2024 election updates: Trump heads to Pennsylvania with boost in new Sun Belt poll

(WASHINGTON) — Politicos in Washoe County, Nevada, proudly refer to their home as “the swingiest county in the swingiest state,” where voters in the sprawling and sparsely populated swath of desert might very well tilt the scales of a deadlocked presidential election in November.

But Washoe has also carved out a reputation as the epicenter of a troubling nationwide trend: County officials refusing, for one reason or another, to certify election results.

Despite a legal requirement to accept the vote tally and pass the results along to state election officials, county supervisors in at least eight states have bucked this ministerial duty in recent election cycles, according to one watchdog group, prompting concern among democracy experts that it could upend voters’ faith in the election process.

“What was a sort of wild and desperate idea in 2020 has caught on with certifying officials in the last couple of elections,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit think tank. “It won’t be a successful tactic to overturn the outcome of our election, or to stop certification. But it will cause chaos and distrust in the meantime.”

In Washoe County, two members of the county board of commissioners have emerged as symbols of the broader dispute over vote certification: Alexis Hill, the Democratic chair of the board, and Michael Clark, a Republican commissioner. During board meetings, the two sit less than ten feet from each other on the dais. But when it comes to just about everything else — including the role of the commission in certifying election results — they are miles apart.

Hill, 41, lives just blocks from downtown Reno, the county’s most populous city, with her husband and 3-year-old daughter. Most days, she commutes to the county offices on her e-bike. Clark, 73, decamps each day to his ranch near Washoe Lake, where he tends to his horses, mules and dogs. On weekends, he rides his Harley.

‘A dark afternoon’

In the commissioners’ chambers, Hill and Clark regularly tangle over budgets and policy. But no issue fires them up more than election integrity. And in July, Clark and two Republican colleagues made national headlines when they refused to certify the outcome of two local races — prompting fears of what might come to pass in November.

“It was a dark afternoon,” Hill told ABC News’ Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran. “Decisions like that, they break institutions … they make people believe that we don’t have a fair and free election.”

Clark relented a week later under “extreme duress,” he explained at a commission meeting in July. The state’s attorney general had threatened him with felony prosecution for failing to execute a duty of his office.

In an interview with ABC News’ Terry Moran, Clark said he is not an election denier, but believes county election officials have failed to properly maintain the voter rolls. Clark pointed to thousands of mail-in ballots that were sent out to registered voters but returned to the county as undeliverable, which he characterized as evidence of poor recordkeeping by the registrar of voters.

“I believe that the people that are running the registrar of voters office can’t keep accurate records,” Clark said in the interview. “When I see sloppy bookkeeping, I don’t trust it.”

Washoe County Manager Eric Brown has acknowledged that the returned ballots might represent voters who had moved, thereby complicating their ability to vote — but he said at a recent meeting that the county had upgraded its voter registration system, which he said “has enhanced tracking and certification capabilities.”

“Moving forward, keeping track of voter records is going to be — we’ll be able to do that much more accurately,” Brown said.

Clark also said his vote to not certify results in July — which was the third time in his two-year tenure on the commission that he did so — was precipitated by what election experts have called erroneous legal advice from a county attorney who told commissioners to vote their conscience.

Clark’s vote “shocked” the state’s elections chief, Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar.

“It is a ministerial duty to certify the election,” Aguilar, a Democratic, told ABC News’ Terry Moran. “If there are concerns and questions about the election — about the election process, about the election administration — [the commission has] the power to schedule an agenda item to have a conversation about how elections work.”

‘That’s just not their job’

All fifty states make election-certification by county officials a mandatory duty of their job to prevent local partisan politicians from meddling in election results. Election disputes, which frequently arise, are typically resolved through audits, recounts, and the courts.

“It may seem odd to people that [the county officials] who are certifying the election aren’t necessarily the ones that investigate all the things that happened in the election,” Morales-Doyle said. “But that’s just not their job.”

But in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, when former President Donald Trump sought to challenge the outcome of the vote, some county officials have refused to certify results.

It began in Wayne County, Michigan, where Trump reportedly pressured two county officials to not certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, according to the Detroit News. In the intervening election seasons, more than two dozen officials in eight states, including key swing states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, have followed suit, according to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

In Arizona, two Republican supervisors in Cochise County were charged with felonies for delaying certification of the 2022 midterm election until a court ordered them to do so. Both have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to go to trial next year. Both also remain in their seats on the county board.

And in Georgia, a state judge this week issued a directive that county officials cannot block the certification of votes due to allegations of fraud or error, ruling that officials “have a mandatory fixed obligation to certify election results.”

‘How you undermine democracy’

Back in Nevada, election officials say they are preparing for any possible challenge to the upcoming election results.

“So is this a contagion?” Moran asked Aguilar. “Do you see this happening in other counties this time around?”

“It may, but I think we are prepared, and we have been preparing for the last 18 months to address any issue that comes up. This was one of them,” Aguilar said. “I’ve been working extremely hard with the attorney general to anticipate some of these situations.”

“We have pre-drafted legal filings — kind of like a Mad Libs, right?” Aguilar said. “You know the county, you fill in the county name, you fill in the date, you fill in the facts. And you file that thing as soon as you can before the Nevada Supreme Court.”

Experts say the failure of county officials to certify results is unlikely to succeed in delaying or altering the outcome of the presidential election. But that does not mean it should not alarm American voters.

“Every time this has been tried before, courts have put a quick end to it. And they will again this year,” Morales-Doyle said. “But what it might do is undermine the public’s faith in our process. And that’s really damaging in and of itself.”

“That’s really harmful,” he said. “Democracy works because people have faith in the outcome of their elections. If you undermine that enough, that’s how you undermine democracy.”

In Washoe County, Hill said she would “absolutely” certify the results, regardless of the outcome in the presidential race or in her own reelection race for commissioner.

“I feel like we are ready to go for this general election. And I have no concerns,” she said. “I do believe that there are really good people who are trying to hold the house together.”

Clark, for his part, offered a more reserved commitment.

“Are you going to certify an election in November?” Moran asked him.

“Well, I guess I’m going to have to,” Clark said. “I don’t want to have an argument with the attorney general. The attorney general and the state of Nevada have much deeper pockets than I have.”

ABC News’ Hannah Prince contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration is saying those whose parole is expiring from the Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans (CHNV) program will need to seek another immigration benefits and if they don’t find one, depart the country.

CHNV was implemented by the Biden administration with the intention to reduce irregular migration of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, and to allow qualifying individuals to lawfully enter the United States in a safe and orderly manner on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.

The program was briefly paused for fraud concerns but has been reimplemented with better safeguards.

These processes were set up as temporary in nature, a source told ABC News, to allow the beneficiaries to work and provide them the time and opportunity to pursue avenues for immigration benefits or humanitarian relief if eligible such as, for example, asylum or Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

“As initially stated in the Federal Register notices, a grant of parole under these processes was for a temporary period of up to two years,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told ABC News. “This two-year period was intended to enable individuals to seek humanitarian relief or other immigration benefits for which they may be eligible, and to work and contribute to the United States.”

The Department said those who do not have pending immigration benefits or who have not been granted an immigration benefit during their two-year parole period will need to depart the United States before the expiration of their authorized parole period or may be placed in removal proceedings after the period of parole expires.

CHNV parolees may be eligible to apply for humanitarian relief or certain immigration benefits with USCIS, the Department said.

DHS points to the CHNV process as an example of a southwest border encounter reducer.

ABC’s Armando Garcia contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds introduced the “Returning Education Back to Our States Act” on Thursday, signaling a commitment to deliver on President-elect Donald Trump’s vow to dismantle the Department of Education.

In the conservative movement to return education back to local control, Rounds said the legislation would “eliminate” the department while redistributing all critical federal programs to other agencies.

Rounds’ announcement was first reported by Fox News.

“For years, I’ve worked toward removing the federal Department of Education,” the Republican senator wrote in a statement, adding “I’m pleased that President-elect Trump shares this vision, and I’m excited to work with him and Republican majorities in the Senate and House to make this a reality. This legislation is a roadmap to eliminating the federal Department of Education by practically rehoming these federal programs in the departments where they belong, which will be critical as we move into next year.”

In his statement, Rounds said the United States spends too much on education for students’ test scores to be lagging behind other countries in standardized assessments. He called the DOE ineffective and earmarked the department’s responsibilities for the Departments of Interior, Treasury, Health and Human Services, Labor and State, according to the bill text.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and aid programs under Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Indian Education of the Department of Education will be transferred to the Department of the Interior, the Federal Pell Grant and other higher education loan programs will be transferred to the Department of the Treasury.

According to the bill, the treasury department will allocate Block grants to states for K-12 and postsecondary education. The treasury secretary also has the power to withhold these funds if they are mishandled by the states. The Justice Department will oversee federal civil rights laws that were previously under Title VI.

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie told ABC News Thursday morning that he would also bring forward legislation to abolish the DOE within the “first few weeks” of the 119th Congress.

“There’ll be one sentence – only thing that will change is the date: The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2026,” Massie told ABC News.

Massie has been pushing to defund the U.S. Department of Education since the start of 2023 when he introduced H.R. 899. Massie’s bill wasn’t voted on in the House last year.

However, education analyst Neal McCluskey at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, argued Massie’s one-sentence bill was not realistic.

“You’ve got to figure out what to do with all the legislation that feeds into the Department of Education,” McCluskey said.

“If Congress were to pass that law that says, abolish the Department of Education, technically the department would go away, but then you’d have all sorts of questions, well, who’s going to administrate or be administrator for all these programs,” he said.

In March 2023, Massie wrote an amendment H.Amendment 124 in H.R. 5, the “Parents Bill of Rights Act” – the House’s signature K-12 education policy – to abolish the department. That amendment failed as all Democrats and 60 House Republicans voted against it.

Here are ways to gut the department

Even as Republicans hold majorities in both chambers next Congress, the Senate typically needs 60 votes to do anything, according to McCluskey. McCluskey said, “There’s no chance they’re going to be at 60, and so it’s going to be tough [to abolish the department legislatively].”

“The Department of Education administers a whole lot of laws, and then those laws have to be changed about who runs student aid and who is tasked with making decisions about canceling student debt, and who decides or who administers Title I and lots of these other federal programs,” McCluskey told ABC News.

“He [President-elect Trump] can certainly use the bully pulpit to drive this a lot. He could provide legislative blueprints if he wanted to. But ultimately this has to come through Congress,” McCluskey underscored.

Meanwhile, Augustus Mays, vice president for partnerships and engagement at the advocacy group The Education Trust, told ABC News that the president-elect could also ask Congress to gut federal programs like Title 1, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and others, in his congressional budget request.

Public education, particularly in high-need districts, would effectively be drained of millions of dollars, according to Mays.

“It would really cripple the ability to function and aid the support that these students need to really succeed from an academic standpoint,” Mays said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.