Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Senators push vote-at-home as part of new virus-related economic stimulus

Vote-by-mail ballots

A pair of Democratic senators, Ron Wyden and Amy Klobuchar, want every state to send every voter a ballot that can be sent through the mail or delivered.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The way the whole country votes would be fundamentally transformed, and election regulations could become simpler and less contentious, under a proposal that a pair of prominent Democratic senators are working to attach to the next coronavirus response package produced by Congress.

Their draft bill would require every state to arrange for all voters to receive paper ballots they could fill out at home and then deliver or send through the mail, as well as a lengthy period before Election Day for those who want or need to vote in person. And it would allocate federal aid to cover at last some of the cost.

Such a sweeping federal mandate has long been a moonshot aspiration for many in the world of democracy reform, who say establishing vote-at-home systems as the national norm would boost turnout and make elections much easier to conduct and tabulate reliably. Those advocates now view the Covid-19 pandemic and this new season of national self-quarantine as a unique opportunity to realize their dream.


Doing so will require a fundamental shift in attitude by congressional Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who have steadfastly opposed all measures they view as nationalizing election administration — now almost totally the purview of states and counties.

The coming negotiations between the administration and Capitol Hill provide an opening. On Tuesday, the White House is expected to send Congress the outlines of an $850 billion package to stop the economic free fall triggered by the novel coronavirus — the third and by far the most ambitious potential legislative response to the pandemic.

While it will be centered on stimulating the economy with federal cash, potentially including direct payments to taxpayers, the enormity of the price tag and recent bipartisan pledges of collaboration could lead to the inclusion of policies — and money — aimed at boosting public confidence in American institutions vulnerable to the disease's spread, elections high on the list.

President Trump said Monday he opposes postponing the Nov. 3 national election, while Louisiana, Georgia and Kentucky have delayed their primaries and Ohio's presidential voting on Tuesday was suspended at the last minute.

The vote-at-home bill's sponsors, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ron Wyden of Oregon, have not said how much in federal spending they will propose. An earlier and less-ambitious version from Wyden called for $500 million in grants.

The two said Monday they would formally introduce a bill "to help election officials meet this pandemic head-on."

"Our legislation will guarantee every voter a secure mail-in paper ballot and help states cover the cost of printing, self-sealing envelopes, ballot tracking and postage," they wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post. "Vote-by-mail is a time-tested, reliable way for Americans to exercise their constitutional rights, and it is the right response to this crisis."

The senators were not clear on whether they would propose a permanent switch, or a one-time experiment in the name of public health.

Their push will have a particularly high profile now that Klobuchar, having recently ended her presidential campaign, is presumably on the vice presidential short list of former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic front-runner who promised on Sunday to choose a woman as his running mate.

She is the top Democrat on the Senate committee that writes legislation about elections. Wyden's home state of Oregon was the first to institute vote-by-mail exclusively.

Washington, Colorado and Hawaii round out the four states where, for every election, everyone is now sent a ballot that can be mailed or delivered. At the other end of the election convenience spectrum are the 10 states that do not have early in-person voting on the books for 2020: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Carolina.

The bill would augment a nationalized vote-by-mail option with early voting so that the disabled, in particular, could mark their ballots with special help at polling places.

"We're in a national emergency for which federal leadership is most important. States and local elections offices can't bear the burden alone," Klobuchar and Wyden wrote. "Our bill ensures they have the resources and guidance necessary to protect the constitutional rights of every American voter and keep democracy functioning as we weather this disaster."


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