“Left-wing activists have spent an untold fortune trying to stop Pennsylvania from enforcing its mail ballot safeguards. Today, a federal appellate court definitively rejected their argument. Too many voters doubt the integrity of elections because of an unrelenting assault on election laws from left-wing partisan litigators. The court’s ruling today is a clear statement that state legislatures, not courts, should make election laws. RITE is proud to have played a supporting role in this case.”

– Derek Lyons, President of RITE

In November 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with RITE in an initial state challenge launched before the 2022 midterm elections. Activists went on to file a federal lawsuit, which the Third Circuit ruled today that Pennsylvania can enforce its requirement that all voters “fill out, date and sign” their mail ballot envelopes

###

WASHINGTON, DC – RITE-backed plaintiffs have filed their briefing to the court in their appeal of an important challenge of New York’s mail-voting law. RITE is assisting a coalition of New York lawmakers and political parties appeal a lower court order that failed to enforce constitutional limits on mail voting law to New York’s Appellate Division.

“The rule of law is under direct assault in New York by liberal partisans and lawyers who are trying to force no-excuse mail-in voting upon a state that has overwhelmingly and explicitly rejected it since its founding, including once again less than three years ago. In fact, New Yorkers have been so adamant that voting occurs at polling places that their state Constitution has always prohibited all forms of remote voting, with exceptions added over time for the absent, the ill, and the disabled.

“RITE’s appeal asks the court to put an end to the effort by a narrow majority in the state’s legislature to lawlessly rip this prohibition out of the Constitution, overriding the clearly expressed will of the people in an exercise of sheer raw power. How this case turns out will speak to whether New York’s Constitution imposes limits on its government, or whether the government is free to impose its will on the state and its citizens without constraint.”

Background

In September 2023, RITE helped New York voters, members of New York’s congressional delegation, and the Republican Party filed a lawsuit against the 2023 mail-voting law, which implements no-excuse mail-in voting throughout the state. The RITE-backed plaintiffs argue that the law violates the New York Constitution’s requirement of in-person voting except for those unable to make it to the polls due to travel, illness, or disability. The mail-voting law was enacted after New Yorkers overwhelmingly rejected an effort to amend the Constitution to allow for no-excuse absentee voting. The RITE-backed plaintiffs filed the appeal because partisan lawmakers seeking electoral advantage lack any power to expand absentee voting without the express consent of the people of New York enshrined in a constitutional amendment.

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to a lawsuit launched by RITE to enforce Pennsylvania law, County Executive Sara Innamorato has acknowledged that she lacks authority to unilaterally mandate the use of drop boxes in any elections conducted in Allegheny County. Accordingly, her previous attempt to do so is invalid and unenforceable.

“Those like County Executive Innamorato who administer elections have a solemn obligation to scrupulously follow the law rather than rush to impose their partisan wish lists on their fellow citizens. Citizens need to have confidence that those with power over their lives will follow the rules, and that is especially true for election administrators whose work is essential to ensuring that election results reflect the true will of the people. Unfortunately, too many election officials want to run elections according to their own views, rather than according to what the law requires. Today’s resolution of this case holding Innamorato accountable for her unlawful conduct will help build confidence in elections going forward.”

-Derek Lyons, President of RITE.

Background

A consent decree was filed with the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas confirming that Innamorato’s unilateral declaration regarding drop boxes violated state law. As a result, both the public and the other members of the County Board of Elections will have their voices heard about whether to use drop boxes in upcoming elections, where they should be put, and how they should be staffed and monitored.

RITE will continue to closely monitor Innamorato’s management of county elections.

###

Pennsylvania law is clear that any decision to establish “Satellite Election Offices” – commonly referred to as ballot drop boxes – rests with the county board of elections and can be made only after the board has given the public an opportunity to be heard on the matter. County Executive Innamorato ignored these fundamental tenets of Pennsylvania law, and decreed, without input from either the board or the public, not only to revive the practice of operating Satellite Election Offices, but also where to place them, and how to staff them.

“County Executive Innamorato cannot ignore her legal obligations to consult with other members of the county board of elections and the public no matter how eager she may be to impose her will on the citizens of Allegheny CountyThe County Executive may not care what her fellow citizens have to say about ballot drop boxes, but she is required by law to at least hear them out. And while she may wish she could dispense with her fellow board members, on this issue, she is but one vote among three. Under the law, whether Allegheny County will once again operate Satellite Election Offices is to be deliberated and resolved, not dictated and decreed.”

– Derek Lyons, President of RITE

“There has been no communication at all from the County Executive, leaving no option but to pursue litigation. Instead of working to set hearings and a vote, the county executive is doubling down on breaking the rules. The Board of Elections is the proper venue to make this decision. I’m hopeful we can resolve this issue before voting begins.”

– Sam DeMarco, a member of the Board of Elections.

Background

On February 22, 2024, Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato issued a press release stating that the county would operate five new drop box locations leading up to the upcoming presidential primary on Tuesday, April 23. Innamorato acted alone, without public input or approval from the county board of elections, both of which are required by law. The lawsuit argues that any decision to use drop boxes must be made by the county board of elections after having provided the public an opportunity to be heard. Inamorato’s decision, made behind closed doors, violates Pennsylvania’s Election Code and Sunshine Act, the latter of which ensures transparency and promotes accountability in government decision making.

The lawsuit asks the court to block implementation of Inamorato’s unilateral and unlawful decision to operate drop boxes in the upcoming primary.

###

“RITE has identified a new disappearing act in Las Vegas, but this one is far less entertaining than a magician on the Strip. By all indications, Clark County is deleting nearly all election-related emails after six months, rather than retaining them for two years as required by federal law and state law. RITE has tried for months to resolve this and other document-related issues with the county, but its requests for an explanation have been ignored.”

– Derek Lyons, President of RITE

In its audit, RITE uncovered substantial evidence that Clark County has a policy of deleting much of its election-related email after six months, including emails about its administration of important programs to remove ineligible voters from the voter registration rolls. Federal and state law require the county to retain these records for at least two years. Further, because RITE has been able to secure some of Clark County’s emails from other sources, if Clark County has not deleted them, it has refused to make these records available to RITE upon request, which also violates the NVRA.

RITE uncovered these facts after a year-long ordeal of trying to obtain internal emails and other records from Clark County as part of RITE’s broader audit of Nevada’s voter roll cleanup efforts. RITE worked with Clark County in good faith for months but ultimately, it only disclosed 169 emails in response to RITE’s comprehensive records requests. In comparison, Washoe County released over 4,300 emails in response to a nearly identical request, and even the Secretary of State has already disclosed more than 2,000 records in an ongoing production.

How RITE conducted its audit

RITE uncovered these violations by analyzing email “metadata” in the few emails it obtained, which revealed that Clark County appears to have a default 180-day destruction period for most emails sent to or from county election officials. RITE discovered this after finding that Washoe County and the Secretary of State disclosed dozens of emails that had Clark County officials on them and that Clark County itself should have produced to RITE but did not. RITE tried to obtain an explanation from the county for the anomalies, but the county has refused to respond to RITE’s recent inquiries.

What does the litigation notice mean?

The NVRA generally requires officials to be provided with a 90-day litigation notice before suing. RITE has laid out specific requirements and benchmarks for Clark County to meet to avoid litigation. RITE will work with the county in good faith to avoid costly litigation, but it must change its practices to comply with federal law. Clark County is also likely in violation of several state laws that require it to safeguard and preserve records, including those related to its voter registration practices.

The NVRA’s two-year retention policy and public records disclosure provision are key election transparency measures that allow the public to monitor officials’ compliance with voter registration laws, including those that require officials to remove non-residents and the deceased.

Clark County has 90 days to comply, after which RITE intends to sue to hold the county accountable to the law.

READ the litigation notice sent to Clark County, NV, HERE.

###

“Secretary Fontes has demonstrated his complete lack of respect for Arizona’s election laws. As an election official, his foremost and only concern should be to faithfully implement the election laws enacted by Arizona’s legislature. His insistence on manipulating and violating those laws in furtherance of his own partisan agenda is exactly why so many voters believe fraud is undermining our elections. We have time to fix the problems, but only if a court puts a stop to this lawlessness. All of this should have been unnecessary and would have been had Fontes chosen to follow the law instead of indulging his political desires.”

-Derek Lyons, President of RITE PAC

The lawsuit alleges that Fontes did not follow the necessary legal procedures for creating the Elections Procedures Manual. He gave the public only 15 days to review and comment on the draft, made unauthorized changes to the manual that the public never had an opportunity to scrutinize, and adopted rules that violate several Arizona statutes. RITE PAC’s lawsuit asks the court to enjoin all or parts of the EPM, which include:

• Failing to comply with Arizona state law governing rulemaking, which requires a proper notice-and-comment period;
• Exempting registered voters who identify themselves as noncitizens on juror questionnaires from documenting their citizenship before permitting them to remain registered to vote;
• Contradicting Arizona law by allowing voters who have not provided proof of citizenship to vote in Arizona’s presidential primary;
• Limiting the public’s statutory right to review the authenticity of registration signatures,
• Ignoring the statutory provisions prohibiting certain voters from using out-of-state mailing addresses to receive ballots;
• Changing the time frame set by law for when an early ballot’s validity can be challenged; and
• Eliminating statutory requirements to vote within assigned precincts.

Review the case filed with the Maricopa County Superior Court at RITEUSA.org. 

###

WASHINGTON, DC – RITE is helping two concerned Maryland citizens pursue a lawsuit to enforce a sunshine law that helps ensure only eligible voters participate in elections. The lawsuit comes after the Maryland State Board of Elections (SBE) ignored a litigation notice from RITE and the citizens for more than 3 months.  

Last year, the SBE adopted a regulation that withholds public records from citizens who want to use them to investigate registration and voting irregularities. The lawsuit seeks to block the SBE from further enforcement of this regulation, which violates citizens’ rights under both state and federal law. 

“Maryland’s decision to withhold public records from citizens who want to use them to investigate whether state officials are fulfilling their legal obligations to maintain accurate and up-to-date voter registration rolls is unlawful. Election officials promote distrust and undermine confidence in democracy when they seek to hide their work from public scrutiny. Asking voters to simply trust them is not enough. State and federal law ensure access to registration records so that the public can verify those claims and hold taxpayer-funded officials accountable if they fail to do their job.”    

-Derek Lyons, President of RITE

Maryland is Violating the National Voter Registration Act 

Federal law mandates that states allow the public to access and use certain registration information to evaluate whether states are complying with laws that help ensure registration lists are both accurate and current. State efforts to restrict citizen access and use of this information violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which was designed to improve the integrity of our elections by requiring officials to remove ineligible persons from the registration rolls. This includes the deceased and those who no longer reside in the state. There are strong indications that Maryland officials are not fulfilling their obligations to properly maintain the state’s voting rolls, as evidenced by a recent state audit report that revealed, among other alarming findings, that officials had failed to remove at least 2,426 deceased voters from the registration rolls.   

Maryland is Violating the First Amendment 

In notifying SBE in September that it has violated the NVRA, the letter also identified several additional legal problems with its anti-democratic scheme. In particular, the SBE’s conduct also violates the First Amendment by infringing on plaintiffs’ core political speech. SBE’s unlawful regulation targets and discriminates against plaintiffs’ First Amendment-protected investigatory activities while allowing others to use the list for other purposes.    

States Are Blocking Access  

This is not the first time Maryland has violated the NVRA. Less than four years ago, a federal court ended the state’s effort to unlawfully limit access to its registration list information to only Maryland residents. Hawaii has been sued for trying to limit citizens’ use of list information to examine potential illegal voting activity. Maine recently tried to prevent the use of its voter lists to audit the accuracy of other states’ lists. A federal court again invalidated that restriction. And in New York, the state’s Attorney General is actively threatening legal action against citizens for their efforts to use registration list information to identify inaccuracies and other problems. 

###

“Elections are worth defending because their integrity is vital for the future of American democracy. Ohio is an example of why it is crucial to confront activists’ relentless efforts to undermine voting in America. RITE is very proud to have helped defend Ohio’s important and commonsense election law. With Ohio courts affirming the new law, voters can have confidence Ohio’s elections are an accurate measure of their will.”

– Derek Lyons, President of RITE

With the court’s ruling today, RITE-supported parties successfully defended the law alongside the state. Agreeing with RITE, the court concluded that the law is unquestionably constitutional because it promotes the integrity of Ohio’s voting regime and the public’s trust and confidence in the state’s elections.

Read the court’s ruling HERE.

“The court failed to even cite the constitution in its ruling, preferring to opine that mail-in voting does not matter to candidates or political parties. The court missed the core point: Democracy matters to New Yorkers.  And this court just stripped more than half of New Yorkers of their democratic choice against universal mail-in voting.  RITE-backed plaintiffs have already filed their notice of appeal, and we look forward to defending the rights of New York citizens to choose their manner of elections.”

– Derek Lyons, President and CEO of RITE

###

WASHINGTON, DC – A RITE-backed coalition is requesting a ruling from a New York court in Stefanik v. Hochul before the upcoming special election for George Santos’s vacant seat in the 3rd Congressional District. RITE’s Derek Lyons says unanswered constitutional questions surrounding New York’s new mail-voting law could cast doubt on the election results.

In a letter to the court, counsel warns,

“[A]n important and high-profile special election will occur sometime in February of 2024. The Mail-Voting Law that is the subject of this litigation is applicable to all elections on or after January 1, 2024.

Because this election is rapidly approaching, and under the Mail-Voting Law mail-voting ballot applications must be provided in advance and ballots must be mailed to applicants “as soon as practicable,” N.Y. Election Law § 8-704, it is all the more important that a decision on the pending motion for preliminary injunction is issued as soon as possible.”

RITE’s CEO and President Derek Lyons added,

“Results will have a massive asterisk if Long Island voters cast their ballots under an illegal system. It’s vital for every state, not just New York, to resolve election law disputes before voting begins.”

The RITE-backed coalition sued New York’s governor in October, arguing the state constitution prohibits the state from implementing no-excuse absentee voting. New York’s constitution has long limited absentee voting to those individuals unable to vote in person due to travel or physical limitations. Less than two years ago, New Yorkers voted in a statewide constitutional referendum to keep it that way.  

RITE has helped organize a coalition of voters, election officials, candidates, and national and New York-based political committees to challenge New York Democrats’ unconstitutional expansion of the state’s absentee voting law, which Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law in September.

The Early Mail Voter Act discards that choice in favor of a no-excuse absentee balloting regime in defiance of the constitution and the express will of the people.   

Read more about Stefanik v. Hochul at RITEUSA.org.