Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Stop the presses, says appeals court, even if that means longer Georgia voting lines

Georgia voting
Jessica McGowan/Getty Images

Georgia's battle over paper at the polls has taken another turn, and much longer waiting times on Election Day look to be the result.

At issue is whether up-to-date printouts of voter registration and absentee voting information need to be on hand at every polling place in the state next week, to backstop a new generation of computerized tablets. A federal appeals court on Saturday ruled against the paper poll book requirement, which a trial court judge had set last month.

The issue sounds nerdy. But if the decision is not changed in the next week, which seems unlikely, it could prove crucial to depressing turnout in one of the nation's essential battlegrounds, with the winner of 16 electoral votes and two Senate seats too close to call.


Poll workers were forced to rely only on the electronic system on primary day in June and ran into some serious hiccups and delays in trying to check in voters, which created bottlenecks generating lines several hours long especially in and around Atlanta. And the evidence shows not all the software bugs have been fixed.

Part of the problem is with the quality of the information in the tablets, called Poll Pads. In case the electronic records get challenged or freeze up, Judge Amy Totenberg had ordered, a paper copy of each precinct's records should be printed right before Election Day — showing not only who is registered in that neighborhood but whether they've already voted, either by mail or in-person beforehand.

She called the order "a limited common sense remedy" to impediments voters have faced this year since a $100 million replacement of all the state's voting hardware has been rolled out.

Two judges on the 11th Circuit, both nominated by President Trump, put a hold on that order but offered no explanation of their reasoning. A judge named by President Barack Obama dissented.

"Murphy's law says Georgia voters will soon find out why the trial court judge found that simple protection should be in place," said Robert McGuire of the Coalition for Good Governance, which filed the lawsuit

"We thank the 11th Circuit for recognizing that, with record turnout and the difficulties of conducting an election during a pandemic, local election officials have enough on their plates without last minute additions from federal judges," said GOP Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who fought the order.

The broader lawsuit argued the state's new system was so problematic that it should be sidelined for the general election in favor of hand-marked paper ballots. Totenberg rebuffed that request.

The 11th Circuit's decision this weekend was its second to block an election easement in Georgia. Three different judges had earlier rejected a decision to allow ballots mailed by Election Day but arriving after, reimposing the normal deadline that the envelopes must be in tabulating offices by the time the polls close.

Almost 2.8 million ballots had been cast in the state, in person or by mail, by Sunday night — more than double the 2016 total for votes not cast on Election Day.

Polling shows a tossup race in the state between Trump, who carried the state last time by 5 points, and former Vice President Joe Biden, who would be the first Democrat to carry the state since 1992. Both of the state's Senate seats are also being contested, with David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler among the year's most endangered GOP incumbents nationwide, but there's a strong chance at least one of those races will be extended to a runoff in early January.


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less