Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Suit wants Kentucky to keep mail voting rules eased but delay ID law

Louisville

The convention center was the only polling place in Louisville on primary day, but complaints were limited.

Brett Carlsen/Getty Images

When it comes to elections during the pandemic, Kentucky has stood apart in two ways. It instituted one of the nation's most restrictive voter identification laws just as the coronavirus was shutting government offices that issue ID cards, but its leaders also cut an unusual bipartisan deal resulting in one of the smoothest vote-by-mail primaries so far.

A civil rights group has now sued to make the state abandon that first move, but stick with the second, at least through the November election.

Filed Tuesday in state court, the lawsuit comes early in what's likely to become a flood of litigation to make voting for president easy and safe this fall. While most states have made accommodations for their primaries, they have not done so for the general election.


Many legislatures adjourned for the year before the resurgence of Covid-19 infections. Some governors with the power to change the rules on their own, in both parties, have not yet confronted their options, while many GOP governors seem ready to resist expanded voting by mail in light of President Trump's emphatic objections.

The suit in Kentucky, brought by the Fair Elections Center on behalf of four voters who say their fragile health will preclude them from going to the polls this fall, seeks to force the state to maintain the rules used for the June primary conducted mainly through the mail.

Under a deal between Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear and Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams, the state's usual requirement of an excuse to vote absentee was suspended, and voters were informed by postcard they could request a mail ballot online and send it in two weeks before election day.

To accommodate people who decided they needed or wanted to vote in person, counties were required to have at least one polling place and open it several days ahead of time. That raised serious eyebrows when there was just one was set up in both Louisville and Lexington, but on primary day the facilities were generally described as efficient and the length of the lines manageable.

After the suit was filed, the governor's office said Beshear would support an indefinite extension of the primary regulations, while the secretary of state has declined to comment.

The two remain on opposite sides of the voter ID law. Adams helped to draft the measure this winter, saying it would enhance election security. It was enacted over a veto in March from Beshear, who said it would lead to voter suppression.

Either way, the suit maintains, "a pandemic is no time to impose a new requirement for identification that forces voters to enter government offices, have in-person interactions with election officials, and/or enter other public spaces to obtain a copy of their ID."

To keep the ID law but drop the mail voting easements, the suit says, would violate the state Constitution's mandate that "all elections shall be free and equal."

The arrangements for the primary were widely hailed as working as designed. More than a million votes were cast, four out of five by mail in a state that usually records fewer than 5 percent submitted that way because of the excuse rules. Thanks mainly to a high-profile Democrtatic Senate nomination contest, the turnout statewide was 29 percent, almost matching the record for a primary set a dozen years ago.

And the 4 percent share of mailed ballots that were rejected — mostly because the envelopes weren't signed or were mailed too late — was below the last two elections.

Trump can count on the 8 electoral votes from the state, which has reported more than 17,500 coronavirus cases and just over 600 deaths. And Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is the solid, if not prohibitive, favorite to secure a seventh Senate term despite an extraordinarily well-funded challenge from Democrat Amy McGrath, a Marine fighter pilot veteran who lost a House race two years ago.


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
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less