Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Judge orders paper-based fix for excessive voting lines in Georgia

Georgia primaries

Voters wait in line during the June Georgia primary.

Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

An ocean of old-fashioned paper must be deployed across Georgia to assure the lines keep moving at polling places in one of this year's most important battlegrounds, a federal judge says.

A traditional copy of the local poll book, or roster of registered and eligible voters, must be printed and delivered to each precinct in case the brand new but often balky electronic versions malfunction, Judge Amy Totenberg of Atlanta ruled Monday.

It's a narrow, but important and rare, courthouse win this year for voting rights advocates in a state that epitomizes their long battle against government officials willing to hold down turnout in the name of election security. And GOP Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger vowed to appeal.


His office and county election officials, he said, "are preparing Georgia for the biggest election turnout in history, and it will do so successfully despite the constant distraction of litigation filed by activists determined to undermine the credibility of our elections."

Raffenseberger also announced he'd referred at least 24 allegations of voter fraud to the state attorney general — a follow-up for his announcement this month he suspected at least 1,000 people had cast both mail-in and in-person votes in the primary.

The judge's ruling was a partial win in a lawsuit arguing the state's entire suite of election hardware, being used this year for the first time, proved so inadequate during the primary that it should be ditched entirely in November. Acquired after widespread claims that voter suppression in the 2018 governor's race, its glitches and complexities caused such long backups that thousands walked away without voting in June, especially in and near Atlanta.

Though as many as half of the Georgia electorate plans to vote by mail this fall, shattering past records, that would still mean at least 2 million votes cast in person.

The judge declined to block the use of the new ballot-marking machines in favor of hand-marked paper ballots, which would have been both an expensive and logistically complex assignment with just five weeks until Election Day.

Instead, she told Raffensperger to provide election superintendents in all 159 counties paper lists of people, generated after the end of early in-person balloting, still eligible to vote Nov. 3 at each polling station. The backups are to be used to determine eligibility and precinct assignment if the computers go down, she said, and poll workers must be trained to use both systems — and also to have a sufficient stock of emergency paper ballots on hand, rectifying another widespread problem in the primary.

Those are "reasonable concrete measures," her 67-page opinion said, "to mitigate the real potential harms that would otherwise likely transpire at precinct polling locations grappling with the boiling brew created by the combination of new voting equipment issues and old voter data system deficiencies."

Polling shows a tossup race for Georgia's 16 electoral votes, which President Trump took last time to extend the Republican winning streak in the state to six elections. Both of the state's Senate seats are also being contested, and David Perdue has become one of the year's most endangered GOP incumbents.

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less