Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democrats challenge law limiting who can help with absentee ballots in North Carolina

Absentee ballots

Democrats have filed another lawsuit challenging what they say is a barrier to voting. This one is a law in North Carolina limiting who a person may ask for help when applying for an absentee ballot.

Westend61/Getty Images

The latest voting rights lawsuit filed by the Democrats challenges a North Carolina law restricting who can help someone apply for an absentee ballot.

The complaint joins more than two-dozen others filed by, or with the help of, national Democratic campaign committees challenging laws that make it more difficult to vote — almost all of them in states expecting close presidential or Senate contests.

The party has pledged to spend tens of millions campaigning in courthouses to protect the rights of people they count on for support, and Republicans recently announced their own multimillion dollar legal campaign to counter those efforts.


The new complaint was filed Wednesday in state court in Raleigh by Advance North Carolina, a nonprofit advocacy group that works to build the political and economic power of black people in the state. Washington-based attorney Marc Elias is one of the lawyers in the suit. His firm, Perkins Coie, is involved in many of the Democrats' cases.

This filing challenges a law enacted by the GOP-majority General Assembly last year requiring that an absentee ballot request be completed only by the applying voter, a close relative or a member of a special county board established to help in such cases. The same rules apply to submitting the absentee ballot application.

The suit maintains the law creates an unconstitutional barrier to the right to vote.

The complaint says the law was written in response to one of the country's most notable cases of voting fraud in recent years: The 2018 results for one House race in North Carolina were discarded, and a rare do-over election was ordered, after people working for Republican candidate Mark Harris were charged with the illegal collection and forgery of absentee ballots.

But the subsequent law restricted the application process — saying nothing more about the so-called harvesting of completed ballots.

North Carolina allows no-excuse absentee voting and 202,841 people voted by mail in 2012, while 174,402 used that method in 2016. A total of 4.5 million ballots were cast in 2012 and 4.7 million in 2016.

The lawsuit asks the court to rule the law violates the state constitution and to permanently block its implementation.

Other suits filed across the country, mostly in what will be key states in the fall presidential race, challenge the order of names on the ballot and how many people one person can help to vote, via an absentee ballot or in person.

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