Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Federal judge weighs in for easier mail voting in Texas

Absentee voting

More Texas voters, like these in San Antonio on Super Tuesday, would be able to avoid lines at polling places and vote by absentee ballots under a federal judge's ruling on Tuesday.

Edward Ornelas/ Getty Images

Everyone in Texas has a constitutional right to vote absentee because of the coronavirus pandemic, a federal judge has ruled.

The decision by Judge Fred Biery is the latest volley in what looks to be a protracted legal battle, in both state and federal courts, over who may avoid the possibility of viral infection at a Texas polling place this year. The fight is especially important because Texas is the second most populous state, a hotbed of hot contests this fall — and also among just a handful of states that have not relaxed stringent eligibility rules for voting by mail.

The ruling was among three fresh developments Tuesday in courthouses across the country, which have become the venue for dozens of fights between voting rights groups and conservative state governments over the rules for remote voting during a public health emergency. These are the details:


Texas

The decision by Biery, which begins with the opening words of the Declaration of Independence, provides a preliminary injunction while the pandemic is ongoing — allowing anyone trying to avoid the virus to obtain an absentee ballot for the July primary runoffs and the November election. Texas is one of 16 states with laws on the books requiring a specific excuse for people to absentee ballot, but a dozen of them have implemented workarounds this spring .

In Texas, one of the available excuses is a disability. The judge said that should apply to all registered voters who "lack immunity from Covid-19 and fear infection at polling places," which is similar to the view several state governments have taken.

A state court judge ruled similarly in a separate lawsuit last month, declaring the pandemic must allow voters to qualify for absentee ballots under the disability excuse. Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed and threatened to prosecute election officials in the state's big cities who were starting to issue mail ballots without the usual excuses. And last week the state Supreme Court agreed to put a hold on expanded absentee voting until it considered the state's appeal

In another sweeping determination, Biery said another permissible excuse - being older than 65 - amounts to unconstitutional age discrimination against younger voters. Lawsuits pressing the same arguments are pending in several states where the elderly may always vote absentee but others may not.

One expert, Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, predicted the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals would overturn the ruling because its legal rationale was shaky.

Louisiana

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Fair Elections Center, suing the state on behalf of the League of Women Voters, asked a federal judge to declare unconstitutional the requirement that people have a specified excuse before using an absentee ballot in either the July presidential primary or local elections in august..

It also argues the requirement that a witness' signature be on an absentee ballot is unconstitutional, as are current rules that don't permit voters to fix any problems with their absentee ballots, such as failing to sign or date them properly.

The suit says the effect of all the rules is to discriminate against old and minority voters. Suits are working their way through the courts challenging similar absentee ballot regulations in several other states.

Minnesota

Another challenge to witness signature requirements on absentee ballots was filed by the League of Women Voters in federal court in St. Paul. The coronavirus pandemic means that people will be unconstitutionally forced to risk their health in order to get someone to come close enough to countersign their envelopes ahead of the statewide primaries Aug. 11, the lawsuit argues.

Michelle Witte, executive director of the league, said the requirement hits seniors and minority voters particularly hard. "The current law requiring an absentee ballot witness unnecessarily exposes them to greater risk of contracting this deadly virus," she said.


Read More

A TSA employee standing in the airport, with two travelers in the foreground.

A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) worker screens passengers and airport employees at O'Hare International Airport on January 07, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. TSA employees are currently working under the threat of not receiving their next paychecks, scheduled for January 11, because of the partial government shutdown now in its third week.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

Nope. Nevermind. Some DHS agencies still shut down.

House Republicans reject clean bill to open shut-down DHS agencies (March 28 update)

House Republicans (and three Democrats) rejected the Senate's clean bill to end the shutdown late Friday night. Instead, the House passed a different bill that fully funds every agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but for only 60 days with the knowledge that this short-term continuing resolution will not pass in the Senate.

Both chambers are out until April 13 so the shutdown is expected to last until then at least. Hope that no major weather disasters occur before then because FEMA is one of the DHS agencies out of commission (though some of its employees may be working without pay). It's possible that air travel security lines won't get worse since the President signed an Executive Order authorizing DHS to pay TSA workers. New DHS Secretary Mullin says paychecks will start to go out as early as Monday. How long can this approach continue? Unknown. Leaving aside the questionable legality of repurposing funds in this way, DHS may not be willing to keep paying TSA from these other funds long-term.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sketch collage image of businessman it specialist coding programming app protection security website web isolated on drawing background.

Amazon’s court loss over Just Walk Out highlights a deeper issue: employers are increasingly collecting workers’ biometric data without meaningful consent. Explore the growing conflict between workplace surveillance, privacy rights, and outdated U.S. laws.

Getty Images, Deagreez

The Quiet Rise of Employee Surveillance

Amazon’s loss in court over its attempt to shield the source code behind its Just Walk Out technology is a small win for shoppers, but the bigger story is how employers are quietly collecting biometric data from their own workers.

From factories to Fortune 500 companies, employers are demanding fingerprints, palmprints, retinal scans, facial scans, or even voice prints. These biometric technologies are eroding the boundary between workplace oversight and employee autonomy, often without consent or meaningful regulation.

Keep ReadingShow less
Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far
a person is casting a vote into a box

Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far

Primary elections are already underway across the United States, and this year’s contests are giving early clues about what voters may prioritize in the general election.

Several states have recently held high-profile primary races that could influence the balance of power in Congress over the next two years, in both state-wide and local elections. Many of these races involve open seats or competitive districts, making the outcomes especially significant as parties prepare for November.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs, including one that says "let the people vote."
Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Heather Diehl

The Senate Was Meant to Slow Us Down—Not Stop Us Cold

The Senate is once again locked in a familiar pattern: a bill with clear support on one side, firm opposition on the other—and no obvious path forward.

This time it’s the SAVE Act, framed by its supporters as a safeguard for election integrity and by its opponents as a barrier to voting access. The arguments are well-rehearsed. The positions are firm. And yet, beneath the policy debate sits a more revealing truth: in today’s Senate, the outcome of legislation is often shaped long before a final vote is ever cast.

Keep ReadingShow less