Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Bad handwriting can't stop you from voting in Texas, federal judge says

signature, Texas voting
rolfo eclaire/Getty Images

Texans must be given a chance to prove they really did sign their own absentee ballots if the handwriting on the envelopes looks fishy to election officials, a federal judge has ruled.

If not quickly and successfully appealed by the Texas government, the ruling will guarantee the franchise to a relatively small but potentially pivotal group of voters in the nation's second biggest state, where the presidential race has become genuinely competitive for the first time in almost four decades.

Officials are expecting a record deluge of mailed ballots — especially from people older than 65, who have long been automatically exempt from the state's strict excuse requirements for voting remotely. They are also among the people likeliest to have signatures that have varied over time.


Local officials have been allowed to simply toss ballots after making subjective judgements about mismatched handwriting — at least 1,900 of them two years ago and 1,600 in the last presidential election, although in those elections mailed ballots accounted for just 7 percent of the total vote.

If the share of absentee voting soars as expected, so too will the number of potentially rejected ballots, in some cases to a number big enough to affect the outcome of close contests.

On Tuesday, Judge Orlando Garcia of San Antonio said that arbitrariness "plainly violates certain voters' constitutional rights." He told the state to inform local election officials within 10 days it is unconstitutional to reject ballots based on a "perceived signature mismatch" without notifying voters and giving them a "meaningful opportunity" to sign again. The choices for the state's 254 counties, Garcia said, are to either to accept every signature or come up with a do-over procedure in the next eight weeks — one that starts with a phone call to the voters whose signatures don't look right.

The case began more than a year ago, long before the coronavirus pandemic turned once arcane procedures governing vote-by-mail into a top cause of civil rights groups. The suit was filed by two voters who were told, 10 days after Election Day as state law dictates, that their ballots had been rejected because the endorsement on the flap of a ballot envelope didn't look enough like other signatures on file. They were joined by groups that represent Texans with disabilities, veterans and young voters in arguing the state law violates the 14th Amendment.

Texas offers mail-in ballots to voters who are elderly, will be traveling during an election or who claim a disability or illness. It is one of six states, and the only potential presidential battleground, that has not relaxed those rules because of the public health crisis.

The ruling comes as mail-in ballots for the general election are almost set to go out to voters.

Joe Biden is actively campaigning to become the first nominee of his party since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to carry the state, which now has 38 electoral votes, and polling shows him with a realistic shot. Democrats are also in striking distance of picking up a Senate seat, as many as five House seats and control of half the state Legislature — all mainly because of the growth of the Latino and college-educated suburban populations.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less