Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Latest Democratic suit challenges Texas 'wet signature' rule

keyboard
ardaguldogan/Getty Images

Texas Democrats and the party's national campaign arms filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging a state rule that prohibits electronic signatures on voter registration forms.

In 2018, the rule led county election officials (acting on orders from the Republican secretary of state at the time, Rolando Pablos) to reject more than 2,400 voter forms just days before the registration deadline — in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, the lawsuit contends.

The suit is the latest in a wave of litigation brought by Democrats hoping the courts will ease access to the ballot box this November, in an array of states where the presidential contest could be competitive or where Republicans are pushing more restrictions on voting.


The forms at issue in Texas were distributed to county officials by Vote.org, a nonpartisan voter registration platform that allows citizens to fill out and sign an application by uploading a photographic image of their signature. The website later faxed and mailed the electronically signed applications to county election officials, who were told five days before the deadline to discard them.

The so-called "wet signature rule" violates federal voting rights protections by "selectively targeting and burdening private organizations' efforts to increase voter turnout and imposing an arbitrary barrier to registration," the lawsuit argues.

The rule is arbitrary, according to the plaintiffs, because the state accepts electronic signatures on other official documents, including voter registration forms submitted through the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Texas is one of 13 states that doesn't provide access to online voter registration.

The filing is the third voting rights lawsuit filed against Texas in the past four months by attorneys for the Texas Democratic Party, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In October, the coalition sued the state over a new law that effectively ended the use of mobile voting sites during early voting. A month later, the group filed a second lawsuit targeting a long-standing law that required the name of candidates who belonged to the same political party as the governor to be listed first on general election ballots.

Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the latest case, has filed 14 voting rights lawsuits in a dozen states over the past three months as part of a nationwide strategy to increase voter turnout this fall.




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