by Natalia Mittelstadt
Lawsuits in six key battleground states will have a significant impact on the November election as mail-in voting laws are challenged.
In Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, ongoing or concluded litigation over mail-in and absentee voting laws is affecting how votes are counted in general elections.
Republican-led states have passed more election-related bills this year than Democratic-led states, according to a modern report from Ballotpedia.
AND report published by Ballotpedia on Monday, it emerged that of the more than 305 election-related bills that have been passed this year, Republican-led states have passed 64 percent of them. Democratic-led states have passed 19 percent of election-related bills.
When it comes to mail-in voting laws, six states have passed nine such laws.
As states pass modern laws, groups have filed lawsuits challenging mail-in voting rules, procedures and statutes, arguing they are either too loose or too strict.
Arizona:
Strong Communities Foundation Arizona and Eric Lovelis vs. Maricopa County
In February, America First Legal (AFL) filed suit on behalf of the Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona and the Voter Opposing the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the Maricopa County Recorder.
The lawsuit alleges that Maricopa County violated multiple state election laws, such as refusing to maintain a chain of custody for votes and requiring in-person verification of voter votes, and using artificial intelligence to verify ballot signatures instead of humans alone.
The AFL withdrew its lawsuit and filed a modern complaint against Maricopa, Coconino and Yavapai Counties in the Yavapai County Courthouse.
Arizona Court of Appeals he ruled in May in favor of Maricopa County’s motion to have the lawsuit against the county proceed not in Yavapai County but in Maricopa County.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes
A state court judge has ruled against the Arizona Free Enterprise Club in two lawsuits against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) over the state’s procedures for drop-off boxes and signature matching for mail-in ballots.
Absentee voting procedures are part of the Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM), which is developed by the Secretary of State.
This the judge admitted summary judgment for Fontes, ruling that EPM 2023 “conforms with Arizona law.”
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club informed a state court last month that appealed against the decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Georgia:
International Alliance of Theatre and Stage Workers, Branch 927 v. Woolard et al.
International Association of Theatre Professionals, Branch 927 defendant members of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections and members of the Georgia State Board of Elections in federal court over the deadline for filing absentee ballot applications for the presidential election.
The union claims in its lawsuit that the deadline to apply for a ballot, which falls 11 days before the election, violates the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit argues that the Voting Rights Act requires the deadline to fall seven days before the election.
U.S. Department of Justice submitted a declaration of interest The lawsuit argued that the Voting Rights Act can be enforced privately, not just by the U.S. Attorney General.
Last month, a judge dismissed the case with members of the State Election Commission, allowing members of the Fulton County Board of Elections to handle the matter.
Michigan:
Republican National Committee et al. v. Benson et al.
Last month, Michigan judge issues partial ruling against Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s tolerant signature verification guidelines, following a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee, the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Congressional Committee.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Yates ruled “that the ‘original presumption’ of validity of signature verification on absentee ballot applications and envelopes required by the December 2023 handbook” issued by Benson “is inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan.”
The judge allowed the handbook to include explanations for reasons why signatures might look different, such as due to age or handwriting speed, contrary to a request by the Republican plaintiff.
RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said in a statement about the ruling: “This legal victory for the RNC reaffirms the importance of mail-in voting protections in the Michigan Constitution. The Secretary of State’s covert attempts to circumvent these rules were rightly rejected by the court, revealing that her attacks on election integrity have no substance. This victory is just the latest development in our ongoing fight to promote fair and transparent elections in the Great Lakes State.”
Nevada:
Republican National Committee and others v. Burgess and others.
In May, the Republican National Committee, the Nevada Republican Party and the Trump campaign filed a lawsuit against Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar (D) and county officials over a state law that allows absentee ballots cast after Election Day to be counted.
This a lawsuit argues that state law violates federal law and requires that “ballots received up to three days after Election Day ‘must be postmarked on or before Election Day.'”
Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Chapman
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit he ruled In March, it was announced that Pennsylvania may introduce a state law requiring absentee ballot envelopes to include the date and voter signature.
In this case the plaintiff sued then-Acting Secretary of State in 2022 over Pennsylvania’s decision to invalidate mail-in ballots with missing or incorrect date on the return envelope.
Pennsylvania counties received a lower court order following a 2022 Republican lawsuit to throw out undated or improperly dated mail-in votes. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
After a three-judge district court panel ruled in favor of the law, the Pennsylvania NAACP asked for a full court rehearing, but the court denied its request.
Wisconsin:
Liebert et al. w. Millis et al.
In May, a federal judge from Wisconsin dismissed the lawsuit who wanted to abolish the requirement for a witness to be present in the case of postal voting.
U.S. District Judge James Peterson issued summary judgment Thursday in a lawsuit filed by the law firm of Marc Elias, a Democratic-leaning election lawyer who sought to overturn the witness requirement for voters who voted by mail. The Elias Law Group argued that the witness requirement violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give the losing party 30 days to file a notice of appeal, but to date no such notice has been filed.
– – –
Natalia Mittelstadt is a reporter for Just the News.
Photo “Ballot Urn” by Chris Phan CC BY-SA 3.0.
