Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Georgia sees latest vote-by-mail lawsuit as GOP starts new rebuttal

The Republican Partty has a new website, featuring this 60-second video, touting its efforts to combat the Democratic expand-the-vote lawsuits.

The latest Democratic voting rights lawsuit in a battleground state is an attempt to force easier mail-in balloting in Georgia.

The claim is the 13th that Democrats have brought across the country in an effort to break down barriers to absentee balloting, which is almost surely going to be the voting method of more Americans than ever before this year because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The suit was filled in federal court Friday, just as the Republican National Committee ratcheted up its increasingly aggressive effort to combat the wave of Democratic litigation — not only in courthouses but also in the court of public opinion.


The attorney orchestrating the Democrats' effort, Marc Elias in the Washington office of the international firm Perkins Coie, argues that a minimum of four conditions — what he calls the "four pillars" — need to be present for a fair election reliant on ballots returned by mail:

  • Postage for returning ballots must be paid by the government.
  • Ballots postmarked by Election Day must be counted even if they don't arrive until after the usual Election Day deadline.
  • Party operatives, community groups and others must be permitted to collect the ballots of others and deliver them to election offices.
  • Ballots must not be easily voided because the envelope signatures don't precisely match signatures that election officials have on file.

The Georgia suit says the state's rules are wanting in all four areas and need to be fixed to guarantee the electorate its rights.

Georgia is a touchstone for Democrats on the issue of voter suppression because they believe the 2018 governor's race was stolen from their candidate, Stacey Abrams.

More than 200,000 absentee ballots were cast in that election. But thousands of vote-by-mail applications were rejected and troves of ballots were not counted because they arrived late or because local election officials concluded the signatures did not match.

Every registered voter is being sent an absentee application for the presidential and state primaries, which were both postponed by the Covid-19 outbreak and are now on course for June 9. Even if the judge does not rule by then, there will still be five more months before the general election, when recent polling suggests President Trump is at risk of losing the state's 16 electoral votes. Both Republican senators must stand for re-election this fall and are facing serious challenges.

Elias said several more lawsuits will be filed in the coming weeks at the behest of the Democratic National Committee and its campaign organizations. The newest suit was filed on behalf of the New Georgia Project, a group started by Abrams.

The GOP, meanwhile, launched a new digital fundraising and grassroots motivational platform for "fighting back against the Democrats' assault on the integrity of our elections" by pushing a "radical expansion" of voting by mail and protections for "ballot harvesting," the GOP's term for the legal practice in most states of collecting and delivering the absentee ballots of others.

The launch of the site, ProtectTheVote.com, comes after the party signaled it had doubled its legal budget to $20 between now and Election Day. The GOP views contesting the lawsuits is a winning issue for them, both tactically and in the eyes of voters, in part because a poll commissioned by the party last week found 62 percent of voters suspicious of fraud in the electoral system.

"Americans deserve to have confidence in their elections, and we will not stand idly by while Democrats try to sue their way to victory," said party Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less