Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

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
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
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

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

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less