ReportWire

Tag: provisional ballots

  • Federal judge lets Iowa keep challenging voter rolls although naturalized citizens may be affected

    Federal judge lets Iowa keep challenging voter rolls although naturalized citizens may be affected

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge ruled Sunday that Iowa can continue challenging the validity of hundreds of ballots from potential noncitizens even though critics said the effort threatens the voting rights of people who’ve recently become U.S. citizens.U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher, an appointee of President Joe Biden, sided with the state in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the Iowa capital of Des Moines on behalf of the League of Latin American Citizens of Iowa and four recently naturalized citizens. The four were on the state’s list of questionable registrations to be challenged by local elections officials.Related video above: Get the Facts: Counting votesThe state’s Republican attorney general and secretary of state argued that investigating and potentially removing 2,000 names from the list would prevent illegal voting by noncitizens. GOP officials across the U.S. have made possible voting by noncitizen immigrants a key election-year talking point even though it is rare. Their focus has come with former President Donald Trump falsely suggesting that his opponents already are committing fraud to prevent his return to the White House.In his ruling Sunday, Locher pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court decision four days prior that allowed Virginia to resume a similar purge of its voter registration rolls even though it was impacting some U.S. citizens. He also cited the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to review a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on state electoral laws surrounding provisional ballots. Those Supreme Court decisions advise lower courts to “act with great caution before awarding last-minute injunctive relief,” he wrote.Locher also said the state’s effort does not remove anyone from the voter rolls, but rather requires some voters to use provisional ballots.In a statement on Sunday, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, celebrated the ruling.“Today’s ruling is a victory for election integrity,” Reynolds said. “In Iowa, while we encourage all citizens to vote, we will enforce the law and ensure those votes aren’t cancelled out by the illegal vote of a non-citizen.”Rita Bettis Austen, legal director for the ACLU of Iowa, said some voters could be disenfranchised due to the ruling and Secretary of State Paul Pate’s directive.“We are obviously disappointed with the court’s decision not to outright block Secretary Pate’s directive, which we still fear threatens to disenfranchise eligible voters simply because they are people who became citizens in the past several years,” Austen said in a written statement. “Even the Secretary agrees that the vast majority of voters on his list are United States citizens.”Even still, Austen said the lawsuit forced Pate to back away from forcing everyone on the list to vote provisionally only. County auditors may permit a voter on the list to cast a regular ballot if they deem it appropriate, and voters can prove they are citizens with documentation, she added.After Locher had a hearing in the ACLU’s lawsuit Friday, Pate and state Attorney General Brenna Bird issued a statement saying that Iowa had about 250 noncitizens registered to vote, but the Biden administration wouldn’t provide data about them.Pate told reporters last month that his office was forced to rely upon a list of potential noncitizens from the Iowa Department of Transportation. It named people who registered to vote or voted after identifying themselves as noncitizens living in the U.S. legally when they previously sought driver’s licenses.”Today’s court victory is a guarantee for all Iowans that their votes will count and not be canceled out by illegal votes,” Bird said in the statement issued after Sunday’s decision.But ACLU attorneys said Iowa officials were conceding that most of the people on the list are eligible to vote and shouldn’t have been included. They said the state was violating naturalized citizens’ voting rights by wrongfully challenging their registrations and investigating them if they cast ballots.Pate issued his directive Oct. 22, only two weeks before the Nov. 5 election, and ACLU attorneys argued that federal law prohibits such a move so close to Election Day.The people on the state’s list of potential noncitizens may have become naturalized citizens after their statements to the Department of Transportation. Pate’s office told county elections officials to challenge their ballots and have them cast provisional ballots instead. That would leave the decision of whether they will be counted to local officials upon further review, with voters having seven days to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship.In his ruling, Locher wrote that Pate backed away from some of his original hardline positions at an earlier court hearing. Pate’s attorney said the Secretary of State is no longer aiming to require local election officials to challenge the votes of each person on his list or force voters on the list to file provisional ballots even when they have proven citizenship at a polling place.Federal law and states already make it illegal for noncitizens to vote, and the first question on Iowa’s voter registration form asks whether a person is a U.S. citizen. The form also requires potential voters to sign a statement saying they are citizens, warning them that if they lie, they can be convicted of a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.Locher’s ruling also came after a federal judge had halted a similar program in Alabama challenged by civil rights groups and the U.S. Department of Justice. Testimony from state officials in that case showed that roughly 2,000 of the more than 3,200 voters who were made inactive were actually legally registered citizens.In Iowa’s case, noncitizens who are registered are potentially only a tiny fraction of the state’s 2.2 million registered voters.But Locher wrote that it appears to be undisputed that some portion of the names on Pate’s list are registered voters who are not U.S. citizens. Even if that portion is small, an injunction effectively would force local election officials to let ineligible voters cast ballots, he added.Democrats and Republicans have been engaged in a sprawling legal fight over this year’s election for months. Republicans have filed dozens of lawsuits challenging various aspects of vote-casting after being chastised repeatedly by judges in 2020 for bringing complaints about how the election was run only after votes were tallied. Democrats have their own team of dozens of staffers fighting GOP cases.Immigrants gain citizenship through a process called naturalization, which includes establishing residency, proving knowledge of basic American history and institutions as well as taking an oath of allegiance to the United States.—-Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas, and Goldberg, from Minneapolis.

    A federal judge ruled Sunday that Iowa can continue challenging the validity of hundreds of ballots from potential noncitizens even though critics said the effort threatens the voting rights of people who’ve recently become U.S. citizens.

    U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher, an appointee of President Joe Biden, sided with the state in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in the Iowa capital of Des Moines on behalf of the League of Latin American Citizens of Iowa and four recently naturalized citizens. The four were on the state’s list of questionable registrations to be challenged by local elections officials.

    Related video above: Get the Facts: Counting votes

    The state’s Republican attorney general and secretary of state argued that investigating and potentially removing 2,000 names from the list would prevent illegal voting by noncitizens. GOP officials across the U.S. have made possible voting by noncitizen immigrants a key election-year talking point even though it is rare. Their focus has come with former President Donald Trump falsely suggesting that his opponents already are committing fraud to prevent his return to the White House.

    In his ruling Sunday, Locher pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court decision four days prior that allowed Virginia to resume a similar purge of its voter registration rolls even though it was impacting some U.S. citizens. He also cited the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to review a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on state electoral laws surrounding provisional ballots. Those Supreme Court decisions advise lower courts to “act with great caution before awarding last-minute injunctive relief,” he wrote.

    Locher also said the state’s effort does not remove anyone from the voter rolls, but rather requires some voters to use provisional ballots.

    In a statement on Sunday, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, celebrated the ruling.

    “Today’s ruling is a victory for election integrity,” Reynolds said. “In Iowa, while we encourage all citizens to vote, we will enforce the law and ensure those votes aren’t cancelled out by the illegal vote of a non-citizen.”

    Rita Bettis Austen, legal director for the ACLU of Iowa, said some voters could be disenfranchised due to the ruling and Secretary of State Paul Pate’s directive.

    “We are obviously disappointed with the court’s decision not to outright block Secretary Pate’s directive, which we still fear threatens to disenfranchise eligible voters simply because they are people who became citizens in the past several years,” Austen said in a written statement. “Even the Secretary agrees that the vast majority of voters on his list are United States citizens.”

    Even still, Austen said the lawsuit forced Pate to back away from forcing everyone on the list to vote provisionally only. County auditors may permit a voter on the list to cast a regular ballot if they deem it appropriate, and voters can prove they are citizens with documentation, she added.

    After Locher had a hearing in the ACLU’s lawsuit Friday, Pate and state Attorney General Brenna Bird issued a statement saying that Iowa had about 250 noncitizens registered to vote, but the Biden administration wouldn’t provide data about them.

    Pate told reporters last month that his office was forced to rely upon a list of potential noncitizens from the Iowa Department of Transportation. It named people who registered to vote or voted after identifying themselves as noncitizens living in the U.S. legally when they previously sought driver’s licenses.

    “Today’s court victory is a guarantee for all Iowans that their votes will count and not be canceled out by illegal votes,” Bird said in the statement issued after Sunday’s decision.

    But ACLU attorneys said Iowa officials were conceding that most of the people on the list are eligible to vote and shouldn’t have been included. They said the state was violating naturalized citizens’ voting rights by wrongfully challenging their registrations and investigating them if they cast ballots.

    Pate issued his directive Oct. 22, only two weeks before the Nov. 5 election, and ACLU attorneys argued that federal law prohibits such a move so close to Election Day.

    The people on the state’s list of potential noncitizens may have become naturalized citizens after their statements to the Department of Transportation. Pate’s office told county elections officials to challenge their ballots and have them cast provisional ballots instead. That would leave the decision of whether they will be counted to local officials upon further review, with voters having seven days to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship.

    In his ruling, Locher wrote that Pate backed away from some of his original hardline positions at an earlier court hearing. Pate’s attorney said the Secretary of State is no longer aiming to require local election officials to challenge the votes of each person on his list or force voters on the list to file provisional ballots even when they have proven citizenship at a polling place.

    Federal law and states already make it illegal for noncitizens to vote, and the first question on Iowa’s voter registration form asks whether a person is a U.S. citizen. The form also requires potential voters to sign a statement saying they are citizens, warning them that if they lie, they can be convicted of a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

    Locher’s ruling also came after a federal judge had halted a similar program in Alabama challenged by civil rights groups and the U.S. Department of Justice. Testimony from state officials in that case showed that roughly 2,000 of the more than 3,200 voters who were made inactive were actually legally registered citizens.

    In Iowa’s case, noncitizens who are registered are potentially only a tiny fraction of the state’s 2.2 million registered voters.

    But Locher wrote that it appears to be undisputed that some portion of the names on Pate’s list are registered voters who are not U.S. citizens. Even if that portion is small, an injunction effectively would force local election officials to let ineligible voters cast ballots, he added.

    Democrats and Republicans have been engaged in a sprawling legal fight over this year’s election for months. Republicans have filed dozens of lawsuits challenging various aspects of vote-casting after being chastised repeatedly by judges in 2020 for bringing complaints about how the election was run only after votes were tallied. Democrats have their own team of dozens of staffers fighting GOP cases.

    Immigrants gain citizenship through a process called naturalization, which includes establishing residency, proving knowledge of basic American history and institutions as well as taking an oath of allegiance to the United States.

    —-

    Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas, and Goldberg, from Minneapolis.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arizona Republicans Could Pursue A Legal Battle Over A Handful Of Phoenix-Area Ballots, Lawyer Says

    Arizona Republicans Could Pursue A Legal Battle Over A Handful Of Phoenix-Area Ballots, Lawyer Says

    [ad_1]

    With key races in Arizona still undecided, there’s a dramatic legal conflict brewing over a small number of ballots that could end up playing a significant role in deciding some of the state’s (and the country’s) most important elections, including for the U.S. Senate, governor and secretary of state.

    The dispute arose Tuesday as dozens of voting centers across Maricopa County — home to Phoenix and the majority of Arizona’s population — experienced printing errors: The ink was not dark enough on some ballots, resulting in voting tabulators failing to properly read the ink and spitting out the ballots without counting them.

    Voters who ran into printing trouble had options. They could drop their uncounted ballots in a secure box attached to the tabulators, to be collected and counted at a central processing facility later; some 17,000 ballots were dropped in these boxes, known as “Box 3,” according to the county. Or they could “check out” of their polling place, leave, and try another polling place where the tabulators might have better luck reading the splotchy ballots. But Arizona Republicans have spent years spreading lies about election fraud in Maricopa County, and particularly about the dangers of using drop boxes, which led some voters to try their luck at another polling place. In Arizona, voters aren’t assigned a single voting site and have multiple options within their county.

    Here’s the rub: In an unsuccessful lawsuit Tuesday evening seeking to extend voting for three hours, the national Republican Party and several candidates claimed that some poll workers failed to properly “check out” voters who opted to try a different polling place. As a result, when they arrived at the second polling place, the suit alleged, “these individuals remained inaccurately recorded in e-pollbooks as having already voted, and were either (a) required to vote using provisional ballots that will not be counted or (b) denied an opportunity to cast either a regular or provisional ballot.”

    There were 7,000 provisional ballots total in Maricopa County — fewer than were issued in 2020, VoteBeat’s Jen Fifield noted. But Republicans could pursue legal action if the margin in an important race is smaller than that, arguing that the number of voters affected by the alleged “check out” issue could potentially change the election results, one Republican attorney said.

    “We’re working with the county to determine how many votes are in this bucket, and if it has a potential effect on the outcome of the election, we’ll go back to court and make sure that those voters are treated fairly,” Kory Langhofer, an attorney for Republican Blake Masters’ Senate campaign, told HuffPost.

    “If it has a potential effect on the outcome of the election, we’ll go back to court and make sure that those voters are treated fairly.”

    – Kory Langhofer, attorney for Republican Blake Masters’ Senate campaign

    There are still hundreds of thousands of votes left to be counted in Maricopa County — so the dispute over provisional ballots could end up a moot point. The court docket now shows a status conference for next Wednesday, as Capitol Media Services first reported. Langhofer said the hearing would concern whether and how to proceed with a legal challenge — namely, “whether to request a ruling on the provisional ballots at issue due to the failure to ‘check out’ voters.”

    It’s also not clear how many ballots out of 7,000 provisionals could be related to the printing error and subsequent confusion over “checking out.” That’s part of the problem.

    “Balancing the numbers in the vote centers where voters checked in, but left without casting a ballot nor getting ‘checked out’ will be difficult to reconcile,” said Tammy Patrick, senior adviser for elections at Democracy Fund and a former election official in Maricopa County. “There isn’t a process in place that allows for a voter whose record is flagged as having voted to dispute that and have their provisional count.”

    During Tuesday’s hearing over the GOP’s effort to extend voting hours, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Tim Ryan rejected the GOP’s request, saying, “The court doesn’t have any evidence that any voter was precluded from their right to vote.”

    Thomas P. Liddy, chief of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office’s civil division, similarly told HuffPost in an email, “We have no evidence that any voter who check-in to a vote center, chose not to vote and left the vote center without checking out.”

    Liddy said such a situation was possible but unlikely.

    “All of the poll workers were very well trained,” he said. “They know how to ‘check-out’ voters who Check-in, but then decide not to vote. It is part of the training class and it is in the training manual kept in the polling place.”

    But Langhofer pointed to signed declarations from voters that he said showed otherwise.

    “The inspector was confused and did not understand what I meant by ‘check out’ or ‘check in,’” said one voter cited in Republicans’ suit. Another claimed they saw voters ask to have their ballots spoiled so they could vote elsewhere, but that those individuals “were not instructed to ‘check out.’” Two voters, Nancy and Bill Mason, claimed they weren’t instructed to “check out” of their initial polling place after running into printer problems, and that they were unable to cast a ballot at a second location. Ultimately, they claimed they were only able to vote using provisional ballots.

    “These people need to go to jail for what they did,” Bill Mason told HuffPost, noting he’d been escorted by police from the first polling place “because I wouldn’t leave, and I kept saying, ‘The election is rigged, that’s how you’re rigging it!’”

    “I wouldn’t leave, and I kept saying, ‘The election is rigged, that’s how you’re rigging it!’”

    – Bill Mason, Maricopa County resident who voted on a provisional ballot

    There’s a clear irony in the situation: Had these voters trusted Maricopa County to truthfully tally their ballots, they may have simply opted to drop their ballots into “Box 3” to be counted by human beings at a central location. But voters primed by Republican disinformation didn’t trust that process.

    “I don’t trust it to go in the box, the box may never make it down there!” one woman can be heard saying in an early viral video taken at a voting site with printer errors. “That happens all the time.”

    Langhofer — who represented the GOP-controlled Arizona Senate during the bunk “audit” of Maricopa County’s 2020 election results, and represented the Trump campaign in Arizona before that — defended voters who might not trust the county’s human ballot-counters.

    “Certain voters have heard about all of the concerns in election administration, and want to watch their ballot go into the tabulator,” he said.

    Liddy, the Maricopa County attorney, pointed out that every voter had an opportunity to drop their ballots in “Box 3” if they were having tabulator issues. What’s more, he said, there are provisional ballots cast in every election.

    “Was the voter provided a ‘reasonable opportunity to vote’ — that is the legal standard. The answer is YES,” he said. “Moreover, every affidavit provided by the RNC is signed by a person who voted.”

    Mason, for his part, said he wanted to see his ballot tabulated “right then and there,” citing concerns about Maricopa County rigging elections. He pointed to MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who for years has spread lies about election rigging, to explain why he didn’t want to drop his ballot in a secure box at his first polling place to be counted later at a central tabulating location.

    “When it gets dropped in the box, that’s how they fix the election,” he said. “We don’t know where those ballots go or who’s counting them.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link