Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ohio voters will face single ballot question on expanded voting

Ohio voters
Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

In a victory for election reformers, the Ohio Supreme Court has decided a package of proposed election changes in how the state votes should be put to voters as a single measure.

The court on Tuesday agreed with the organization promoting the referendum and blocked Secretary of State Frank LaRose and other Republican state officials from dividing the proposed constitutional amendment into four ballot questions.


The ruling, which appears technical, is nonetheless significant for those who favor the reforms. That's because they believe their package has a better chance if put to one up-or-down vote. Plus, Ohio is a presidential battleground that's tilted red in recent years and anything that could boost turnout is likely to favor Democrats.

The Secure and Fair Elections Amendment would bring about automatic and same-day voter registration, a guarantee of a month of in-person early voting and routine post-election audits to verify that election results are accurate.

Advocates for the package, a collection of mostly progresisve group called Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections, still must gather more than 400,000 signatures of registered voters by July 1 to get the amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Had the high court ruled the other way, that signature threshold would have been quadrupled — and essentially impossible to meet without a miraculous disappearance of the coronavirus.

The Ohio Ballot Board, which includes the secretary of state and four appointed members, had voted in March to break up the proposed amendment into separate questions. The subsequent lawsuit notes that LaRose had already stated his opposition to the package and that dividing the question would hurt its chances of going before the votes.

The Supreme Court did reject the request by proponents of the amendments for additional time to gather signatures.

Approval would make Ohio the 17th state that automatically registers eligible residents when they do business with the motor vehicle bureau. Most are Democratic strongholds and just two, Colorado and Michigan, are on the list of remotely possible swing states this fall.

Adopting the package would permit voters to register and cast ballots at polling locations during early voting and on Election Day, similar to the laws on the books in 21 states. The deadline is now 30 days beforehand, one of the longest lead times in the country.

Ohio has famously been carried by the winner of every presidential election since 1964, and no Republicans has ever won the White House without it. President Trump is counting on its 18 electoral votes, but his edge in recent statewide polling has slipped now that former Vice President Joe Biden has secured the Democratic nomination.

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