Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Lottery will assign ballot order in Minnesota, federal judge rules

Minnesota ballots

A federal judge has rejected the method for determining ballot order in Minnesota elections, instead ordering a lottery.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

A lottery should assign partisan billing on Minnesota ballots this year, a federal judge has decided.

The rules of probability say the decision will be a victory for Democratic candidates, who would be listed below the Republicans under the current system.

Challenges to the arcane rules of ballot design have become a feature of the multifaceted campaign of Democratic voting rights lawsuits this year. They're also being watched by good government advocates, who favor getting rid of any election rule written by the party in power to preserve its influence at the expense of old-fashioned electoral competition.


Minnesota's ballot ordering is unusual, with the parties featured in the reverse order of their most recent statewide performance. Judge Susan Richard Nelson on Monday decided that was still not altogether fair and that a random drawing should determine which of several parties with statewide credibility will get top billing in November, when both President Trump and Joe Biden have a shot at winning the state's 10 electoral votes.

The higher ballot position alone would give the GOP candidates a boost of 2 to 3 percentage points if the system stays as is, according to research done for the Democrats who filed the suit. Hillary Clinton carried the state by just 1.5 points last time.

Political operatives pay so much attention to the vote-getting power of topping the ballot that they have nicknames for it including the "primacy effect," the "windfall vote" and the "donkey vote."

Democratic Party groups have also filed similar lawsuits in Arizona, Georgia and Texas — all potential 2020 battlegrounds where the laws now benefit the Republicans who control the state government. A federal appeals court in April rejected a similar challenge to the rules in Florida, the biggest presidential swing state.

At the same time Nelson blocked the current system, she also rejected Secretary of State Steve Simons' bid to get the suit dismissed.

Stanford political scientist Jonathan Rodden conducted the research looking at the impact of ballot order on election results in Minnesota in the 21 federal elections since 1982. A faculty colleague, Jon Krosnick, reviewed 70 years of research on the subject of ballot primacy and concluded being higher on the ballot "almost always" gives that candidate an advantage.

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