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

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less