Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Arizona now targeted by a pair of Democratic mail-in-voting lawsuits

Ballot with signature line

A new lawsuit asks a federal court to order that Arizona voters be given five days after every election to complete the signature line on a ballot if they left it blank.

Egor Novikov/Getty Images

Arizona is the latest subject of one of this season's top targets of voting rights litigation: laws that disenfranchise people who forget to sign their absentee ballots or have sloppy handwriting.

With mail-in voting sure to surge because of the coronavirus, easing restrictions on the process has become central to the Democratic effort to boost turnout with courthouse crusades in almost every bellwether state.

The freshest such lawsuit, filed Wednesday, maintains Arizona's signature rules are unconstitutional because voters aren't given an opportunity to correct the mistake of returning an unsigned envelope.


It's the second federal suit Democrats have filed over remote voting rules in Arizona, which has become a 2020 presidential battleground and offers the party one of its top Senate pickup opportunities this fall. It's also a state where mail voting has been encouraged for years and is the method by which four of every five ballots are cast.

A federal judge is also considering whether to make the state count absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day.

The new suit maintains that thousands of votes will be discarded unless the rules are changed, if not by the time of the August primary then in November. It asks the federal court to order that voters be given five days after every election to complete the signature line they left blank.

This is known as allowing voters to "cure" problems election officials find with their ballots. Only 16 states had processes in place during the 2018 midterm election for informing people they forgot to sign their ballots, or their signature didn't look enough like what was on file, and allowing them to try again.

Not giving that second chance, the lawsuit says, deprives voters of their free speech and due process rights. Similar claims have produced settlements in several states to relax missing signature and mismatched signature rules. Republicans say such tight laws are needed to ward off fraud, but there's essentially no evidence of efforts to steal elections with unsigned or forged ballots

The Arizona Legislature voted last year to allow voters five days to prove their signature was authentic after election officials decided it was not. That measure was promoted by Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, and a year ago she signaled she'd back a similar grace period for missing autographs as part of a separate voting rights case brought by the Navajo Nation.

Democrats say an average of 3,000 ballots have been rejected for lack of a signature in Phoenix, the state's largest city, in each election in the past decade.

The other lawsuit challenges an Arizona law, similar to what's on the books in about 30 states, invalidating ballots that arrive in the mail after Election Day. It says the state has "no legitimate interest" in enforcing the deadline and should be required to count ballots that arrive five days late, so long as they're postmarked before the polls close.

Recent polling shows Democrat Joe Biden with a solid shot to capture the state's 11 electoral votes, which President Trump won last time by 4 points, and former astronaut Mark Kelly, a Democrat, well-positioned to unseat Republican Sen. Martha McSally. A pair of House seats are also being closely contested.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less