Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Judge tosses Louisiana doctor's note rule for citing Covid to vote by mail

doctor's note
Westend61/Getty Images

A slight easing of access to absentee ballots in Louisiana was ordered by a federal judge Wednesday. But even if her ruling survives a possible appeal, the state's voters will still face some of the strictest restrictions on voting by mail.

A purported compromise for the general election — requiring voters to produce a signed doctor's note before claiming poor health or exposure to the coronavirus makes it unwise to go to the polls — was struck down as an undue burden on voting rights by Judge Shelly Dick of Baton Rouge.

Instead, she said, the state must take voters at their word if their application cites illness, quarantine, caring for a sick relative or high susceptibility to Covid-19. That rule is still more restrictive than what's now been put in effect, at least for the presidential contest, in 45 states.


Nonetheless, the ruling was hailed by Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards. He had reluctantly agreed to the doctor's note plan a few weeks ago when he could not persuade the Republicans in control of most of the state government to continue relaxing the absentee rules for November (and the state's unique December runoffs) the way they had for a pair of primaries this summer.

"Simply put: Covid-19 remains a serious problem in Louisiana and voting should not be a super spreader event," the governor said.

"Bumbling attempts to fix what was not broken have brought us to today," the judge wrote in her opinion. She likened the need to find (and presumably pay) a doctor for an opinion to an unconstitutional poll tax.

The state's top GOP officials, Attorney General Jeff Landry and Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin, said they were considering asking the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse her. But the timetable is tight for playing out such a legal fight. Early in-person voting, the option many will presumably choose if they cannot claim an absentee ballot, begins in four weeks.

President Trump seems assured of extending the GOP's record of winning Louisiana to six elections in November. He took its 8 electoral votes by 20 points last time.

Less than 1 percent of the absentee ballots cast in the primaries were from voters who cited the coronavirus as their excuse. The number was that low because voters older than 65, who are some of the likeliest victims of the pandmeic, are not required to give a reason to vote by mail.

The individual voters who brought the lawsuit were joined by the Louisiana branch of the NAACP and the Power Coalition for Equity & Justice, a voter rights group.


Read More

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The exterior of Capitol Hill

Getty Images

Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The 2026 congressional map is finally set after ten states adopted new congressional redistricting maps for the November 3 General Election. Observers note that the Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has not graded any state’s maps since it gave California’s Proposition 50 an “F” on October 30, 2025.

The PGP has officially paused grading its Redistricting Report Card because founder Dr. Sam Wang, who transitioned from the Gerrymandering Project to the Electoral Innovation Lab, has launched a campaign for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th District, requiring him to step back from his academic roles, including his leadership at PGP.

Keep ReadingShow less
Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Lady Justice

Photo provided

Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Impunity is not only the failure to punish. It is a public answer to the question of whether harm matters.

Every democracy must repeatedly answer the question of impunity. When public trust is violated, or when law itself is manipulated or attacked, penalties matter. But the deeper question is whether a society can recognize injury and prevent further harm when it has lost the ability to clearly name wrongdoing.

Keep ReadingShow less