Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Exhaustive Montana inquiry found 493 dead voters. None of them voted.

Little Bighorn National Monument in Montana

No one cast a ballot from the Little Bighorn National Monument — or any other Montana cemetery — in recent elections.

John Elk/Getty Images

The latest reminder that voting fraud is a mirage comes from Montana, which has a small population but is a big part of the Republican playbook for holding the Senate and propelling President Trump's re-election.

The GOP took alarmed notice recently when an audit of registration lists found almost 500 dead people still on the voter rolls. But, on closer inspection, investigators for the Republican-majority Legislature found no sign that any of them have voted from the grave — a practice the president falsely asserts is rampant and could undermine his shot at a second term.

The myth of party operatives using names and birthdates on headstones to prop up their Election Day vote totals is part of American lore, and may have been easier in decades before registration lists got digitized and federal law required they be kept up to date. But in recent years, while a tiny fraction of the deceased get overlooked during such cleanup efforts, evidence their identities have been claimed by live voters has been non-existent.


After it became clear the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election, Congress approved a set of grants to states to bolster their safeguards against hacking. Montana spent $2 million to update its voter registration system, and the recent audit was commissioned to see if the changes worked.

Comparing the rolls against state death records, investigators found 493 people in both databases — one out of every 1,400 registered voters. But after looking at 4.6 million ballots cast in various elections since 2010, the auditors found just two instances where it appeared a ballot had been accepted after a voter's death. In one case, the namesake son had turned in his late father's absentee ballot instead of his own. The other was a clerical error at a county courthouse.

The result will be of no help to Trump. In recent days, he's gone beyond his by now familiar allegations that the election will be sullied by cheaters exploiting the unusually wide use of mail-in ballots because of the coronavirus pandemic. On "Fox & Friends" on Tuesday morning, and at several recent campaign stops, he declared that the only way he can lose is if the Democrats steal the election — another unprecedented assault on democratic norms from a White House occupant.

"The one thing we can't beat, if they cheat on the ballots," Trump told a rally Sunday in Nevada, where all registered voters will, receive ballots in the mail in few weeks. Of Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, he said: "Now he will cheat on the ballots, I have no doubt about it."

Back in Montana, Trump remains a reasonable if not locked-in bet to carry the state's 3 electoral votes, which have gone to the GOP in six straight elections, while Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock is mounting a too-close-to-call bid for the Senate against Republican incumbent Steve Daines.

Read More

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

November 20 marks World Children’s Day, marking the adoption of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. While great strides have been made in many areas, we are failing one of the declaration’s key provisions: to “protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.”

Sexual violence against children is a public health crisis that keeps escalating, thanks in no small part to the internet, with hundreds of millions of children falling victim to online sexual violence annually. Addressing sexual violence against children only once it materializes is not enough, nor does it respect the rights of the child to be protected from violence. We need to reframe the way we think about child protection and start preventing sexual violence against children holistically.

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

A deep look at what “American values” truly mean, contrasting liberal, conservative, and MAGA interpretations through the lens of the Declaration and Constitution.

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

What Are American Values?

There are fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives—and certainly MAGA adherents—on what are “American values.”

But for both liberal and conservative pundits, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent—of lasting meaning. Because the values of people change as the times change, as the culture changes, and as the political temperament changes. The results of current polls are the values of the moment, not "American values."

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.

Keep ReadingShow less