Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The state of voting: April 18, 2022

State of voting - election law changes

This weekly update summarizing legislative activity affecting voting and elections is powered by the Voting Rights Lab. Sign up for VRL’s weekly newsletter here.

The Voting Rights Lab is tracking 2,445 bills so far this session, with 572 bills that tighten the rules governing voter access or election administration and 1,087 bills that expand the rules.

Much of last week’s action focused on voter ID requirements. The Missouri Senate’s Local Government and Elections Committee advanced legislation that would make the state’s voter ID law much stricter. But the Arizona House voted to delay implementation of a new law requiring proof of citizenship until after the 2022 general election. New York made it easier to vote for voters with disabilities, college students, and mail voters.

And Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed more legislation. In this case, the bill would have affected independent election administration.

Looking ahead: The Missouri Senate will consider an omnibus election reform bill if it is able to resolve outstanding impasses concerning other topics, including congressional redistricting.

Here are the details:


Arizona House votes to delay proof of citizenship implementation. Amid lawsuits and Gov. Doug Ducey’s attempt to reject a more extreme interpretation of the legislation, the Arizona House voted to delay the effective date for the new requirement that voters provide evidence of citizenship to vote. This new law would not allow people to vote in presidential elections, or in any elections by mail, unless election officials confirmed the person’s citizenship through documentation provided by the voter or an existing database. This new requirement is currently scheduled to take effect between the primary and general elections this year. If the delay is approved by the Senate and Ducey, the requirement will not take effect until after the 2022 general election.

A bill that creates early voting, but also makes the state ID requirement much stricter, advances out of Missouri elections committee. H.B. 1878 was voted out of Missouri’s Senate Local Government and Elections Committee. The bill would only allow citizens to vote in person if they are able to show a photo ID. Under current Missouri law, voters can prove their identity using a variety of ID types, including utility bills, bank statements and paychecks. Notably, before advancing the bill, the committee added language creating up to six weeks of in-person early voting. Missouri is currently one of only seven states that does not generally offer any type of in-person early voting. The bill will now move to the full Senate for consideration, though the Senate remains deadlocked on other issues – including congressional redistricting – that are slowing down consideration of any legislation.

New York makes casting a ballot easier for those with disabilities, students and mail voters. As part of a settlement, the New York State Board of Elections will allow voters with disabilities to request electronic, accessible ballots up to 15 days before any elections. The ballots will also feature raised markers to aid voters with visual impairments. Last week, the Legislature enacted legislation requiring that all absentee ballots include prepaid return postage. The bill also ensures that there is a polling place on every college campus with 300 or more registered voters. This legislation will make it easier for students to vote, particularing with college campuses are divided into multiple districts.

Wisconsin governor vetoes legislation that would interfere with the administration of elections. On Friday, Evers vetoed two election bills. S.B. 213 would have shifted election authority away from the Wisconsin Election Commission by enabling people to skip a WEC administrative process and directly petition the court to test the validity of any decision on the part of an election official. S.B. 936 would have created a performance audit of voting equipment after each general election and made several changes to how the WEC responds to complaints received about violations of election law and the reporting of those complaints.

Maryland legislature passes legislation strengthening its cure process. Last week, the Maryland General Assembly sent S.B. 163 to the governor’s desk. The bill would ensure that voters who forget to sign the oath on their mail ballot are notified and given a chance to correct their error and have their vote counted.

Colorado protects voting for victims of natural disasters. Colorado enacted S.B. 152, which allows people to maintain their voter registrations after their homes have been destroyed by wildfire or other natural disasters, provided the voter intends to rebuild and move back to their residence. Existing law requires a voter’s registration address to match their motor vehicle registration address and income tax address.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less