Latest news with #electionlaw
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Wyoming's League of Women Voters supports lawsuit against Gray on voting laws
CHEYENNE — Since Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray asked a federal court to toss a lawsuit filed against him, the League of Women Voters of Wyoming has come out in support of the lawsuit, arguing Gray's support of new state voting laws defies the U.S. Constitution's protection of a fundamental right to vote. The lawsuit, filed by the Equality State Policy Center in the U.S. District Court for Wyoming in May, calls for a halt of the imposition of House Bill 156, which Gov. Mark Gordon let go into law without his signature earlier this year after approval from the Wyoming Legislature. The bill, which became law July 1 and was Gray's top priority in the 2025 legislative session, requires Wyoming voters to be state residents for at least 30 days before casting their ballots, and present proof of residency and citizenship when registering to vote. ESPC argues HB 156 causes an undue burden on the right to vote — particularly for women, as well as Hispanic, young and low-income voters — and is unconstitutionally vague as written. The lawsuit names Gray and each of Wyoming's 23 county clerks as defendants in the case, and argues HB 156 violates the First, Fifth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The League of Women Voters (LWV) filed an amicus brief in the case Monday. Though not joining the case, this action shows support for ESPC's lawsuit against Gray and Wyoming's county clerks. 'HB 156 will only create more bureaucracy that prevents Wyoming citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote,' said Linda Barton, president of the League of Women Voters of Wyoming, in a news release. 'For decades, Wyoming's elections have been secure and without fraud without this law. The League is proud to speak out against this unnecessary and discriminatory law that will harm Wyoming residents and voters.' Since 2000, there have been four convictions of voter fraud in Wyoming, according to The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. All four cases involved U.S. citizens. Last week, the Laramie County Sheriff's Office announced it had been alerted by the Laramie County Clerk's Office of 24 cases of potential voting violations in last year's election. After an investigation, two individuals, both of Cheyenne and both ineligible to vote due to prior felony convictions, were charged with False Voting under Wyoming Statute 22-26-106(a)(i). None of the individuals flagged for potential voting violations related to immigration were found to have voted illegally. Shortly after ESPC filed its complaint against Gray and the county clerks, the group's attorneys sought a preliminary injunction, essentially requesting the law not go into effect until legal judgment has been passed. Gray then asked the court to both allow HB 156 to go into law and dismiss the complaint entirely. No timeline has been announced as to when the court may issue a ruling on either the injunction or Gray's motion to dismiss. In LWV's amicus brief, its legal representation, Campaign Legal Center and Robinson Bramlet LLC, criticize Gray's opposition and argue the court should judge the case using the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, which is a framework typically used to analyze voting laws to determine whether a voting restriction violates the First and 14th Amendment. In the U.S. Supreme Court's Anderson-Burdick framework, federal courts are required to weigh 'the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected in the First and 14th Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate' against 'the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,' taking into consideration 'the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights.' LWV argues that Gray is improperly attempting to narrow this balancing test, saying Gray cannot seriously contend that HB 156 imposes no additional burden on the right to vote. 'The careful balancing and scrutiny required under Anderson-Burdick for state laws restricting the right to vote is nowhere to be found in Secretary Gray's opposition to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Instead, the Secretary claims that, in the absence of a severe burden, this Court should apply something 'similar or identical to rational-basis scrutiny,'' the amicus document reads. Gray argued in his response to the motion for preliminary injunction from ESPC that the plaintiff could not provide sufficient evidence of how this will harm the voting rights of Wyomingites. 'Despite Plaintiff's claims of widespread harm, it has only identified one member organization that claims harm to its members,' Gray's attorneys wrote in a response to the motion for a preliminary injunction, alluding to an affidavit submitted by Linda Hawkins, one of several affidavits submitted as part of this lawsuit. Hawkins is the executive director of the Wyoming Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. In her affidavit, she argued that HB 156 could impede or prevent survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault from being able to register to vote. Other organizations that submitted affidavits include Needs Inc. and the COMEA House and Resource Center homeless shelter, both in Cheyenne. LWV's amicus brief concludes by requesting the court grant the motion for a preliminary injunction. 'This documentary proof of citizenship law — HB 156 — is yet another example of a state creating a solution in search of a problem,' said Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice at the League of Women Voters of the U.S., in a news release. 'The League is proud to be fighting unlawful documentary proof of citizenship laws in courts across the country. State legislatures must learn that unfounded allegations of non-citizen voting do not justify laws that create discriminatory and financially burdensome restrictions on voter registration for eligible voters.'
Washington Post
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will take up a Republican-led drive, backed by President Donald Trump's administration, to wipe away limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president. The justices said Monday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old, ignoring pleas from Democrats to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court itself upheld it in 2001.
Associated Press
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Tribes move to join lawsuit challenging Montana election laws
A group of tribes in Montana alleges a new election law will disenfranchise Native voters and has moved to join a lawsuit challenging it. On Tuesday, the ACLU of Montana, American Civil Liberties Union nationally and Native American Rights Fund filed a motion to intervene in an existing case on behalf of a group of tribal plaintiffs, including the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Fort Belknap Indian Community and Western Native Voice. In their complaint, the group of tribal plaintiffs argues the changes to Election Day voter registration outlined in Senate Bill 490 disproportionately harm Native Americans in rural and tribal communities who already face significant barriers to voting. Sponsored by Sen. Mike Cuffe, R-Eureka, SB 490 changes the deadline for registering to vote or changing voter information. Where previously anyone in line by 8 p.m. on Election Day could register to vote and then cast a ballot, the new law, signed by Gov. Greg Gianforte on May 5, closes voter registration at noon on Election Day (generally Tuesdays) and ends the ability to register on the Monday before an election. State lawmakers who supported the legislation argued it would curb long lines and benefit election workers; opponents said it was unconstitutional. '(SB 490) disproportionately burdens Native voters compared to non-Native voters due to inequities in mail delivery service, internet access, access to post offices and post office boxes, and increased burdens on Native voters due to disproportionate rates of poverty and lack of vehicle access,' tribal plaintiffs allege in their complaint. Northern Cheyenne Tribal President Gene Small called SB 490 'anti-democratic.' 'When you live miles and miles from the nearest polling place, and the roads are snowed in all morning, taking away eight hours of Election Day registration creates real life problems for everyday voters,' he said in a statement. The lawsuit, originally filed in May by the Montana Federation of Public Employees, also challenges Senate Bill 276, also brought by Cuffe, which revises voter identification laws. The law requires a voter's ID to be 'current, valid and readable' and eliminates the ability for a voter who cannot provide an ID to provide other forms of identification to vote. Those forms could include a bank statement or utility bill. While tribal plaintiffs did not address SB 276 in their complaint, the Montana Federation of Public Employees, the state's largest union, called SB 276 and SB 490 'plainly unconstitutional,' saying they infringe on Montanans' right to vote. The organization specifically alleged that SB 490 would cause confusion among voters and election workers, and that SB 276 'arbitrarily heightens the requirements for acceptable voter IDs' while eliminating 'an important safety net for those who are unable to meet them.' The Montana Federation of Public Employees filed the lawsuit in the Montana First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County on May 12, just seven days after Gianforte signed the bills into law. Tribes in Montana have for years successfully challenged election laws they say will harm Native voters. In 2018, Montana voters approved a ballot measure, the Ballot Interference Prevention Act, which placed restrictions on ballot collection. Montana tribes and Native voting organizations in 2020 filed a lawsuit challenging the measure. Months later, a district court struck down the law. In 2021, the state Legislature passed House Bill 176, which required voters to register no later than noon on the day before the election, and House Bill 530, prohibiting some people from distributing or collecting mail-in ballots from voters. The ACLU of Montana and Native American Rights Fund filed a lawsuit on behalf of several tribes and Native organizations, alleging the laws disenfranchised Native voters. And in March 2024, the Montana Supreme Court ruled the laws violated the state's constitution. 'It's racism to try and enact the same laws over again,' Fort Belknap Indian Community President Jeffrey Stiffarm said in a statement. 'We will not let the state drag us backwards or silence our people.' ___ This story was originally published by Montana Free Press and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
New York Times
13-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Judge Blocks Trump Voting Order Requiring Proof of Citizenship
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. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
NHK
09-06-2025
- Politics
- NHK
S.Korean court postpones President Lee's trial, citing constitutional immunity
A high court in South Korea has said it will postpone the retrial of President Lee Jae-myung on charges of violating election law. Local media have reported that it is very unlikely the retrial will go ahead while Lee remains in power. South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May, before Lee's victory, that he had violated election law by making false statements during his failed 2022 presidential bid. It sent the case back to the Seoul High Court after overturning an earlier ruling clearing him. The high court announced on Monday it will indefinitely postpone the first hearing, which was scheduled for June 18. The court said the move was based on the Constitution, which basically exempts sitting presidents from criminal prosecution. Legal experts are divided over whether a sitting president's immunity extends to trials already underway. Neither the Constitution nor the law address the matter. But South Korean media have reported the high court appears to have decided to shield Lee from standing trial during his term. Lee is facing other criminal trials that some say put him at judicial risk. The ruling Democratic Party is reportedly pushing for legal revisions that halt trials while Lee is in office.
