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

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less