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

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
MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less