National: Trump’s justice department appointees remove leadership of voting unit | Sam Levine/The Guardian

Donald Trump’s appointees at the Department of Justice have removed all of the senior civil servants working as managers in the department’s voting section and directed attorneys to dismiss all active cases, according to people familiar with the matter, part of a broader attack on the department’s civil rights division. The moves come less than a month after Trump ally Harmeet Dhillon was confirmed to lead the civil rights division, created in 1957 and referred to as the “crown jewel” of the justice department. In an unusual move, Dhillon sent out new “mission statements” to the department’s sections that made it clear the civil rights division was shifting its focus from protecting the civil rights of marginalized people to supporting Trump’s priorities. Read Article

North Carolina: Griffin’s case could open an ‘Pandora’s Box’ for election law | Ned Barnett/Raleigh News & Observer

The legal effort to overturn the results of North Carolina’s 2024 state Supreme Court race is an affront to all of the state’s voters, but it potentially also could provide a blueprint for overturning election results in other states. At issue is a lawsuit by Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, who lost his bid to unseat Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes out of 5,540,090 votes cast. Griffin asked that more than 65,000 votes be tossed because of flaws in the voters’ registration, the lack of photo ID on military and overseas absentee ballots and a lack of state residency by some voters. The Griffin lawsuit has ping-ponged between state and federal courts for nearly six months and is currently pending in federal court. Ultimately, this case could endure all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the 6-3 Republican majority might uphold Griffin’s attempt to change the rules that govern an election after the election. Read Article

Arizona: As Cochise County trial approaches, a judge throws out rules for certifying elections | Jen Fifield/Votebeat

When two Republican Cochise County supervisors delayed their certification of the county’s 2022 election results, a judge forced them to certify, pointing to language in Arizona’s election manual that says they have no choice. A state grand jury later charged the two supervisors with two felonies — conspiracy, and interference with the secretary of state’s duty to certify the election. And two secretaries of state have sought to make the rules about supervisors’ duties more explicit. A recent court ruling, though, challenges the long-held presumption in Arizona that supervisors have no discretion when certifying election results. The court threw out that section of the Elections Procedures Manual entirely, saying it goes further than the statute supports. Read Article

National: 100 days in, Trump’s moves to overhaul election law get pushback from courts, Democrats | Niels Lesniewski/Roll Call

On March 25, the president issued an executive order outlining new federal actions, including making available Social Security database information for states to verify voter eligibility and directing Attorney General Pamela Bondi to “take appropriate action” against states that “fail to comply with the list maintenance requirements of the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.” But as with many of the president’s moves, federal court challenges and constitutional questions abound. On April 25, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., put on hold key provisions of Trump’s order, including a directive to the Election Assistance Commission to make changes to the national mail voter registration form to require proof of citizenship. “The President is free to state his views about what policies he believes that Congress, the EAC, or other federal agencies should consider or adopt,” Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “But, in this case, the President has done much more than state his views: He has issued an ‘Order’ directing that an independent commission ‘shall’ act to ‘require’ changes to an important document, the contents of which Congress has tightly regulated.” Read Article