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

Bad Bunny Super Bowl Clash Deepens America’s Cultural Divide

Bad Bunny performs on stage during the Debí Tirar Más Fotos world tour at Estadio GNP Seguros on December 11, 2025 in Mexico City, Mexico.

(Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images)

Bad Bunny Super Bowl Clash Deepens America’s Cultural Divide

On Monday, January 26th, I published a column in the Fulcrum called Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl Halftime Show Sparks National Controversy As Trump Announces Boycott. At the time, I believed I had covered the entire political and cultural storm around Bad Bunny’s upcoming Super Bowl performance.

I was mistaken. In the days since, the reaction has only grown stronger, and something deeper has become clear. This is no longer just a debate about a halftime show. It is turning into a question of who belongs in America’s cultural imagination.

Keep ReadingShow less
Springsteen’s ‘Streets of Minneapolis’ Demands Justice Now

Bruce Springsteen on October 22, 2025 in Hollywood, California.

(Photo by Rodin Eckenroth/Getty Images for AFI)

Springsteen’s ‘Streets of Minneapolis’ Demands Justice Now

Bruce Springsteen didn’t wait for the usual aftermath—no investigations, no statements, no political rituals. Instead, he picked up his guitar and told the truth, as he always does in moments of moral fracture.

This week, Springsteen released “Streets of Minneapolis,” a blistering protest song written and recorded in just 48 hours, in direct response to what he called “the state terror being visited on the city of Minneapolis.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman typing on her laptop.

North Carolina's Project Kitty Hawk, an online program-management system built by the government, has been beset by difficulties and slow to grow despite good intentions.

Getty Images, Igor Suka

Online Learning Works Best When Markets Lead, Not Governments. Project Kitty Hawk Shows Why.

North Carolina’s Project Kitty Hawk is a grand experiment. Can a government entity build an online program-management system that competes with private providers? With $97 million in taxpayer funding, the initiative seemed promising. But, despite good intentions, the project has been beset by difficulties and has been slow to grow.

A state-chartered, university-affiliated online program manager may sound visionary, but in practice, it’s expensive, inefficient, and less adaptable than private solutions. In a new report for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, I examined the experience of Project Kitty Hawk and argued that online education needs less government and more free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
medical expenses

"The promise of AI-powered tools—from personalized health monitoring to adaptive educational support—depends on access to quality data," writes Kevin Frazier.

Prapass Pulsub/Getty Images

Your Data, Your Choice: Why Americans Need the Right to Share

Outdated, albeit well-intentioned data privacy laws create the risk that many Americans will miss out on proven ways in which AI can improve their quality of life. Thanks to advances in AI, we possess incredible opportunities to use our personal information to aid the development of new tools that can lead to better health care, education, and economic advancement. Yet, HIPAA (the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act), FERPA (The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), and a smattering of other state and federal laws complicate the ability of Americans to do just that.

The result is a system that claims to protect our privacy interests while actually denying us meaningful control over our data and, by extension, our well-being in the Digital Age.

Keep ReadingShow less