Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
How Weak Federal Ethics Laws Enable Presidential Profiteering

How Weak Federal Ethics Laws Enable Presidential Profiteering

The Iran War’s Price Tag: Billions Lost While Americans Go Without

The Iran War’s Price Tag: Billions Lost While Americans Go Without

Protestors holding signs, many that say "Stop Bombing Iran."

Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

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

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

Texas civil rights group fights for online voter registration

Texas civil rights group fights for online voter registration
nilakkus/Getty Images
Geoff West
By Geoff WestJan 29, 2020
Geoff West

Geoff West is a staff writer at The Fulcrum, where he covers voting and voting rights, civic education, civil discourse and disinformation. Email:geoffwest@thefulcrum.us

See More Writings by author

A civil rights group on Tuesday renewed a four-year-old courtroom campaign to force the state of Texas to adopt online voter registration.

An attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project told a federal judge that Texans should be allowed to register to vote when they use online systems to apply for or renew their driver's licenses in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act, a 1993 federal law passed before Microsoft released Internet Explorer.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws that will allow a person to register to vote online before the 2020 presidential election.

Beth Stevens, the attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project, argued the state had no intention of making it easier for people to vote, asking U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia to force the state to adopt online voter registration, the Austin American-Statesman reported.

State officials countered that Texas complies with the "motor voter law" by allowing a person to register to vote in person at Department of Public Safety offices but nothing in federal or state law requires online registration.

Currently, a person applying for or updating their license through the DPS website only has the option of clicking a link that opens a printable voter registration form that must be signed by hand and mailed to election officials.

The Texas Civil Rights Project first sued the state in 2016 over its lack of an online registration option. Garcia, the judge hearing the current case, ruled in favor of the civil rights group in 2018, but the decision was overturned after an appeals court found the plaintiffs — four Texans — no longer had standing because they had successfully registered to vote while the case was on appeal.

MOVE Texas and the League of Women Voters of Texas have joined the latest lawsuit, claiming the lack of online registration forces the groups to spend more time and money registering people in person.


Latest news

Empty Bravado: Trump’s Hollow Swagger Behind Iran War
Ethics & Leadership

Empty Bravado: Trump’s Hollow Swagger Behind Iran War

People at voting booths.
Electoral Reforms

Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits

Kristi Noem facing away with her hand up to be sworn in as she testifies.
Democracy

Kristi Noem is a Criminal. They Fired Her Because She’s a Woman

Pew Research Report: Americans’ Attitudes on Abortion Are More Divisive
Health

Pew Research Report: Americans’ Attitudes on Abortion Are More Divisive

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.

AP Photo/John Locher

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
© Copyright 2026