Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

More voting by mail, maybe easier registration rules, coming to battleground N.H.

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu discusses plans for absentee voting.

Voting rights advocates have scored back-to-back victories in New Hampshire, the smallest but among the hardest fought of the presidential battleground states.

Gov. Chris Sununu, breaking from the resistance of many of his fellow Republican leaders nationwide, announced Thursday the state will give voters open-ended permission to vote by mail in November if the coronavirus pandemic has not abated.

Hours later a judge struck down a state law toughening requirements for signing up to vote — especially for the state's large, pivotal and liberal-leaning collegiate electorate.


The decision in the registration case is sure to be appealed. But the governor sounded firm in his decision abandoning his past opposition to widespread absentee voting.

"Basically if you feel more comfortable voting absentee because of the outbreak, or your inability or nervousness about just appearing in person to vote, you can vote absentee and obtain an absentee ballot," he said at a news conference.

Just seven states require all applicants for absentee ballots to cite an excuse preventing them from voting in person on Election Day. New Hampshire is the only swing state on the roster, and the only permissible excuses are religious, work or travel obligations — not illness or public safety. It was unclear how the governor's declaration would be carried out.

Sununu said officials in Concord are considering other ways to make voting easier and less subject to health risks this year, among them systems for completing ballots from inside a car at drive-through voting sites.

Good governance groups have rallied behind Democratic efforts in Congress to authorize no-excuse absentee voting nationwide this fall, saying that's the best way to assure full turnout no matter the state of the public health emergency.

Republicans have resisted such a mandate and have been vociferously backed by President Trump, who has asserted without evidence that widespread fraud comes with widespread voting by mail, making Sununu's break from his party's position all the more notable.

And just last year, he vetoed a measure passed by the Democratic-majority Legislature that would have permitted the sort of no-excuse absentee voting available in 27 states.

New Hampshire's four electoral votes have been closely contested in most elections for the past three decades. Hillary Clinton carried them in 2016 by 2,700 votes, the second-narrowest presidential margin of any state, and that year's Senate race was the closest in the country, won by just 1,017 votes by Democrat Maggie Hassan.

After Trump asserted without evidence that fraud denied him victory in the state, a Legislature then in Republican hands added several complex steps to the voter registration process and set criminal penalties and civil fines for those who did not produce certain proof-of-residence documents.

The state Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters sued, arguing the new rules were confusing and created an impermissible two-tier system by adding extra requirements for students and people signing up within a month of an election or on Election Day

Superior Court Judge David Anderson agreed. He declared the statute "unconstitutional," "discriminatory" and "unreasonable" and said its implementation would suppress turnout, especially by younger and poorer people, without deterring the minimal amount of fraud in the state over the past two decades — which both sides in the case agreed to at trial.

The law falls "disproportionately on groups of individuals who use same-day registration more frequently than others," he wrote. "Young, mobile, low-income and homeless voters will all encounter SB 3 and be exposed to its penalties at a higher rate than other voters."

Solicitor General Daniel Will vowed an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Litigation continues over a second law enacted in 2017 that limited access to the ballot box. It requires having a New Hampshire driver's license and registering cars in the state in order to vote, which civil rights groups and lawyers for out-of-state students deride as a de facto poll tax designed to suppress the mostly Democratic vote on college campuses.


Read More

Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less
US Capitol building
white dome building near body of water during daytime
Photo by José Matute on Unsplash

We The People

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln concluded the Gettysburg Address with a vision of democracy that has endured for more than a century:

“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The U.S. Capitol in autumn.

New surveys of nearly 20,000 battleground voters find bipartisan majorities say Congress ignores the public, and that more public influence would help.

Philip Yabut/Getty Images

Americans Say the People Can Lead Congress to Common Ground; It Appears They Are Right

New surveys in battleground states and districts across the country, as well as nationwide, find that Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—believe Congress does what most Americans would do less than half the time.

They also found that majorities agree that if Congress were to be more influenced by the people, it would be more likely to find common ground. In fact, surveys show that majorities of Republicans and Democrats agree on what to do about many issues that Congress is stuck on.

Keep ReadingShow less