Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democrats earn another court victory on voter rights

Mailed ballots

Democrats have won a legal victory in Georgia, where election officials have agreed to be more careful about how they decide whether to reject a mailed-in ballot.

Bill Oxford/Getty Images

Democrats' strategy of using the courts as another front in this year's campaign has paid off again — this time in Georgia, where the state has agreed to back off its aggressive rejections of mailed ballots over signature problems.

Settlement of a lawsuit brought by the party marks the third big victory for the Democrats' strategy of spending tens of millions suing for voting rights in 2020 presidential or congressional battlegrounds, compelling the Republicans to set aside at least as much defending state laws and regulations their opponents say are all about ballot suppression.

Other recent victories include getting rid of South Carolina's requirement that people reveal their entire Social Security number on voter registration applications and making it easier in Michigan for college students to vote at the campus where they attend school.


Pending cases challenge rules that put Republican candidates on the ballot first in several states and ones that forbid straight-ticket voting.

Democratic congressional campaign committees and the state Democratic Party filed the Georgia lawsuit last fall, arguing the state laws governing the process of matching signatures was unconstitutional.

Democratic officials said 68,000 voters nationwide had their ballots rejected in 2018 because an election official, who had received no training, concluded the voter's signature on the ballot return envelope did not match a signature on file.

In many cases, people were never notified their votes had been tossed — or if they were, it happened long after the election — thus denying them the chance to challenge the rejection.

Under the settlement, filed Friday, the state Election Board will adopt a new rule requiring officials to notify voters by mail, email or telephone if their absentee ballots have been rejected — by the next business day if the rejection occurs close to Election Day.

Regarding signature matches, the settlement calls for local election officials to try to match the signature on the ballot envelope with all of the signatures for that person on file. If none are thought to match, the election official must get two other election officials to agree with that judgment before the ballot can be rejected.

Finally, election officials in Georgia agreed to consider including in their election training materials new guidelines for comparing voters' signatures, to be drafted by the handwriting expert hired by those filing the lawsuit.

The Democratic groups also settled a related suit filed against Gwinnett County over the absentee ballot envelope's design. The text on the envelope was small and hard to read, causing people to make errors that disqualified their votes.

Under the settlement, the county adopted a new ballot envelope design which is easier to read.


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