Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Restricting vote by mail won't combat fraud, per conservative report

Ballot drop box

Some Republicans are seeking to eliminate the use of ballot drop boxes in future elections, among other restrictions.

George Frey/Getty Images

Restricting no-excuse absentee voting and banning drop boxes won't actually improve election integrity, despite the claims of many conservatives, according to a new study.

R Street Institute, a right-leaning public policy research organization, released a five-page report this week arguing against various state proposals aimed at restricting voting access. While the report says some proposed reforms deserve serious deliberation, others will only make it harder for people to vote.

More Americans than ever cast a ballot by mail in the 2020 election due to the Covid-19 pandemic, prompting some states to consider making no-excuse absentee voting and other ballot expansions permanent policies. However, 33 state legislatures are also considering more than 165 bills that would restrict voting access.


Before the pandemic, two-thirds of states allowed voters to cast absentee ballots for any reason and several more made temporary allowances last fall. Only five states (Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Indiana and Mississippi) kept the excuse requirement for voting by mail in the 2020 election.

While former President Donald Trump's baseless claims of voting fraud connected to mailed ballots during and after the election have caused many Republican lawmakers to now seek rollbacks or restrictions on voting access, those allegations have no basis in fact, according to R Street.

The report points out that absentee ballots face a "rigorous process to ensure ballots are legitimate, including ballot tracking measures and signature verification." R Street also cites an election fraud database run by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has found a miniscule number of fraud cases over multiple election cycles.

"Moving to an excuse-only absentee system would do nothing to combat fraud, and may instead suppress voter turnout," wrote Steven Greenhut and Marc Hyden, two state policy experts at R Street who authored the report. "Many Americans prefer the convenience and flexibility provided by no-excuse absentee voting."

Ballot drop boxes, an extension of mail voting, have also been under attack. Eliminating their availability would also hinder voter convenience, especially given the mail delivery delays last fall, the report says.

"Ironically, many Republicans questioned the ability of the U.S. Postal Service to handle something as important as a ballot, yet are now proposing rules that would eliminate a reasonable alternative," Greenhut and Hyden wrote.

Expanding absentee voting is good reform and not an invitation for fraud, the report concludes. "Instead of seeking to ban tried-and-true methods of voting, lawmakers should instead look to ensure that eligible voters have the utmost opportunity to safely exercise their voting rights."


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less