Voting-rights advocates are pleased two of three Washoe County commissioners who refused to certify the results of two primary election recounts decided to reverse course after facing legal pushback.

On July 11, the commissioners voted against certifying the results for two races: one for a commission seat, the other for a county school board position. The same day, the state filed suit with the Nevada Supreme Court to get the board to fulfill its duties.

Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of the advocacy group Silver State Voices, said the controversy set what she called a "negative precedent."

"We want to ensure that we are getting a legal record through the courts as to what the precedent is," Persaud-Zamora explained. "So that when folks try to pull shenanigans in the General (Election), that we have a blueprint to be able to address these things."

She noted her organization is hopeful the state Supreme Court can hear the case and rule on it, despite the results already being certified. She contended if the three Republican county commissioners were capable of instilling doubt, it could happen elsewhere come November. Similar cases have been seen in battleground states like Georgia and Pennsylvania.

Ryan Vortisch, Reno democracy director for Silver State Voices, said the incident undeniably perpetuates the false narrative there is reason to distrust election processes. He and others are reminding people the systems are reliable.

"While it's positive that we did certify the results, it does still kind of creates doubt that we needed to do a revote in the first place," Vortisch pointed out. "You know, the reality is that we are a battleground county in a battleground state and because of that, we have attracted a lot of mis- and disinformation about the elections process."

Persaud-Zamora added incidents like the Washoe County vote prompt some people to believe false information and feed into it. But it also leads to what she called "political and mental fatigue," which can take a toll on voters.

"That clearly has a whole different level of potential consequences: people not voting in the presidential election," Persaud-Zamora emphasized. "But beyond that, I mean, we've had many conversations. It's not just about the top of the ticket. It's about all of the ticket, down the ballot."

California political analysts predict the race for president will tighten since President Joe Biden has dropped out and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris.

If elected, Harris would be the first Black woman and first person of Asian descent to ascend to the highest office in the land.

Lynn Vavreck, professor of political science at the University of California-Los Angeles, predicted it will re-energize the race on the Democratic side.

"There will be a flood of money coming into whatever the new ticket is likely to be," Vavreck pointed out. "The race will once again tighten to be somewhere around 50/50. That will roll us into the Democratic convention. And from that point forward, it's not that long until early voting starts."

Harris has vowed to "earn and win" the nomination at the Democratic National Convention, which starts in Chicago on August 19. It is unclear if anyone will challenge Harris for the nomination, or whom she might choose as a running mate.

Mark Baldassare, survey director for the Public Policy Institute of California, noted Harris previously served as a U.S. Senator from California, Attorney General of the Golden State, and District Attorney for San Francisco.

"This is somebody who has a long history of public service at the local, state and national levels," Baldassare emphasized. "And of course, spent three years as the vice president, which is very relevant (to) somebody who would step into the Oval Office and become president."

Harris is a strong supporter of abortion rights, voting rights, social justice and environmental causes.


get more stories like this via email

A voting rights group has filed a lawsuit in Alabama to prevent thousands from losing their right to vote.

The Campaign Legal Center said Alabama's House Bill 100 could potentially disenfranchise many voters just before the 2024 general election. The bill aims to expand the list of crimes which result in the loss of voting rights, by adding more than 120 felonies to the existing list. Backers of the bill say it's necessary to protect poll workers.

Blair Bowie, director of the Restore Your Vote program for the Campaign Legal Center, highlighted the effect the bill could have on Alabama voters.

"People who have been convicted of the crimes that have been recently added to the list, people who have the right to vote now, could actually cast their absentee ballots before the law goes into effect taking away their voting rights," Bowie pointed out.

She noted it raises concerns over whether people could face criminal prosecution for illegal registration or voting if they attempt to cast their ballot. Currently, 40 existing "crimes of moral turpitude" disqualify someone from voting. The list would now include crimes like elder abuse, domestic violence and stalking.

Bowie pointed out the group's main concern is to not allow the measure to deny voters the chance to make their voices heard this November. She explained the Campaign Legal Center's lawsuit argued the law violates the Alabama constitution prohibiting changes to election laws within six months of an election.

"This new additional definition of crimes and moral turpitude is set to go into effect at the beginning of October," Bowie observed. "Clearly within six months of an election, it clearly violates that constitutional provision."

In Alabama if you lose your right to vote, you have to go through the state's process of getting a Certificate of Eligibility to Register to Vote. Bowie advises anyone unsure of their voting status to visit restoreyourvote.org.


get more stories like this via email

A bipartisan group backing a ballot measure to allow open primaries in Arizona contends lawmakers are working to intentionally mislead voters about the initiative.

Make Elections Fair Arizona is suing state lawmakers who wrote a description of its initiative for voter information pamphlets the group said will only lead to confusion.

Sarah Smallhouse, chair of Make Elections Fair Arizona, said her group suggested word changes but the Arizona Legislative Council did not accept them. Instead, the council's wording said the initiative could allow for ranked choice voting, which it does not require. Smallhouse noted ranked choice voting faces opposition primarily from Arizona GOP supporters.

"This initiative is arguably the most important reform in our lifetime," Smallhouse emphasized. "It's time to do right by Arizona. It's time to start fixing things. It's time to make elections fair."

Smallhouse argued the council has a conflict of interest, as its members benefit from the current closed-primary system. She claimed the council is trying to dissuade voters, in order to keep things as they are. The lawsuit seeks to keep the council's summary from appearing in voter information pamphlets. Lawmakers contended the description was written fairly through a nonpartisan process.

Make Elections Fair Arizona said its measure boils down to treating all Arizona voters and all candidates equally.

Pat DeConcini, co-chair of the group, said with the current system, elected officials are incentivized to not compromise, which he thinks puts democracy in jeopardy.

"In a system that we have today of democracy, compromise is the grease in the gears that make the whole thing work," DeConcini contended. "I think we would all agree that our system's broken, and so, we have to do something to solve the problem."

DeConcini called the initiative a solution to political gridlock. While backers of the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act are taking lawmakers to court over the written description, they aren't the only ones doing so. Proponents of the Arizona for Abortion Access Act have filed suit for a description they said will hurt support for their ballot measure in November.