Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Covid-19 worry a worthy excuse to vote absentee in Texas, judge rules

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (above at the 2016 GOP convention) said Wednesday the virus is not a valid reason for voting absentee -- on the same day a judge ruled the opposite.

Kirk Irwin/Getty Imagines

Fear of contracting coronavirus is a valid reason for Texans to vote by mail, a state judge has ruled.

The decision Wednesday by District Judge Tim Sulak, an Austin Democrat, came within hours of the opposite pronouncement from the office of Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, which said the pandemic does not qualify as a legitimate excuse for voters to request an absentee ballot.

The contrasting rulings, in the state with the second most electoral votes, form the latest important example of how partisan the issue of mail-in voting has become across the country.


Democrats and good governance groups are pushing hard to expand voting by mail and otherwise ease access to the polls during the Covid-19 outbreak, in part by asking states that require a reason from citizens who want to vote absentee to waive those rules — or at least say coronavirus is covered by one of the permissible excuses.

Many Republicans, led by President Trump, oppose expanding mail-in voting, arguing it increases the chances of voter fraud. New studies out this week dispel such claims.

Sulak cited the pandemic in issuing a temporary injunction in a lawsuit filed by the Texas Democratic Party and voting rights groups, who want to broaden use of vote-by-mail in the primary runoffs in July and the November general election. The judge said it fit under a provision in state law allowing people with disabilities to request absentee ballots. Texas is one of 17 states that require a specific excuse to obtain an absentee ballot.

Paxton, who is expected to appeal, offered a withering critique of the decision. "This unlawful expansion of mail-in voting will only serve to undermine the security and integrity of our elections and to facilitate fraud," he said.

In addition to disability, Texas law also allows absentee ballots for people over 65, those in the military and people who will be away from home during voting.

The attorney general's opinion, written by a Paxton assistant, argues that fear of contracting coronavirus is not a sickness or a physical condition, but rather an emotional reaction to the pandemic that is not "sufficient to meet the definition of disability."

A week ago the state Democratic Party filed a second suit in federal court arguing that conducting the July 14 runoffs and the November election under current rules, at a time when stay-at-home orders or similar restrictions may be in place, would be unconstitutional and violate the Voting Rights Act.

Trump is confident of the state's 38 electoral votes, and the state has been carried by the GOP nominee without fail since 1976. But Democrats believe changing demographics give them a chance in a high-turnout election. Huge numbers would also give them a shot at a Senate upset and picking up as many as a half-dozen House seats across the state.

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