Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
How Weak Federal Ethics Laws Enable Presidential Profiteering

How Weak Federal Ethics Laws Enable Presidential Profiteering

The Iran War’s Price Tag: Billions Lost While Americans Go Without

The Iran War’s Price Tag: Billions Lost While Americans Go Without

Protestors holding signs, many that say "Stop Bombing Iran."

Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

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

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

Arizona will upgrade voter registration services to settle a lawsuit

Arizona will upgrade voter registration services to settle a lawsuit

Arizona must upgrade its systems this month because it had not been in compliance with federal law that requires states update voter registration information when a person changes their address on a driver's license or state-issued ID card.

Hailshadow/Getty Images
The Fulcrum
By The FulcrumJan 08, 2020
The Fulcrum
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

Arizona has agreed to improve its voter registration services as part of a lawsuit settlement reached with voting rights groups.

The arrangement, announced Monday, could boost turnout in one of the nation's fastest growing and politically competitive states, where this fall both parties will be hotly contesting not only nine electoral votes in the presidential race but also a Senate seat and at least three House races.

The complaint filed two years ago against the Arizona's secretary of state's office and transportation department alleged the state has been violating the federal motor-voter law for years — by not updating a person's voter registration information when they changed their address on their driver's license or state-issued ID card.

At a September 2018 court hearing, the secretary of state's office acknowledged that nearly 400,000 Arizonans likely had an incorrect address on their registration records due to the state's failure to update the information in accordance with the 1993 law.

An incorrect address on a registration form not only jeopardizes a person's chances of casting a ballot on Election Day but also makes it less likely they will receive a mail-in ballot form ahead of time — a crucial driver of turnout in a state where about three-fourths of voters cast ballots that way.

The settlement, which requires the state to upgrade its computer databases and electronic communications by the end of the month, was hailed as a win by voting rights advocates, including the League of Women Voters of Arizona, which joined Mi Familia Vota Education Fund and Promise Arizona as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

"With this agreement, all qualified voters in Arizona can be certain that their address for voter registration has been updated when they change their address through the Motor Vehicle Department," Robyn Prud'homme-Bauer, a former LWV of Arizona co-president, said in a statement. "We applaud the Secretary of State and ADOT for helping Arizona close a gap in compliance of the National Voter Registration Act."


Latest news

Empty Bravado: Trump’s Hollow Swagger Behind Iran War
Ethics & Leadership

Empty Bravado: Trump’s Hollow Swagger Behind Iran War

People at voting booths.
Electoral Reforms

Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits

Kristi Noem facing away with her hand up to be sworn in as she testifies.
Democracy

Kristi Noem is a Criminal. They Fired Her Because She’s a Woman

Pew Research Report: Americans’ Attitudes on Abortion Are More Divisive
Health

Pew Research Report: Americans’ Attitudes on Abortion Are More Divisive

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.

AP Photo/John Locher

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
© Copyright 2026