Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democrats take on left-leaning New York in latest ballot access lawsuit

New York absentee ballot

New York continues to require an excuse for voters who want to cast absentee ballots.

Newsday LLC/Getty Images

Since the 2020 election, state and federal courts have been inundated with lawsuits over ballot access, recounts, redistricting and other election matters. Generally, they follow a predictable pattern, with partisanship at the heart of the matter.

But Democrats turned the narrative around on Friday, when lawyers for the congressional Democrats’ campaign arm filed a lawsuit against deep blue New York over its absentee ballot practices.

Red states take the brunt of the criticism for their more restrictive rules around ballot access. New York, however, is among the very few liberal states ranked among the places where it is hardest to vote.


Democrats have dominated the New York Assembly for at least two decades and now comfortably control the state Senate after Republicans narrowly held the majority for years. And with a Democrat as governor (Kathy Hochul took over after Andrew Cuomo was forced to resign last year following allegations of sexual harassment), the party would appear aligned with left- and center-left priorities.

But the state has yet to make significant changes to its election practices. Last year, the nonpartisan Center for Innovation & Research studied every state’s rules for absentee and early in-person voting. Only six, primarily right-leaning, states offer neither. New York ranked among one of the nine — again, mostly conservative states — that offer one, but not both of the options.

In November 2021, New York voters had the chance to approve no-excuse absentee ballots through a constitutional amendment but it was voted down, 55 percent to 45 percent.

“New York has tried to make improvements, but until recently, it was very difficult, if not nearly impossible, for voters in the state to vote any way other than in-person on Election Day,” said David Becker, executive director of CEIR. “Mail voting and early voting is somewhat more available to voters now, but New York has tried to implement a huge volume of reforms, and that almost always leads to difficulty. New York is still several steps behind on issues related to voter registration and other areas of election administration as well. The fact remains that it’s far easier to register to vote, and cast a ballot, in most other states than New York, though it’s headed in the right direction.”

In addition to limiting the use of absentee ballots, New York had the third highest rate of absentee ballot rejection (3.6 percent), behind only Arkansas and New Mexico, prompting the lawsuit.

“New York has an unfortunate history of discarding absentee ballots for easily fixable issues that are unrelated to a voter’s eligibility,” wrote Marc Elias, the Democratic election attorney leading the lawsuit. He claims New York is violating the First and 14th amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act.

Elias and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are challenging four specific rejection practices:

  1. Ballots that could be fixed but not not defined as “curable.”
  2. Ballots that are ruled invalid only because a voter followed improper instructions from election officials.
  3. Ballots that were cast in the wrong jurisdiction.
  4. Ballots that lacked a postmark because the U.S. Postal Service made a mistake.

This isn’t the first time New York has been sued over its absentee ballot rules. In 2020, a group of voting rights organizations filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to force the state to change the absentee ballot verification requirements. According to the Campaign Legal Center, the state had rejected 14 percent of absentee ballots in the 2018 general election.

The plaintiffs settled the lawsuit after the state passed a law enabling voters to cure ballots with certain errors.


Read More

Baltazar Enríquez: Perspectives from Little Village Community Council President

Baltazar Enriquez stands with "ICE OUT OF CHICAGO" sign in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood

Teresa Ayala Leon

Baltazar Enríquez: Perspectives from Little Village Community Council President

Baltzar Enríquez was born in Michoacán, Mexico, and moved to Chicago at the age of three. Little Village, often called “The Mexico of the Midwest,” became his new home, a community he has grown to love and serve. In 2008, Enríquez joined the Little Village Community Council, a nonprofit organization originally founded in 1957. Upon becoming a member, he noticed the lack of participation and limited community programs available for residents. In 2020, he was named president of the council and began expanding, introducing initiatives such as Equal Education for Latinos, among other resources for the Little Village community. Enríquez reflected on his years of involvement and how he has navigated leading the council amid the current political climate.

Question: What inspired you most to get involved in the council?

Keep ReadingShow less
Freezing Child Care Funding Throws the Baby Out with the Bathwater
boy's writing on book

Freezing Child Care Funding Throws the Baby Out with the Bathwater

In the South, there is an idiom that says, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” It means not discarding something valuable while trying to eliminate something harmful. The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) proposed response to unsubstantiated child care fraud allegations in Minnesota risks doing exactly that.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has frozen child care and family assistance grants in five states, and reports indicate that this action may be extended nationwide. Fraud at any level is wrong and should be thoroughly investigated, and once proven to be true, addressed. However, freezing child care payments and family assistance grants based on the views of a single social media “influencer” is an overcorrection that threatens the stability of child care programs and leaves families without care options through no fault of their own.

Across the nation, Americans rely heavily on child care. According to the Center for American Progress, nearly 70 percent of children under age six had all available parents in the workforce in 2023, underscoring how essential child care is to family and economic stability.

Child care funding, therefore, is not optional. It is a necessity that must remain stable and predictable.

Without consistent funding, child care operations are forced to significantly reduce capacity, and some are forced to close altogether. In 2025, a longtime family child care owner made the difficult decision to close her business after state budget cuts eliminated critical child care funding. While this example reflects a state-level funding failure, the impact is the same. When funding becomes unreliable, as is the case with the current funding freeze, child care business owners, employees, parents, and children all suffer.

The economic consequences extend well beyond families. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, when parents cannot find or afford child care, they are pushed out of the workforce, and businesses lose skilled employees. Child care gaps disrupt staffing across industries and cost states an estimated $1 billion annually in lost economic activity.

Child care is no longer just a family issue. It is an economic issue. It is one of the few sectors that directly affects every other industry. At a time when women are being encouraged to have more children, a strong support system must also exist, and that includes consistent, reliable child care funding.

Misuse of government funds is not a new concept. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more than $200 billion in federal relief funding across programs was reportedly misused. Fraud occurs in every industry, and no system is immune to it.

If allegations of child care fraud are substantiated, safeguards should absolutely be implemented to prevent future misuse; however, freezing child care funding would further delay payments to a sector already plagued by late reimbursements, disrupt services for children and families, and destabilize small businesses that operate on thin margins.

The solution is straightforward. Strengthen oversight to mitigate risk, without punishing the entire field. We must acknowledge that the vast majority of child care programs operate in good faith and in compliance with the law, providing care to millions of children nationwide. According to a 2020 report by the United States Government Accountability Office, only seven states since 2013 have had errors in more than 10 percent of their child care fund payments.

Yes, accountability matters, but solutions must be precise and measured. Sweeping actions based on unsubstantiated claims destabilize the entire child care system. When child care collapses, families lose care, caregivers lose income, small businesses close, and the economy suffers.

We can strengthen safeguards without dismantling the system that families and the economy depend on. We can address misuse if and where it exists. But we cannot afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Eboni Delaney is the Director of Policy and Movement Building at the National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC), and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project in Partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.

Keep ReadingShow less
It’s The Democracy, Stupid!

Why democracy reform keeps failing—and why the economy suffers as a result. A rethink of representation and political power.

Getty Images, Orbon Alija

It’s The Democracy, Stupid!

The economic pain that now defines everyday life for so many people is often treated as a separate problem, something to be solved with better policy, smarter technocrats, or a new round of targeted fixes. Wages stagnate, housing becomes unreachable, healthcare bankrupts families, monopolies tighten their grip, and public services decay. But these outcomes are not accidents, nor are they the result of abstract market forces acting in isolation. They are the predictable consequence of a democratic order that has come apart at the seams. Our deepest crisis is not economic. It is democratic. The economy is merely where that crisis becomes visible and painful.

When democracy weakens, power concentrates. When power concentrates, it seeks insulation from accountability. Over time, wealth and political authority fuse into a self-reinforcing system that governs in the name of the people while quietly serving private interests. This is how regulatory agencies become captured, how tax codes grow incomprehensible except to those who pay to shape them, how antitrust laws exist on paper but rarely in practice, and how labor protections erode while corporate protections harden. None of this requires overt corruption. It operates legally, procedurally, and efficiently. Influence is purchased not through bribes but through campaign donations, access, revolving doors, and the sheer asymmetry of time, expertise, and money.

Keep ReadingShow less
Washington Loves Blaming Latin America for Drugs — While Ignoring the American Appetite That Fuels the Trade
Screenshot from a video moments before US forces struck a boat in international waters off Venezuela, September 2.
Screenshot from a video moments before US forces struck a boat in international waters off Venezuela, September 2.

Washington Loves Blaming Latin America for Drugs — While Ignoring the American Appetite That Fuels the Trade

For decades, the United States has perfected a familiar political ritual: condemn Latin American governments for the flow of narcotics northward, demand crackdowns, and frame the crisis as something done to America rather than something America helps create. It is a narrative that travels well in press conferences and campaign rallies. It is also a distortion — one that obscures the central truth of the hemispheric drug trade: the U.S. market exists because Americans keep buying.

Yet Washington continues to treat Latin America as the culprit rather than the supplier responding to a demand created on U.S. soil. The result is a policy posture that is both ineffective and deeply hypocritical.

Keep ReadingShow less