Fewer than one in five Bay State voters can correctly name their local sheriff, according to a recent survey.

To fill that knowledge gap, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has launched a voter education campaign to raise awareness about the life-changing decisions that sheriffs have the power to make.

Sheriffs oversee roughly 6,000 people every day in houses of correction and county jails. Laura Rótolo - director of the ACLU of Massachusetts field team - noted that 670,000 voters in 2016 cast votes for other elected offices, but left the sheriffs' space blank.

"That's over half a million votes," said Rótolo. "People that got out of their homes, went to the polling location, and did not make a choice for sheriff. And sheriffs have a really important role to play in the criminal legal system, in public safety and in our communities."

Rótolo noted that sheriffs get multi-million dollar budgets from the state Legislature, to then allocate toward various programming - from addiction and mental-health treatment to educational, vocational or transitional programs.

Massachusetts sheriffs serve six year terms - the last time they were up for re-election was 2016.

In the survey, about two-thirds of voters did not think sheriffs have a major impact on the criminal legal system, but Rótolo emphasized that they do.

She noted that folks in county facilities are serving sentences of two-and-a-half years or less, and it's important to make sure they are ready to re-enter their communities.

"And they come back either ready to reenter and to join their communities or having spent two and a half years without adequate education and treatment," said Rótolo. "Sheriffs are the ones who make those decisions every day. And really it comes down to voters who are the ones who can hold them accountable."

In 2016, not a single incumbent sheriff lost their seat, and only four even faced challengers.

The campaign urges voters to get educated on the candidates, and select ones who are committed to transformation and healing rather than retribution and punishment.

This year's Massachusetts primary election is September 6, and the general election is November 8.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

The nation still is dissecting revealing testimony from this week's committee hearing on the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. A top White House aide testified about former President Donald Trump's actions that day, most notably his desire to allow armed supporters at a rally before they stormed the complex.

One political expert acknowledged the latest developments might not move the needle in North Dakota but added voters should still be informed.

Mark Jendrysik, political science professor at the University of North Dakota, said it might not sway many voters in a conservative state, but he argued they should still be presented with details about how democracy was thrown into peril.

"Facts matter," Jendrysik contended. "People shouldn't be allowed to hide behind 'I don't remember' and 'That was a long time ago' or 'Why are you bringing up old stuff?' "

All members of North Dakota's Congressional delegation are Republican, and some have been critical of recent efforts to further examine last year's attack. Jendrysik noted it is not surprising given the polarization underscoring the fallout from the 2020 presidential election.

He suggests because of the magnitude of the attack, along with repeated false claims by some conservatives the election was stolen, voters and the media should not shy away from asking candidates in this year's vote about their views on the hearings.

"There is only one place to stand, and that is with the law and the Constitution," Jendrysik asserted. "You're not allowed to ignore things just because you think they're not going your way."

As for accountability, Jendrysik emphasized he does not think the hearings will result in criminal charges against former President Donald Trump. He believes "institutional fear" in Washington D.C. will be a factor as some decision-makers will try to avoid any further chaos.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

A proposal to change the way Nevada votes is one step closer to getting on the November ballot after the State Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge.

The "Better Voting Nevada" campaign wants to end closed, partisan primaries where you can only vote for your registered party, and move to an open primary.

Sondra Cosgrove, professor of history at the College of Southern Nevada and a supporter of the "Better Voting Nevada" campaign, would like to change the state constitution to expand the number of candidates who move to the general election, to give more independent candidates a shot.

"We want to have more options," Cosgrove explained. "We don't want just two people moving forward from the primary to the general election. We want five people, because oftentimes when you look at the people who move forward, it's just the people with the most money."

The proposal would also institute ranked-choice voting in the general election. People would rank the candidates in order of preference, and if no one gets 51%, the lowest vote-getter falls off. Then, the second choice of their voters gets added to the total, and so on until someone has a majority.

The ballot measure is opposed by many of the state's top Democrats and by Silver State Voices, on the grounds it would be too confusing for voters.

Cosgrove argued the open-primary system would give candidates incentive to appeal to the widest range of voters, instead of producing far-right or far-left candidates who appeal to the extremes of their base.

"We're hoping ... the candidates will do the more moderate platform in the primary, and then just continue with that moderate platform as they move forward," Cosgrove emphasized.

The campaign turned in the last batch of signatures this week. Because the proposal would amend the state constitution, it would have to be approved by voters in two successive elections.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Washington state's primary election is coming up, and election officials are calling on voters to be vigilant about misinformation.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said misinformation at election time has become more prevalent. He said local election officials are being more proactive and encourages people who have questions about the voting process to reach out to their local county auditor.

"We can't sit idly by anymore," said Hobbs. "We actually have to not only remind them to vote and sign their ballot, but also let them know what the ballot process is so it gives them the security and confidence to know their votes are going to count."

Washington state's primary is on August 2. Ballots will go out in mid-July.

Online and mail voter registrations must be received by July 25. People can register in person through election day, any time before 8 p.m.

Hobbs is participating in an online town hall meeting hosted by AARP Washington this Thursday to speak about voting and misinformation.

Doug Shadel is state director of AARP Washington. He said older Americans can be more likely to pass on misinformation in certain online contexts.

Shadel encouraged people to be more cognizant of the stories they're sharing.

"Before you do that, really do what we call lateral reading," said Shadel. "If you hear a story, question the validity of it. Find another source for that same information before you pass it on to someone else."

Shadel said voters age 50 and over are a vital segment of the electorate who show up to the polls consistently. That's why he believes it's important to get information on this subject out to them.

"Democracy depends on making decisions based on facts," said Shadel. "And we're committed to helping our members and others around the state get the facts both about the candidates and about where we stand with the elections."