Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

GOP sues to stop California's plan for an all-by-mail general election

Protect our Vote rally in Conta Costa, Calif.

Activists practiced social distancing while rallying in Contra Costa, Calif., on Saturday to demand more federal funding for the 2020 elections.

Declaration for American Democracy

The most sweeping promotion of mail voting in the presidential election so far, California's plan to send an absentee ballot to every voter, must first overcome legal challenges from the Republican Party.

The GOP has sued to prevent the effort to conduct the November election almost entirely by mail in the nation's most populous state as a way to limit the spread of the coronavirus. The lawsuit, filed Sunday in federal court, says Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom exceeded his authority this month by telling county election officials to send all 20.7 million registered Californians a ballot this fall.

His order would potentially double the number of Americans who are provided with absentee ballots automatically, without having to ask for them. That's now the practice across just five states — Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Hawaii — although state law already allows 14 smaller counties in California to hold elections entirely remotely.


The lawsuit is one of the most aggressive moves at the courthouse yet by the GOP. It has announced plans to spend $20 million on lawyers this year, mainly to defend against the similarly financed push from Democrats and voting rights groups to persuade state and federal judges to ease limits on voting.

It says the governor's "brazen power grab" was not permitted by state law, which puts such rules only in the hands of the Legislature, and violates the Constitution. Newsom says his move is permissible because his job is to protect the public's health even while people are exercising their civic duty.

"We're on firm legal ground," Newsom said, arguing that "public health is a nonpartisan issue."

The new litigation — brought by the Republican National Committee, the state party and the House GOP campaign arm — says the voter fraud that would ensue under Newsom's plan would deprive honest Californians of their constitutional right to vote.

"No State that regularly conducts statewide all-mail elections automatically mails ballots to inactive voters because it invites fraud, coercion, theft, and otherwise illegitimate voting," the suit argues. "Fraudulent and invalid votes dilute the votes of honest citizens and deprive them of their right to vote in violation of the 14th Amendment."

That is the formalized version of the argument President Trump has been making with increasing ferocity — most recently in a series of Memorial Day weekend tweets.

"The United States cannot have all Mail In Ballots. It will be the greatest Rigged Election in history," the president tweeted Sunday, without offering any justification for his suspicions. "People grab them from mailboxes, print thousands of forgeries and 'force' people to sign. Also, forge names. Trying to use Covid for this Scam!"

There is no evidence of what Trump described, and a range of studies have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud — in elections mainly reliant on the mail or in-person polling places. Part of what GOP operatives lament is that the Democrats have done much better at capitalizing on a state law that permits operatives to gather the completed envelopes of other Californians. They have come up with no evidence, however, to support their suspicions that this so-called ballot harvesting has led to such crimes as completing the ballots of others or destroying ballots collected in GOP precincts.

California's overall political color is deep blue, so Joe Biden can be confident of securing its 55 electoral votes no matter how many people cast ballots. But the GOP, which took a drubbing in the state in the midterm election, has a decent shot at winning back three or four congressional seats — and believes its prospects would be bolstered by a low-turnout election.

One of the state's top House races is a comeback bid by Republican Darrell Issa, who filed a similar suit last week with the help of the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch.

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