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

The Fulcrum Opens Applications for 2026 Summer Journalism Fellowship

a person is writing into a notebook

The Fulcrum Opens Applications for 2026 Summer Journalism Fellowship

The Fulcrum is now accepting applications for its 2026 Fulcrum Fellowship, a 10‑week summer program designed to train the next generation of journalists in solutions‑focused reporting and narrative complexity. The fellowship will run from June 8 through August 14, 2026 and is part of The Fulcrum’s broader NextGen initiative, which aims to expand opportunities for emerging journalists across the country.

The Fulcrum Fellowship builds on the success of its inaugural cohort and reflects the organization’s commitment to nurturing young journalists who can move beyond polarized, one‑dimensional storytelling. The program helps storytellers illuminate not only the challenges facing democracy but also the responses and innovations happening in communities nationwide. Fellows learn to produce stories that counter oversimplified narratives and elevate underrepresented voices.

Keep ReadingShow less
Does either party actually want to win the Senate race in Texas?

US Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) speaks during an "Oversight and Government Reform" hearing on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 12, 2025. (Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Does either party actually want to win the Senate race in Texas?

One of the worst features of the election primary system in our polarized “Red vs. Blue” time is the tendency of primary voters to flock to the candidate they most want to “destroy” the other party, not the candidate best positioned to do so.

Let’s say a zombie is scratching at your door. You’ve got a shotgun, a handgun and your favorite frying pan. The shotgun has the greatest chance of success, the handgun — if one is careful and skilled — has a solid chance of working, and the frying pan? It probably won’t dispatch the threat but, come on, how cool would it be to take out a zombie with a frying pan? So, you go with that.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Our Doomsday Machine

Two sides stand rigidly opposed, divided by a chasm of hardened positions and non-relationship.

AI generated illustration

Our Doomsday Machine

Political polarization is only one symptom of the national disease that afflicts us. From obesity to heart disease to chronic stress, we live with the consequences of the failure to relate to each other authentically, even to perceive and understand what an authentic encounter might be. Can we see the organic causes of the physiological ailments as arising from a single organ system – the organ of relationship?

Without actual evidence of a relationship between the physiological ailments and the failure of personal encounter, this writer (myself in 2012) is lunging, like a fencer with his sword, to puncture a delusion. He wants to interrupt a conversation running in the background like an almost-silent electric motor, asking us to notice the hum, to question it. He wants to open to our inspection the matter of what it is to credit evidence. For believing—especially with the coming of artificial intelligence, which can manufacture apparently flawless pictures of the real, and with the seething of the mob crying havoc online and then out in the streets—even believing in evidence may not ground us in truth.

Keep ReadingShow less