ID—removing the provision that currently allows voters to present any state or local government-issued photo ID, such as municipal or student IDs, that include the voter’s name, photo, and address. The name and address of the voter on the ID must match the name and address in the voting precinct register. If the address on the photo ID does not match, or if the ID is a US military ID card or a valid passport without an address, the voter must also present an additional document containing the name and address of the voter.

Supporters of the additional photo ID restrictions argue that photo identification is already required in daily life, calling it a commonsense measure that would increase voter confidence. They have also pointed to the provision in the bill that allows a fee waiver for individuals obtaining a nonoperating license to meet photo ID requirements as proof that the requirement will not be overly burdensome.

Critics have stated that the ID requirements in place are already satisfactory, and that Proposition 309’s photo ID requirement only limits access to marginalized communities. Strict voter ID laws have been shown to impede millions of eligible voters nationally from accessing the polls, with a disproportionate impact on minorities, senior citizens, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students.

Supporters include all Arizona Republican lawmakers,  Heritage Action (an affiliate of the Heritage Foundation), the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona.

The Arizona County Recorders have opposed Proposition 309, calling it a solution in search of a problem. Other opponents include the Arizona Education Association, the League of Women Voters of Arizona, and the Alliance of Arizona Nonprofits, which represents more than 1,100 nonprofit organizations.

Prop 309 Sample Ballot (source: Arizona Secretary of State website)

Early Voting is Thriving in Virginia’s 2022 Midterms

· ·

By Noble Pearson

Over the past several years, Virginia has expanded early voting in the state with new legislation. In April 2020, former Governor Ralph Northam signed HB1/SB111 into law, which allows any registered voter to vote up to forty-five days prior to an election by absentee ballot in any election in which that person is qualified to vote with no excuse required. On that same day, Northam also signed HB238/SB455, which allows absentee ballots to be counted if they are postmarked on or before the day of an election and are received by the general registrar by noon on the third day after the election. The next year, in March of 2021, Northam signed HB1968 into law, which permits local election boards to offer absentee voting in person on Sundays during the early voting period leading up to an election. Before these changes, voting by absentee ballot had been restricted to voters meeting specific requirements, such as being an out-of-area student or a member of the armed forces residing temporarily out-of-state. The 2020 and 2021 changes thus expanded access for Virginia voters regarding early voting, particularly in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Since the passage of these new laws expanding early voting, Virginia has held two elections with extremely high turnout in 2020 and 2021. 2020 saw a contentious presidential election, and 2021 included statewide contests for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and General Assembly seats. We are now approaching the first midterm election since the new laws referenced above have been passed. There are no state elections on the ballot this time, and only a handful of competitive races for U.S. Congress, but turnout is still expected to be high. Some are suggesting that deep political divisions in the state concerning topics such as the economy, abortion, and Donald Trump will motivate increased voter participation in this election, especially early participation. 

While, at the time of writing, we are still two weeks away from election day itself, high numbers of early voters are making news around the Commonwealth. In the 2018 midterm election, the last midterm election before the new laws went into effect, the grand total of early voters was around 345,000. As of October 19, 2022, more than 302,000 votershad already voted early, with nearly three weeks remaining. Suffolk General Registrar Burdette Lawrence claims that Suffolk has received near-presidential race levels of early votes. Reports from around the state, including Roanoke, Richmond, and Prince William County, indicate that early voting is taking place at significant levels. With increased access and strong political motivation, the popularity of early voting and voting by mail seem to be rising.   

With many challenges remaining for election officials, there is also hope that early voting provides an avenue to mitigate other election concerns. Experts are bracing for map-based confusion in this election, as the voting maps in Virginia have changed following post-census redistricting. Additionally, there have been recent reports of printing errors wreaking havoc in northern Virginia, with election officials in Fairfax and Prince William counties reporting that over 31,000 voters received documents indicating incorrect polling locations. The good news is that early voting may help alleviate some of these issues, as county election officials have recommended early voting as a possible way to proactively avoid confusion regarding polling location on election day.

The November 2022 midterm election in Virginia is yet to be complete, but it is clear that Virginia’s recent legal changes to expand access to early voting are leading to increased voter turnout. With the voting numbers already closing in on those of the previous midterm in 2018, all expectations are that there will be a noted increase in midterm voter turnout this election. Prince William County registrar Eric Olsen has said that the state should expect to see even more early voting in the remaining days before the election, with voters often procrastinating until the last few days before the election to cast an early vote. 

It is easy to see why expanded early voting is so popular. Early voting is safer, easier, and more accessible than ever before, and may well lead to enhanced civic engagement. In a time of contentious politics and heightened division, voting is increasingly important to members of both political parties. In fact, support in Virginia for early voting has been largely bipartisan, with Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin’s embrace of early voting playing a part in his 2021 election. Politics aside, the ability to vote is a fundamental part of American civil life. As Virginia is demonstrating, expanded access to voting results in expanded interest in voting, which is good for democratic participation. Long may it continue. 

An Impossible Choice: Large Scale Voter Suppression v. Risking Criminal Prosecution

· ·

By Katie Kitchen

While literacy tests are no longer formally part of the U.S. election process, numerous laws, including a decades old law in Missouri, still result in similar forms of voter suppression. This law, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.44.3, has been in effect since 1977 and states, “No person, other than election judges and members of such voters’ immediate families, shall assist more than one voter at one election.” While this single sentence may seem like a small detail in terms of election procedure, in practice, some argue the law infringes on the rights of limited English proficient individuals and people with disabilities to vote.

One such person is Susana Elizarraraz’s mom. Elizarraraz’s mom is deaf, limited English proficient, and relies on Elizarraraz’s assistance to cast her ballot in each election. When Elizarraraz had to go out of town for work during an April 2022 election, her mother was unable to vote, as there was no one available to assist her due to the limitations of Missouri’s Single-Voter Assistance Restriction. 

A group of Plaintiffs are currently challenging Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.44.3 in Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services v. Ashcroft. The Plaintiffs in this matter are Missouri Protection and Advocacy Services (Mo P&A), VozKC, and three individuals who have been directly impacted by Missouri’s Single-Voter Assistance Restriction. One of those individuals is Susana Elizarraraz. Mo P&A is a non-profit public interest law firm focused on protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities. VozKC is a volunteer organization that advocates for Latino communities and works with limited English proficient populations.

In the Complaint, filed June 22, 2022, the Plaintiffs assert that Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.44.3 violates § 208 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the Supremacy Clause of the United States. Section 208 of the VRA states, “Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice.” Therefore, the Plaintiffs argue that the limitation included in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.44.3 hinders the ability of voters who require assistance to choose the individual who assists them, which can lead to an inability to exercise the right to vote entirely. Additionally, because Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.44.3 is a state law that may infringe upon the VRA (a federal law), the Plaintiffs assert that it violates the Supremacy Clause, which generally states that federal law is the “supreme law of the land”. 

The Plaintiffs make many compelling arguments regarding why challenging an election law from 1977 is prudent today. One reason is that the Latino population grew by nearly 50% across the St. Louis region since 2010, but Missouri does not offer election materials in languages other than English. Additionally, approximately 18.6% of Missouri’s eligible voting population are individuals with disabilities who are projected to be eligible to vote in Missouri in 2020. Thus, voter assistance for populations of limited English proficient voters and voters with disabilities in Missouri has become even more critical as the population changes. The non-profit communities are unable to have one volunteer for every individual who may need assistance, which is what would be required to abide by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.44.3. The Plaintiffs describe this situation as a choice between large groups of people being unable to exercise their right to vote versus having individuals risk criminal prosecution by violating the Missouri’s Single-Voter Assistance Restriction. What may seem like a small procedural matter can impact the ability of entire groups of minority populations to exercise their right to vote, which has concerning ramifications for democracy as a whole.

I will delve into the Answers filed by the Defendants as well as the Statement of Interest filed by the Department of Justice in future posts. From a brief glance, issues such as whether there is a private remedy to enforce § 208 of the VRA are likely to be raised. Additionally, it is worth noting that there is similar litigation in Arkansas challenging a law that prohibits individuals from assisting more than six voters in casting a ballot each election. As the cases progress, it will be interesting to see whether courts will invalidate all limitations to § 208, or if they will determine an acceptable threshold of how many voters it is reasonable for one person to assist within the boundaries of the VRA. This distinction may be a determining factor in the equitable ability of individuals with disabilities and/or limited English proficiency to exercise their right to vote.

What on Earth is Going on with Florida? Explaining the Purcell Principle and Ongoing Litigation Over SB 90

· ·

By Emily Baker

There has been significant news coverage on court proceedings covering Florida state election law. Recent articles include titles such as  “Florida appeals court questions ruling on elections law” and “An appeals court questions a rulingagainst parts of Florida’s election law.” The main questions are, what happened and what do these reports mean?

Starting from the beginning: Florida’s Senate Bill 90 was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, live on Fox News, on May 6th, 2021. It received immense criticism, because its effect would generally make it more difficult to vote by mail. The bill was immediately challenged by multiple sets of plaintiffs—the Harriet Tubman Freedom Fighters, the League of Women Voters, the Florida NAACP, and Florida Rising Together—each bringing slightly different claims. The lawsuits were consolidated into one case by the district court, challenging three colorable issues: 

  1. A provision regulating the use of drop boxes for collecting ballots criminalized dropping off more than two ballots besides those from immediate family members and required monitoring by election personnel. As a result, access to drop boxes was limited to posted hours of operation.
  2. The Registration-Delivery Provision requires third-party voter-registration organizations to deliver voter-registration applications to the county where an applicant resides within fourteen days, and the Registration-Disclaimer Provision specifies information that third-party voter-registration organizations must provide to would-be registrants. Third-party voter-registration organizations can be fined up to $50,000 per year for violating either of these provisions, a stark increase from the previous $1,000 limit per year.
  3. The Solicitation Provision prohibits the solicitation of voters within 150 feet of a drop box or polling place.

Plaintiffs argued that each of these provisions discriminated against voters on the basis of race, in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; specifically that the Registration-Disclaimer Provision compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment and that the Solicitation Provision was unconstitutionally vague or overbroad in Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Focusing on the racial discrimination, the lower court held that SB 90 “runs roughshod over the right to vote, unnecessarily making voting harder for all eligible Floridians, unduly burdening disabled voters, and intentionally targeting minority voters—all to improve the electoral prospects of the party in power.” The court found that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional and unenforceable because they limited access to the ballot. For example, people frequently help elderly voters by dropping off their ballots for them and is a common practice in church groups. Additionally, the limited accessibility to ballot drop boxes can favor white-collar voters who have greater flexibility in their jobs. In consequence, the District Court placed the state of Florida on preclearance for ten years, which means that the state would have to seek federal approval to “preclear” any attempt to pass new laws specifically related to drop boxes, line-warming (a commonly employed practice of giving out food and water to voters waiting in line), and voter registration organization activities.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, “stayed” the district court’s injunction in May of 2022 on the basis of the “Purcell principle,” which is the idea that courts should not change election rules on the eve of an election because doing so could confuse voters and create problems for officials administering the election. The 11th Circuit employed the principle here, because the lower court’s injunction implicated voter registration, which was currently underway, and required the state to retain poll workers when the next statewide election was nearly four months away. 

In addition, the 11th Circuit took issue with the district court’s analysis of the historical background and its conclusion that “Florida has a grotesque history of racial discrimination.” The district court supported the conclusion by the recounting of several acts of violence against Black voters in Florida, notably the massacre of more than thirty Black Floridians on Election Day after a Black voter went to the polls in 1920. The 11th Circuit’s holding was in part based on the principle that “old, outdated intentions of previous generations” should not “taint [a state’s] legislative action forevermore on certain topics” and that the district court ruling failed to take into account the presumption of legislative good faith. 

While critical, this was only a temporary stay pending appeal. These new headlines, while flashy, only address questions judges asked in the oral argument and not the merits or the 11th Circuit’s final decision. SB 90 will be in effect (at least) until the 2022 midterm elections are over, likely making it more difficult for many Floridians to vote by mail. 

On the Eve of Merrill v. Milligan, a Voting Rights Act Section 2 Case to Watch in Georgia

· ·

By Rebecca Stekol

Uncertainty clouds the future of the Voting Rights Act Section 2 due the upcoming vote dilution case before the Supreme Court in October 2022, Merrill v. Milligan. Some worry that the Supreme Court will embrace Alabama’s argument“regarding race-neutral principles in redistricting” and render Section 2 vote dilution claims much more difficult. In the meantime, however, Georgia faces its own Section 2 litigation in Rose v. Raffensperger. The docket already tells a convoluted tale. In the broader context of Georgia’s polarized election climate following the 2020 election, including the passage of the controversial Senate Bill 202 enacted in 2021, the outcome of this case has the potential to fuel more controversy or foreshadow the future of election administration in the state.

The crux of Rose v. Raffensperger is a challenge to the at-large method of electing members of Georgia’s Public Service Commission. The Commission has “exclusive power” to decide fair and reasonable rates for services under its jurisdiction,” including services stemming from the electricity, natural gas and telecommunications industries. Commissioners have been chosen by statewide election since 1906; although elected at large, Commissioners are required to reside in one of five Public Service Commission districts. In their complaint, Plaintiffs contended that “staggered terms, a majority-vote requirement, and unusually large voting districts” enhance the opportunity for discrimination against Black voters. Their main claim is that the at-large method of electing members of the PSC dilutes Black voting strength because the percentage of districts in which Black voters constitute an effective majority is less than the percentage of Georgia’s Black voting-age population. According to the plaintiffs, the results don’t lie: in Georgia’s history, there have only been two Black public service commissioners, and they were appointed by the governor to fill vacancies before being elected.

The District Court addressed what it described as a “novel question” of whether there can be vote dilution when the challenged election is held on a statewide basis. On August 5, 2022, Judge Grimberg held that “this method of election unlawfully dilutes the votes of Black citizens under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” permanently enjoining Secretary Raffensperger from preparing ballots for the November 8, 2022 election that include contests for PSC Districts 2 and 3 and from administering any future elections using the statewide, at-large method. He noted that “while delaying elections … until a later date will regrettably cause disruption to the candidates currently running for those offices, the court does not find that such disruption outweighs the important VRA interests that are implicated.”

As is usually the case for contentious Voting Rights Act issues, the tale did not end there. Secretary Raffensperger moved for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s order, which the Eleventh Circuit granted on August 12. The Court heldthat the district court’s order violated Purcell v. Gonzalez and its progeny, which prohibits district courts from altering the election rules in the period close to an election. The Court concluded that the district court’s issuing of the permanent injunction about three months before the election is “sufficiently close at hand” under recent precedent articulated in League of Women Voters of Florida v. Florida Secretary of State. In addition, the Court noted that postponing the elections for Districts 2 and 3 and keeping the existing Commissioners as “holdovers” until single-member voting is implemented “fundamentally alters the nature” of the upcoming elections under RNC v. DNC. 

On August 19, the Supreme Court issued a one-paragraph order reversing the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment and vacating the stay. According to Wiley Rein’s Jeremy Broggi, three points can be drawn from the Court’s reasoning. First, the Supreme Court may agree that a Purcell defense is waivable. Secretary Raffensperger waived a Purcell-based appeal, but the Eleventh Circuit still applied it. Second, the Supreme Court declined to apply Purcell “mechanistically” like the Eleventh Circuit did when it applied Purcell because the election was three months away. Third, the Supreme Court focused on equitable considerations, indicating that Purcell is a “rule of reason reflecting concerns about the potentially disruptive consequences of judicial tinkering with election rules.” For instance, the record as it stands contains no evidence that the injunction would cause voter confusion, calling the necessity of a stay into question. Therefore, the Supreme Court directed the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider whether the stay is appropriate “subject to sound equitable discretion.” That is where the tale ends, for now. 

The reactions to the ongoing litigation have been mixed. On one hand, James Woodall, the President of the Georgia NAACP, stated that it is imperative for state regulators to “better address the racial inequity of Black households paying a significantly higher percentage of their income on utilities.” Having more Black-supported Commissioners would change “the way deliberations are had.” However, the state’s attorney Bryan Tyson has stated that socioeconomic factors such as household income are more significant factors in how spending decisions are made than race, and that “political partisanship better explains the pattern of voting dilution” than race does. Moreover, some believe that putting two PSC elections in limbo creates uncertainty and frustration for candidates and voters alike; such a prolonged legal affair might even discourage voter turnout, writes local journalist Marc Hyden.

Of course, at the backdrop to this twisted tale of litigation is how the potential gutting of Section 2 after Merrill v. Milligan will shape claims like these. For now, we are at a cliffhanger as we await more Supreme Court decisions.