Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Latest absentee voting rights tally: 1 win, 2 fresh legal fights

Mail voting

Who can use mail-in ballots, like these 2018 midterm ballots in California, has become the subject of legal challenges in many states.

Alex Edelman/Getty Images

State by state, the future of absentee ballots — who may cast them, when they're due and what other obstacles should be lowered — continues to be the dominant story about how well the democratic process is prepared to meet the coronavirus pandemic.

Monday brought the latest federal lawsuits challenging restrictions to voting by mail — in both Indiana and Florida, the most populous swing state — but also a significant legal victory in Oklahoma for those hoping to expand voting from home.

The cumulative impact of the increasingly partisan debate nationwide, with Democrats vigorously pushing vote-by-mail and Republicans largely resisting it, will be central to determining how many people vote this year despite the public health crisis. This is vitally important not only in the presidential contest, where turnout could be the deciding factor, but also in the 46 states with primaries to come because so many were delayed in the face of stay-at-home restrictions.


These are the details of the latest developments:

Florida

The new lawsuit seeks to compel the state to pick up the postage costs for returning mail ballots, to lift the ban on paying people to collect and deliver the ballots of others, and to count ballots postmarked by Election Day so long as they arrive within 10 days. (As in most states, Florida now requires mailed ballots to get back to election offices before the polls close.)

The suit argues that requiring postage for people to vote by mail is tantamount to an unconstitutional poll tax and says it's against the First Amendment and a violation of the Voting Rights Act for the state to ban political organizations from paying vote-by-mail helpers.

The suit was filed by Priorities USA, a progressive advocacy group, along with the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and Alianza for Progress. Among the attorneys is Marc Elias, whose firm, Perkins Coie, is pursuing voting rights litigation in 16 states, including almost all the ones that look like potential presidential battlegrounds.

Florida's 29 electoral votes are the biggest cache that both President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden have on their realistic wish lists. But before that are several intense races for congressional and legislative nominations in the Aug. 18 primary.

Indiana

The congressional, legislative and presidential primaries have been delayed four weeks, to June 2, and the state has already announced that anyone may vote by mail then because of the Covid-19 outbreak. But a suit filed last week and amended Monday is seeking to make that universal availability of absentee ballots apply to the general election in November.

Filed by Indiana Vote by Mail Inc. and several individual voters, the litigation maintains the limited list of permissible reasons for qualifying for an absentee ballot under state law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The updated complaint argues that one of the available excuses — being older than 65 — amounts to unconstitutional age discrimination.

Oklahoma

The state Supreme Court struck down a requirement that absentee ballots be notarized. The order blocks the state Election Board from issuing materials telling voters their ballots must have a notary's stamp and signature — making it easier to vote by mail in congressional and legislative nominating contests June 30.

The court said a signed statement by the voter is enough to validate the absentee ballot.

The League of Women Voters had sued the board over the requirement, arguing that it would create a major obstacle to voting in light of the pandemic. Proponents of the requirement argued it was necessary to prevent fraud and in line with Oklahoma's voter ID requirement for people who vote in person.


Read More

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less