Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ballot spot primacy for Florida GOP upheld by federal appeals court

2016 Broward County sample ballot

The governor's party is listed first on every ballot in Florida.

Broward County superintendent of elections

Republicans may hang on to the top spot on Florida ballots, a federal appeals court has decided — a significant boost for the GOP in the biggest purple state, and also perhaps the biggest defeat yet for Democrats counting on winning a wave of lawsuits that boost their prospects this fall.

The ruling Wednesday was mainly on technical grounds but nonetheless nullified a lower court decision. Last November a federal trial judge declared unconstitutional a Florida law awarding the most prominent place on every ballot to the governor's party. That design feature guarantees an artificial boost in the vote of candidates from the benefiting party.

Such laws are a feature of a system assuring the major parties can box out worthy insurgent and independent candidates, democracy reformers lament. The parties listed second view such measures as arbitrary and discriminatory, arguments the Democrats have made in challenging first-on-the-page laws the past year not only in Florida but also in Texas, Georgia and Arizona.


The case in Florida, where the occupant of the governor's office means the GOP has been listed first on every ballot since 1999, has proceeded furthest. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs, several Democratic voters and campaign organizations, lacked the standing to sue and sued the wrong people.

Judge William Pryor also said the Democrats had not proved they were being harmed by the seven-decade-old law.

That was the opposite of what District Judge Mark Walker of Tallahassee had said in November, when he ruled the law impermissibly "allows a state to put its thumb on the scale and award an electoral advantage to the party in power." His decision pointed to experts who testified that listing GOP candidates first gave them as much as a 5-point advantage in Florida's elections.

Earlier this month Walker had ordered the state to come up with a more equitable ballot architecture by the end of May, accusing Florida officials of slow-walking their planning in hope of winning their appeal.

The attorney leading the lawsuit campaign by the Democratic National Committee and the party's congressional campaign arms, Marc Elias, signaled that an appeal would be filed soon.

"Arguing that Democrats are not harmed by an illegal and unwarranted 5 percent Republican advantage in every single election in the state is wrong, inconsistent with running a fair election, and we are considering all of our options in this case," he said. "We can assure you that we will take whatever steps are necessary to protect Florida voters this November."

Absent a quickly successful appeal, however, President Trump's name will be first on the November ballots in all 67 counties. He is counting on the state's 29 electoral votes, but former Vice President Joe Biden has led in recent polling. The state has been a tossup every year since 1996 and has narrowly gone for the winner every time. The 2016 margin was just 113,00 votes out of 9.1 million cast.

That margin of 1.2 points is much less than the 5 percent cited in the case.

The other ballot primacy lawsuits remain in the trial courts. Georgia and Arizona are looking at highly competitive Senate races this fall, and Biden appears to have a shot at carrying their combined 27 electoral votes. Texas is more of a long shot for him and the Democratic Senate challenger but is not entirely out of reach.

Republicans have been listed first on the ballot in every election in Arizona for almost a decade, in Georgia for more than a decade and in Texas for two decades.

Georgia is also in the jurisdiction of the 11th Circuit and so that claim's future could be limited by Wednesday's decision.

Political operatives pay so much attention to the vote-getting power of topping the ballot that they have several nicknames for it: The "primacy effect," the "windfall vote" and the "donkey vote."

The high partisan stakes in the Florida case were reflected in the 11th Circuit's decision. Pryor, a nominee of President George W. Bush, was joined in most of his opinion by Judge Robert Luck, a nominee of President Trump. Dissenting on several issues was Judge Jill Pryor, put on the court by President Barack Obama.


Read More

Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties

Your Vote Counts postid

Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties

New polling and expert analysis reveal a shifting and increasingly complex political landscape among Hispanic and Latino voters in the United States. While recent surveys show that economic pressures continue to dominate voter concerns, they also highlight a broader fragmentation of political identity that is reshaping long‑standing assumptions about Latino electoral behavior. A Pew Research Center poll indicates that President Donald Trump has lost support among Hispanic voters, with 70% disapproving of his performance, even though 42% of Latinos voted for him in 2024, a ten‑point increase from 2020. Among those who supported him, approval remains relatively high at 81%, though this marks a decline from earlier polling.

At the same time, Democrats are confronting their own challenges. Data comparing the 2024 American Electorate Voter Poll with the 2020 American Election Eve Poll show that Democratic margins dropped by 23 points among Latino men, raising concerns among party strategists about weakening support heading into the 2026 midterms. Analysts argue that despite these declines, sustained investment in Latino voter engagement remains essential, particularly as turnout efforts have historically influenced electoral outcomes.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Disconsent of the Governed

The U.S. Capitol is shown on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Disconsent of the Governed

President Trump’s administration and Congress have not paid much attention to what legislators call “the normal order” in matters related to codifying laws and implementing programs and policies that are supposed to help mind the public’s business or satisfy petitioners looking for attention and relief. This has been partly by design and partly not.

A serious consequence of our leaders not following “normal order” has been to encourage many of us who aren’t in government to use more polarizing rhetoric and to act out more than usual. While there may be little we would consider “normal” about how our national government has been working recently or how people have risen to support or challenge it, we would be mistaken and doing ourselves a great disservice if we were to dismiss or condemn the agitated steps everyday Americans are taking as unhinged or “the work of domestic terrorists.” Their words and actions may be on the other side of normal, but there’s nothing crazy about them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Leif Christoph Gottwald on Unsplash

Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy

I am writing this not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an American who believes that compassion and common sense must coexist. I understand why many people feel sympathy for those who come to the United States seeking safety or opportunity. That compassion is part of who we are as a nation. But compassion alone cannot guide national policy, especially when the consequences affect every citizen, every community, and every generation that follows.

For more than two centuries, people from around the world have entered this country through a legal process—sometimes long, sometimes difficult, but always rooted in the idea that a nation has the right and responsibility to know who is entering its borders. That principle is not new, and it is not partisan. It is simply how a functioning country protects its people and maintains order.

Keep ReadingShow less
SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure

SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.

The Supreme Court Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs) and consolidated related cases relate to the following issues:

(1) Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump; and

Keep ReadingShow less