Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Flood of 'spend more on elections' missives in congressional mailboxes

Mail delivery
Jed Share/Kaoru Share/Getty Images

Advocates for making voting safer and easier this year are showering Congress with appeals for help in the next coronavirus response package.

The flow of letters, e-mail and appeals posted online has accelerated in recent days, as lawmakers have started haggling over a fourth aid package since the pandemic took hold. But any decisions have now been delayed at least two weeks, as the Senate on Tuesday joined the House in postponing lawmakers' earliest return until the week of May 4.

The missives have much in common: They are signed mainly by progressive groups, augmented by a handful of cross-partisan good governance organizations. They focus on getting more money for expanding mail-in voting, early in-person voting, online registration and other steps to protect the electorate and election workers from the virus. And they stop short of calling for federal requirements for states spending the aid.


The most immediate decision for Congress is how to break a partisan stalemate over increasing funds to the Paycheck Protection Program, the small-business relief program at the core of the government's efforts to steer the economy beyond the worst of the Covid-19 outbreak.

Beyond that, Democrats have been pushing legislation mandating that states ease access to the ballot box this fall, principally by making absentee ballots available to all voters. Republicans object, arguing that would constitute a federal takeover of elections and spawn a wave of election fraud.

The groups are mainly soft-pedaling or staying away from that fight, especially now that President Trump's antagonism toward widespread voting-by-mail has hardened GOP opposition.

The award for the largest list of signatories clearly goes to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which had more than 200 groups on its letter sent Monday to all members of Congress. It asks for $4 billion in funds to help with delayed primary elections and the fall general election, on top of the $400 million provided in last month's $2.2 trillion stimulus package.

The letter highlights the need for more by-mail and early voting but also emphasizes the importance of providing safe Election Day options. It says states should not be required to provide matching funds — a 20 percent match on the first funds — and that some oversight should be included.

"We encourage Congress to institute accountability measures that provide latitude to states while ensuring that the funds are being directly used to ameliorate the impact of the pandemic on voting access," the groups wrote.

After the funding is delivered, the letter says, several policy changes "must be implemented" to ease the process of voting — including no-excuse absentee voting and online and same-day registration.

Among the more prominent groups who signed are the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Sierra Club.

Another 50 groups sent an open letter to congressional leadership, also released Monday, demanding Congress provide $4 billion to the states. It calls for the money to be used for the same things mentioned by the Leadership Conference, and walks a similar fine line about mandates.

"While these reforms can and must be implemented by the states, Congress has an obligation to safeguard the integrity of our elections by setting national voting rights standards," says the letter. Stand Up America, Common Cause and Indivisible organized this letter, which includes some of the same groups as the first one.

On Tuesday representatives from a dozen different groups, many of which emphasize a more ideologically centrist approach to lobbying for fixes in the democratic system, signed a letter from the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers urging Congress "to move swiftly and decisively on voter mobility legislation" — but without mentioning either a monetary request or the need for mandates.

A similar letter to Capitol's Hill's bipartisan leadership was sent last week by the top leaders of the new Fix the System coalition, a group including some of the most influential democracy reform groups formed this spring to push proposals they view as having potential for bipartisan support.


Read More

Confirmation on Easy Mode: Sen. Mullin’s nomination to lead DHS

U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) testifies during his confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Confirmation on Easy Mode: Sen. Mullin’s nomination to lead DHS

Since arriving in Congress in 2013 Sen. Markwayne Mullin has been known for disappearing for a few weeks to Afghanistan in a putative effort to rescue Americans still there after withdrawal and tried to draw the president of the Teamsters into a fight during a hearing. Ironically, or possibly appropriately, Sean O’Brien, that same president of the Teamsters, endorsed Mullin’s nomination. He has written several laws supporting Native American communities and pediatric cancer research. A Trump loyalist, on January 6, 2021 in the hours after the riot at the Capitol, Mullin voted to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election by omitting Arizona and Pennsylvania’s votes for Joe Biden.

His work experience prior to his political career was primarily in running his family’s plumbing business after his father became ill. He spent four months as a mixed martial arts fighter with a record of three wins. (He’s also gotten a lot richer while in Congress.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people signing papers.

A deep dive into the growing uncertainty in the U.S. legal immigration system, exploring policy shifts, backlogs, and how procedural instability is reshaping the promise of lawful immigration.

Getty Images, Halfpoint Images

When Immigration Rules Keep Changing, the System Stops Working

For generations, the United States has framed legal immigration as a kind of social contract. Since 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act ended the national-origin quota system, the U.S. has formally opened legal immigration to people from around the world without racial or national-origin preferences. If people from across the globe sought to reunite with family or bring needed skills to the American economy, they were told they would be welcomed. If they sought U.S. citizenship, the country would provide a clear route to reach it.

Follow the procedures, submit the forms, pay the fees, pass the background checks, and your time will come. Legal immigration has never been easy or quick. But the promise has always been that the path exists.

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

Travelers wait in a TSA Pre security line at Miami International Airport on March 17, 2026, in Miami, Florida. Travelers across the country are enduring long airport security lines as a partial federal government shutdown affects the Transportation Security Administration officers working the security lines.

(Joe Raedle/Getty Images/TCA)

A New Norm of DHS Shutdown & Long Airport Lines

If you’ve ever traveled to France, chances are you’ve come up against this all-too-common phenomenon. You get to the train station and, without warning, your train is out of service. Or a restaurant is oddly closed during regular business hours.

“C’est la grève,” you may hear from a local, accompanied by a shrug. It’s the strike.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections
US Capitol
US Capitol

Constitutional Barriers to Nationalizing Elections

In the run-up to the midterms, President Trump continues to call for nationalizing congressional elections. He has sought to initiate the process through executive orders, such as one proposing to set “a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting.” The words and spirit of the United States Constitution—the bedrock textualism and originalism of conservative constitutional interpretation—say he can’t nationalize elections.

Unlike some consequential constitutional questions, it’s not a close call.

Keep ReadingShow less