Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians

Capitol building, Washington, DC

Unsplash/Getty Images

Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians

There may be no greater indication that voters are not being listened to in the escalating redistricting war between the Republican and Democratic Parties than a new poll from NBC News that shows 8-in-10 Americans want the parties to stop.

It’s what they call an "80-20 issue," and yet neither party is standing up for the 80% as they prioritize control of Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook

The White House and money

AI generated image

Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook

In the United States, where the free market has long been exalted as the supreme engine of prosperity, a peculiar irony is taking shape. On August 22, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced that the federal government had acquired a stake of just under 10% in Intel, instantly making itself the company’s largest shareholder. The stake - roughly 433 million shares, valued at about $8.9 billion, purchased at $20.47 each - was carved out of the Biden-era CHIPS Act subsidies and repackaged as equity. Formally, it is a passive, non-voting stake, with no board seat or governance rights. Yet symbolism matters: Washington now sits, however discreetly, in Intel’s shareholder register. Soon afterward, reports emerged that Samsung, South Korea’s industrial giant, had also been considered for similar treatment. What once would have been denounced as creeping socialism in Washington is now unfolding under Donald Trump, a president who boasts of his devotion to private enterprise but increasingly embraces tactics that blur the line between capitalism and state control.

The word “nationalization,” for decades associated with postwar Britain, Latin American populists, or Arab strongmen, is suddenly back in circulation - but this time applied to the citadel of capitalism itself. Trump justifies the intervention as a matter of national security and economic patriotism. Subsidies, he argues, are wasteful. Tariffs, in his view, are a stronger tool for forcing corporations to relocate factories to U.S. soil. Yet the CHIPS Act, that bipartisan legacy of the Biden years, remains in force and politically untouchable, funneling billions of dollars into domestic semiconductor projects. Rather than scrap it, Trump has chosen to alter the terms: companies that benefit from taxpayer largesse must now cede equity to the state. Intel, heavily reliant on those funds, has become the test case for this new model of American industrial policy.

Keep ReadingShow less