Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Absentee voting rights push yields a partial win — and three new suits

South Carolina voters

South Carolina voters who want to cast an absentee ballot will not be required to get a witness to sign their ballots, a judge has ruled.

Barcroft Media/Getty Images

Advocates for easing restrictions on absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic have won a split decision in federal court in South Carolina.

A judge on Monday barred the state from requiring a witness signature on mail-in ballots for the congressional and legislative primaries in two weeks, but she said the state could require those ballots to arrive by the time the polls close.

The ruling was the most important news over the holiday weekend for the cause of easier voting this year, which also brought fresh lawsuits challenging a diverse set of rules in North Carolina, Michigan and New York. These are the latest developments:


South Carolina

Judge J. Michelle Childs ruled that getting close enough to another person to obtain a countersignature on an absentee ballot would subject voters — especially those living alone — to an improper risk of Covid-19 infection in the runup to the June 9 primaries and subsequent runoffs. But she declined to strike down the witness requirement as unconstitutional.

The state Election Commission said the witness rule was a proper guard against fraud, even after the panel's executive director conceded in a letter to GOP Gov. Henry McMaster this spring the rule "offers no benefit to election officials as they have no ability to verify the witness signature."

The plaintiffs, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, sued to allow absentee votes to be counted so long as they are postmarked by Election Day, arguing that first-time mail voters were especially likely to wait until the last minute. The state said waiting for the Postal Service would make it impossible to certify results and get ready for the runoffs. And Childs ruled the poll-closing deadline "is nondiscriminatory."

North Carolina

A group of voters supported by Democratic campaign committees filed a lawsuit in federal court on Monday seeking several changes to make it easier to vote by mail in one of the most politically competitive states in the Deep South.

The suit's bill of particulars is similar to several others the Democrats have brought. It asks a judge to make the state pay the postage on returning absentee ballots; drop the requirement that two witnesses sign the ballot in order for it to be counted; extend the deadline for absentee ballots to arrive at election offices to nine days after Election Day, and give voters a chance to correct signature discrepancies with their ballots. Election officials compare the signature on the absentee ballot with a signature on file.

Michigan

The laws of the state are similar to those in the Carolinas when it comes to returning an absentee ballot: The paper will only get tabulated if it's returned to the proper place before the polls close on election night.

The League of Women Voters, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a suit asking a state appeals court to make Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson extend the deadline. It argues that the law, on the books for eight decades, abridges the "unqualified, unconditional state constitutional right for registered voters to vote in all elections by absentee ballot."

The suit quotes Benson's office as saying 1.75 percent of absentee ballots were rejected this month because they arrived after 8 p.m. on primary day. If all 7.7 million people in the state vote in November — only a theoretical possibility, to be sure — that would mean 134,000 disallowed ballots.

New York

A coalition of disability rights groups sued the Board of Elections in federal court Friday, alleging discrimination against voters who are blind or otherwise physically unable to mark a paper ballot.

The suit says that while marking a paper ballot may be impossible for disabled people, they can easily mark and send an online ballot. Still, election security officials nationwide have warned that any voting system that connects to the internet is vulnerable to being hacked.

The groups are hoping for changes ahead of the state's presidential, congressional, legislative and local primarise in just four weeks, in which voting-by-mail is being made widely available to all voters for the first time because of the pandemic. The suit was filed a month after disability rights groups pressed the Justice Department to insist on more secure remote voting options for those who can't reliably use paper.

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