Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voter rolls in Pittsburgh littered with multiple registrations and the dead, suit claims

Voter fraud

The Public Interest Legal Foundation has filed another in a series of lawsuits claiming that election officials are not doing a good job of maintaining voter registration rolls, opening up the possibility of voter fraud.

Tollikoff Photography/Getty Images

The voter rolls in Pennsylvania's second biggest county are a mess and election officials are not doing enough to clean them up, according to a lawsuit filed this week.

Public Interest Legal Foundation, a conservative group focused on election integrity, filed the suit Monday in federal court against David Voye, manager of elections for Allegheny County (which includes Pittsburgh) and members of the county's board of elections.

It is the sixth federal lawsuit filed by the foundation in less than two years highlighting the problems that election officials have in keeping their lists of eligible voters up to date. Other suits have targeted Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, the county that includes Houston and the city of Detroit.


Another conservative group, Judicial Watch, has filed a series of five similar lawsuits in recent years, entering into consent decrees mandating that the voter rolls be cleaned up in California, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Montgomery County, Md., a Washington, D.C. suburb. In January, Judicial Watch sent out letters threatening to sue 19 counties in five states if they did not clean up their voting rolls.

What's at stake, according to these groups and their supporters, is the integrity of our elections and the potential for voter fraud. But critics argue that overly aggressive efforts to clean up voter rolls in the name of virtually nonexistent examples of fraud have improperly removed thousands of people from the registration lists, possibly leaving them unable to vote in the next election. The harshest critics see a conspiracy to remove minority voters from the rolls.

In the Allegheny County lawsuit, the foundation states that it issued a report two years ago documenting that people who had moved, died or who were not citizens were on the voter registration rolls.

The foundation again reviewed the voter registration list provided by the county in October 2019 and found nearly 4,000 records of people who were registered twice, three times and in some cases four or more times. One person, the suit states, is registered seven times in the county,

In addition, investigators found more than 1,500 dead people were still registered to vote along with hundreds of voter registration records that lacked correct birthdates and suffered from other clerical errors.

The suit, like many of the others, claims that the county is violating the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires election officials to establish a maintenance plan for keeping the voter registration rolls accurate and to execute that plan. The NVRA is also known as the motor voter law because it made it easier for people to get registered to vote, including by asking people to register when they get their vehicle registrations renewed. That and other efforts caused a swell in the voter rolls in many locations.

The county has 890,785 registered voters, according to the latest figures from the Pennsylvania Department of State. That is about 90 percent of the estimated voting age population, going by the census.

Looking at places where the number of people registered comes close to or exceeds the estimated population 18 years or older is one technique that these conservative groups have used to spot possible problem areas.

Voye, the county election official, said in a statement issued to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that his biggest concern is that everyone eligible gets a chance to vote and that no one is improperly removed from the voter rolls.

Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, was a member of the short-lived, ill-fated Presidential Commission on Election Integrity established by President Trump to track down allegations of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election. Those claims were never verified.

The Allegheny County suit asks the court to find that election officials are violating NVRA, to order them to remove ineligible people from the registration rolls, and to "implement reasonable and effective registration list maintenance programs.'

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