Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

2022 primary turnout driven by abortion, Liz Cheney and voting by mail

Wyoming primary

People line up to vote in August's Wyoming primary, where 63 percent of voters participated in a nominating contest that saw Rep. Liz Cheney go down to defeat.

Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

Every state that relies heavily on voting by mail outperformed the national median during the 2022 primaries – but none of them led in turnout this year. That distinction went to Wyoming, where Rep. Liz Cheney ran in a statewide nominating contest, and Kansas, which put an abortion measure on the primary ballot.

But the seven states that do run vote-by-mail primaries were all in the top 20 – including four of the top seven – according to data collected by the National Vote at Home Institute.

“Voting by mailed-out ballots has lifted primary turnout in states by 5 to 15 percentage points,” said Gerry Langeler, director of research for NVAHI. “And given that primaries often show turnout percentages in the teens or 20s, that can amount to a 25 percent to 50 percent relative lift.”


While making it easier to vote appears to be a significant driver of higher turnout, there are individual contests that can motivate people to vote at an even higher rate.

Cheney, the sole House member from Wyoming, had been a reliable supporter of conservative causes who voted with her party and Donald Trump on nearly every issue. And she had been the third-ranking Republican in the House until being forced from the post because she defended the results of the 2020 election and blamed Trump for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.

She then agreed to serve as the top Republican on the committee investigating the insurrection, further cementing herself as an outcast in a party still heavily backing Trump. The three-term lawmaker easily won the nomination in 2018 and 2020 with about 75,000 votes each time. This year, she lost the primary to Harriet Hageman, who got more than 113,000 votes – as turnout soared to 63 percent in Wyoming, up from 52 percent in the 2018 midterm.

While the state does not have a full vote-by-mail system, it does allow anyone to use an absentee ballot and runs an open primary.

Legislators in Kansas had placed a proposed constitutional amendment banning the right to an abortion on the primary ballot, rather than November’s general election ballot. Opponents accused lawmakers of scheduling it that way to take advantage of low voter turnout. But abortion rights supporters were motivated to vote and decisively defeated the amendemnt.

In 2018, the previous midterm election, 27 percent of registered voters cast a ballot in the Kansas primary. This year, turnout hit 48 percent.

After Wyoming and Kansas, four of the next five highest turnout states all conduct vote-by-mail elections. Forty percent of registered voters Washington and Hawaii participated in those states' primaries this year.

They were followed by Oregon (38 percent) and Utah (37 percent), which unlike the others do not have open primaries. Sandwiched in between those pairs was Montana, which has an open primary and no-excuse absentee voting. Montana also allows people to request to permanently receive their ballots by mail.

According to NVAHI, turnout among mail voters in Montana was 55 percent, but only 12 percent among in-person voters.

Four other states and the nation’s capital conducted vote-by-mail primaries. (Vermont only uses a full vote-by-mail system for general elections.):

  • California (33 percent).
  • Colorado (32 percent).
  • Washington, D.C. (32 percent).
  • Alaska’s special election for its vacant House seat (28 percent). Turnout for the regular primary, which was not all run by mail, was 32 percent.
  • Nevada (26 percent).

Even though Nevada trailed the others, it still surpassed the national median of 25 percent turnout.

“The turnout in Nevada displays the same thing we saw in Wyoming, but in reverse. Primary turnout still has a major component on ‘how hot are the local races’ in it. Wyoming led the nation in 2022 primary turnout due to the Liz Cheney ‘referendum,’ even without the benefit of mailed-out ballots,” Langeler said. “Nevada voters simply were not that engaged in their primary, but even as the lowest of the vote-at-home states, Nevada beat the national turnout average.”

Efforts are underway by advocates to further expand voting by mail. The D.C. City Council is considering a bill this week to make permanent its temporary move to vote by mail.

Langeler identified a number of states that may expand the use of permanent absentee voting (also known as “single sign-up”). Michigan has a ballot measure to that effect on the November ballot. New Mexico and Maine may revise their systems. And in Connecticut, lawmakers are expected to vote on switching to no-excuse absentee voting.

See the full report.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less