Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Battleground Georgia latest focus of fight over delayed ballots

postal worker

As many as 2.5 million Georgians may vote by mail this fall.

Rich Fury/Getty Images

Georgia has decided to fight a federal court ruling that ballots postmarked by Election Day must be counted even if they're delayed in the mail as long as three days.

A final decision on the appeal, assuming it comes by the election in eight weeks, will determine the fate of tens of thousands of votes — which could be decisive in a collection of high-profile close races, starting with the tossup contest for Georgia's potentially decisive 16 electoral votes.

The state is among 33, including half a dozen other presidential battlegrounds, where mailed ballots are normally valid only if they arrive to be counted by the time the polls close. But a week ago Judge Eleanor Ross of Atlanta sided with voting rights groups that argue those laws, if applied during a pandemic where a surge in remote voting is sure to put extraordinary strain on the Postal Service, will unconstitutionally disenfranchise a small but pivotal bloc of the national electorate.


Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger over the weekend asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to block Ross' ruling, mainly on the grounds that it was wrong for courts to change the rules so close to an election — an argument that has been persuasive to other federal appeals courts, including the Supreme Court in several cases this year.

The pandemic does not justify such judicial intervention just weeks before absentee ballots are to be delivered, Raffensperger argued, and it will cause confusion for voters and delays for election officials. State law says the final result must be certified 17 days after Election Day, even as people who forget to sign their ballot envelopes or have indecipherable handwriting are given a chance at a do-over.

While she is "reluctant to interfere with Georgia's statutory election machinery," Ross wrote, such action is justified "where the risk of disenfranchisement is great, as is the case here."

A record 1.1 million Georgians voted by mail in the June primary, almost half the total vote. And 1 percent of the ballots were rejected, according to the state, seven out of eight of them because they were received at county election offices after the polls closed. But voting rights groups say the 8,500 that were "too late to count" is a significant understatement because many counties did not calculate their numbers completely. Two years ago, 3 percent of absentee ballots were rejected.

Statewide turnout this fall is likely to crest 5 million, and a comparable share may vote absentee in order to avoid risk of exposure to Covid-19 at a polling place. (The state has allowed no-excuse absentee voting for 15 years.)

The lawsuit at issue was filed by the New Geogia Project, a voter registration organization, which estimates at 60,000 the number of ballots likely to be received after Election Day. In the state's governor's race two years ago, Republican Brian Kemp's margin of victory over Democrat Stacey Abrams was 55,000 votes.

Bill Clinton in 1992 was the last Democrat to carry the state, and Donald Trump won it last time by 5 points. But polling since May has shown Joe Biden in a statistical tie with the president. In addition, in a highly unusual situation both GOP-held Senate seats are on the ballot this fall and have both become highly competitive, as have a pair of House contests in the Atlanta area.

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less