Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Burst of legal victories gives hope to promoters of a comprehensive election

courthouse, voting lawsuits
Christophe Lehenaff/Getty Images

A rare spurt of important victories, in three courthouses stretched across the country, has voting rights advocates breathing a little easier about the prospects for a smooth and reliable presidential election.

In battleground Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court significantly eased the use of mail-in ballots on Thursday by ordering they be counted even if they arrive three days after Election Day and by permitting an expanded deployment of drop boxes.

A few hours later, a federal judge blocked a law in tossup Michigan that makes it a crime to hire drivers to take someone else to the polls.

And by day's end another federal judge, in Washington state, had blocked all the operational and policy changes made by the Postal Service this summer, concluding the way they had slowed the mail in recent months would amount to "voter disenfranchisement" if continued into November.


In addition to those legal wins, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy apologized for missteps in his agency's efforts to help voters plan ahead if they choose to use absentee ballots — most recently a postcard sent to every household nationwide that offered blanket advice in conflict with the rules in many states. During a video conference with state officials he said the mailing was not an effort at disinformation, hoping to rebut persistent criticism he's working to undermine voting by mail at the behest of his political patron, President Trump.

Thursday's wave of developments provided an unusual blanket of good news for both good-government advocates and Democrats, who are working to assure the viability and legitimacy of an election that because of the coronavirus pandemic will be conducted away from polling places more than ever before.

So far, they have lost more of their lawsuits than they have won, including defeats in seven of eight cases that have been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. And all the while they have been buffeted by relentless and false claims from President Trump that liberalized mail-in voting will be the means of widespread fraud.

The election might "NEVER BE ACCURATELY DETERMINED" because of mail-in ballots, he said in a Thursday tweet that Twitter marked as misleading. "Stop Ballot Madness!"

One of the major problems with a reliable if not speedy count, in reality, is the disconnect between the policies put in place because of the pandemic to encourage the use of absentee ballots and the laws still on the books effectively restricting their use.

The high court ruling in Harrisburg helps resolve that in a state both Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are counting on — and where the use of mail-in ballots surged for this summer's primary but 20,000 of them (almost half the margin by which Trump carried the state last time) were not counted because they arrived after the polls closed. The same rule is in effect in 32 other states.

Deciding a lawsuit filed by the state Democratic Party, the court said mailed votes arriving at county election offices by the close of business Nov. 6 would be counted — so long as they were mailed by Nov. 3. An envelope with a missing or illegible postmark must also be counted, the court said, "unless a preponderance of the evidence" shows it was mailed after the polls closed.

The ruling has the potential to make Pennsylvania the focus of a national cliffhanger if the margin is as tight as expected, tens of thousands of envelopes must still be opened in the days after the election — and the 20 electoral votes at stake decide if Trump or Biden wins. (Another state law, not touched by this case, says election officials must wait until the morning of Election Day to begin processing the piles of mailed ballots they receive in the weeks beforehand. The state expects absentee votes to account for half this year's likely total of 6 million.)

The justices also allowed expanded use of drop boxes for absentee ballots, an option for those voting at the last minute and not confident in the Postal Service. The Trump campaign has sued in federal court to prevent placement of the receptacles, arguing they will incubate fraud, but the judge was waiting to see how the state lawsuit concluded before starting proceedings in that case.

The court also removed the Green Party's presidential ticket from the ballot, a decision boosting Biden in a different way. The progressive party's 2016 nominee, Jill Stein, won almost 50,000 votes in the state, while Democrat Hillary Clinton came up just 44,000 votes short.

But Trump won on a couple of fronts. The justices said ballots that do not arrive inside a second "secrecy envelope" may be disqualified and third parties will still be prevented from collecting and returning mail ballots — the practice, legal in many states, that Republicans deride as "ballot harvesting."

The ruling was narrower but still significant in Michigan, with 16 electoral votes vital to the prospects of both candidates. (Trump won last time by just 11,000 votes.)

Judge Stephanie Davis of Flint lifted the restrictions on paying to transport people to polling places in response to a lawsuit by Priorities USA, a pro-Biden group that is working on a big get-out-the vote operation. Because of the unusual state law, Michigan has been the only place in the country where Uber does not offer discounted rides to the polls.

But Davis, named to the federal court by Trump, declined to ease the state's restrictions on political organizations helping people complete absentee ballot applications. Only voters and their family can handle the paperwork.

A federal judge in Washington state on Thursday granted a request from 14 states to temporarily block operational changes within the Postal Service that have been blamed for a slowdown in mail delivery, saying Trump and DeJoy are "involved in a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service" that could disrupt the 2020 election.

The federal judge assigned the Postal Service lawsuit brought by 14 state attorneys general, Stanley Bastian of Yakima, was an Obama nominee. He temporarily blocked the changes in the post offices systems nationwide after declaring that Trump and DeJoy "are involved in a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service."

DeJoy reversed several of the most controversial policies on the day the states filed their suit, but the judge said he was not taking the USPS leader at his word that would continue. Bastian said he was most focused on assuring all election-related envelopes continue to be treated as first class mail, a longstanding practice DeJoy backed away from but has now re-embraced.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less