Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The state of voting: July 5, 2022

State of voting - election law changes

This weekly update summarizing legislative activity affecting voting and elections is powered by the Voting Rights Lab. Sign up for VRL’s weekly newsletter here.

The Voting Rights Lab is tracking 2,182 bills so far this session, with 579 bills that tighten the rules governing voter access or election administration and 1,037 bills that expand the rules.

Last week, Missouri’s governor signed a bill that makes the state’s voter ID law stricter and limits mail voting access, but the same bill also creates in-person early voting in the state for the first time. And a new Massachusetts law expands early voting and mail voting, as well as facilitates voter registration.

Meanwhile, North Carolina’s budget bill includes a review of the state’s voter registration system by the Electronic Registration Information Center. The governor of Louisiana vetoed a bill that would have blocked the implementation of federal law and federal grants for election administration.

Looking ahead: Delaware’s governor may sign a bill that allows no-excuse mail voting, bringing the state in line with the majority of the country.

Here are the details:


Missouri governor signs voting bill that creates in-person early voting, while also tightening the state’s voter ID law. On Wednesday, Gov. Mike Parson signed H.B. 1878 into law, making substantial changes to Missouri election law that will go into effect for the November election, but not in time for next month’s primaries. Missouri voters will have two weeks of in-person early voting leading up to Election Day, and election officials will implement safeguards to enhance cybersecurity and the post-election audit process. However, the law also eliminates many forms of ID that were previously acceptable for voting purposes and creates barriers to third-party voter registration activities. Additionally, the law restricts absentee voting in a number of ways, including by prohibiting the use of drop boxes for absentee ballot return.

Massachusetts expands early in-person and mail voting. Gov. Charlie Baker signed a bill that allows voters to vote early in-person or by mail for all elections. Under the new law, the secretary of state will send all registered voters a mail ballot application before each election. Under prior law, in-person early voting and no-excuse mail voting were only available for biennial November general elections. The bill also moves the voter registration deadline from the 20th day before Election Day to the 10th day prior.

North Carolina’s budget bill includes funding for the state to join ERIC, but may limit the state’s ability to use it. Currently, North Carolina is not a member of ERIC, a database used by 31 states and D.C. to maintain accurate voter lists. H.B. 103 would provide one-time funding for membership with ERIC for one year. The bill would also require the State Board of Elections to seek the legislature’s approval prior to making any changes in the policies or procedures related to elections in North Carolina. This requirement would limit the board’s ability to use ERIC, because ERIC may require certain system changes for use of the database.

Louisiana governor vetoes a bill that would interfere with federal election policy. Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed H.B. 359, a bill that would have prohibited election officials from accepting or dispersing federal funds for elections without approval from the joint legislative committee on the budget. The bill also would have prohibited election officials from implementing federal directives or guidance regarding elections unless they were required to do so by state law or received legislative direction to do so.

Delaware is poised to eliminate its excuse requirement for mail voting. The Delaware legislature sent Gov. John Carney a bill that would establish no-excuse absentee voting in the state. Delaware is among a minority of states where voters are required to have a special qualifying reason or excuse in order to vote by mail.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less