Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

No stricter scrutiny for Kentucky inactive voters who show up this year

Kentucky voters

A judge has ruled that voting officials in Kentucky must limit the bureaucracy that would-be voters would face if they show up at their polling stations, like this one in Lexington, for the first time in years.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Kentucky may not set higher bureaucratic thresholds for recently inactive voters who decide they want to cast ballots this fall, a state judge has ruled.

The decision is a victory for voting rights and for the state's Democratic Party, which sued last week to prevent the state from subjecting 175,000 people labeled "inactive voters" to stricter scrutiny at their polling places. The party believes most of those voters are on their side, and could prove crucial to the fortunes of Andy Beshear, the state's Democratic attorney general, who's in a tossup race for governor against Republican incumbent Matt Bevin.


People are listed as inactive because they were sent mailings from state election officials that were returned as undeliverable. If they showed up at the polls in November, the plan was to allow them to vote only after signing a special roster and swearing under criminal penalty they were eligible voters.

"Not every voter has the luxury of waiting for a possibly lengthy period of time to jump through unnecessary hoops when the State Board of Elections' intent can be achieved through simpler, less prejudicial means," wrote Judge Thomas Wingate of the Circuit Court in Frankfort. He ordered election officials to put all voters on one list but mark those on the inactive list with an asterisk meaning poll workers should update the address on file.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Federal law says people may not be dropped from the rolls "solely" because they haven't voted. Last year Kentucky settled a federal lawsuit by promising to cull the rolls only by sending mailings to determine if non-recent voters had moved, died or gone to prison. The inactive voter list was made to comply with that settlement.

Read More

The DOGE and Executive Power

White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The DOGE and Executive Power

The DOGE is not the first effort to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in government. It is the first to receive such vociferous disdain along what appears to be purely political lines. Most presidents have made efforts in these areas, some more substantial than others, with limited success. Here are some modern examples.

In 1982, President Reagan used an executive order to establish a private sector task force to identify inefficiencies in government spending (commonly called the Grace Commission). The final report included 2,478 recommendations to reduce wasteful government practices, estimated savings of $429 billion over the first three years and $6.8 trillion between 1985 and 2000. Most of the savings required legislative changes, and Congress ignored most of those proposals.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money in politics
Super PACs tied to major parties misled voters, complaint alleges
erhui1979/Getty Images

Is It Possible To Reverse Course on the Corruptive Influence of Money in American Politics?

A $288 Billion Dollar Proto-Presidency?

The 2024 presidential election saw Elon Musk spend over a quarter of a billion to elect President Trump, which is exactly $288 million according to The Washington Post report of the final tally of campaign spending on January 31, 2025. Did that staggering campaign contribution buy the billionaire the right to attend cabinet meetings and stand beside the President in the Oval Office and at other events? Did those millions buy a Proto-Presidency, complete with the opportunity to run a department aggressively dismantling government and radically changing what government does for ordinary Americans while personally benefiting from government contracts? Professor Lawrence Lessig argues that ‘Musk is the clearest example of the corrupting influence of money in politics.’ According to a recent PEW study, 72% of Americans agree that money is the number one corrupting influence in politics. So, what can be done? Are we too far down this road to make meaningful change, or are there options?

Keep ReadingShow less
Progressives Have Religious Freedom Too
person standing while reading ook

Progressives Have Religious Freedom Too

At the end of March, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case about religious freedom. In late April, it heard two more. By summer, the Court could decide to give religious employers another tax break, let religious parents excuse their children from classes that mention queer people, and give religious charter schools access to public funding.

Religious freedom in these cases is about conservatives’ religious right to be exempt from certain laws and taxes. They give a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees a chance to carve three new religion-shaped holes in American law.

Keep ReadingShow less