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.

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

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