Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voting rights advocates suffer three losses

Mail-in vallot

Efforts to expand mailed-in voting has spread through courtrooms and state legislatures. Advocates for expanding voting suffered three defeats recently.

Darylann Elmi/Getty Images

After a string of recent successes, advocates for improving the fairness of elections and expanding access to voting amid the coronavirus pandemic have suffered three defeats in recent days.

The setbacks came in Texas, Arizona and Iowa — all states where the Democrats believe they can score big upsets, at the presidential and congressional levels, if the voting rules are easeds enough to allow significant turnout this fall — no matter the state of the coronavirus pandemic.

The way elections are conducted has been the subject of several dozen lawsuits in state and federal courts as well as battles in numerous state legislatures. Who wins the bulk of them could shape not only President Trump's chances of reelection but also whether the Senate stays in Republican hands or turns Democratic.

The recent decisions are:


Arizona

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Democratic campaign committees that challenged the method for determining the order that candidates appear on the ballot.

Judge Diane Humetewa ruled that neither the individual voters nor the groups had shown that they were hurt by the state's system for placing names on the ballot. Under state law, names are listed in descending order according to the votes cast for governor in that county.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Republican Gov. Doug Ducey carried 11 of the 15 counties while winning his second term in 2018. That means the GOP candidate will be listed first in those counties this fall.

The lawsuit argued that this process was unfair because research has shown that the person listed first on a ballot gets an advantage of several percentage points.

The suit noted that other states have gone to a rotation system to determine the ballot order. There was no word yet on whether the decision would be appealed.

Iowa

On Thursday, GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a law that requires the secretary of state to get approval from legislative leaders before expanding absentee balloting.

Leading up to the June primary, Secretary of State Paul Pate, a Republican, extended the mail-in voting period and sent ballot request forms to all registered voters in the state.

Under the new law, the secretary of state must obtain approval before changing election procedures from the Legislative Council, a group composed of leadership and long-serving members of both parties.

Texas

The Supreme Court decided not to consider whether the state should allow all voters to cast ballots by mail.

The Democratic Party and several voters had asked the court to reinstate a district judge's ruling allowing all voters to submit their ballots by mail, not just those 65 years or older, arguing the regulations amount to age discrimination. Texas is the biggest state to take no action to ease voting during the coronavirus pandemic.

That ruling had been overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The state's primary runoff election is scheduled for July 14.

The plaintiffs asked the high court for emergency relief, arguing that the appeals court ruling "forces millions of Texas voters to either risk their health at the polls or relinquish their right to vote."

Read More

"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

Getty Images, Grace Cary

Stopping the Descent Toward Banana Republic Elections

President Trump’s election-related executive order begins by pointing out practices in Canada, Sweden, Brazil, and elsewhere that outperform the U.S. But it is Trump’s order itself that really demonstrates how far we’ve fallen behind. In none of the countries mentioned, or any other major democracy in the world, would the head of government change election rules by decree, as Trump has tried to do.

Trump is the leader of a political party that will fight for control of Congress in 2026, an election sure to be close, and important to his presidency. The leader of one side in such a competition has no business unilaterally changing its rules—that’s why executive decrees changing elections only happen in tinpot dictatorships, not democracies.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote" pin.
Getty Images, William Whitehurst

Most Americans’ Votes Don’t Matter in Deciding Elections

New research from the Unite America Institute confirms a stark reality: Most ballots cast in American elections don’t matter in deciding the outcome. In 2024, just 14% of eligible voters cast a meaningful vote that actually influenced the outcome of a U.S. House race. For state house races, on average across all 50 states, just 13% cast meaningful votes.

“Too many Americans have no real say in their democracy,” said Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano. “Every voter deserves a ballot that not only counts, but that truly matters. We should demand better than ‘elections in name only.’”

Keep ReadingShow less
Why America’s Elections Will Never Be the Same After Trump
text
Photo by Dan Dennis on Unsplash

Why America’s Elections Will Never Be the Same After Trump

Donald Trump wasted no time when he returned to the White House. Within hours, he signed over 200 executive orders, rapidly dismantling years of policy and consolidating control with the stroke of a pen. But the frenzy of reversals was only the surface. Beneath it lies a deeper, more troubling transformation: presidential elections have become all-or-nothing battles, where the victor rewrites the rules of government and the loser’s agenda is annihilated.

And it’s not just the orders. Trump’s second term has unleashed sweeping deportations, the purging of federal agencies, and a direct assault on the professional civil service. With the revival of Schedule F, regulatory rollbacks, and the targeting of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, the federal bureaucracy is being rigged to serve partisan ideology. Backing him is a GOP-led Congress, too cowardly—or too complicit—to assert its constitutional authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less