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

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