Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less