Welcome to Ballot Bulletin: Ballotpedia's Weekly Election Policy Digest. Every Tuesday, we deliver the latest updates on election policy around the country, including nationwide trends and recent legislative activity.
In this week’s edition, we cover 10 bills state legislatures acted on last week and look at the availability of voter files in twenty-one states and the District of Columbia.
The state of election legislation in the U.S.
Lawmakers in four states acted on 10 election-related bills last week. Nine state legislatures are in regular or special sessions. Last week, one bill was enacted, no bills passed both chambers of a state legislature, and no bills were vetoed.
Of the bills acted on last week, six (60%) are in states with Democratic trifectas, four (40%) are in states with Republican trifectas, and none are in states with divided government. The most active bill categories last week were campaign finance (5), election dates and deadlines (4), election types and stages (3), and ballot measures (3).
We are currently tracking 4,622 election-related bills across the country. The chart below breaks down the status of those bills based on where they stand in the legislative process:
Enacted bills
One bill was enacted or adopted last week:
- New Jersey (Democratic trifecta)
Bills passing both chambers
No bills passed both chambers of a state legislature last week.
To see a full list of bills awaiting gubernatorial action, click here.
Vetoed bills
No bills were vetoed this week.
To see a list of all bills vetoed this session, click here.
All bills
The chart below shows all bills Ballotpedia is currently tracking, broken down by partisan sponsor.
We are currently following 4,622 election-related bills, including bills carried over from the previous year.
-
Trifecta status
- Democratic: 1,983 (42.9%)
- Republican: 1,648 (35.7%)
- Divided: 991 (21.4%)
-
Partisan sponsorship
- Democratic: 2,034 (44%)
- Republican: 1,874 (40.5%)
- Bipartisan: 444 (9.6%)
- Other: 270 (5.8%)
In the news
On July 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a June 25 order blocking the implementation of portions of President Donald Trump’s (R) March 31 executive order titled Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections in 23 states and Washington, D.C. In its order denying the DOJ’s appeal of the injunction (as covered in the July 7 edition of Ballot Bulletin), the court ruled that “state and local officials are responsible for administering federal elections” under the U.S. Constitution. The executive order requires the U.S. Postal Service to mail such ballots only to voters on an approved list, among other provisions.
On July 27, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer filed an emergency appeal of the injunction with the U.S. Supreme Court. In the appeal, Sauer said that the injunction “impedes the President’s ability to direct his subordinates and preempts the Executive’s deliberative policymaking.” On July 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (which issued the initial injunction against the executive order) issued a ruling establishing that voting rights groups have standing to challenge the executive order in court.
Here are other news stories from across the country:
- On July 23 , 25 states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In the complaint , the plaintiffs allege that tying disaster relief aid to policy priorities set by FEMA and DHS was unlawful, since “Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to rewrite state election law, require cooperation with federal immigration agents, or terminate federal funding streams at any time and for any reason.” Among the stipulations for funding are post-election audits and the mandatory use of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services SAVE system for verifying the citizenship of voters .
- On July 24 , the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied a motion for a temporary injunction against Tennessee’s new congressional maps, adopted in a special session on May 7 following the U.S. Supreme Court ’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais (as covered in the May 12 edition of Ballot Bulletin ). In the court’s order , the judges said that Tennessee’s new maps “don’t indicate a discriminatory purpose” since the maps are “readily explainable by political motivations.”
- On July 23 , the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Kentucky for access to its unredacted voter rolls. In the opinion , Judge Claria Horn Boom said that the DOJ’s complaint “cannot point to a written demand that contains both the basis and purpose for the request” to comply with the Civil Rights Act and National Voter Registration Act . As of July 27, the DOJ had appealed similar lawsuits in multiple states across eight circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals . For a comprehensive list of federal lawsuits seeking access to statewide voter lists, click here .
Policy spotlight: Twenty-one states and D.C. make voter files openly available
The story below is adapted from a recent Ballotpedia News story by Kate McQuarrie.
In a July 16 speech, President Donald Trump (R) said that China gained illicit access to 220 million U.S. voter files, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and political party preferences.
Each state is legally required to maintain voter files, or digital databases of information about registered voters. States can sell voter file information to individuals or groups, and each state has its own guidelines for who is eligible to purchase that information and what the voter file can be used for. Eight states give this information to eligible requestors for free.
Currently, twenty-one states and Washington, D.C., make their voter files openly available, meaning there are effectively no restrictions on who can request or purchase the voter file, and the only restrictions on how the voter file can be used are on commercial use.
Two states have requester-restricted availability, meaning that only certain groups or individuals can request or purchase the voter file. Common examples of permitted requesters include candidates for office, current officeholders, political parties, political action committees, and nonprofits engaged in get-out-the-vote efforts.
Fifteen states have usage-restricted availability, meaning that the use of the voter file is limited to certain purposes beyond commercial use restrictions. Common examples of usage restrictions include prohibiting the use of voter files for advertising purposes, prohibiting posting voter files on the internet, and requiring voter files to be used only for political or electoral purposes.
Twelve states have both requester-restricted and usage-restricted availability, meaning that only certain groups or individuals can request or purchase the voter file, and only for certain purposes. Two states that restrict the use of voter files, Oklahoma and Vermont, specifically prohibit the disclosure of voter files to foreign entities.
The cost for voter files also varies by state, outside of the eight states that provide voter files for free to qualified requesters. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., charge a maximum cost for voter files between $1 and $1,000. Ten states charge a maximum cost between $1,001 and $10,000, and one state charges a maximum cost above $10,000. In one state, the cost varies based on the time taken to produce the report.
Most states allow voters to request that certain personal identifying information be kept confidential. However, the type of information that can be confidential and the criteria individuals must meet to have their information withheld vary by state.
