Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democrats to spend more than $10M suing for voting rights in purple states

vote by mail

Democratic campaign committees are funding lawsuits challenging a variety of voter suppression tactics including rejection of mailed-in absentee ballots.

Bill Oxford/Getty Images

In recent years, competition between the Democratic and Republican parties to gain a tactical edge in elections has centered on technology — who had the most sophisticated system for identifying potential voters and getting them to the polls.

This time, though, the leaders of the Democratic congressional campaign organizations have settled on a new strategy: going to court.

The party has gained scattershot headlines in recent months by filing federal lawsuits in mostly purple states, alleging an array of their election laws are unconstitutional voting rights violations or contradict federal law. But the ambitions of this strategy, and the size of the investment, did not become clear until last week.


The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the two party entities charged with helping elect members of the party to Congress, announced that they were making an "eight-figure investment in a legal strategy across key battleground states."

That means their investment in all the litigation will be at least $10 million, a significant sum but a relative drop in the bucket for campaign organizations that spent a combined $343 million on the 2018 midterms.

Eight states, mostly in the South, have been targeted for litigation so far: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Democratic leaders say they are attempting to counter a decades-long voter suppression campaign by Republicans — ideally in time to make it easier for many more of the voters in their base to get to the polls in November.

They are confident that making it easier to register to vote and to cast ballots will generally favor Democratic candidates. Traditionally, African-Americans and other ethnic minorities, who vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, have been disproportionately affected by efforts to prevent people from registering and voting.

The registration lawsuits include one in Texas challenging a law prohibiting the use of electronic signatures on registration forums.

Lawsuits filed about voting methods include one in Georgia to challenge the high rate of rejection of absentee ballots.

And laws that put the names of GOP candidates first on the ballot are being challenged with lawsuits in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota and Texas.

The suits already have produced results with, for example, a federal judge ruling the Florida ballot order law, which has favored the GOP for decades, is unconstitutional.

A total of 14 lawsuits were filed in recent months and more are on the way.

So far this election cycle, the DCCC and the DSCC have reported paying the law firm Perkins Coie nearly $900,000 for legal services. The firm is the one that files the voting rights lawsuits.

The party is mounting plausible campaigns for Senate seats in every one of the states where it's filed suits except for Minnesota and Florida, a perpetual battleground that does not have a senator's seat on the ballot this year. It is is defending or targeting almost 30 competitive House districts in the eight states. Every one of them except Minnesota voted for President Trump four years ago, but he's targeted that state this time while the Democrats have aspirations to contest all of the rest (except South Carolina) come November.

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less