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

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less