Election Interference Legislation: A Threat to Fair Elections in 2021, Cheat Sheet of Law

Download Election Interference Legislation: A Threat to Fair Elections in 2021 and more Cheat Sheet Law in PDF only on Docsity! Voting Laws Roundup: May 2022 (Source: The Brennan Center, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2022) This year, state lawmakers, who spent 2021 passing laws that made it harder to vote, have focused more intently on election interference, passing nine laws that could lead to tampering with how elections are run and how results are determined. Election interference laws do two primary things. They open the door to partisan interference in elections, or they threaten the people and processes that make elections work. In many cases, these efforts are being justified as measures to combat baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and a stolen 2020 election.  Between January 1 and May 4, six state legislatures — Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma — have passed nine election interference laws. As of May 4, at least 17 such bills introduced this year are still moving through five state legislatures. Moving bills are those that have passed at least one chamber of the state legislature or have had some sort of committee action (e.g., a hearing since the beginning of 2022, an amendment, or a committee vote). In total, lawmakers in 27 states have proposed at least 148 election interference bills.  In many of the same state legislatures, lawmakers have continued to introduce or enact laws that restrict access to the vote. Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or vote as compared to existing state law. In addition to two such laws enacted in Arizona and Mississippi, a restrictive ballot initiative in Arizona passed both houses and will be placed on the ballot for voters in the November general election. As of May 4, at least 34 bills with restrictive provisions are moving through 11 state legislatures. Overall, lawmakers in 39 states have considered at least 393 restrictive bills for the 2022 legislative session. Since the beginning of 2021, 18 states have passed 34 restrictive voting laws, which can disproportionately affect voters of color. At the same time, Arizona, Connecticut, New York, and Oregon enacted five laws that expand access to the vote. Legislation is categorized as expansive if it would make it easier for eligible Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or vote as compared to existing state law. As of May 4, at least 48 bills with expansive provisions are moving through 16 state legislatures and the DC City Council. Overall, lawmakers in 44 states and Washington, DC, have considered at least 596 expansive bills for the 2022 legislative session. Almost half of the state legislatures meeting in 2022 have now ended their legislative sessions. Legislatures are in the second year of their two-year sessions, when they generally tend to pass fewer laws than in the first year. This year follows that trend. Election Interference Legislation Between January 1 and May 4, six states (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma) have enacted nine election interference laws. As of May 4, at least 17 election interference bills are moving through five state legislatures. Overall, lawmakers in 27 states have introduced at least 148 election interference bills in the 2022 legislative session. This legislation is fueled by election denialism and falsehoods about voter fraud. The passage of election interference legislation is part of an alarming trend that emerged in state legislatures in 2021 and represents a direct legislative attack on fair election administration. Enacted Election Interference Legislation The nine enacted election interference laws permit partisan actors to interfere with elections operations or overturn election results, direct new resources toward prosecuting election crimes, and threaten election officials with criminal penalties. Seven of these laws will be in place for the 2022 midterm elections. ● Three laws in Georgia create a risk of partisan interference with elections and election results. Two of CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT 11 www.classroomlaw.org the bills, GA H.B. 1368 and GA H.B. 1015, replace current election superintendents and create new county boards of elections in Miller and Montgomery counties. The members of the boards will be appointed by partisan county commissioners. A similar bill, GA H.B. 1432, changes the makeup of the Dawson County Board of Elections so that one party can effectively control a majority of the five seats. This legislation is part of a particular trend where the Georgia Legislature has given county partisan commissioners more control over election administration. Similar Georgia laws from 2021 led to the ouster of several Black election officials. ● Two laws in Georgia and Florida create new entities dedicated to pursuing election crimes. Florida’s, FL S.B. 524, creates a new election crimes office within the Florida Department of State, tasked with investigating and referring for prosecution violations of election law. The law also requires the governor to appoint dedicated special officers to receive and investigate election law complaints in each law enforcement region across the state. Similarly, GA S.B. 441 grants the Georgia Bureau of Investigation authority to investigate election crimes and refer any violations for prosecution. Both pieces of legislation expand existing authority and direct more resources toward investigating and prosecuting election crimes, risking the intimidation or harassment of voters and election officials. This legislation is fueled by the false pretense of voter fraud, which itself rarely occurs but continues tobe used as a baseless justification for additional state investigative and prosecutorial resources. ● Four laws in four states create new criminal penalties for election officials. In Alabama, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, three new laws make it a criminal offense to solicit, accept, or use private funding for election-related expenses. In 2020, election officials’ acceptance and use of private funding enabled them to run safe and secure elections. Criminalizing that action prevents election officials from accessing funding beneficial for election administration and puts them at risk for prosecution for otherwise ordinary conduct. And in Arizona, a new law establishes a felony offense for an election official who fails to comport with new restrictive citizenship verification requirements and inadvertently accepts a noncitizen’s voter registration. Imposing criminal penalties on ordinary election administration conduct or inadvertent mistakes could deter individuals from serving as election officials. At a time when election officials are already fearful for their safety, the prospect of new criminal penalties adds another deterrent to staffing elections. Election Interference Bills That Are Moving Bills initiating biased election reviews Five bills moving in three states (Arizona, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island) would initiate biased, suspect reviews of elections and election results. These reviews would lack transparency and fail to satisfy basic security, accuracy, and reliability measures. They are also part of a movement in state legislatures to undermine faith in the electoral process. ● Four of the bills moving in two states (Arizona and Rhode Island) would require or authorize suspect audit processes for future elections. This legislation uniformly lacks basic security, accuracy, and reliability measures for these suspect reviews, bestowing inordinate discretion on individuals, imposing no transparency requirements, or failing to mandate clear guidelines for how results are reviewed. For example, in Arizona, AZ S.B. 1259 would give the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the legislative council, as well as any Arizona resident, the broad power to demand a recount of an election or of specific precincts, voting centers, or election districts, despite the vote margin not meeting the recount threshold. ● Three of the bills moving in Arizona would allow for citizens either to initiate flawed review processes or conduct their own reviews of voted ballots. These bills fail to satisfy security and reliability measures and would open the door to attempts by outside groups to delegitimize the election process. For example, AZ S.B. 1629 would require digital images of all voted ballots in federal elections to be made publicly available within 48 hours of an election district’s canvass results being published. This would allow outside groups to publish their own misleading audits of any election and would also risk exposing voters’ personal information. Bills that expand prosecutorial authority related to elections Three bills moving in two states (Arizona and Oklahoma) would expand law enforcement’s power over election-related matters or would direct additional resources toward investigating or prosecuting alleged election-related crimes. Given that actual voter fraud is vanishingly rare, these new powers could easily be misused to harass or intimidate voters and election officials for partisan gain, threatening fair elections. For example, AZ S.B. 1475 would grant the attorney general new election-related investigative powers. Bills that impose new criminal or civil penalties on election officials Five bills moving in three states (Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire) would impose new criminal or civil penalties on election officials for actions to expand CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT 12 www.classroomlaw.org number to register to vote online. Additionally, voter registration organizations approved by the secretary of state may now electronically submit voter registration cards on behalf of voters. Arizona H.B. 2119 and the Connecticut and New York laws will be in effect for the 2022 midterm elections, while AZ S.B. 1638 will be effective on December 31, 2022; the Oregon Secretary of State has until 2026 to implement the enacted law. Expansive Bills That Are Moving Access to mail voting. Over a third of the expansive bills moving through state legislatures (19 bills in nine states and Washington, DC) are focused on expanding mail voting. The bills would expand the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, create or extend no-excuse absentee voting, require election officials to send applications to all eligible voters, require prepaid postage on mail ballot return envelopes, and allow voters to request to automatically receive absentee ballots for all elections. Easier voter registration. Fifteen bills moving in 10 states would create more opportunities for individuals to register to vote, including bills that would implement same-day or Election Day registration, expand automatic voter registration, and allow individuals to register to vote online. Expanding voting access for voters with disabilities. Eleven bills in six states and the District of Columbia would make voting more accessible for voters with disabilities, including bills that would expand access to absentee ballots for voters with certain disabilities and a bill that would allow a voter with a disability to mark a mail ballot instead of signing it. Voting rights restoration. Three bills or resolutions in three states (Iowa, Massachusetts, Rhode Island) would extend the voting rights or ballot access of individuals with past felony convictions, including automatic restoration of the right to vote and requiring voter registration efforts inside correctional facilities. CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT 15 www.classroomlaw.org NAME DATE Voting Rights Roundup – Analysis As you review the May 2022 Voting Rights Roundup summary, track the different proposals mentioned in the article. Issue/Proposal State(s) Proposed Brief Description Expansionist (E) or Restrictionist (R)? CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT 16 www.classroomlaw.org