Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Nevada redistricting effort gets more time, but not electronic signatures

Nevada's congressional districts
mapchart.net

Redistricting reformers in Nevada have another shot at getting their initiative on the November ballot after a federal judge allowed for more time to collect signatures.

Judge Miranda Du of Reno has given Fair Maps Nevada six extra weeks to circulate petitions but turned down the group's request to be allowed to collect electronic signatures. Adhering to this month's deadline in light of the coronavirus pandemic would be unconstitutional, she wrote Friday, but relaxing the state's requirement for handwritten signatures could incubate fraud.


Approval of the ballot measure would create a nonpartisan commission to replace the Legislature in drawing both the congressional and state legislative maps for the state, which is now the case in eight other states.

The November election is the last shot at redistricting reform for a decade, because new maps are drawn nationwide once the census provides detailed population counts.

Originally, Fair Maps Nevada had until June 24 to collect at least 98,000 signatures — and said it had gathered only 10,000 when Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak imposed a statewide stay-at-home order in April. He has since reopened most businesses but continues to encourage people to remain out of public places if possible.

Since the group could not collect signatures due to Covid-19, the judge wrote, "it is both unreasonable and unfair not to extend a statutory deadline for a corresponding period of time."

The new deadline is Aug. 5, or 90 days before Election Day. Du said the group and state officials could agree on a different date, but she recommended "an extension corresponding to the precise length of time the stay-at-home order was in effect."

Allowing e-signatures would make the citizen's democracy effort more susceptible to fraud and require the court "to get impermissibly in the weeds of designing election procedures," Du wrote, noting the Supreme Court precedent that strongly discourages lower federal courts from altering election rules.

A similar referendum is already on the ballot in Virginia and proponents for such a measure in Arkansas are also asking the courts for more time to get signatures. Missourians, on the other hand, will vote in November on whether to reverse a redistricting reform initiative approved two years ago.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less