Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
How Weak Federal Ethics Laws Enable Presidential Profiteering

How Weak Federal Ethics Laws Enable Presidential Profiteering

The Iran War’s Price Tag: Billions Lost While Americans Go Without

The Iran War’s Price Tag: Billions Lost While Americans Go Without

Protestors holding signs, many that say "Stop Bombing Iran."

Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

Democrats challenge early voting limits in two ’20 battlegrounds

Democrats challenge early voting limits in two ’20 battlegrounds

The early voting laws in Texas and North Carolina would both have significant inpact on turnout among young voters.

Mario Tama/Getty Images
The Fulcrum
By The FulcrumOct 31, 2019
The Fulcrum
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

Democratic groups are challenging the constitutionality of new state laws written by Republicans to curb early voting in two of the biggest battleground states of 2020.

The Texas Democratic Party and the national Democratic campaign committees filed a federal lawsuit this week alleging a law curbing the use of temporary or mobile early voting sites is unconstitutional. Also this week, those same national committees joined the North Carolina Democratic Party in suing to restore early voting in the state on the Saturday before Election Day.

Turnout will be crucial to the Democrats' attempts to win North Carolina's 15 electoral votes for the first time since 2008 and especially to carry Texas, now the second biggest prize with 38 electoral votes, for the first time since 1976. The party is also expected to make an intense run at GOP Sen. Thom Tillis in North Carolina and a longer-shot quest to unseat GOP Sen. John Cornyn in Texas.

Both laws at issue were enacted last year and appear to have their strongest potential impact on younger voters.

The Texas statute is an attempt to limit youth voting in particular by reducing polling places on college campuses, one suit maintains. "In direct contravention of the 26th Amendment," the complaint alleges, the state enacted the law "with the intent and effect of preventing newly-enfranchised young Texans from effectively exercising their right to vote."

The groups are asking a judge to block the law, which has already led to the closure of temporary voting sites on campuses ahead of next week's statewide balloting on 10 potential amendments to the Texas constitution.

The North Carolina measure eliminated the option to vote on the Saturday before the November election, which was the most popular day for early voting in the 2018 midterm, according to the complaint. The assembly later overrode a veto by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper to keep the new restriction in place.

Saturday early voting is popular among African-Americans and young voters, the complaint alleges, which is why Republican legislators sought to end the practice ahead of the coming presidential election.


Latest news

Empty Bravado: Trump’s Hollow Swagger Behind Iran War
Ethics & Leadership

Empty Bravado: Trump’s Hollow Swagger Behind Iran War

People at voting booths.
Electoral Reforms

Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits

Kristi Noem facing away with her hand up to be sworn in as she testifies.
Democracy

Kristi Noem is a Criminal. They Fired Her Because She’s a Woman

Pew Research Report: Americans’ Attitudes on Abortion Are More Divisive
Health

Pew Research Report: Americans’ Attitudes on Abortion Are More Divisive

Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

AP Photo/John Locher

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026