Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Arizona 'ballot harvesting' ban will stay in effect when Democrats vote

Mailed ballots
Full value/E+/Getty Images

The Arizona law banning so-called ballot harvesting will remain in effect at least through the state's presidential primary next month.

A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that the four-year-old law, which prohibits collecting and returning the mail-in ballots of a non-family member, was enacted with discriminatory intent in violation of constitutional protections and the Voting Rights Act.

The appeals court also struck down another section of the law, allowing election officials to discard ballots cast at the wrong precinct. State and national Democratic campaign committees challenged the law in court following its enactment in 2016 by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

On Tuesday, however, the 9th Circuit agreed to delay its order while Republican state Attorney General Mark Brnovich appeals to the Supreme Court.


It's unclear when the court will announce whether it will hear the case, but it's extremely unlikely that would happen in the next five weeks. If the justices demur, the ballot harvesting law would be overturned. Arizona, with 67 delegates at stake, is the smallest of four states with Democratic presidential primaries March 17.

At its best, neighbors or party operatives gathering and depositing the absentee or mail-in ballots of elderly, disabled or rural voters is a great way to boost turnout. At its worst, it's an invitation to commit fraud by partisans who pick up but then never deliver completed forms from unfriendly precincts.

About 80 percent of Arizona voters receive a mail-in ballot they may use if they don't choose instead to vote in person on Election Day, according to the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, and those ballots can be returned by mail or in person.

Before the law was enacted, anyone — often a campaign volunteer or staffer — could collect and return someone else's unmailed ballot.

Republicans have been critical of the ballot harvesting newly permitted in California, where last-minute deliveries of votes resulted in the election of several Democrats to Congress after tallies on election night had the GOP candidates ahead. And North Carolina was compelled to conduct a do-over of one 2018 House election after evidence surfaced of significant GOP ballot harvesting, which is against the law in that state.

Arizona is one of nine states that allow only a family member the ability to return a mail-in ballot on behalf of another.


Read More

Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption
Greggory DiSalvo/Getty

Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption

A new Brennan Center survey finds that large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents share deep-seated concerns about government corruption, which most voters define broadly and blame for many of the country’s biggest problems going unaddressed. The survey, fielded to 2,000 registered voters across the country between April 28 and May 6, also finds widespread support for key anticorruption reforms, such as new limits on money in elections and stronger protections against self-dealing by high-ranking government officials.

The key findings include:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less
stethoscope and us dollar bills on blue-colored background.

Millions of Americans face rising healthcare costs and coverage gaps. Learn how strengthening the Affordable Care Act can improve affordability and access.

Getty Images, aaaaimages

When Health Care Becomes a Choice, Something Is Broken

Recently, a nurse told me she had to choose between paying for her husband’s surgery and putting a new roof on their home. “We’re praying for no rain,” she said. In that moment, the distance between political promises and real life collapsed. This is what the economy feels like for millions of Americans — not a graph, not a headline, but a quiet calculation of which basic need they can afford to meet. No family in a nation as wealthy as ours should have to rely on the weather to survive.

For years, Americans were promised that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be replaced with something better, cheaper, and available to everyone. That promise never became policy. Congress never passed a comprehensive replacement. The closest attempt, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), collapsed under the weight of its own numbers. The Congressional Budget Office found that it would have left 23 million more Americans uninsured, caused 14 million to lose coverage in the first year alone, cut Medicaid by $834 billion, and raised premiums for older adults to levels many could never pay. A 64‑year‑old making $26,500 a year would have seen premiums jump from $1,700 under the ACA to more than $14,000. Protections for people with pre‑existing conditions would have weakened. That is not “better.” That is not “cheaper.” And it certainly was not “for everyone.”

Keep ReadingShow less