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

Trump’s Greenland folly hated by voters, GOP

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) speaks with NATO's Secretary-General Mark Rutte during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21, 2026.

(Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

Trump’s Greenland folly hated by voters, GOP

“We cannot live our lives or govern our countries based on social media posts.”

That’s what a European Union official, who was directly involved in negotiations between the U.S. and Europe over Greenland, said following President Trump’s announcement via Truth Social that we’ve “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Young Lawmakers Are Governing Differently. Washington Isn’t Built to Keep Them.

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani announces two deputy mayors in Staten Island on December 19, 2025 in New York City.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Young Lawmakers Are Governing Differently. Washington Isn’t Built to Keep Them.

When Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as New York City’s mayor on Jan. 1 at age 34, it became impossible to ignore that a new generation is no longer waiting its turn. That new generation is now governing. America is entering an era where “young leadership” is no longer a novelty, but a pipeline. Our research at Future Caucus found a 170% increase in Gen Z lawmakers taking office in the most recent cycle. In 2024, 75 Gen Z and millennials were elected to Congress. NPR recently reported that more than 10% of Congress won't return to their seats after 2026, with older Democrats like Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Steny Hoyer and veteran Republicans like Rep. Neal Dunn stepping aside.

The mistake many commentators make is to treat this trend as a demographic curiosity: younger candidates replacing older ones, the same politics in fresher packaging. What I’ve seen on the ground is different. A rising generation – Democrats and Republicans alike – is bringing a distinct approach to legislating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Confusion Is Now a Political Strategy — And It’s Quietly Eroding American Democracy

U.S. President Donald Trump on January 22, 2026.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Confusion Is Now a Political Strategy — And It’s Quietly Eroding American Democracy

Confusion is now a political strategy in America — and it is eroding our democracy in plain sight. Confusion is not a byproduct of our politics; it is being used as a weapon. When citizens cannot tell what is real, what is legal, or what is true, democratic norms become easier to break and harder to defend. A fog of uncertainty has settled over the country, quietly weakening the foundations of our democracy. Millions of Americans—across political identities—are experiencing uncertainty, frustration, and searching for clarity. They see institutions weakening, norms collapsing, and longstanding checks and balances eroding. Beneath the noise is a simple, urgent question: What is happening to our democracy?

For years, I believed that leaders in Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House simply lacked the character, courage, and moral leadership to use their power responsibly. But after watching patterns emerge more sharply, I now believe something deeper is at work. Many analysts have pointed to the strategic blueprint outlined in Project 2025 Project 2025, and whether one agrees or not, millions of Americans sense that the dismantling of democratic norms is not accidental—it is intentional.

Keep ReadingShow less