Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Long lines, language barriers & misleading info: A Super Tuesday sampler

California primary voters

Voters in Los Angeles County waited in line up to three hours to cast their ballots on Super Tuesday.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

High voter turnout was both a blessing and a curse on Super Tuesday. While more participation in elections gave civic advocates something to cheer about, long lines in two of the biggest states plus a wave of online disinformation left voting rights groups with a to-do list before the next primaries.

During the biggest day of voting in the Democratic presidential contest, hotlines operated in 11 languages by a coalition of progressive groups fielded more than 2,000 calls from voters expressing concern and confusion.

But as the polls started to close Tuesday evening, representatives of the so-called Election Protection coalition, led by the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told reporters they believe the primaries in all 14 states generally went off with few if any hitches.


Still, learning from reported problems will be "critical" in making sure the rest of the election season is similarly smooth, said Erica Bernal-Martinez, chief operating officer of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Action Fund, which ran a hotline in Spanish and English.

Michigan and five other states will vote Tuesday, the next contests in what's effectively become a nominating battle between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg ended his quest and endorsed Biden on Wednesday, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was contemplating her options after poor showings from coast to coast.

At least 12.6 million ballots were cast Tuesday and, with results still being tabulated in California and Maine, it was clear turnout exceeded the Democratic primary numbers four years ago in at least seven states. (Four states switched from caucuses in 2016, so a full comparison is not possible.)

These were the issues raised by the Election Protection team:

California: This was the first test of several new voting procedures in Los Angeles County, the most populous county in the country. Perhaps the biggest change was a switch from traditional precinct-sized polling stations to vote centers, allowing residents to vote at nearly 1,000 locations regardless of where in the county they live.

Staff at the vote centers also used more modern technology to check in voters and update their registration using ePollbooks, instead of printed voter rolls. New ballot marking devices, with a paper trail, were also introduced. Additionally, in all of California's 58 counties, this election was the first that allowed for early voting and same-day voter registration.

While the changes were intended to make voting easier and more accessible, they also slowed the process considerably — resulting in wait times as long as three hours. Voters were assured they'd be allowed to vote so long as they were in line by closing time, said Kathay Feng, executive director of Common Cause California.

Texas: Thousands of voters were compelled to wait more than two hours after the polls closed before casting their ballots — the result of a turnout surge of as much as 50 percent from the Democratic contest in 2016, when 1.4 million ballots were cast.

Most of the delays were reported in precincts with college campuses and in the state's two biggest cities, Dallas and Houston. Voting in at least one precinct, at Texas Southern University, did not finish until 1:30 a.m. Still, there were no reports of problems connected to the state's decision to shutter dozens of smaller polling places in the last few years.

North Carolina: Two counties reported mishaps but state election officials were quick to respond, said Tomas Lopez, executive director of Democracy North Carolina.

In Winston-Salem, the state's fifth largest city, a precinct ran out of ballots and turned some voters away. And on the eastern side of the state, a precinct in the small town of Windsor had difficulty setting up a printer, which caused delays. As a result, the Board of Elections extended polling hours by at least 30 minutes in the two precincts.

Tennessee: Deadly tornadoes that swept across much of the state a few hours before the polls opened destroyed homes, claimed at least 24 lives and prevented at least 15 polling sites from operating in Nashville, the state's largest city.

The Lawyer's Committee filed a lawsuit in state court Tuesday hoping to force a reopening of the polls through Friday for voters in areas hardest hit by the storm. "There was simply no meaningful way for them to overcome the obstacles that stood between them and the polls," said the group's president, Kristen Clarke.

Disinformation: Instances were reported across all 14 states, mostly on social media.

Common Cause spokesman Jay Riestenberg said his group reached out to address confusion expressed by more than 200 voters on social media. They had been given incorrect information about voting procedures, including being told the wrong primary date and that they could cast ballots on Twitter or with a text message.

Common Cause has been in contact with the social media platforms, mainly Twitter, to flag content containing disinformation. The group marked dozens of posts for disinformation and within two hours Twitter had removed the content.

Non-English voting assistance: Hotline administrators reported several states lacked the proper resources to assist voters who are not English speakers. The reports came in to hotlines staffed not only in English but in Spanish, Arabic and eight Asian languages, but many polling sites did not have these language assistance capabilities.

NALEO's Bernal-Martinez said a surge of Latino voters, particularly in California and Texas, was held back a bit. Without enough Spanish-speaking volunteers at polling sites, she said, some voters were mistakenly asked to vote provisionally or simply were not given proper assistance.

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