Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Missouri mail-in curbs head to state's top court as governor mulls exemption

Vote by mail
filo/Getty Images

The Missouri Supreme Court will review the state's limitations on voting by mail, among the strictest being enforced in the country this spring, in case the governor rejects legislation relaxing the rules.

The appeal comes after a trial court judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking to make absentee ballots available to everyone in the state starting with the Aug. 4 primary.

Exposure to the coronavirus should be reason enough to vote by mail, and the state's rebuffing of that valid excuse during the pandemic is unconstitutional, the suit maintains. It's the same argument being made by voting rights groups hoping to force relaxation of excuse requirements in the remaining handful of states that have not done so voluntarily: Texas, most prominently, plus, Tennessee, Mississippi and Connecticut.


Judge Jon Beetem in Jefferson City, the state capital, decided Tuesday that the claim filed last month by the American Civil Liberties Union, was too broad and asked for the state's rules to be relaxed permanently. "The relief plaintiffs seek is not limited to Covid-19 and goes far beyond the health concerns they raise," he ruled.

The suit, filed on behalf of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, helped prompt the Republican-majority General Assembly to pass legislation last week permitting those with a specified set of health risks to vote by mail without another excuse this year — and others to do so as well only if they get their ballots notarized.

But Gov. Mike Parson has not said if he will sign it, and a veto is being urged by the top elections official, fellow Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft.

One phrase at the center of the fight is that "incapacity or confinement due to illness or physical disability" is an acceptable reason for seeking an absentee ballot under Missouri law. The state's attorneys say this clearly means the person must be sick on Election Day.

The lawsuit now before the high court also asks that the state's witness signature requirement for absentee ballots be dropped, which the state says — without citing evidence — would expose the system to fraud.

The ACLU says it will press ahead with its appeal no matter what happens to the legislation, which the group views as too narrow. And if Parson waits until next month to sign it, that could come too late given the timetable for sending out absentee ballots starting June 23.


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