All articles tagged with #election law
Lawyers filed a suit to block a Trump administration order that would create a nationwide eligible voter list, arguing it would improperly extend federal reach into elections, raise privacy concerns, and risk disenfranchisement, with a court injunction sought while the case proceeds.
Lawyers have asked a judge to block Donald Trump’s order that would create an eligible voter list and restrict mail ballots, arguing the move would suppress voting access and raise constitutional concerns.
President Donald Trump said Virginia’s narrowly approved redistricting referendum was “rigged” despite no evidence, a result that could reshape the U.S. House map and prompt legal challenges over ballot wording and procedures. Democrats frame the move as a counter to GOP gerrymandering elsewhere, while Republicans warn of fairness concerns. The outcome, amid a costly national redistricting contest, could influence who controls Congress and provoke battles in other states.
The USPS, already dealing with a cash shortfall and cost-cutting pressures, faces a presidential executive order aimed at restricting mail voting by compiling lists of eligible voters and directing the Postal Service to send only ballots for those voters. The order has been challenged by more than 20 states as unconstitutional, underscoring a broader political battle over voting by mail amid ongoing postal strain.
Mail-in ballots have been the norm in Oregon and Washington for decades, but President Trump’s attacks and related federal moves—USPS funding cuts, executive orders, and court challenges—have turned a once-bipartisan system into a partisan battleground, prompting lawsuits and warnings from election officials who fear eroding public trust in a process those states helped pioneer.
A fact-check clears up confusion: the SAVE America Act does not include special exemptions for married women who change their names. The bill would require documentary proof of citizenship and, for individuals with name discrepancies, additional documents (such as marriage records or court orders) to prove identity, with states determining how much documentation is needed. Critics warn the measure could disenfranchise millions, including many women who have taken a spouse’s name, and point to past state laws (like Kansas in 2011) as precedent. Supporters argue fixes exist, but the current text does not provide an affidavit-only path, and voting-rights groups remain wary of broader impacts on registration access.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether states can count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, with conservatives warning that late tallying undermines finality and liberals urging congressional action; Mississippi’s law allowing late ballots to be counted if postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days is central to the case, and lawmakers have proposed the Make Elections Great Again Act to preempt post-Election Day deadlines. A ruling is expected in coming months.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Mississippi’s rule allowing ballots received after Election Day can be counted clashes with federal law, a decision that could force states to change deadlines and reshuffle how ballots are counted for state versus federal races ahead of the midterms. Justices appeared divided along ideological lines, and the case underscores ongoing tensions over mail voting and potential federal reforms like the SAVE Act, with a ruling likely coming this summer.
At oral arguments, the Supreme Court weighed whether states may count mail-in ballots received after Election Day; the DOJ and the RNC urged striking down Mississippi’s law that allows ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to five days later, a ruling that could affect about 30 states. Justices pressed whether the same logic would also bar counting ballots before Election Day, highlighting the importance of early voting for millions. While advocates said early voting remains permissible, several justices signaled concerns about equating late-ballot rules with early-voting practices. A ruling is expected by late June and could reshape how elections are run this year.
SCOTUS appeared ready to limit counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, weighing a Mississippi case that challenges postmark deadlines and five-day grace periods used by about a dozen states; the ruling could affect midterm election rules nationwide by clarifying whether late-arriving ballots can be counted and how state grace periods interact with federal election laws, amid debates over election integrity and voter burdens.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative bloc signaled readiness to rule that ballots must be received by election day to be counted, potentially upending California’s practice of counting late-arriving mail ballots and pressuring voters to mail earlier. The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, challenges state rules allowing postmarked ballots that arrive after Election Day to be counted, a practice followed by several western states. A ruling upholding a strict receipt deadline could redefine how ballots are handled nationwide and affect election timing and outcomes.
The Supreme Court will hear Mississippi’s challenge to a law that allows counting mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received after, a ruling with potential implications for other states and the upcoming midterm elections.
The Supreme Court is hearing a GOP challenge to states’ post-Election Day mail-ballot receipt deadlines, tied to Donald Trump’s broader push to curb mail voting. The case questions whether federal election statutes forbid late ballot receipts, a tactic echoed by Trump’s executive orders and threats of lawsuits that pressured states to move deadlines. The DOJ’s position has shifted—from supporting Mississippi to arguing at the Court against some deadlines—while several states have already shortened or eliminated grace periods. With a ruling expected by June, the decision could reshape how states run mail voting and influence upcoming elections, potentially fueling Trump’s political backlash if the Court rules against such deadlines.
Democrats say they don’t oppose voter ID in principle but argue that the GOP’s voting bill is too strict and could limit ballot access, while still supporting ID requirements.
Texas Supreme Court blocked a district court’s order extending Dallas County polling hours to 9 p.m., ordering votes cast after 7 p.m. to be separated and not counted for now, leaving the county’s primary tally in limbo as legal challenges continue.