Sacramento, CA - A new court ruling says states cannot penalize a delegate to the Electoral College for voting against the popular vote from that state. Comments from John Koza, chair of National Popular Vote.

It just got a bit more likely - that the next election will be decided by a single vote in the Electoral College - in the wake of a federal court decision this week. A federal judge in the 9th circuit decided that states cannot replace or punish a so-called "faithless elector" even if it's one of 30 states, such as California, that requires delegates to support the candidate who got the most votes in that state. John Koza from the group National Popular Vote - says there were seven electors who went against their party's wishes in 2016.

"But I can assure you in 2020, both parties are going to be super diligent at nominating only presidential electors that they absolutely know will support the party's nominee. "

Critics of winner-take-all laws argue that it's unfair to require electors to respect majority rule, especially when a candidate loses by a very thin margin in a given state and then forfeits all of that state's electoral votes. Koza says the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He adds that President Donald Trump's re-election could easily come down to a single elector - because two states he won last time, Pennsylvania and Michigan, are now trending blue, and if nothing else changed, he would be at exactly 270 votes - the number needed to win in the Electoral College and be re-elected.

"And one elector from either party, if they voted for someone else, that would deny Trump the majority in the Electoral College"

Koza's group promotes the Interstate National Popular Vote Compact - where dozens of states have committed their delegates to whomever wins the national popular vote. The idea is to avoid the situation where a presidential candidate wins more votes overall but loses in the Electoral College, which has happened twice in the past 15 years. President George W. Bush won in 2000 despite losing by more than half a million in the popular vote. In 2016, Trump won despite earning 3 million fewer votes overall.

It just got a bit more likely - that the next election will be decided by a single vote in the electoral college - in the wake of a federal court decision this week. Suzanne Potter has more.

I'm Suzanne Potter

Reach Koza via Sara Croom at 202-550-9158. Ruling: https://pnsne.ws/30oPeHK





get more stories like this via email

Legal groups are weighing an appeal after a court ruling this week that left voters in several states, including North Dakota, at a disadvantage in making use of the Voting Rights Act.

At issue is their ability to sue based on racial discrimination. A three-judge panel with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a pathway under Section Two of the landmark law for voters to bring lawsuits if they feel local and state election policies have violated their civil rights. The decision stems from a recent redistricting victory for a pair of Native American Tribes in North Dakota.

Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center, said he was shocked by the latest outcome.

"The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has done what no court in the country has ever done, and there's been 400-plus Voting Rights Act cases filed for decades," Gaber pointed out.

The decision affirmed a ruling from the full 8th Circuit, which said language in this section of the law does not specifically mention private individuals. One judge filed a dissenting opinion. The 8th Circuit covers seven states, and civil rights groups said if the outcome stands, voters in those states would have to lobby the Justice Department to bring a case forward.

Gaber noted the problem with asking the Justice Department is, the agency is not equipped to move quickly on such requests.

"They simply don't have the resources," Gaber pointed out. "The individual voters who are familiar with what is happening in their localities and on the ground are frankly, in many cases, better suited to bring these cases."

The Justice Department is also part of budget-cutting moves by the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the Native American Rights Fund said this week's ruling sets a dangerous precedent for minority voters who do not want to be silenced.


get more stories like this via email

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte has seen the last few bills of the 2025 legislative session cross his desk and as the ink dries, policy experts reminded Montanans some bills will face the courts before they take effect.

Gianforte signed Senate Bill 490, which changes the Election Day cutoff for same-day voter registration from 8 p.m. to noon. It also eliminates early registration the Monday before Election Day, shifting the deadline to 5 p.m. on Saturday.

Zuri Moreno, state legislative director for the advocacy group Forward Montana, said the change especially affects Montanans who drive long distances to vote.

"We've already heard from the courts that you're not supposed to mess around with same-day voter registration," Moreno pointed out. "It just takes away that opportunity for working folks and young folks and rural people across the state."

Montana's Supreme Court ruled last year banning same-day voter registration is unconstitutional. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the decision.

Laws passed this session may still be challenged in court, including those centered on the LGBTQ+ community, which was targeted by at least 23 bills. Moreno noted the "community really showed up this session."

"We saw so many folks sharing personal stories and public testimony, so many folks showing up for lobby days and rallies," Moreno recounted. "Thousands of people engaged in the legislative process, which is essential."

In a win for renters, Gianforte also signed House Bill 311 , which requires rental application fees to be returned to people who do not end up signing a lease.

During every big election, tens of thousands of California voters make a mistake on their mail-in ballot and often get differing advice on how to fix it, depending on who they ask. A new bill aims to standardize the response.

Assembly Bill 1072 would require the Secretary of State and county elections officials to come up with clear answers, applicable statewide.

Kim Alexander, founder and president of the California Voter Foundation, said the problem causes widespread delays in counting.

"In Orange County in the last election, officials had to duplicate over 40,000 ballots," Alexander pointed out. "There are other reasons why ballots have to be duplicated, but the primary one is that the voter made a mistake filling out their ballot, indicated a different choice, and it has to be remade."

Common mistakes include accidentally filling in the wrong bubble, signing the witness signature box or signing their spouses' envelope. If there is time, the county will often send a new ballot.

Alexander noted a common set of instructions should be posted on the website of the Secretary of State and every county registrar.

"They are instructed, typically, to cross out the choice and fill out the choice that they preferred and draw an arrow to it or circle it to indicate that is their intent," Alexander explained. "What they should not do is initial it, and sometimes voters think that's what they should do."

The outlook for the bill is good. It is currently on the consent calendar for the Assembly Appropriations Committee.


get more stories like this via email