Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democrats challenge much of Nevada's mail-in primary plan

Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske

Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske is limiting in-person voting to as few as one fully staffed venue in each of the state's 17 county-level jurisdictions.

David Becker/Getty Images

Nevada is the latest battleground state where Democrats are suing to make voting easier.

The state party and three Democratic campaign organizations went to court Thursday, alleging illegal inequities in the rules Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske has created for the primary, which she's delayed to June 9 and decided will be conducted almost entirely by mail because of the coronavirus.


The suit asks a state trial judge to mandate many more in-person voting sites and the delivery of mail ballots to infrequent voters. It also seeks the suspension of several Nevada election laws, among them provisions for strictly matching signatures on ballots to those on file and a prohibition on having non-family-members collect and deliver absentee ballots.

The suit argues that, without those changes, too many voters picking nominees for Congress, the state Legislature and judgeships will face the same grim choice between civic responsibility and safeguarding health that confronted Wisconsinites last week.

Almost 4000,000 people went out to vote after courts forbade extending absentee ballot deadlines or delaying the election -- fully aware that long lines and confusion were certain, because hundreds of voting locations were going to be abandoned by poll workers feeling unsafe.

"Reducing in-person voting locations to just one location per county moves Nevada in the wrong direction and guarantees a repeat of Wisconsin's mistakes," attorneys wrote in the complaint. "It will force many Nevadans to crowd into a single polling location, waiting in line for hours, risking their health and the health of their families in order to exercise their right to vote."

Cegavske has said in-person voting may be limited to as few as one fully staffed venue in each of the state's 17 county-level jurisdictions. The suit notes that in the two counties that are home to 87 percent of the state's population, those centered on Las Vegas and Reno, voters will have just one location for same-day voter registration, which is taking effect for the first time this year.

The suit challenges plans to mail ballots only to people who voted in 2016 and 2018, saying this would disenfranchise more than 50,000 people. And it seeks a waiver from the state's strict rules against so-called ballot harvesting.


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less