Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

Every state has its own constitution.

How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs at a rally, one reads, "Trump is not above the law."

Protesters gather at a Nobody Is Above the Law rally protesting President Trump's interference in the Mueller investigation on November 08, 2018 in Washington, DC.

Larry French/Getty Images

The Double Standard Presidency: When We Watch Leaders Act Above the Law

Americans are told that no one is above the law. Yet every day, they watch a president behave in ways that would get any ordinary citizen fired, disciplined, confronted, or held accountable — and they watch some Americans excuse it. What makes this moment even more striking is that critics across the political spectrum, including conservatives, now warn that the presidency is operating on a dangerous double standard. This is not a partisan concern. It is a constitutional one. And it is tearing at the fabric of our democracy.

For generations, the Constitution has provided guardrails — separation of powers, checks and balances, oversight mechanisms, and limits on executive authority — designed to prevent any leader from functioning above the law. The framers feared concentrated power more than anything else. They believed that the presidency must be constrained not only by written law but by norms of restraint, dignity, and respect for institutions. Those norms held for centuries because presidents understood that the office was larger than any individual, and Congress understood that oversight was not optional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos differ sharply in how much their identity shapes their daily lives, according to recent findings from the Pew Research Center’s 2025 National Survey of Latinos. The survey shows that Latino immigrants are far more likely than U.S.-born Latinos to say their identity is central to who they are, and that it influences their experiences in the United States. Pew researchers Gabriel Piña, Mark Hugo Lopez, Sahana Mukherjee, Dalia Fahmy, and Alexandra Cahn report that the divide reflects differences in cultural connection, lived experience, and generational distance from immigrant roots.

Pew’s analysis finds that Latino immigrants are significantly more likely to say their origins are central to their identity, while U.S.-born Latinos — especially those in the third generation or higher — are less likely to feel that connection. The report notes that “U.S. Hispanics are divided on whether their identity helps or hurts them in America,” with some respondents describing their Latino identity as a source of pride and connection, and others saying it is tied to discrimination or barriers.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Clerk Matthew Sandbar, 34, demonstrates part of the ballot-sorting process to members of the media attending a walkthrough of the Philadelphia Ballot Processing Center used to process the ballots of the 2022 US midterm elections, in Philadelphia on October 27, 2022.

Photo by Ryan Collerd / AFP via Getty Images

A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Tallying the results of Washington, DC’s first ranked-choice election in June took about 10 days—longer than many voters are used to. In an age when artificial intelligence can generate an answer in seconds, waiting days for election results can feel old-fashioned, inefficient, even suspicious. And it is about to matter far more widely. This November, 17 states, cities, and counties will use ranked-choice voting, including Maine and Alaska statewide, in races that could help decide control of Congress. More voters than ever will watch results take days to resolve, and more will be asked to trust a count they cannot see.

But that slowness may be one of its most democratic features.

Keep ReadingShow less