Trust, but Verify Your Election Vendors
By Justin Riemer, President, USGI, and Marshal Trigg, Counsel, USGI
Maryland spent the back half of May reprinting roughly half a million primary ballots after a coding error by the state’s mail ballot vendor stripped party identification during ballot packet insertion. Because the vendor could not determine which voters received the wrong ballot, the State Board of Elections (“SBE”) had little choice but to reprint and remail ballots to all primary voters who had a pending mail ballot request.
Although SBE was right to send replacement ballots and responded quickly, its remedial efforts appear to have outpaced the planning needed to carry them out smoothly. There have been reports of some voters receiving multiple replacement ballots, meaning they would have received at least three total ballots.
SBE also had not entirely thought through the policy issues before remailing. For example, SBE’s position on the fate of any original ballots that voters marked and returned has evolved. It sought to ease concerns about duplicate voting by stating that all original ballots had been “voided,” leaving many to reasonably presume they wouldn’t be counted, even if the voter did not return the replacement. State Administrator of Elections Jared DeMarinis then walked back this initial position during a May 28 SBE meeting when he stated “at the end of the day, if all we receive back is one ballot, we will count that ballot if it’s the correct ballot.” The Board met on Tuesday to approve the modified canvassing procedures, nearly a month after discovering the problem.
There are important takeaways from this mishap. First, there are inherent risks to outsourcing. It is a practical reality in modern election administration, especially in heavy vote-by-mail states that require industrial-grade ballot printing, assembly, and mailing. But outsourcing creates a natural out-of-sight, out-of-mind mindset that must be resisted. It is incumbent on states, especially those like Maryland that centralize ballot printing and mailing, to institute closer oversight and detailed standard operating procedures. State officials should also station a staff member in the facility where ballots are printed and mailed, at least for statewide elections. SBE did not but apparently sent someone to supervise the replacement ballot mailing.
Maryland’s current oversight deficiencies are especially troubling given the same vendor mistakenly mailed voters duplicate ballots in the 2024 General Election. And in 2020, a previous vendor made a proofing error in a Baltimore City Council race that went undetected until the ballots were already in voters’ hands.
One fix SBE should consider is a verification step the state runs itself instead of leaving it to the printer. Before the vendor mails any packets, the state could check each ballot against the voter registration file to confirm every voter is getting the correct ballot style. North Carolina, for instance, runs every ballot style through multiple levels of county and state review before printing, with the state approving the vendor’s proofs against its own specifications rather than relying solely on the vendor.
Election administrators also need to avoid the temptation to deflect blame onto vendors. SBE took on the responsibility to mail ballots for all the counties and any mistakes in fulfilling that responsibility are SBE’s alone. SBE’s press release announcing the error led with blaming the vendor and SBE’s second release linked directly to a vendor statement. SBE, not its vendors, is accountable to the public, and its messaging should reflect that. Blaming the vendor creates the perception that SBE has distanced itself from its statutory responsibility to “supervise the conduct of elections” in Maryland.
Finally, although SBE has gradually released more details, including the safeguards that prevent double voting, it’s too little, too late. In today’s environment, voters are highly attentive to and skeptical about our election safeguards, especially for mail voting. Merely stating that “safeguards exist” without further explanation is inherently unsatisfying and comes off as patronizing. The public demands specifics and election officials owe it to them to deliver. And dismissing those with legitimate questions about the error as misinformation spreaders is misguided.
Although we are certain that SBE officials are eager to put this ill-fated primary in the rearview mirror, we hope they first look back long enough to learn from it to avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Alabama
Following a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Governor Ivey called a special primary for two state Senate districts under the state-drawn Senate map, voiding the May 19 results in those two districts.
Arizona
A special prosecutor is investigating whether employees of the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office illegally removed a scanner and provisional envelopes from the tabulation headquarters. The Board of Supervisors claims that the scanner belongs to its office, which the Recorder’s office disputes.
California
Counting stretched roughly a week past the June 2 statewide primary before the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral races were decided. The state’s prolonged primary vote count has renewed scrutiny of the state’s election procedures, with election law expert Hans von Spakovsky attributing the delays to four factors: universal vote-by-mail, a seven-day deadline for receiving timely postmarked ballots, a 22-day cure period for signature issues, and the large number of provisional ballots requiring individual review. He argued these policies make extended counting periods a predictable feature of California elections. The New York Times Editorial Board also weighed in stating that “California has . . . adopted an approach to election administration without meaningful benefit and with substantial downside” and calling for reforms at the state and federal levels to ensure quicker vote counting processes.
The controversy has also drawn federal attention. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli announced that the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in coordination with the FBI, has opened multiple election-fraud investigations related to California’s primary election and is auditing the state’s voter rolls. State officials maintain that the slow count reflects statutory verification and canvassing requirements rather than evidence of wrongdoing.
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service recovered roughly 29 voted ballots from bins of stolen mail in Santa Clara County and delivered them, still sealed in their return envelopes, to the county Registrar of Voters, which signature-verified and counted them. The agency issued a warning to voters about mail theft as counting in the June 2 primary continued.
Shasta County reported to the Secretary of State an incident in which the county’s election official allegedly removed from the elections office copies of documents that may have contained confidential voter information; the county said the matter falls under the Secretary of State’s jurisdiction and that it will not initiate charges, and a related ballot-data discrepancy remains under review.
Georgia
The State Election Board passed a non-binding resolution encouraging counties to move to hand-marked paper ballots and approving interim guidance to that effect, a posture that conflicts with the secretary of state’s direction that counties continue using the state’s current ballot-marking devices. Board members framed the measure as a contingency should the legislature not act before a July 1 statutory deadline after which QR codes may no longer be used to count votes on Georgia ballots.
Louisiana
Governor Jeff Landry signed three election bills into law aiming to strengthen election security. Senate Bill 319 creates statewide standards for voter ID at polling places, effective July 1, 2027. House Bill 691 requires annual voter roll checks against the federal SAVE database to identify potential noncitizens, with due process protections before cancellations, effective August 1. House Bill 547 bars photographing or reproducing voter registration information in precinct registers, also effective August 1.
Governor Landry also signed Senate Bill 121 enacting a congressional map with five Republican-leaning districts and a single majority-minority district anchored in New Orleans, eliminating the second majority-minority district drawn in 2024.
Following Governor Landry’s earlier suspension of the U.S. House primaries originally scheduled for May 16, the state will revert to a jungle primary on November 3, with any runoffs on December 12; the qualifying period runs August 5-7, requiring candidates who had qualified for the canceled May 16 contest to requalify. Secretary of State Nancy Landry has said House races could not be removed from the May 16 ballots before early voting began, leaving more than 42,000 returned absentee ballots cast in races that are now nullified.
Maryland
Following a printing error that sent wrong party ballots to voters who requested mail-in ballots before May 14, and the subsequent issuance of replacement ballots for affected voters, State Administrator of Elections Jared DeMarinis announced that original ballots will be quarantined until after the primary and counted if a voter does not return a replacement, with safeguards ensuring only one ballot per voter is counted. Local boards began canvassing returned mail-in ballots on June 1.
The Anne Arundel County Board of Elections, in a separate error, is mailing corrected sample-ballot booklets to roughly 10,000 voters after a layout shift displayed an incorrect legislative district on one page; the county said registration data, pollbooks, and live and mail-in ballots were unaffected.
The Washington County Board of Elections acknowledged that more than 92,000 sample ballots mailed to voters listed an incorrect Election Day date on one interior page—the November 2024 general-election date rather than the June 23 primary—after staff built the 2026 mailing from the 2024 template and missed the date; the county said the correct primary date appears elsewhere in the mailing, including on the cover.
Minnesota
America First Legal notified Secretary of State Simon that it will sue unless the state addresses what the group calls legal deficiencies in Minnesota’s vouching statute, which lets a registered voter attest to the residency of up to eight others in place of identification for same-day registration.
New Jersey
An election integrity task force set up by the New Jersey GOP and RNC reported that hundreds of non-citizens had been registered to vote in the state, alleging at least 30 cases in which non-citizens had illegally cast ballots in elections. The group attributed the registrations in part to the state’s practice of conducting voter registration through the Motor Vehicle Commission, noting that non-citizens can lawfully obtain driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers in the state. Fox News also covered the development.
Ohio
As a proposed constitutional amendment to enshrine the state’s existing photo-identification requirement passed the state Senate, Honest Elections Project Action released polling finding that 86 percent of likely Ohio voters support requiring photo ID to vote and 76 percent favor placing the requirement in the state constitution, with majority support across parties. The measure, which has moved to the House, drew proponent testimony before the Senate General Government Committee from Justin Riemer of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, Jason Snead of Honest Elections Project Action, and others.
Ohio lawmakers passed legislation requiring voters to present approved photo identification when voting in person and requiring absentee voters to submit a copy of an approved photo ID when requesting and returning a mail ballot.
Pennsylvania
House Speaker Joanna McClinton and other Democratic officials directed voters to a voter-information site whose address closely resembles the Department of State’s official vote.pa.gov and which carries state-themed branding but is operated by Commonwealth Communications, a political nonprofit aligned with the Democratic Party. According to the reporting, the site’s privacy policy permits the personal data entered by users to be shared with political organizations and third parties.
South Carolina
A federal grand jury has indicted a legal permanent resident non-citizen of voting in the 2024 election. The release notes that the individual registered through “the voter registration portal with the South Carolina Election Commission.”
Texas
Secretary of State Jane Nelson, the state’s chief election official, announced that she will leave the agency effective July 17, months before the November general election. Nelson presided over seven statewide elections during her tenure.
Fort Bend County election officials acknowledged that a county employee uploaded an outdated file that disabled voter check-in machines for nearly three hours during the May 26 primary runoff voting, forcing affected voters to vote provisionally. With two races separated by fewer than 600 votes, the county declined to say how many voters were affected, and candidates called for an investigation.
North Carolina
Photo ID, Absentee Voting, Recount, and Voting Site Rules
Comment deadline: July 14, 2026 (all four sets)
Absentee Voting hearing: June 22, 2026
Voting Site Rules hearing: June 29, 2026
The State Board of Elections has proposed four sets of amendments under its general supervisory authority over elections (N.C.G.S. § 163-22), all open for public comment from May 15 through July 14, 2026.
The Photo ID Rules (08 NCAC 17 .0101, .0109) align certain deadlines with statutory deadlines and would make a county board’s decision on an in-person or absentee photo-ID exception affidavit a majority-vote matter rather than a unanimous one.
The Absentee Voting Rules (08 NCAC 18 .0201–.0505) set procedures for county staff reviewing returned absentee ballots, distinguishing curable deficiencies, non-curable deficiencies that require cancellation and reissuance, and irregularities that do or do not require contacting the voter.
The Recount Rules (08 NCAC 09 .0110) change the deadline for when a county board must begin a hand-to-eye recount.
The Voting Site Rules (08 NCAC 10C .0101–.0104) address buffer zones, electioneering areas, and conduct, including noise, at voting sites.
Alabama
Allen v. Milligan, No. 2:21-cv-1530 (N.D. Ala.)
On June 2, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a three-judge district court’s injunction and allowed Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map for the August 11 special primary and the 2026 general election, citing its recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais.
Arizona
United States v. Fontes, No. 2:26-cv-00066 (D. Ariz.)
On June 3, the Department of Justice filed a notice that it will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the dismissal of its suit seeking an unredacted copy of Arizona’s statewide registration list. A federal court dismissed the case with prejudice in late April, holding that the federal government has no right to the unredacted file.
Arkansas
Norris v. Griffin, No. 5:26-CV-5005 (W.D. Ark.)
On June 1, a federal court dismissed a First Amendment lawsuit brought by a Republican candidate challenging a statute barring nonvoters from remaining within 100 feet of a polling place. The court held that the statute is content neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.
District of Columbia
DSCC v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-01114 (D.D.C.)
On May 28, a federal court declined to preliminarily enjoin the March 31 executive order directing the creation of federal voter-eligibility lists and restricting mail-ballot delivery, finding the challenge premature because the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and the Department of Homeland Security had not yet acted to implement the order. The court noted that the plaintiffs could renew their motions once the agencies act. The plaintiffs began the appeal process on June 1.
NAACP v. United States Postal Service, No. 20-cv-2295 (D.D.C.)
On June 3, the NAACP moved to enforce its December 2021 settlement with USPS, arguing that the agency’s proposed “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections” rule (under which USPS would decline to deliver mail-in ballots where states do not submit voter lists or use a specified envelope design) directly violates the agency’s settlement commitment to prioritize timely delivery of election mail through 2028, and asking the court to bar USPS from proceeding with the rule. The motion revives the organization’s 2020 suit over election-mail delays; the USPS’s response is due June 11.
Florida
Equal Ground Education Fund v. Byrd, No. 2026 CA 000914 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cnty.); Common Cause v. DeSantis, No. 2026 CA 000928 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cnty.); Thompson-Wynn v. Byrd, No. 2026 CA 000925 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cnty.) (consolidated)
On June 10, the state Supreme Court declined to block Florida’s newly enacted congressional map pending resolution of a challenge alleging it violates the state’s Fair Districts Amendment. The ruling allows the map to remain in effect for the 2026 elections while litigation proceeds.
Georgia
Rose v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-2921 (N.D. Ga.)
On June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Georgia’s statewide, at-large method of electing Public Service Commission members, brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The denial leaves in place the Eleventh Circuit’s 2023 reversal of a district court ruling that had found the at-large system diluted minority voting power. The state will continue to elect commissioners statewide.
Boston v. Georgia, No. 26CV007975 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)
On June 3, the DeKalb County District Attorney filed suit in a state court challenging House Bill 369, signed in May, which would make elections for district attorneys and several other county offices nonpartisan in five counties beginning in 2028. The complaint contends the law violates the state constitution’s uniformity clause and state and federal equal protection guarantees by treating the five counties differently from Georgia’s other 154, and that lawmakers violated procedural rules in passing it. The state has 30 days to respond.
United States v. Raffensperger, No. 1:26-cv-00485 (N.D. Ga.)
On May 30, the Department of Justice moved to disqualify the assigned district judge in its suit seeking Georgia’s unredacted statewide voter file, and asked the court to postpone a June 3 hearing on the defendants’ motions to dismiss pending resolution of the disqualification request. The motion argues that recusal is required under federal law because the assigned judge reportedly attended a 2024 victory celebration for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
Louisiana
Callais v. Landry, No. 3:24-cv-00122 (W.D. La.)
On June 1, the plaintiffs questioned in a filing whether the enacted map removes race from the configuration around District 2 and asked the court to retain jurisdiction through the 2028 cycle if it approves the new map as an interim remedy.
Maine
United States v. Bellows, No. 1:25-cv-00468 (D. Me.)
On June 5, the DOJ appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals the dismissal of its suit seeking an unredacted copy of Maine’s statewide registration list.
Massachusetts
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-11549 (D. Mass.)
On June 2, a federal court heard arguments on the plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin Section 3 of the March 31 executive order, which directs the Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters appearing on a federally generated list. The plaintiffs, a coalition of advocacy organizations, contend that the order violates the separation of powers and the Elections Clause by overriding state mail-voting laws and conscripting the Postal Service, and that the underlying citizenship-list mandate risks disenfranchising eligible voters.
On June 8, the federal defendants filed a notice in this case and in the parallel California v. Trump lawsuit stating that a DHS memorandum supersedes the implementation recommendation noticed June 5. Under the memorandum, USCIS, with the Social Security Administration and State Department, will deliver a state-facing citizenship-information mechanism by June 30. The notice adds that DHS data-sharing with USPS remains contingent on a final ballot-mail rule, and that the memorandum abandons SAVE-based whole-roll verification.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Youth Movement v. Scanlan, No. 1:24-cv-00291 (D.N.H.)
On May 28, a federal court struck down New Hampshire’s law requiring hard-copy documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, House Bill 1569, finding it imposed an excessive burden on the right to vote and ordering the state to stop enforcing it immediately.
North Carolina
Kivett v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections, No. 24CV031557-910 (N.C. Super. Ct., Wake County)
A state court ruled that individuals who have never resided in North Carolina cannot vote in any North Carolina election, ending the practice of allowing certain overseas citizens who never lived in the state to cast ballots; the Republican National Committee and the North Carolina Republican Party brought the challenge, along with two individual voters supported by Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE).
Tennessee
Hale v. Lee, No. 3:26-cv-00603 (M.D. Tenn.)
On June 9, the Tennessee Democratic Party, four Democratic congressional candidates, and four voters voluntarily dismissed their federal challenge to the congressional map enacted in May. Two other federal challenges to the map remain pending in the same court.
Texas
La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Nelson, Nos. 5:21-CV-844, 5:21-CV-848, 5:21-CV-920 (W.D. Tex.)
On June 1, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing en banc in the consolidated challenge to Senate Bill 1, leaving in place the panel decision in the long-running litigation over the statute’s mail-ballot, assistance, and poll-watcher provisions.
Virginia
NAACP Virginia State Conference v. O’Bannon, No. 1:25-cv-01937 (E.D. Va.)
On June 4, a federal court approved a consent decree resolving a challenge to Virginia election officials’ rejection of on-campus college students’ voter registration applications and same-day-registration provisional ballots for omitting details such as dorm name, room number, or campus mailbox. Plaintiffs had alleged the practice rejected eligible students over immaterial omissions, in violation of the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The decree bars rejection of applications that omit such details when the information is not needed to assign a precinct, requires the state to amend its registration form to clarify what address information on-campus and group-housing residents must provide, and requires rulemaking to codify the change in the Virginia Administrative Code.
Wisconsin
United States v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, No. 3:25-cv-1036 (W.D. Wis.)
On June 5, the DOJ appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals the dismissal of its suit seeking an unredacted copy of Wisconsin’s statewide registration list.
The U.S. Postal Service filed a proposed rule, “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections,” published in the Federal Register on June 2 with a 30-day comment period. The proposal would require states to submit to USPS the names and addresses of voters receiving mail-in or absentee ballots, along with unique barcodes tied to each voter’s outbound and return envelopes, and would establish a Federal Ballot Mail Portal generating state-specific participation lists. The rule would apply to general, special, and runoff federal elections, but not primaries or ballots sent to military and overseas voters, and implements the administration’s March 31 executive order.
The U.S. Senate rejected the SAVE America Act, which Republicans offered as an amendment to a $70 billion immigration-enforcement funding bill then on the floor. The measure would have required documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, photo identification to cast a ballot, and state voter-roll checks against a federal citizenship database; it had passed the House in February. Four Republicans joined all Democrats in opposition.
The Senate Democrats’ “Election Protection Task Force” held its second meeting since launching in April, a tabletop exercise with outside election-law experts rehearsing responses to scenarios the group anticipates in the 2026 midterms.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board (paywalled) weighed in on California, acknowledging that there has been no evidence of fraud but criticizing the slow vote counting and state Democrats for “design[ing] a leaky elections system to juice their votes.”
Eli McKown-Dawson and Nate Silver argue that California’s slow vote count reflects an administration problem the state should fix.
Christian Adams also weighs in on California, pointing to automatic voter registration, universal mail voting, and poor list maintenance as reasons for its election administration problems.
Election Law Program at Ohio State University (ELOSU) received a $47,279 grant from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab to fund a practice-oriented research project cataloging and analyzing litigation over voter list maintenance. The project aims to summarize and assess legal challenges to states’ list-maintenance procedures to inform policy and administrative practice, and is one of ten awards in the Lab’s round on voter registration and list maintenance.
A Bipartisan Policy Center report found that, absent a substantial federal funding commitment, widespread replacement of aging U.S. voting equipment with systems certified to the EAC’s VVSG 2.0 standard could take decades, projecting that the average age of voting equipment nationwide would reach roughly 9.3 years by the next presidential election and that more than half of equipment would be replaced between 2026 and 2032.
The Grant Institute has potential openings for junior level attorneys and others interested in the study of election administration and voting issues. Interested candidates should please email their resume to info@grantdemocracy.org.