The Utah legislature has been in session for almost two weeks and one group said there have been more than 10 pieces of legislation introduced they called "anti-democracy" bills.

TJ Ellerbeck, executive director of the Rural Utah Project, said the bills would put "major limits on the way Utahns can vote, when Utahns can vote and which Utahns can vote."

"The worst of those is one bill that would eliminate voting by mail in Utah, and Utah has been an all vote-by-mail state for the last eight years," Ellerbeck explained. "Some parts of the state have been all vote-by-mail for 10 years and over 90% of Utahns vote by mail."

Ellerbeck referred to House Bill 92, sponsored by Rep. Kera Birkeland, R-Morgan. If passed, the bill would require voters who want to vote by mail to sign up. Currently, county clerks send mail-in ballots to Utahns automatically. Birkeland argued the bill would help clean up voter rolls and increase active voter participation.

Ellerbeck contended Utah is one of the "most forward-thinking states when it comes to voting access," and wants the Beehive State to remain that way. Ellerbeck noted he is confident the state legislature will protect Utahns from anti-democracy proposals, but added even if the bills are not enacted, there are still consequences.

"Having proposals like that come out also make other proposals that impose serious limits on voting access seem much less egregious and might make those proposals much more likely to pass," Ellerbeck cautioned.

Ellerbeck encouraged voters to think about whether their respective representative voted for or against the measures.

House Bill 214 is another proposal to mandate mail-in ballots arrive at the clerk's office by Election Day. Currently, they must simply be postmarked by Election Day. Proponents argued it would help mitigate frustration on election night and speed up the ballot counting process.

The Rural Utah Project is gathering signatures for a petition to keep the state's current election system in place because Ellerbeck believes it works.

"Last legislative session we saw some of those proposals pass all over the country, but nothing like that passed in Utah," Ellerbeck observed. "When it comes to voting access we've always been at the leading edge. We've been a place where it's always been easy and safe to vote."

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


get more stories like this via email

With just a few days before President Joe Biden leaves office, more than 140 nonprofits are urging him to act on the Equal Rights Amendment. Passed by Congress in 1972 and ratified by 38 states by 2020, the ERA ensures constitutional gender equality.

Amy Widestrom, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, said it prohibits discrimination based on sex, empowers Congress to enforce it, and takes effect two years after ratification.

"What we're really advocating for is that because we've reached the three-quarters threshold of the states, that the archivist published the amendment. It's met the constitutional requirements to become an amendment of the United States Constitution," she explained.

Widestrom pointed out some people argue the ERA missed its congressional deadline, but legal scholars say the Constitution doesn't allow or require such deadlines for amendments. They point to the 27th Amendment, introduced with the Bill of Rights and ratified centuries later, as proof deadlines are not binding.

Widestrom said the Constitution currently lacks a provision guaranteeing equal protection based on sex.

"Right now we rely on the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, but it does not specify by sex. And there is a sitting Supreme Court justice that has said that he believes that the Constitution allows for sex discrimination. So it would be an important addition to the Constitution," she continued.

Widestrom noted that during Donald Trump's first presidency, he directed the archivist not to publish the ERA, creating a less supportive environment. With Biden rescinding that directive, she believes this is the best chance for ratification. She emphasized the importance of Pennsylvanians working with Congress and the White House to explore the best options for the ERA.

A proposal to make Wisconsin's strict Voter ID law a constitutional amendment passed Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Assembly on Tuesday.

Voters will see the proposal on the April 1 ballot. If approved, the state constitution would be amended, which would make the change much harder to repeal in the future. Proponents insist stricter ID requirements help to prevent voter fraud.

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, and other opponents said they also provide a partisan advantage for Republicans.

"All it does is, it reduces the opportunity for certain segments of the population to be able to vote," Heck explained. "It doesn't do anything about preventing fraud, and it's just a voter suppression method."

Heck believes the measure will attract more conservatives to the polls in April. And even if voters reject the idea of changing the constitution, the state's voter ID requirement, which is already among the strictest in the country, would remain.

The state's voter ID law has been long debated for its prohibitive requirements. Wisconsin allows seven forms of identification to be presented at the polls but Heck pointed out they have to meet particular requirements.

"These are forms of ID that, although they seem on the surface to make some sense, they're very difficult for some segments of the population to obtain," Heck emphasized.

Heck added rushing to put the requirements in the state constitution is strategic, given the state Supreme Court justice ballot the measure will share. Over more than 40 years, the conservative Heritage Foundation lists only 68 cases of voter fraud in Wisconsin.

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


get more stories like this via email

As North Dakota's new legislative session takes shape, Indigenous voters in certain political districts will maintain their representation, after a decision by the nation's highest court. Advocates say the timing was critical. The case stemmed from recently created subdistricts meant to boost tribal representation on the Forth Berthold and Turtle Mountain reservations.

Local GOP officials sought to overturn the boundaries, arguing they discriminated against non-Natives, but the U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to take up those arguments.

Nicole Donaghy, executive director of North Dakota Native Vote, said it's a relief that legal issues won't be top of mind.

"That's something that is a positive going into this legislative session for us. We're able to focus on legislation, not litigation," she explained.

One of the areas in question is District 4-A, currently represented by Lisa Finley-DeVille. Donaghy said having her as part of the Native delegation in Bismarck helps in areas such as protecting natural resources. A separate case is still pending about legislative district gains for other Tribal areas in North Dakota.

Arguments in that case were heard last fall, and the Native American Rights Fund says if the state is successful in overturning those other boundaries, there could be new map considerations. Donaghy added that even though the next redistricting won't be until after the 2030 Census, these legal fights serve as a reminder for Tribes to organize and maintain progress.

"Because it only happens once every 10 years, it's not always at the forefront of everybody's minds. And so, I really see that having Native American legislators does give our communities in North Dakota - albeit we are a small portion of the population - that level of representation within these decision-making bodies," she continued.

Sections of the federal Voting Rights Act are often central in these redistricting cases. Lawyers for Tribal plaintiffs note the law was meant to shield against efforts to dilute the voting power of marginalized populations. However, as the Brennan Center for Justice points out, these protections have been eroded by other Supreme Court decisions.