Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ohio Democrats sue for more election drop boxes

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose

Ohio Democrats are suing GOP Secretary of State Frank LaRose in an attempt to lift his limit of one ballot drop box per county.

Justin Merriman/Getty Images

The Ohio Democratic Party has filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Frank LaRose challenging his limit of one secure ballot drop box per county.

The suit, filed Tuesday in state court, comes as Ohio — and the rest of the nation — braces for an expected surge in absentee voting this fall as voters seek to avoid Covid-19 exposure.

While election officials and voting rights advocates have been heavily focused on expanding mail-in balloting, growing concerns about the performance of the Postal Service during the primary election season have prompted people to begin looking for additional ways to submit their ballots.


The suit claims there is nothing in state law that limits the number of drop boxes. Republican officials believe otherwise.

"Expanding the availability of secure voter drop boxes within Ohio counties would make an enormous difference for safe, secure and easy voting in Ohio, as well as eliminate delays in boards receiving ballots through the mail system," Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper said.

LaRose, a Republican, did not have an immediate reaction to the lawsuit.

Many states — run by both Republicans and Democrats — use drop boxes to collect paper ballots.

The Election Assistance Commission recommends that there be one dropbox for every 15,000 to 20,000 registered voters. Twenty counties in Ohio have more than 100,000 registered voters and in the March primary 1.8 million ballots were cast by mail.

Ohioans can request absentee ballots until Oct. 31, and ballots will be mailed to those who request them starting Oct. 6.


Read More

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s  SCOTUS Appointees

Silhouette of a hand holding a vote putting in a ballot box in front of the national flag Stars and Stripes of USA.

Getty Images

Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s SCOTUS Appointees

The 21st-century Supreme Court Justices appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote have fundamentally reshaped the affordability crisis by dismantling federal regulatory authority, weakening consumer protections, and expanding landlords' and local governments' property rights over renters.

Specifically, five current justices fit this description: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito (appointed by George W. Bush following the 2000 election), alongside Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (appointed by Donald Trump following the 2016 election). This conservative supermajority has heavily influenced cost-of-living metrics through historic rulings in administrative, housing, and financial law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

women in a courtroom

Getty Images

The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep ReadingShow less
California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Xavier Becerra

Getty Images

California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Political strategist, IVN commentator, and The Latino Century author Mike Madrid has a blunt warning for California: The campaign to repeal the state’s nonpartisan Top Two primary would disproportionately silence the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

In a new Sacramento Bee op-ed, Madrid argues that Latino voters—particularly those who do not align with either major party—played a significant role in California’s record-setting June primary.

Keep ReadingShow less