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.
footnote1_dyrqdee 1 As of December 2021, the Brennan Center reported that 19 states passed 34 restrictive laws in 2021. After obtaining additional information about the way in which NV
S.B. 84 and LA H.B. 167 will operate in Nevada and Louisiana, respectively, we have removed the two laws from the list of restrictive laws passed in 2021: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021. 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. footnote2_zmjqe88 2 Regular legislative sessions in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming concluded by May 4, 2022. Additional states may have concluded their regular legislative session between May 4 and the publication of this report. Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas do not hold regular sessions in even-numbered years. 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. Between January 1 and May 4, six states (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma) have enacted nine election interference laws. footnote3_b9ogqt1
3 AL H.B. 194, AZ H.B. 2492, FL S.B. 524, GA H.B. 1015, GA H.B. 1368, GA H.B. 1432, GA S.B. 441, KY H.B. 301, OK H.B. 3046. In addition to these enacted laws, SC S.B. 108 was signed into law in South Carolina on May 13, after the cut-off date for this report. In addition to containing a mix of expansive and restrictive voting provisions, this law also
creates a new mechanism for the state legislature to seek the removal of any member of the State Election Commission or the Commission’s executive director. This provision could allow for more partisan interference with election administration in the state. As of May 4, at least 17 election interference bills are moving through five state legislatures.
footnote4_kjl85a9 4 AZ H.B. 2237, AZ H.B. 2289, AZ H.B. 2378, AZ H.B. 2379, AZ H.B. 2780, AZ S.B. 1259, AZ S.B. 1285, AZ S.B. 1357, AZ S.B. 1475, AZ S.B. 1574, AZ S.B. 1629, KS S.B. 418,
NH H.B. 1473, NH H.B. 1567, OK H.B. 3677, OK S.B. 1637, RI H.B. 7214. Overall, lawmakers in 27 states have introduced at least 148 election interference bills in the 2022 legislative session. footnote5_a2793he
5 Election interference bills have been proposed in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin. 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. 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.
footnote6_ldz0xbw 6 GA H.B. 1015, a bill that restructures a county election board that is discussed further below, takes effect in 2023. AZ H.B. 2492 was written to take effect in June
2022, but legislation has been enacted pushing its effective date to December 2022. Five bills moving in three states (Arizona, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island) would initiate biased, suspect reviews of elections and election results. footnote9_dz0lhbh
9 AZ H.B. 2780, AZ S.B. 1259, AZ S.B. 1629, NH H.B. 1473, RI H.B. 7214. 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. 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. footnote12_zjdh3lo
12 AZ S.B. 1475, AZ S.B. 1629, OK S.B. 1637. 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. 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 voter access or for minor mistakes during their ordinary course of conduct, adding the risk of prosecution to already burdened election officials and contributing to pressures that are pushing election officials to leave the profession.
footnote13_l2qfz29 13 AZ H.B. 2337, AZ S.B. 1574, AZ S.B. 1629, NH H.B. 1567, OK H.B. 3677. For example, AZ S.B. 1574 would make it a misdemeanor for any county
recorder to fail to comply with an unclear and complicated recordkeeping requirement about “irregularities” on Election Day, and OK H.B. 3677 would make it a felony to obstruct the view or restrict the free movement of a poll watcher, which could empower more aggressive poll watcher interference at polling places. Five bills moving in two states (Arizona and Kansas) would transfer authority over specific aspects of election administration
to different actors in ways that could open the door to political interference. footnote14_tu5aff2 14 AZ H.B. 2289, AZ H.B. 2378, AZ S.B. 1285, AZ S.B. 2379, KS S.B. 418.
For example, AZ S.B. 2379 would allow the legislature to appoint its own field personnel to review electronic voting systems on Election Day and recommend changes to voting procedures. These field personnel would be duplicating existing statutorily mandated efforts by the secretary of state and would not be subject to any clear transparency or security requirements. Between January 1 and May 4, Arizona and Mississippi enacted
two laws that restrict access to the vote. footnote15_1fhzupo 15 AZ H.B. 2492, MS H.B. 1510. Missouri, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma each have a restrictive
bill that passed both chambers and was ready for the governor’s signature or veto as of May 4. footnote16_4c1gm84 16 MO H.B. 1878, NH S.B. 418, OK H.B. 3365. For the purposes of
the counts in this report, these three bills are all considered “moving.” Additionally, the Michigan Legislature passed two bills with restrictive provisions, but the governor vetoed both. In Wisconsin, state lawmakers passed three bills with restrictive provisions that the governor also vetoed.
footnote17_0adbeol 17 MI H.B. 4127, MI H.B. 4128, WI S.B. 938, WI S.B. 939, WI S.B. 945. Although legislatures have been slow to pass restrictive legislation, at
least 34 bills with restrictive provisions are still moving through 11 state legislatures. footnote18_mr5kofp 18 Restrictive bills are moving in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Overall, lawmakers in 39 states have considered at least 393 restrictive bills for the 2022 legislative session. footnote19_cxudygz
19 Restrictive bills were proposed for or carried over into the 2022 legislative session in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Enacted Restrictive LegislationArizona and Mississippi have enacted restrictive documentary proof of citizenship laws for voter registration. The Mississippi law will be effective for the 2022 midterm elections; the Arizona law will go into effect at the end of 2022. The laws were enacted despite the U.S. Election Assistance Commission determining that documentary proof of citizenship requirements are not necessary to determine a voter’s eligibility and despite a federal court striking down similar requirements last year. Documentary proof of citizenship laws may disproportionately impact Black and Latino voters and elderly, low-income, and rural voters. The Arizona law, already subject to legal challenges, will expand the state’s proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration. footnote20_89oa3sx 20 AZ H.B. 2492. Under current state law, if an individual registers to vote in Arizona without showing proof of citizenship, they are entitled to vote only in federal elections. The new law requires election officials to verify applicants’ citizenship status through existing databases, and if they are unable to do so, to require applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship. Voters unable to provide documentary proof of citizenship will be prohibited from voting in presidential elections and from voting by mail in all federal elections, in addition to already being barred from voting in state and local elections. The law defies the Supreme Court’s holding in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. that individuals registering to vote using the federal voter registration application need not provide documentary proof of citizenship. footnote21_y8mzb1y 21 570 U.S. 1, 20 (2013). Additionally, because this new law may retroactively require documentary proof of citizenship from currently registered voters, it has been estimated that as many as 200,000 voters — some of whom have been registered voters for decades — could be at risk of having their registrations canceled. The new law also includes provisions requiring the state attorney general to investigate and potentially prosecute certain applicants who are unable to provide documentary proof of citizenship. Mississippi’s law imposes a new documentary proof of citizenship requirement in the state. footnote22_2ydeusk 22 MS H.B. 1510. Its restrictive impact will likely be more modest than Arizona’s law above because voter registration applicants may only be asked for documentary proof of citizenship after election officials have cross-checked two government databases. Voter registration applicants’ citizenship status will be checked against the state’s Department of Public Safety database and, if necessary, against a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) database. If an applicant is flagged as a noncitizen, they must provide documentary proof of citizenship within 30 days. But citizenship data in state public safety databases as well as the USCIS database have been found unreliable, and this law could result in unlawful and inaccurate voter purges. In addition to these enacted laws, a restrictive voting ballot initiative in Arizona passed both houses and will be placed on the ballot for voters in the November general election. footnote23_g953gsf 23 AZ S.C.R. 1012. If successful, the ballot initiative would require mail voters to provide a state license, Social Security, or unique voter identification number when returning their ballots. A similar law enacted in Texas last year led to significant mail ballot rejections during Texas’s primary election earlier this year. Additionally, the ballot initiative would limit the types of ID that a voter can present when voting in person by eliminating the use of non-photographic identification alternatives. The resolution would empower any voter in the state to sue election officials to compel enforcement with the new ID provisions, potentially drowning election officials in lawsuits and diverting resources from election operations. Restrictive Bills That Are MovingAs of May 4, at least 34 bills with restrictive provisions are moving in 11 states. The moving restrictive bills focus on restrictions to mail voting, new voter ID requirements, and voter registration, among other barriers to voting. Restricting access to mail voting. Of the restrictive bills that are moving, almost three-fourths (25 bills in 10 states) would curtail access to mail voting. footnote24_4mkzwcn 24 AZ H.B. 2238, AZ H.B. 2289, AZ H.B. 2786, AZ H.C.R. 2025, IA H.R. 2526, IA S.F. 2343, KS H.B. 2056, MA S. 2554, MI H.B. 5268, MI H.B. 5288, MI S.B. 273, MI S.B. 285, MI S.B. 308, MO H.B. 1878, NH H.B. 1153, NY A.B. 4569, NY A.B. 9125, PA H.B. 1800, PA H.J.R. 1596, PA S.B. 322, PA S.B. 1200, PA S.J.R. 735, RI H.B. 7830, RI S.B. 2354, RI S.B. 2530. Eight bills in five states would either impose a new or stricter ID requirement for mail voting, such as providing a driver’s license number or partial Social Security number to apply for or return mail ballots. footnote25_yyry79d 25 AZ H.C.R. 2025, IA H.F. 2526, IA S.F. 2343, MI S.B. 285, NY A.B. 9125, PA H.B. 1800, PA H.J.R. 1596, PA S.J.R. 735. Another six bills in five states would limit voters’ access to mail ballot drop boxes or prohibit the use of mail ballot drop boxes altogether. footnote26_o03du8e 26 AZ H.B. 2238, KS H.B. 2056, MI S.B. 273, PA H.B. 1800, PA S.B. 1200, RI H.B. 7830. Other restrictions on mail voting in motion include legislation that would shorten the deadline to apply for a mail ballot or return a mail ballot; repeal no-excuse mail voting; and prohibit anyone, including an election official, from sending out unsolicited mail ballots. footnote27_lgsd2a7 27 AZ H.B. 2289, KS H.B. 2056, MA S. 2554, MI H.B. 5268, NH H.B. 1153, NY A.B. 4569, PA H.B. 1800, RI S.B. 2354. Imposing new or stricter voter ID requirements. Nine bills moving in five states (Arizona, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania) would implement new or stricter voter ID requirements for in-person voting. footnote28_6jyekul 28 AZ H.B. 2289, AZ H.C.R. 2025, MO H.B. 1878, NH H.B. 1542, NH S.B. 418, NY A.B. 9125, PA H.J.R. 1596, PA S.J.R. 106, PA S.J.R. 735. For example, a New Hampshire bill would eliminate a decades-old policy of providing Election Day registration to all voters by requiring voters registering on Election Day to vote by provisional ballot if they do not have an approved ID. footnote29_gd4ia21 29 NH S.B. 418. Making voter registration more difficult. Five bills moving in five states would make voter registration more difficult, including shortening the deadline to register to vote, imposing new residency requirements that could impede students’ ability to vote, and prohibiting compensation for anyone who solicits a voter registration application, which could impose a significant burden on voter registration drives. footnote30_ie7wlud 30 MO H.B. 1878, NH C.A.C.R. 36, NY S.B. 4447, PA H.B. 1800, RI H.B. 7830. Expansive LegislationBetween January 1 and May 4, Arizona, Connecticut, New York, and Oregon have enacted five laws that expand access to the vote. footnote31_hju9dka 31 AZ H.B. 2119, AZ S.B. 1638, NY S.B. 7565, CT H.B. 5262, OR H.B. 4133. Maryland and Oklahoma also have three expansive bills that passed both chambers and were ready for the governor’s signature or veto as of May 4. footnote32_s402zku 32 MD H.B. 862, MD S.B. 163, OK H.B. 1711. For the purposes of the counts in this report, these three bills are all considered “moving.” At least 48 bills with expansive provisions are moving through 16 state legislatures and the DC City Council. footnote33_a65hs2z 33 Expansive bills are moving in Arizona, California, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington, and Washington, DC. Overall, lawmakers in 44 states and Washington, DC, have considered at least 596 expansive bills for the 2022 legislative session. footnote34_354o6mk 34 Expansive bills were proposed for or carried over into the 2022 legislative session in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, , Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington, DC. Enacted Expansive LegislationOne Arizona law eliminates the two-year waiting period for individuals with multiple felony convictions to apply to have their voting rights restored. footnote35_6fu55b6 35 AZ H.B. 2119. The other Arizona law requires cities and towns with populations greater than 20,000 to provide an accessible mail voting option for blind and visually impaired voters. footnote36_jo4x9or 36 AZ S.B. 1638. The Connecticut law expands absentee voting excuses to allow voters who will be unable to appear at their polling place during some — rather than all — hours of voting on Election Day to vote by mail. footnote37_r3e9nm5 37 CT H.B. 5262. The law also expands mail voting to caretakers of individuals who are sick or have disabilities. The New York law extends the expanded definition of “illness” for voting absentee to include the risk of contracting or spreading a disease through the end of 2022. footnote38_20awwgc 38 NY S.B. 7565. The expanded definition of illness had expired in January of this year. The Oregon law expands online voter registration to individuals without a DMV record. footnote39_zfycw2f 39 OR H.B. 4133. Under the new law, voters with a Social Security number can use that 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 MovingAccess 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. footnote40_chbs7a2 40 CA A.B. 2815, DC C.B. 507, MA H. 76, MA S. 2554, MD H.B. 862, MD S.B. 163, MI H.B. 4839, NC H.B. 782, NY A.B. 1084, NY A.B. 4128, NY S.B. 253, NY S.B. 492, OK H.B. 1711, OK H.B. 1843, PA H.B. 1800, RI H.B. 7100, RI H.B. 7831, RI H.B. 7832, RI S.B. 2007. 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. footnote41_22kxjwr 41 AZ S.B. 1170, DE H.B. 25, LA H.B. 423, MA H.B. 4367, MA S. 2554, NC S.B. 724, NH H.B. 1203, NY S.B. 2951, PA H.B. 1800, PA H.J.R. 1596, RI H.B. 7515, RI H.J.R 7225, RI S.B. 2627, RI S.J.R. 2216, WA S.B. 5636. 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. footnote42_7q9hnno 42 DC C.B. 507, MA H. 4095, MA S. 2519, MA S. 2554, NC S.B. 724, NH H.B. 1594, OK H.B. 1711, PA H.B. 1800, RI H.B. 7100, RI H.B. 7832, RI S.B. 2007. 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. footnote43_ryux3mb 43 IA H.J.R. 11, MA S. 2554, RI S.B. 2635.
Which of the following is an accurate description of retention elections in California quizlet?Which statement best describes retention elections for appellate court judges in California? Retention elections are held at set intervals, and voters are simply asked whether the judge should remain on the appellate bench.
Which of the following is the most common form of county government in California?The most common form of county government is the commission system. Under this structure, an elected commission, which generally consists of a small number of commissioners, serves as the governing body within the county, performing all legislative and executive functions.
Which of the following is the best description of Dillon's rule?Which of the following is the best description of Dillon's rule? (In 1868, Iowa judge John F. Dillon ruled that "municipal corporations" such as counties and cities were mere "creatures of the state" and could exercise only those powers delegated to them by the state.)
Which of the following counties operates under a single charter as a consolidated city and county?At present, San Francisco is the only consolidated city and county in California.
|