Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

S.C. will allow Covid fear as an excuse to vote absentee

South Carolina and coronavirus
Stock Ninja Studio/Getty Images

South Carolina is relaxing its strict limits on absentee voting, allowing fear of exposure to the coronavirus as an acceptable reason for voting from home — at least for the primary.

When Gov. Henry McMaster signs the legislation, pushed through the General Assembly by his fellow Republicans on Tuesday, just five states will be holding fast to their normally restrictive excuse requirements despite the pandemic.

Lawsuits and lobbying campaigns are pressing to get the laws relaxed in time for primaries in all of them: Texas, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Connecticut. And South Carolina legislators acted just hours after such a suit was argued before the state Supreme Court.


Another 10 states that normally require voters to list a reason for avoiding the voting booth have either waived the rules or decided the risk of Covid-19 fulfills the absentee voting exemption for people who are ill.

South Carolina's switch may have minimal effect, because it will expire before November and therefore will only cover what looks to be a relatively low-turnout, minimally competitive set of congressional and legislative nominating contests June 9.

Sponsors of the bill also said that, since the state does not require voters to back up their use of one of the 15 absentee balloting excuses with supporting documents like doctors' notes or travel receipts, they assume many voters have already checked the illness box on the application form.

They said they were mainly worried by a state Election Commission report that hundreds of poll workers — who are primarily elderly and therefore most at risk of viral infection — were no longer willing to work, causing the potential for long lines of not-very-socially-distanced voters on primary day.

Four weeks before the primary, the day the bill cleared, almost 92,000 absentee ballots had been requested — 50 percent more than the number two years ago. That year, just 4 percent of all votes were mailed in, while nationwide the number was 24 percent.


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