Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Mail voting gets a bit easier in three blue states

Minnesota voting

A judge blocked restrictions on how many Minnesotan can help others cast absntee ballots.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Minnesotans will be able to provide, and receive, an unlimited amount of help in the casting and delivery of absentee ballots starting this fall, a state judge has decided.

The ruling was one of three moves across the country Tuesday toward easing the regulation of voting by mail, which is going to soar this fall because of the coronavirus. All were in states already looking solidly blue on the presidential election map, and so not in President Trump's sights as he makes unsubstantiated claims about mailed ballots rigging the election.

A judge in Rhode Island struck down the state's mandate that a witness or notary countersign every absentee ballot envelope, leaving only 10 states maintaining such a rule for November. And legislators in neighboring Connecticut voted overwhelmingly to drop excused requirements for voting absentee, if only this year.


These are the details:

Minnesota

Judge Thomas Gilligan, Jr. blocked enforcement of a state law that restricts a person from helping more than three others cast their ballots because of blindness or another disability — or the inability to read or write in English. He also blocked a provision that puts the same restriction on helping voters return or mail absentee ballots.

The rulings came in a lawsuit filed by the Democratic organizations that run House and Senate campaigns. They argued the restrictions were discriminatory against disabled people as well as the state's significant Hmong and Somali populations — and also illegally interfere with the party's efforts to promote voter turnout.

Proponents argue the provisions are needed to prevent people from improperly influencing others in casting mail-in ballots. But Arkansas appears to be the only other state with similarly strict rules.

The court's ruling comes in the wake of a settlement agreement in April in a separate lawsuit raising similar issues. That agreement had, in effect, the same impact as Gilligan's restraining order. Attorneys for the Democratic campaign groups said they pursued the favorable ruling because it carries more legal weight than a settlement.

Connecticut

The state Senate voted 35-1 for legislation, approved last week 144-2 by the state House, that will allow everyone in the state to vote by mail in November because of the pandemic. It also will permit anyone in line to vote when the polls close on Election Day to first register at the polling place if needed.

Once Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont signs the measure, only seven states will still be insisting on an excuse beyond Covid-19 fear for obtaining an absentee ballot: Texas, New York, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana.

The governor had issued an executive order allowing anyone to vote remotely in next month's primary by citing the allowable "sickness" excuse — in this case, fear of exposure to Covid-19. The bill extends that policy through November

Rhode Island

Federal District Judge Mary McElroy accepted a consent agreement that waives for the fall election the usual requirement that an absentee ballot have at least two witnesses or be notarized.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups had filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea and the state's board of elections trying to overturn those requirements — but only for this year. The Democratic-controlled General Assembly had rejected legislation to drop the witness rules.

The state and national Republican parties went to court on the side of the state. The judge ruled after a remote hearing where the GOP argued that suspending the rules would invite fraud..They "admit that Covid-19 poses a serious health risk to some people but deny that it justifies departures from Rhode Island laws that protect election integrity," was her summary of their presentation.


Read More

Gynecologist doing ultrasound of pregnant woman in hospital.

Rural hospital labor and delivery closures are creating maternity care deserts—and costing communities physicians, jobs, families, and economic investment.

Maskot/Getty Images

No Doctor, No Delivery, No Future

Today, less than half of rural hospitals in the U.S. still offer labor and delivery services, and since 2020, 139 of them have stopped delivering babies altogether. That's usually treated as public health statistic. It's also an economic one. Each closure doesn't just push expectant mothers into longer drives to the hospital, it pushes out physicians, jobs, young families, and the investment that follows them. So, what happens to a town after it loses its only labor and delivery unit?

The answer, it turns out, is a lot more than a longer drive to the hospital. More than a third of U.S. counties, 35.1 percent by the most recent national count, are now what researchers call maternity care deserts: places with no hospital or birth center offering obstetric care and no obstetric clinicians at all. Since the end of 2020, 139 rural hospitals have stopped delivering babies, and today less than half of rural hospitals nationwide still offer labor and delivery services.

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Standard for Ethical Immigration Reporting
people holding flag of U.S.A miniature
Photo by Frank Kastle on Unsplash

A New Standard for Ethical Immigration Reporting

Seven months ago, I attended the first day of my Reporting on Race class at USC. Taught by journalist and immigration reporting expert Jean Guerrero, the course offered growth I hadn’t yet imagined, showing me how much I could evolve as a journalist in just one semester.

For the next five months, I researched and reported on an immigration story of my choosing. I wrote about how educators in Los Angeles protect and advocate for students and communities living in fear of ICE deportations. These educators organized community street patrols to keep their neighborhoods safe. Finding sources and producing the final draft took months, but it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my journalism studies so far.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Utah’s H.B. 222 Set the Stage for State-level Climate Liability Shields
A factory with smoke coming out of it
Photo by Anthony Maw on Unsplash

How Utah’s H.B. 222 Set the Stage for State-level Climate Liability Shields

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Background

Keep ReadingShow less