Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Election Day deadline for absentee ballots in Michigan upheld

Michigan primary voting

Primary voting in Michigan in March, before the coronavirus surge. Now the state is expecting a big increase of mail voting.

Elaine Cromie/Getty Images

Michigan's Court of Appeals has rejected a voting rights group's bid to make the battleground state count absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day.

The decision upholds a state law, similar to those on the books in 33 other states, that says only envelopes that are in the local clerk's office by the time the polls close will be tabulated.

The 2-1 ruling Wednesday came in a lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters. The group said it would appeal to the state Supreme Court, setting up the likelihood the rule will be either relaxed or solidified by November — when the counting of a surge of mailed ballots arriving at close to the last minute could decide the allocation of 16 electoral votes.


Many states and localities are trying to shift to more mail voting because of the coronavirus pandemic. And during the primaries one consistent theme has been absentee ballots not counted because they arrived at the election office too late.

At least 130,000 such envelopes have arrived too late to be counted in primaries so far, and thousands more have been disallowed for other flaws — a 1 percent rejection rate that, while minimal in the abstract, could prove decisive in close contests.

A surge in remote voting seems certain this year in Michigan, not only because of Covid-19 but also because it is the first presidential election in which Michiganders do not need to provide an excuse to obtain an absentee ballot — which is now the case in all but 16 states.

The lawsuit, filed in May, asked the courts to make the state count votes that were postmarked by Election Day and arrived as long as six days after the election. The plaintiffs argued the current law violated voters' voting rights under the state Constitution.

The appeals court said it was up to the Legislature to change the deadline.

The lawsuit also argued that voters' should not have to pay postage to return absentee ballots. But the appeals court said the burden of finding and affixing a stamp was small and therefore allowed the state to make voters pay for it. (Only 16 states front the cost of postage.)


Read More

The Paradox of Young Voters: Disillusioned and Divided
person in blue denim jeans and white sneakers standing on gray concrete floor
Photo by Phil Scroggs on Unsplash

The Paradox of Young Voters: Disillusioned and Divided

In 2024, young Americans were expected to be the stabilizing force in U.S. politics. But instead, they emerged as one of its most paradoxical constituencies: increasingly disillusioned, economically anxious, and sharply divided. Millennials and Gen Z are rapidly becoming the demographic center of political power: by 2028, they may account for nearly half of the electorate. Yet, according to the Spring 2025 Harvard Youth Poll conducted by the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, only 19% of young Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing most or all of the time. Just 13% believe the country is headed in the right direction. The question arises: will this generation accelerate democratic fragmentation, or help rebuild a more resilient civic culture?

This growing pessimism is not confined to one party. Young Americans rate both major political parties poorly, displaying chronically low approval of national leadership, and increasingly question whether democratic institutions are responsive to their needs. The result is not apathy–it is polarization.

Keep ReadingShow less
stethoscope and us dollar bills on blue-colored background.

As debate over universal health care intensifies in the United States, rising medical costs, insurance complexity, and international comparisons are fueling renewed calls for a transparent, accountable system that guarantees basic care for all Americans.

Getty Images, aaaaimages

The United States May Be the Best Place to Build Universal Health Care

The debate over health insurance in the United States has returned to the forefront as the Affordable Care Act faces political pressure, insurance premiums continue to climb, and physicians experience increasing restrictions from insurance companies. A recent poll shows that roughly 62 to 68 percent of Americans believe the government has a responsibility to ensure health care coverage for all. Yet after more than a century of debate, the federal government has taken only small steps toward universal coverage. Today, the United States spends a relatively high amount per person on health care, but Americans die younger and are less healthy than residents in other high-income countries.

Having experienced different health care systems firsthand, I am deeply aware of how universal health care can impact life. Surprisingly, I have also realized that the United States may actually have one of the systems best suited to making it work.

Keep ReadingShow less
A café owner hangs an “Open” sign on the front door at the start of the business day. Concept of entrepreneurship and readiness.
Getty Images, Willie B. Thomas

Cassidy’s Latest Chance To Boost The Small Businesses He Has Long Championed

When election season rolls around, voters are accustomed to hearing politicians proclaim their support for small businesses–institutions that routinely top Gallup’s list of America’s most trusted by a country mile.

It’s easy to talk the talk during campaign season. It’s much harder to do the work when the cameras are off, and the spotlight fades.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less