Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voters head to the polls in four states that are making it easier to cast ballots

Rep. Nancy Mace

Trump-backed Rep. Nancy Mace is facing a primary challenge in South Carolina.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

On Tuesday, four states — Maine, Nevada, North Dakota and South Carolina — will hold primary elections to determine candidates for various seats. Changes in voting laws that have either restricted or increased access to voting in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and unfounded allegations of election fraud in the 2016 and 2020 presidential election have played a part in every primary election around the country, these four states being no exception.

While issues like the economy and inflation, abortion, and gun violence may decide who wins these races, the mechanics of elections will play a significant part in who votes and how they cast their ballots. All of these states have taken steps in recent years to make it easier to vote (although some have also tightened rules).

Maine is ending its closed primary system (but not this cycle), Nevada is shifting to all-mail voting, North Dakota is allowing the use of tribal IDs for voting services and South Carolina just moved to allow early, in-person voting.

What follows is a breakdown of the most important races and how these states have adapted their elections laws to the current political landscape.


Maine

Former Rep. Bruce Poliquin faces Liz Caruso for the Republican nomination to represent the 2nd district, in the state’s highest-profile contest this week. The winner will face the incumbent, Democratic Rep. Jared Golden.

Poliquin lost to Golden in 2018, when Maine became the first state to use ranked-choice voting for congressional elections. Despite trailing after the initial tally, Golden picked up enough votes when a third candidate was dropped and votes were redistributed because no one had initially received a majority of support. (Maine uses RCV for all federal and state elections.)

Other notable races include contests in the Legislature. In the House, Drew Gattine and Jean-Marie Caterina will face off for the Democratic nomination to represent the 126th district , and the Democratic nomination for the 119th district has come down to Charles Skold and Susanne Robins. Across the Capitol, the 27th Senate district will also see a fight for the Democratic nomination between Ken Capron and Jill Duson.

This is expected to be the final year of Maine’s closed primary system, because the state enacted a law in May that creates semi-open primaries starting in 2024. Unaffiliated voters will be allowed to participate in the primary of their choice.

In 2019, Maine implemented a number of changes to election laws to expand ballot access. The state created an online voter registration system and expanded the options for voting by mail. Maine also created a method through which voters can correct a defective ballot.

In addition to the change in the primary system, Maine enacted two other bills to alter elections in the state.

Two more bills were enacted in 2022, according to the Voting Rights Lab. One allows for the use of tribal IDs for voting purposes and provides election officials some leeway to make it easier for people in elder-care facilities to vote. The other deals with election crimes and threats to election workers.

Read more about changes in Maine.

Nevada

Nevada’s closed primary is proving to be the most significant of Tuesday’s elections as many of its races are competitive and could swing the balance of power in Congress.

Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto will face the winner of the Republican primary, likely either former state Attorney General (and MAGA favorite) Adam Laxalt or Sam Brown, who was endorsed by the state GOP. Cortez Masto will find herself in a vulnerable position but she is more likely to maintain her seat than her Democratic colleagues in the House.

The House seats currently held by Democrats Steven Horsford, Susie Lee, and Dina Titus are all very competitive, but only Titus faces a meaningful primary challenge. Her opponent Amy Vilela was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The Republican primaries to challenge Horsford and Lee are both competitive. One of the candidates in Horsford’s 4th district is Annie Black, who has been censured by the state Assembly for refusing to comply with Covid-19 mask protocols and attended the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, 2021, though she maintains that she did not participate in the storming of the Capitol.

In 2021, the Nevada Legislature enacted a number of election-related laws. Most significantly, the state transitioned from a caucus to a primary system for presidential elections, more in line with the traditional closed primaries conducted for other federal, state and local races in the state.

The state expanded access to voting for individuals with disabilities and implemented permanent mail voting, which ensures that every registered and active voter will receive a mail ballot before every primary or general election. That bill also shortens the time frame that voters have to mail in their ballots or fix any issues with their ballot.

Election officials will also face a time crunch with only seven — instead of nine — days to finish their final count after Election Day. It will also strengthen the authenticity of elections with electronic devices that validate signatures on ballots.

Read more about changes in Nevada.

North Dakota

The GOP primaries in North Dakota are far more important than November’s general election, because the state has been one of the most reliably Republican bastions in the past decades. The winners on Tuesday are virtually guaranteed of being elected in the fall.

Sen. John Hoeven faces token opposition in his renomination bid after already fending off a stronger challenge at the state convention.

In 2017, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgun signed a voting bill that introduced stricter voter ID requirements, ultimately hindering voting access from Native Americans. Following lawsuits from two tribes and a number of individual voters in 2020, the secretary of state decided to recognize tribal IDs as well as tribally designated street addresses as acceptable forms of identification.

Then, in 2021, the state passed two bills on election crimes. One covered election deceptions and destroying election equipment, and the other banned the use of private funding for elections.

The state also tweaked the rules related to absentee voting in 2021.

Read more about changes in North Dakota.

South Carolina

The Palmetto State's biggest primary is the race for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, featuring Joe Cunningham and Mia McLeod. Disputes arose when House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford endorsed Cunningham, upsetting McLeod, a fellow legislator. The winner is expected to face the incumbent, Republican Henry McMaster.

In other races, three women — Catherine Fleming Bruce, Angela Geter and Krystle Mattews — are competing for the Democratic nod to take on GOP Sen. Tim Scott, and a pair of Republican House members face internal challenges.

Rep. Nancy Mace, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump, faces Katie Arrington, who is backed by former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. And Rep. Tom Rice, one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, is being challenged by Trump-backed Russell Fry.

Since 2019, South Carolina has implemented very few permanent changes to its election laws. However, the state did make one major move just before this year’s primaries.

In May, McMaster signed a bill establishing early, in-person ballots in time for the 2022 primaries.


While South Carolina enacted new voting rules during last year's pandemic-era election, such as allowing no-excuse absentee voting, these changes were temporary.

It was a long fight, with major disputes between the two chambers of the Legislature beginning in May 2020. But lawmakers reached a compromise in time for the primary.

Read more about changes in South Carolina.

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