Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democrats will try again to expand voting options in deep red Alabama

Alabama voting box

Alabama is one of just nine states that doesn't offer in-person early voting.

RobinOlimb/Getty Images

An uphill drive is being revived to make casting a ballot easier in Alabama, which has been at the center of the struggle for voting rights in the United States for more than half a century.

Thomas Jackson, one of the longest serving Democrats in Montgomery, is already gathering support for bills to permit absentee voting without an excuse as well as mandate early voting in every county in the state, one of the few places where neither provision is on the books.

He'll introduce the bills when the Legislature convenes in two weeks. But he's proposed them before and they've never received so much as a committee vote in the lopsided Republican legislature. And Alabama's top elections official, GOP Secretary of State John Merrill, says he's confident both measures will die again this year.


"We have broken every record in the state for voting participation in the last four major elections we've had, so when you're breaking records for voter registration and voter participation, I find it very difficult to believe that we need to change what we're currently doing," he told Alabama Daily News.

"We say we want to move forward, and give everyone the same rights and abilities, but then we keep people away from the ballot, so somebody isn't really being truthful," countered Jackson.

Alabama is among just 17 states that require citizens wanting to vote absentee to proffer a specific reason why they can't get to the polls on Election Day. And it's one of just nine states that do not have in-person early voting. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the states with early voting have it last 22 days on average. The Alabama proposal is for 14 days.

Still, according to secretary of state website, turnout was 67 percent of people registered in the 2016 presidential election (when the national rate was 55 percent) and set a modern record of 74 percent when Barack Obama first ran (and lost the state decisively) in 2008. Donald Trump carried one of the most reliably red states in the nation by 28 points four years ago, the 10th straight victory there for the GOP nominee.

In between the Obama and Trump election was when the Supreme Court struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, the requirement that states with histories of racial discrimination in elections get federal approval for any changes to their voting rules. That 2013 case was about Shelby County in Alabama, one of the locations covered by that so-called preclearance requirement.

The investigative news site Birmingham Watch says nearly 100 polling places were closed in 25 counties between 2010 and 2018. County officials said population shifts prompted some of the closures, while others were caused when the buildings where voting happened were condemned.

Since preclearance ended, Alabama has imposed one of the nation's strictest photo ID laws for would-be voters and become one of only four states to require people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering.


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