Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Coronavirus halts ballot measure progress across the country

e-signature
Andrew_Rybalko/Getty Images

Presidential election years are usually the prime time for getting small-d democracy initiatives on the ballot, but the coronavirus pandemic is posing a crippling threat to many campaigns.

Social distancing pressures plus stay-at-home orders in all but a handful of states are making it nearly impossible to secure the tens of thousands of signatures needed to get initiatives on the November ballot. And because no state allows an alternate way of showing broad grassroots support — such as electronic signatures — many campaigns have halted operations.

Others are clinging to hope. Groups promoting six different ballot measures in Arizona filed lawsuits in federal and state court last week asking for permission to gather e-signatures at least during the public emergency, which has resulted in a statewide stay-at-home order through at least the end of the month.


At least 18 ballot measure campaigns across 10 states have suspended their in-person signature gathering efforts due to Covid-19, according to Ballotpedia. Four had initiatives related to democracy reform: Two in Arizona are promoting campaign finance regulations and voting rights improvements. One in Michigan wants to close lobbying and donor disclosure loopholes, while one in Arkansas would establish an independent redistricting commission.

Two groups that have sued, Arizonans for Fair Elections and Healthcare Rising AZ, maintain the in-person signature gathering requirement is an unconstitutional burden during a national public health crisis. If they are turned down in federal court, they say, they may have to give up on their causes until the next statewide election two years from now.

"It will be very challenging to make the ballot without digital signatures, but we will explore every option to give voters a voice on this issue in November," said Anabel Maldonado, campaign manager for Arizonans for Fair Elections.

Chris Melody Fields Figueredo of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a nonprofit that helps promote ballot initiatives for progressive causes, said it's too early to tell how many campaigns will be abandoned because of the Covid-19 outbreak. But she says, "these are issues that won't go away, regardless of whether they make it on the ballot or not."

In order to get their proposals before the voters in November, each of the Arizona groups needs more than 237,000 valid signatures. The complaint asks permission to use the E-Qual system to gather them — noting that system currently may be used by would-be candidates seeking spots on the ballot lines for Congress, statewide office and the Legislature.

Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs said Monday that she "wouldn't oppose" expanding use of that system for ballot measures during the pandemic as "a reasonable option for protecting public health and supporting continuity in our democratic processes."

Four states and one city have already made exceptions for ballot petitions given the current circumstances. Officials in Colorado, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma and San Diego have either granted deadline extensions for signature gathering or waived other obligations.

Before the coronavirus became so widespread, 18 initiatives across 13 states had been approved for the ballot in November. Floridians will decide whether to establish a top-two open primary for state elections. Colorado voters will determine whether the state allocates its nine electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote.

And after a hard-fought and long-winded battle, the Virginia General Assembly voted for a second straight year for creating an independent redistricting commission, putting it on the Nov. 3 ballot for voters to have the final say.

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