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

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
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