Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

1 in 8 Iowans targeted for an eventual purge under first GOP voting curbs of 2021

Iowa voting location

Any registered voter who didn't cast a ballot in Iowa last year will be labeled inactive. Above, a voter leaves Ray Lounsberry's Shed in Nevada, Iowa, on Election Day 2020.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Iowa is already seeing the effects of the year's first Republican-driven curbs on voting. The state's elections administrator has told 294,000 Iowans they've been targeted for an eventual purge from the registration list — simply because they did not vote last year.

GOP Secretary of State Paul Pate's office revealed this week that postcards have been mailed to more than 13 percent of the state's electorate telling them they are "inactive" voters because they did not cast any ballot in 2020. The list includes about 400 teenagers who were allowed to register even though they turned 18 after Election Day.

Pate was required to act under the sweeping tightening of election rules approved by the Republican-controlled General Assembly in February, despite united Democratic opposition. Like fellow Republicans nationwide, the GOP acted in the name of preventing the sort of election cheating that Democrats accurately describe as almost non-existent.


Keeping voter rolls up to date enjoys bipartisan support as a good-government best practice, but Republicans generally want to move much more aggressively than Democrats — who say the risk of fraud is much less than the risk that eligible voters will get purged.

Previously, voters had to miss two consecutive general elections to be moved to inactive status. That designation does not immediately limit the ability to vote, but instead puts the Iowan on notice their registration will be canceled if they remain politically silent through 2024. Requesting an absentee ballot, voting in any election or re-registering at a new address will restore an Iowan's active voter status.

"Incorrectly inactivating voters is a chill to voters across the state," said Linn County Auditor Joel Miller, a Democrat considering a challenge to Pate's re-election next year. "It sows distrust and uncertainty while also discouraging voters from voting."

The new law is in some ways more restrictive than the one in Georgia, which has gained much more notoriety because the Peach State is a newly purple presidential battleground — and both civil rights groups and some big companies have derided the effort as all about suppressing the vote of the one-third of Georgians who are Black.

In Iowa (which is 4 percent Black) there will now be nine fewer days for early voting and an hour less for voting on Election Day. Counties may no longer proactively send out absentee ballot request forms or set up more than a single drop box, and they are no longer permitted to count ballots postmarked on time but delayed in the mail. And Iowans may no longer turn over their sealed vote envelopes for delivery by partisan operatives or community activists, the practice critics deride as "ballot harvesting."


Read More

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
US Senate candidate Dan Osborn

Nebraska Independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn.

Image obtained from YouTube

7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms

Election Day on November 3, here are the seven independent campaigns we’ve followed closely, four for the Senate and three for the House, ranked by how competitive they are.

Fundraising figures are full-cycle totals from FEC reports, through the date noted for each race. Prediction-market odds come from Kalshi and were pulled on 10/23. Polls are pulled from the aggregated New York Times pages, with several low-quality polls highlighted by campaigns left out.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote

Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote inserted into a grey cardboard ballot box slot.

Getty Images

The First Amendment Does Not Belong to Political Parties

In a recent essay in Life & Liberty, Robert G. Natelson argues that open primaries may violate the First Amendment rights of political parties by allowing people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. His argument starts with the rights of the party. The more fundamental question is whether it starts in the right place at all: When a state conducts a primary election, whose rights are we even talking about?

Natelson’s answer is primarily the rights of political parties. He argues that because parties have a First Amendment right to decide with whom they associate, the government cannot require them to allow people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. He relies on a number of Supreme Court decisions involving political parties and places particular weight on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. But in doing so, he moves too quickly past the most important fact in the debate: a state primary is an election conducted by the government, not a private meeting of a political organization.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media

White House communications aide Danielle Alvarez (R) films with her phone as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media as he departs on the South Lawn of the White House on October 23, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Finn Gomez/Getty Images

Trump’s Arch Plan Defies Law and Warps D.C.’s Historic Core

The Trump Arch construction controversy is the latest vanity project by Donald Trump using taxpayer money without Congressional approval, placing his ego-based physical stamp on not only American historical architecture but also the American psyche. With no good reason for constructing this arch, it’s an act of self-aggrandizement meant to make him look powerful and important. The project is unconstitutional, illegal, and patently un-American. Three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian have also filed a lawsuit against it.

Like all other actors in government, executive agencies, like the National Park Service, must follow the rule of law and respect ‘separation of powers’ established by the U.S. Constitution. This means following the laws enacted by Congress, which has the power to distribute public funds and determine how they are spent, not the Executive Branch, including the President.

Keep ReadingShow less