Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ending Texas straight-ticket vote will make fall more chaotic than Tuesday, suit says

Voters in San Antonio, Texas, on Super Tuesday

Voters in Texas' biggest urban centers — including San Antonio (above) waiting as long as six hours to vote on Super Tuesday.

Edward A. Ornelas/Gettty Images

The hours-long lines that confronted hundreds of thousands of Texans on Super Tuesday are sure to be even worse in November unless the state's new ban on straight-ticket voting is reversed, Democrats maintain in the fifth voting rights lawsuit they've filed in the state in recent months.

Permitting voters to make a single choice on the ballot, in favor of all the candidates of their political party, has been a feature of Texas elections for a century and was the way two-thirds of the state's voters, 5.6 million of them, cast ballots in the 2018 midterm. But the Republican Legislature has voted to eliminate that option starting this fall.

Doing so will "unjustifiably and discriminatorily burden Texans' fundamental right to vote" in an election where historic turnout is anticipated," the lawsuit argues. "Texas has recklessly created a recipe for disaster at the polls."


The second most populous state has been reliably red for the past quarter-century, but Republicans are aware that grip is loosening because rapid population growth is almost entirely in cities, white-collar suburbs, and Latino and African-American communities. Democrats believe that, if their turnout is enormous enough this fall, they have shots at securing Texas' 38 electoral votes, upsetting Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn's bid for re-election and picking up as many as six House seats.

Although Tuesday's turnout exceeded the 2016 Democratic primary, Texas historically has had some of the lowest voting participation rates in the country — just 51 percent four years ago, for example, when the national turnout was 60 percent.

And reversing that trend will be much less likely, Democrats say, if voters this fall are required to mark choices in several dozen partisan contests that will be on the ballots in some places — not just for president and Congress but also for state legislative, county government and judicial positions.

Democratic voters were picking nominees for all those jobs on Tuesday, not just making a presidential choice. That was one reason the lines moved slowly statewide. But a much bigger problem was the shortages of election workers and equipment, and problems with the voting systems, that created wait times as long as six hours to vote in all five of the state's biggest urban counties.

The new lawsuit, filed in federal court in Laredo, says that an end to straight-ticket voting would violate the Voting Rights Actand be an unconstitutional denial of free speech and equal protection rights to voters who will inevitably be dissuaded by such excessive wait times from casting ballots starting Nov. 3.

"We remain confident that Texas voting laws are in full compliance with the Constitution and all voters have equal opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice," the Texas attorney general's office, led by Republican Ken Paxton, said in response.

The Democrats' legal claim is a novel approach to preserving an election option that's been fading steadily in recent years. Just seven states are sure to have straight-ticket voting this year: Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah. Six have done away with the practice in the past decade, most recently Pennsylvania last fall.

Republicans have led the criticism of the system. They say it makes the electorate less engaged, punishes lesser-known candidates and gives too much power to partisan organizers. Democrats and most good-government groups disagree and point to research showing straight-party voting boosts turnout.

The plaintiffs in the new suit — the state Democratic Party and the national House and Senate Democratic campaign committees — have also sued Texas in the past year for ending the use of mobile voting sites for early voting, prohibiting electronic signatures on registration forms, complicating the process for registering while getting a driver's license and requiring that the political party of the governor (always a Republican since 1995) be listed first on all ballots.

It's the most aggressive vein of the Democrats' expansive courthouse campaign to make it easier to vote in bellwether states this fall. The party has committed more than $10 million to pressing more than two-dozen suits, promoting the Republican Party to promise it will spend comparablyto defend the voting laws at issue.

"Texas is the center of our battlefield and we will not stop taking on the obstacles Republicans put in place to shrink the electorate as they attempt to cling to power," said Rep. Cheri Bustos of Illinois, the chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"I wish I could say that the hard work is done in fighting voter suppression for 2020. However, in many ways, the fight has just begun," said the attorney coordinating the party's effort, Marc Elias. "State legislatures are considering new voting laws that will suppress the vote. And, in many states, election officials are implementing other creative ways to block people from voting."

Attorneys from the Texas Civil Rights Project, meanwhile, pressed the state Thursday to spend generously in the next seven months to assure there are more machines in Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio and Austin and that the voters there are encouraged by the state to cast ballots in the fall.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less