Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

E-signing of ballot petitions during the pandemic blessed in federal courts

Digital signature
Abscent84/Getty Images

The number of cases is still small, but campaigns to allow electronic signatures to replace handwriting on ballot petitions are starting to fare better in federal court than state court.

The issue is central to keeping grassroots democracy alive despite the coronavirus — by allowing activists to show enough support for their ideas that they merit being put to a statewide vote, but in a safe and practical way while in-person canvassing remains both a profound health risk and prohibitively inefficient.

A potential breakthrough came Tuesday, when a federal judge said groups promoting a package of voting law changes, a minimum wage increase and marijuana decriminalization in Ohio should be allowed to circulate their petitions online.


It was the first time advocacy groups have won such a victory in federal court since the pandemic began, while such arguments have been rejected several times by state courts — including the Ohio Supreme Court in this case and by the Arizona Supreme Court last week.

"These times, however, are not ordinary," Judge Edmund Sargus Jr. of Columbus wrote, and the groups who sued were not out to get rid of the paper-and-ink rules forever. "Plaintiffs instead contend that they are unconstitutional as applied to them during this extraordinary time. That is, the Covid-19 pandemic has made it impossible to circulate petitions in person."

The judge also extended the deadline for submitting signatures by a month, to the end of July. But he declined to lower the number of voters who must e-sign onto each effort.

Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose has already vowed to appeal on the grounds that the judge had usurped the power of the General Assembly to change election rules.

But the place where that argument will be made, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected a similar claim in a ballot access case only a month ago. It struck down Michigan's rules requiring candidates to gather signatures in person to get on the ballot — saying that was unconstitutional during a public health emergency. The state has since started allowing people to submit electronic petitions to run in the August primary.

Grassroots groups promoting referendums in six other states — Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, and Oklahoma — have also sued in state and federal courts in hopes of changing signature rules or getting deadlines extended. Three of those campaigns are from groups hoping to combat partisan gerrymandering. But efforts in many more states have been suspended in the face of the pandemic.

The Ohio ruling is another courthouse victory for Ohioans for Safe and Secure Elections, which is pushing for the most comprehensive package of potential election law easements anywhere in the nation this year. Central provisions would make Ohio the 17th state that automatically registers eligible residents when they do business with the motor vehicle bureau, and the 22nd state that permits people to both register and cast ballots on Election Day.

Last month an effort to break the measure into four pieces, which was widely expected to reduce its chances, was stopped by the state's highest court. But proponents say that, electronic signatures notwithstanding, they will still struggle to get the necessary 453,000 supporters lined up in the next 10 weeks.

That same threshold will apply to the group pushing an initiative that would raise the state's minimum wage to $13 over the next five years. Backers of marijuana decriminalization are hoping to place their measures on more than a dozen local ballots, which have much lesser signature requirements.

GOP Gov. Mike DeWine significantly relaxed his stay-at-home order this week but left in place six feet of mandatory social distancing and a ban on gatherings by more than 10 people — both curbs that will make in-person signature gathering impractical.

All the groups told the court they would use DocuSign, which is in wide use for real estate closings and other business transactions, and would require signers to give up the last four digits of their Social Security numbers — the same verification required to register or get an absentee ballot online in the state.

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