Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., January 29, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Summary

On June 9, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Secretary Kennedy claimed the move was necessary to eliminate “conflicts of interest” and restore public trust in vaccines, which he argued had been compromised by the influence of pharmaceutical companies. However, this decision strays from precedent and has drawn significant criticism from medical experts and public health officials across the country. Some argue that this shake-up undermines scientific independence and opens the door to politicized decision-making in vaccine policy.

Background: What Is ACIP?

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a federal advisory group that helps guide national vaccine policy. Established in 1964, it has over 60 years of credibility as an evidence-based body of medical and scientific experts. ACIP makes official recommendations on vaccine schedules for both children and adults, determining which immunizations are required for school entry, covered by health insurance, and prioritized in public health programs. The committee is composed of specialists in immunology, epidemiology, pediatrics, infectious disease, and public health, all of whom are vetted for scientific rigor and ethical standards. ACIP’s guidance holds national weight, shaping both public perception of vaccines and the policies of institutions like schools, hospitals, and insurers.

Keep ReadingShow less
MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border
Way into future, RPA Airmen participate in Red Flag 16-2 > Creech ...

MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border

FT HUACHUCA, Ariz. - Inside a windowless and dark shipping container turned into a high-tech surveillance command center, two analysts peered at their own set of six screens that showed data coming in from an MQ-9 Predator B drone. Both were looking for two adults and a child who had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and had fled when a Border Patrol agent approached in a truck.

Inside the drone hangar on the other side of the Fort Huachuca base sat another former shipping container, this one occupied by a drone pilot and a camera operator who pivoted the drone's camera to scan nine square miles of shrubs and saguaros for the migrants. Like the command center, the onetime shipping container was dark, lit only by the glow of the computer screens.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Trump 2020 flag outside of a home.

As Trump’s second presidency unfolds, rural America—the foundation of his 2024 election win—is feeling the sting. From collapsing export markets to cuts in healthcare and infrastructure, those very voters are losing faith.

Getty Images, ablokhin

Trump’s 2.0 Actions Have Harmed Rural America Who Voted for Him

Daryl Royal, the 20-year University of Texas football coach, once said, “You've gotta dance with them that brung ya.” The modern adaptation of that quote is “you gotta dance with the one who brought you to the party.” The expression means you should remain loyal to the people or things that helped you succeed.

Sixty-three percent of America’s 3,144 counties are predominantly rural, and Donald Trump won 93 percent of those counties in 2024. Analyses show that rural counties have become increasingly solid Republican, and Trump’s margin of victory within rural America reached a new high in the 2024 election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules
white concrete dome museum

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules

Trust in elections is fragile – and once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many election policies, there is broad bipartisan agreement on one point: executive branch interference in elections undermines the constitutional authority of states and Congress to determine how elections are run.

Recent executive branch actions threaten to upend this constitutional balance, and Congress must act before it’s too late. To be clear – this is not just about the current president. Keeping the executive branch out of elections is a crucial safeguard against power grabs by any future president, Democrat or Republican.

Keep ReadingShow less