Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Suit filed against Va. witness requirements for absentee voters

United States and Virginia flags
Oleksii Liskonih/Getty Images

It ended up as a second-tier dispute in the legal battle over Wisconsin's election, but now it's been revived with potentially more prominence. The question: Is it fair, or even constitutional, to require voters during the pandemic to get close to someone who can countersign their mail-in ballots?

A federal appeals court this month refused to suspend Wisconsin's witness rule, saying the potential for fraud outweighed the risks of spreading Covid-19 during close contact over absentee ballots.

The same argument will now be revisited in Virginia. The American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal judge Friday to block a similar law in Virginia, one requiring voters to find someone to witness them completing their absentee ballots.


The lawsuit, filed on behalf of three voters and the League of Women Voters, argues the law will otherwise force people who live alone or can't get to a polling place to choose between skipping the presidential election and risking their health. And the result, the claim says, could be "massive disenfranchisement" in both the June 23 congressional primaries and in November — especially of the almost one-third of Virginians older than 65 who live alone, and are in the age group most vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

State officials signaled a response to the ACLU's filing was possible.

"Free and fair elections are at the core of our democracy and no Virginian should have to choose between their health and exercising their right to vote," said Charlotte Gomer, a spokeswoman for Democratic Attorney General Mark Herring.

Ten other states have such witness requirements. Virginia, Wisconsin and North Carolina are the only purplish 2020 battlegrounds. Rhode Island is the only blue state on the roster, which otherwise includes reliably red Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

Virginia's law is one of the most explicit. It says a voter who submits an absentee ballot by mail must open the envelope containing the ballot in front of another person, fill out the paper and then ask the witness to sign the outside of the envelope before it is mailed.

The state permits people to get such a ballot without having an excuse, and about 10 percent of its votes have been cast absentee in most recent elections.

The lawsuit is part of a broader campaign in courthouses across the country, by Democrats and their allies in the civil rights and voting rights communities, to use the public health crisis as a lever to ease restrictions on voting this year.

Although some Republican governors have decided to ease the rules in their states, many GOP elected officials are following President Trump's lead and opposing any loosening of restrictions on the grounds that would spur election fraud. But there is minimal evidence, at best, of such crimes.

"It's just another attempt by the Democrats to make voter fraud easier," said John March, a spokesman for the Virginia GOP.

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