Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Another expansion of voting options ordered by California's governor

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California wants more changes to make voting easier this fall in the nation's most populous state. And he's pushing his Democratic colleagues in the Legislature to turn his moves into law, expecting that would brush back Republican lawsuits seeking to keep the status quo in place.

The governor's latest executive order, announced Wednesday, tells all 58 counties to create at least one venue for in-person voting on Election Day and also permit voting on the three days before.

Last month he told those local election officials to send all 20.6 million registered voters a general election ballot as a way to make mail-in voting the dominant system and minimize the public's exposure to the coronavirus.


But his new order says disabled, non-English-speaking and homeless Californians, among others, need the option to go to a voting station. It also says counties need to create at least two places with drop boxes, set up a month ahead of time, for voters who don't want to rely on the Postal Service to deliver their ballots in time.

The easing of the rules, especially if they survive legal challenges, could help boost turnout significantly this fall in the place where 13 percent of the country's voters live — and minimize the long lines, populated by people complaining about undelivered mail-in ballots, that marred primaries this week in eight states and Washington, D.C.

[See how election officials in California — and every other state — are preparing for November.]

California is reliably blue overall, its 55 electoral votes a lock for former Vice President Joe Biden and Democrats sure to remain in control in Sacramento, but the GOP has a shot at picking up a handful of congressional seats.

President Trump has focused much of his rhetoric about easier voting rules fomenting fraud on recent results from California, but his claims are almost completely unsubstantiated.

His party has already gone to court to stop Newsom's send-everyone-a ballot move, saying that he's overstepped his authority, and similar legal claims against Wednesday's orders are likely. But those claims would presumably be moot if the Legislature clears measures doing what Newsom wants, and this week the state Senate advanced one such bill.

The cost to implement the latest guidelines will be substantial, easily exceeding California's share of the federal funding sent to all states so far for conducting smooth and safe elections during the Covid-19 outbreak. That means legislators will have to provide funding to carry out Newsom's plan in the annual state budget, which is supposed to be completed by June 15.

Some large counties, including Los Angeles and Orange, already allow several options for early voting and balloting by mail — which was how three of every five ballots were cast in the state two years ago. But many of the more rural counties operate a very traditional system, with almost everyone going to a local polling station on a single day.

Newsom's order pushes these counties to save money, and work to reduce long lines that threaten social distancing, by setting up countywide voting centers that open starting Oct. 31 — perhaps with county officials acting as poll workers.

"As the demonstrations across the country remind us, civic participation is critical to our democracy," he said. "If we are to address the racial inequities that exist in our institutions, policies and representation, we must ensure that all eligible Californians have an opportunity to safely cast their ballot."


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less