Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Bills advance in California for more open primaries, mandatory voting

2018 California primary voting

California primary voters will have more flexibility to change their party affiliation prior to the the March 3 primary if a voter registration bill is enancted.

David McNew/Getty Images

California, the biggest and one of the bluest states in the country, is about to enact a bill that will make voter registration less rigidly partisan.

The measure looks likely to be on the books in time to permit many thousands of additional people to vote in the Democratic primary on March 3. California has the biggest trove of delegates in the country, 415 of them — by far the biggest prize of 16 states and territories voting on Super Tuesday.

And it is not the only voting bill drawing headlines in Sacramento this week. A Democratic lawmaker who's been central to several of the state's recent expansions of access to the ballot box proposed making voting mandatory.


The registration measure would permit voters to change party preference or residential address within two weeks of an election without having to re-register to vote.

It could be cleared by the Senate as soon as the end of the week, having passed the Assembly, 60-12, on Monday. That overwhelming vote, if echoed on the other side of the capital, signals the Democratic-majority Legislature would override a potential veto. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a similar measure last year on the grounds it could cost too much to implement.

The law now makes voters submit a new registration form if they move or want to change party affiliation. No new forms are processed within 15 days of a primary or general election, but people may file provisional applications and then cast provisional ballots at the polls.

Those restrictions mostly restrict turnout in GOP primaries, which are open only to registered Republicans. The state Democratic Party permits crossover voters in primaries if people are willing to wait in line at their polling places for a special crossover ballot. This caused hours-long backups during the 2018 midterm congressional and gubernatorial primaries.

"This will help reduce wait times, the number of provisional ballots cast, and backlogs during the canvass period while maintaining safeguards to ensure accurate voter rolls," the American Civil Liberty Union of California said in endorsing the bill.

But the Peace and Freedom Party of California is lobbying against the measure, fearing it would lead to a loss of membership in such minor parties.

The compulsory voting measure, by state Rep. Marc Levine, would force all registered voters to return ballots in future elections — although they could be left blank or incomplete. Failure to vote would subject people to penalties similar to those for skipping jury duty.

No jurisdiction in the United States has such a requirement, although voting is required in more than a dozen other countries including such functional democracies as Australia and Belgium. And it's unclear this legislation will advance beyond a hearing likely next month.

"Democracy is not a spectator sport — it requires the active participation of all its citizens," Levine said in a statement. "California is a national leader on expanding voting rights to its citizens. Those rights come with a responsibility by registered voters to cast their ballot and make sure that their voice is heard by their government."

Critics argue that mandatory voting violates civil liberties and makes the universe of voters less plugged in on the issues.

California ranked in the mid 30s for turnout in the last two national elections, dispute new laws enacted in hopes of boosting voter participation. Levine helped write several of them.

Counties may now send all their registered voters a ballot in the mail, which may then be returned postage-free. The state recently added itself to the rosters of places with same-day registration and where eligible people are automatically registered when they apply for a driver's license. And the law now requires election officials to contact voters who submit mail-in ballots without signatures so they have a chance to correct the error.


Read More

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
US Senate candidate Dan Osborn

Nebraska Independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn.

Image obtained from YouTube

7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms

Election Day on November 3, here are the seven independent campaigns we’ve followed closely, four for the Senate and three for the House, ranked by how competitive they are.

Fundraising figures are full-cycle totals from FEC reports, through the date noted for each race. Prediction-market odds come from Kalshi and were pulled on 10/23. Polls are pulled from the aggregated New York Times pages, with several low-quality polls highlighted by campaigns left out.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote

Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote inserted into a grey cardboard ballot box slot.

Getty Images

The First Amendment Does Not Belong to Political Parties

In a recent essay in Life & Liberty, Robert G. Natelson argues that open primaries may violate the First Amendment rights of political parties by allowing people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. His argument starts with the rights of the party. The more fundamental question is whether it starts in the right place at all: When a state conducts a primary election, whose rights are we even talking about?

Natelson’s answer is primarily the rights of political parties. He argues that because parties have a First Amendment right to decide with whom they associate, the government cannot require them to allow people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. He relies on a number of Supreme Court decisions involving political parties and places particular weight on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. But in doing so, he moves too quickly past the most important fact in the debate: a state primary is an election conducted by the government, not a private meeting of a political organization.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media

White House communications aide Danielle Alvarez (R) films with her phone as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media as he departs on the South Lawn of the White House on October 23, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Finn Gomez/Getty Images

Trump’s Arch Plan Defies Law and Warps D.C.’s Historic Core

The Trump Arch construction controversy is the latest vanity project by Donald Trump using taxpayer money without Congressional approval, placing his ego-based physical stamp on not only American historical architecture but also the American psyche. With no good reason for constructing this arch, it’s an act of self-aggrandizement meant to make him look powerful and important. The project is unconstitutional, illegal, and patently un-American. Three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian have also filed a lawsuit against it.

Like all other actors in government, executive agencies, like the National Park Service, must follow the rule of law and respect ‘separation of powers’ established by the U.S. Constitution. This means following the laws enacted by Congress, which has the power to distribute public funds and determine how they are spent, not the Executive Branch, including the President.

Keep ReadingShow less