Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

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