Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Public solidly for vote-by-mail, but debate on funding and reach remains stalled

Mail-in ballots
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Decisive majorities in three new polls favor making vote-by-mail the default setting for this year's election — support matched neither by sufficient federal funding to make that plausible, nor by a widespread embrace from some progressive groups along with Republican lawmakers and election administrators.

The newest survey, out Tuesday from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, found 58 percent favoring a national mandate that all eligible voters always be permitted to vote by mail. An additional 9 percent favor a switch only this year, because the coronavirus may remain a significant public health threat in November.

A nationwide poll unveiled over the weekend by Newsweek pegged support for allowing everyone to vote absentee this fall at 72 percent. It was 68 percent in a survey of battleground states released by Democracy Corps last week.


The significant shift in public attitudes toward mail voting, which fewer than half of Americans backed two decades ago, comes mainly from Democrats — underscoring the chance that proposed innovations and contingency planning to safeguard this year's presidential contest will drown in partisan disagreement.

The latest economic stimulus package being developed by Congress is almost entirely about helping small businesses and hospitals and addressing the shortage of virus tests. Talks are already getting started on the fifth recovery measure, however.

Those negotiations will determine if Republicans agree to more than the $400 million already delivered to the states to spend as they wish to make voting easier and safer this year. Democracy reform groups have united behind the view that at least $1.6 billion more is needed to prepare for a huge increase in absentee ballots expected this fall, whether or not states make the process easier because of Covid-19.

Democrats, meanwhile, will be forced to decide how long to pursue their goal of requiring the states to have wide-open absentee voting along with expanded registration and in-person early voting.

One focus is on the 16 states that now demand a specified excuse from voters asking to cast their ballots away from a voting station. (The others permit voters to submit absentee ballots without explanation, except for the five that conduct elections almost universally by mail.)

While only a few excuse-required states have started moving to loosen those rules on their own, civil rights groups take heart that the group includes states run by both the GOP and Democrats. The same is also true of the 14 states that have postponed primaries or changed to predominantly vote-by-mail at a time when stay-at-home orders are in place and visiting voting places would risk the health of both poll workers and voters.

This emphasis on remote voting has led to intensifying concern from civil rights groups, which say many minority voters will be effectively disenfranchised unless significant numbers of polling places remain open.

In-person voting in Ohio's primary next week will be available only to the disabled or homeless. Similar restrictions are in the works or under discussion for upcoming primaries in Florida, New Jersey and Nevada. And left out of those discussions are many people who move frequently but don't vote that often — people who would most easily get overlooked when absentee ballots get sent out.

There are also racial disparities in reliance on the absentee option. Only 11 percent of African-Americans cast a 2018 midterm ballot by mail, less than half the rate of white and Latino voters, according to a study out Monday by the liberal Center for American Progress and the NAACP.

Switching how most people vote just months before an election has caused concern among election officials in both parties. The Board of Elections chairman in overwhelmingly Democratic Washington, D.C., Michael Bennett, said last week it would be irresponsible to proactively send ballots to everyone on the city's rolls without two years of planning and testing — in part, he said, because "there's just a ton of bad data in everybody's systems."

Any federal mandates on how states run their elections are a non-starter for President Trump and he has also sounded increasingly hostile to spending any more to ease mail voting, which he says is an invitation to significant cheating and always benefits Democrats disproportionately.

There's no evidence of widespread fraud or that one party can count on doing best in vote-by-mail contests, although an assessment of this month's hotly contested state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin suggests the liberal Democrat's upset win was aided by her party's aggressive efforts to get absentee ballots into supporters' hands in time.

A panel Trump created in 2017, after asserting he only lost the popular vote because millions had voted fraudulently, found no significant evidence of such corruption and was quietly disbanded the next year. Trump himself voted absentee in the Florida primary in March and in the 2018 midterm when he was still registered in New York.

Support for his view from fellow Republicans comes through in the new polling.

Of the 67 percent in the NBC-WSJ poll who back voting by mail at least this fall if not indefinitely, 88 percent were Democrats and 69 percent were independents but just 44 percent were Republicans. (The poll of 900 registered voters was conducted April 13-15 and had a 3.27-point margin of error.)

In the Democracy Corps survey in 16 purple states, taken March 31 to April 5 by the Center for Voter Information, 83 percent of Democrats but just 51 percent of Republicans supported people voting by mail for any reason. The Newsweek survey, of 2,394 registered voters April 14-16 by Harvard and Harris Insights and Analytics, did not include a partisan breakdown on the voting question.


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