Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Why, Ohio? Drop boxes kicked to the curb in another battleground.

Ballot drop box in Athens County, Ohio.

The ballot drop box outside the Board of Elections in rural Athens County in southeastern Ohio.

Ty Wright/Getty Images

There won't be any more ballot drop boxes set up in Ohio, assuring more hassle for as many as 700,000 people who might still cast their votes remotely and early in one of the essential presidential battlegrounds.

Voting rights groups announced Thursday they were giving up the legal battle they've been waging since the summer to get many more bins dispatched. They said it has become pointless to ask the Supreme Court to reverse an earlier appeals court ruling restricting the boxes to just one place in each of Ohio's 88 counties.

Drop boxes for completed absentee ballots have sprouted in plenty of places across the country that have never seen them before, a response by election officials to anxieties about voting in person and relying on the mail during the coronavirus pandemic. But as with so much else about election rules this fall, many of those initial accommodations (including for Ohio's primary) have run into stiff opposition from Republicans claiming the potential for fraud.


That was the argument made by Ohio's top elections official, Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, when he decreed in August that state law required that ballot boxes for the general election be made available only at each county's board of elections office.

The NAACP, the League of Women Voters and the A. Philip Randolph Institute, a civil rights group, sued in federal court to allow the counties to have as many boxes as they want. They argued the pandemic made anything more restrictive a form of unconstitutional voter suppression — especially in the most densely populated places. More than 500,000 people live in each of the counties that take in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton and Akron.

Two weeks ago, federal Judge Dan Polster blocked the secretary of state's order, concluding more drop boxes were permitted by state law. But he was overruled just a day later by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said LaRose's curbs were reasonable and that making a change so close to the would pose a security risk.

In a separate lawsuit, brought in state court by the Ohio Democratic Party and opposed by Republicans including President Trump's campaign, an appellate court ruled this month that LaRose could allow multiple drop box sites if he wanted — but wasn't legally compelled to do so.

He has permitted the elections board in Cuyahoga County, home to Cleveland, to place a second, 24-hour drop box outside and across the street from the office — and has suggested other counties can do something similar. But LaRose rejected the Cleveland board's plan to also collect ballots at six public libraries.

Similar restrictions have also been imposed recently in another presidential battleground, Texas, and have also survived state and federal court challenges.

Ohio is one of at least nine states that have used drop boxes for the first time this year. Even before the pandemic, they were part of the election mechanics in about two dozen states.

The pressure for more remote collection options in Ohio has only grown in recent days, with the state suffering a surge of Covid-19 cases and a significant absentee ballot production problem causing delays and printing do-overs for forms in 16 counties, Cuyahoga among them. More than 2.4 million mail-in ballots have been requested and almost 1.6 million had been returned by midweek, smashing previous records for the state so far from Election Day. In-person early voting has also been strong

Polling shows the race for the state's 18 electoral votes essentially deadlocked. Trump carried it last time by a comfortable 8 points, preserving the truism that no Republican has ever won the presidency without winning in Ohio. Democrats are hoping for such a strong come-from-behind Joe Biden victory that the party can pick up a pair of competitive House seats in southeastern Ohio.


Read More

As Detainments Increase, Seattle Dedicates $4M to Legal Defense of Immigrants

The City of Seattle sits across Elliott Bay as activists march down Alki Beach with protest signs in support of immigrants on Feb. 2, 2025.

Photo: Alex Garland

As Detainments Increase, Seattle Dedicates $4M to Legal Defense of Immigrants

A $4 million budget increase for the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs (OIRA) will go toward community grants and legal defense for detained immigrants, Mayor Katie Wilson's office announced.

Proposed in September 2025 amid a growing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) presence, nearly half the budget increase will help fund the City's Legal Defense Network (LDN), a program that provides legal representation to those who live, work, or go to school in Seattle during immigration proceedings.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Republic at 250: What History Teaches — and What Americans Must Choose
white red and blue textile

A Republic at 250: What History Teaches — and What Americans Must Choose

As the United States approaches both a consequential election cycle and the 250th anniversary of its founding, Americans stand at a crossroads the framers anticipated but hoped we would never reach: a moment when citizens must decide whether to allow the Republic to erode or restore it through vigilance. This is not about left or right. It is about whether we still share a common vision of the country we want to be — and whether we still believe in the same Republic.

The Founders never imagined “the land of the free” as a place dependent on benevolent leaders. They built a system in which the people — not the government — were the safeguards against overreach. James Madison warned that “the accumulation of all powers…in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny,” a reminder that freedom depends on restraint, not trust in any single individual. George Washington pledged that the Constitution would remain “the guide which I will never abandon,” signaling that loyalty to the Republic must always outweigh loyalty to any leader. These were not ceremonial lines. They were instructions — a blueprint for preventing institutional strain, polarization, and distrust we see today.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

How the erosion of the rule of law threatens American democracy, constitutional rights, judicial independence, and public trust in government institutions.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

When the Rule of Law Unravels, Democracy Begins to Collapse

There is one thread that holds democracy's cloth together. That is the Rule of Law. For the most part, we take the rule of law for granted; we don’t give it a second thought, even though we rely on it constantly. Yet, pull that thread, and the cloth of democracy frays and ultimately unravels.

The rule of law is defined as the principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are: (1) clear and publicly promulgated; (2) equally enforced; (3) independently adjudicated; and (4) are consistent with international human rights principles.

Keep ReadingShow less
Children sitting down, holding signs that read, "Let Trans Kids Be," and "Gender Liberation Now."

Children hold signs during a “Rise Up for Trans Youth” demonstration in New York City on February 8, 2025. Patients, families and doctors rely on medical guidance in an increasingly hostile landscape, but recent statements — and how politicians interpret them — have only deepened uncertainty.

KENA BETANCUR/AFP/Getty Images

How Gender-Affirming Care Is Becoming a Political Test for Top Medical Groups

The largest medical association in the United States supports gender-affirming care — a stance it has reiterated in different ways over the last 10 years. But as Republicans press leading medical organizations on health care for transgender youth, the American Medical Association (AMA) is the latest group caught between political rhetoric and the complex realities of specialized care that few people receive.

As patients, families and doctors navigate this care in an increasingly confusing and hostile landscape, what medical groups say matters. But lately, what they’ve had to say — and how politicians interpret it — has only caused more uncertainty.

Keep ReadingShow less