News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
The State of Reform
Download Unite America’s free report
Download Unite America's free report analyzing the impact of four key political reforms.
Bill Theobald
Bill Theobald is senior writer at The Fulcrum, where he focuses on everything to do with voting. This December marks his 40th anniversary in the business, and he still believes -- now more than ever -- that the glow from great journalism can truly light the world.
MOST READ
Get some leverage.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Elaine Cromie/Getty Images
Michigan, which held its presidential primary in March, is expecting a surge in mail-in ballots in November.
Suit to ease Michigan voting dies, but new ones born in three other states
Aug 03 2020
Michigan's top court has decided not to weigh in on one of the emerging big issues of the November election: whether absentee ballots delayed in the mail should still count.
The state Supreme Court decision means that Michigan, like most of the presidential battlegrounds and 33 states altogether, will only open and tabulate envelopes that have landed at election offices by the time polls close on Election Day. As a result, the franchise may be denied to millions nationwide unless the beleaguered Postal Service is able to keep up with the coming torrent of mailed-in ballots.
Friday's decision was part of the latest flurry of legal developments over voting rights — including a lawsuit, similar to the one in Michigan, to make Indiana count late-arriving ballots, along with two fresh suits to relax absentee voting rules in Ohio and a bid to force South Carolina to make elections safer for people vulnerable to the coronavirus.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
These are the details:
<h3>Michigan<br></h3><p>The high court divided 4-3 in deciding not to reconsider a lower court decision upholding a state law, which mandates that ballots arrive by the time the polls close on Election Day in order to be counted.</p><p>The <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/league-of-women-voters" target="_self">League of Women Voters</a> had sued in May to make the state count all ballots postmarked on or before Election Day. Only 17 states count delayed ballots, sometimes only if they arrive a day late but sometimes for as long as two weeks after Election Day.</p><p>Four Republican-nominated judges voted to not take the appeal, saying it was the exclusive purview of the Legislature to change the rules. Three Democratic nominees dissented. One of them, Justice Richard Bernstein, wrote that he was "baffled and troubled" by the decision to rebuff the case. He pointed out that the Court of Appeals review resulted in three separate opinions, marking the case as a good candidate for the Supreme Court to take up.</p><p>Tuesday is primary day in Michigan and election officials already have seen a large increase in the number of absentee ballots compared to 2016. That's mainly because the state has dropped its excuse requirements in the interim, so anyone can vote remotely without explaining that preference.</p><p>President Trump is trailing in statewide polls after carrying the state's 16 electoral votes in 2016 by fewer than 11,000 votes. The League of Women Voters maintained that between 41,000 and 64,000 absentee ballots will arrive too late to be counted if the law stands.</p><h3>Indiana</h3><p><a href="https://thefulcrum.us/directory/common-cause" target="_self">Common Cause</a> Indiana and the <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/naacp" target="_self">NAACP</a> sued to make the state count ballots postmarked by Election Day so long as they arrive within 10 days. The reliably red state now has one of the earliest deadlines: noon on Election Day, six hours before in-person voting ends.</p><p>The lawsuit was filed late Thursday in federal court in Indiana. It argues that even without the coronavirus pandemic, the noon deadline ends up disqualifying many ballots.</p><p>"Even in the best of times the Noon Election Day Receipt Deadline disenfranchises voters," the suit says, and "this is not the best of times."</p><p>The lawsuit says that in the June 2 primary, which was delayed a month because of the Covid-19 outbreak and during which the vote-by-mail excuse requirements were suspended, several thousand ballot envelopes were tossed for late arrival even though they were postmarked before election day.</p><h3>Ohio</h3><p>The two latest lawsuits in battleground Ohio, which has been in the electoral vote column of every Republcian who's won the White House, were filed Friday against GOP Secretary of State Frank LaRose.</p><p>In one, the Ohio Democratic Party is seeking to compel the state to allow non-paper applications for absentee ballots, an option that is widely available in fewer than a third of states. Now, the request must be sent by regular mail. The complaint, filed in state court, argues that email as well as faxed requests should be accepted as well —- and that state law already provides for that. </p><p>The other suit, brought in federal court by the League of Women Voters with help from the <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/american-civil-liberties-union" target="_self">American Civil Liberties Union</a>, seeks to overhaul and make uniform the system of matching signatures on absentee ballot forms with the ones on file at election offices — the main way that states weed out improper if not fraudulent requests. The suit argues there is an impermissible amount of inconsistency because the state's 88 counties have their own standards for evaluating signatures on requests and ballots</p><p>Election officials have no handwriting expertise, the suit points out, but counties are able to reject ballots or applications without notifying voters or giving them the chance for a do-over.</p><h3>South Carolina</h3><p>Two voters considered "high risk" if they were to contract the coronavirus asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to ease the state's election rules because of the pandemic. The suit asks the court to allow early voting, drop-box absentee returns, curbside voting, online absentee voting applications and more time for election officials to count absentee ballots in the solidly Republican state.</p><p>The reason they said they were asking the state's top court for help is that the General Assembly is not planning to reconvene until the middle of September, which the plaintiffs say is not enough time to legislate the changes they want.</p><p>"The rapidly approaching general election promises to be tumultuous and to place voters in certain high-risk cohorts, " the suit says, "in harm's way when casting the only ballot they are presently allowed to under South Carolina law: an in-person ballot on election day."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Veto in N.H. for permanent switch to no-excuse voting by mail - The ... ›
- Mail-in voting benefits neither party, is nearly fraud-free - The Fulcrum ›
- Lessons from Oregon, the top-ranked vote-by-mail state - The Fulcrum ›
- Biden backs vote-at-home, says Trump out to undermine election ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
News. Community. Debate. Levers for better democracy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
C-SPAN
Texas Republican Ted Cruz reading "Green Eggs and Ham" during a Senate filibuster in 2013.
TV coverage of the Senate may reduce its effectiveness
Jul 31 2020
Televising every moment of the Senate's proceedings is a wonderful monument to government transparency, one that brings corruption-scrubbing sunshine to the self-proclaimed world's greatest deliberative body. Right?
Perhaps, but it's more complicated than that. Newly published research concludes gavel-to-gavel coverage of Congress has reduced substantive debate, heightened partisanship and increased the amount of time members spend on posturing and self-promotion.
The report is the second in recent days detailing what's underpinning the dysfunction of the Capitol, at a time when legislative branch weakness is widely viewed among the main threats to democracy. In the other, former members of Congress painted a dire picture of their former workplace, saying it is ill-equipped to rally even in emergencies such as the current coronavirus pandemic and economic collapse.
<p>The TV study, from Cornell University, provides a rare analytical attempt to address an issue that has been the subject of years of theoretical debate: Does televising government in action help or hurt the deliberative process, in the end aiding or interfering with the function of our democracy?</p><p><p style="text-align: center;"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>In an attempt to answer the question, law professor Edward Stiglitz and economics graduate student Aviv Caspi examined debate in the Senate from January 1983 through January 1989, a period that straddled the start of C-SPAN's coverage of the chamber in May 1986. (House proceedings went live seven years before.)</p><p>They examined about 300,000 speeches by senators during debates to see how much those statements were similar to the previous statement — and statements by senators of the same party and the other party. (No, they didn't read many millions of words; this work was automated.)</p><p>They then looked to see if the similarities in the rhetoric by members of the same party increased or decreased after the cameras were turned on. </p><p>What they were looking for was whether "herding" — in essence, agreeing with your kind — by Republicans and Democrats increased with television. The answer was a qualified yes. </p><p>The study also concluded this tendency to toe the party line became most pronounced the closer to Election Day.</p><p>The authors also attempted to look at the impact on the behavior of senators who represented more or less "discerning" constituents, using the percent of state populations with college degrees as the measure of discernment. What they found is that senators with the most educated constituents distanced themselves less in their speeches from members of the other party.</p><p>Another finding was that TV's arrival boosted the amount of Senate time spent in what's known as morning business — the parliamentary time when senators can address any topic they like. "Members likely favor this time because it allows them to posture before cameras — showing fidelity to party, or differentiating from members of the other party — essentially without constraint," the study said.</p><p>The authors also conclude that their work suggests the Supreme Court may be justified in resisting years of lobbying from good government groups and media organizations that say oral arguments should be televised.</p><p>For <a href="https://www.usafmc.org/congressxroads" target="_blank">its own study</a>, the <a data-linked-post="2638671988" href="https://thefulcrum.us/united-states-association-of-former-members-of-congress" target="_blank">Association of Former Members of Congress</a> interviewed 31 of its newest members — a senator and 30 House members who left office in the previous two years — about the causes and possible solutions to congressional dysfunction. They will sound familiar to observers of Capitol Hill's slide into partisan gridlock.</p><p>The report says the constant need for members to return every weekend to their home districts to politic and raise money has given Democrats and Republicans alike fewer chances to form relationships that can result in working together on difficult issues.</p><p>Former members also report a tendency of party leadership to keep the two sides apart instead of promoting events that would build bipartisan trust.</p><p>The report calls for more members to participate in overseas trips where they have a chance to get to know each other and where party membership is less significant.</p><p>Also suggested are members visiting the districts of represented by the other party and conducting joint field hearings.</p><p>Finally, the report concludes that members need more time together away from the glare of the media and the public.</p><p>"To have all congressional business open at every step can sometimes diminish opportunities — and incentives — for the private interactions necessary for bipartisan and legislative success," the report concludes. </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Cameras as cash machines worrying Capitol Hill's reformers - The ... ›
- Can we all just get along? Now it is a question for Congress. - The ... ›
- Bipartisan town halls offer hope public can agree on facts - The ... ›
- Transparency is a weapon that is ruining Congress - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Darren McCollester/Getty Images
Lawsuits have been filed this week in North Carolina and Virginia in an attempt to make it easier for people with disabilities, like the voter above, to cast their ballots in the fall election.
Blind voters sue for easier balloting in two states
Jul 30 2020
With the presidential election now fewer than 100 days away, courthouses across the country are continuing to process a record flood of litigation hoping to improve access to voting during the coronavirus pandemic.
This week legal actions were filed in New York to extend the deadline for registration, and in both Virginia and North Carolina to improve the ability of blind citizens to vote from home.
Success for any of those lawsuits would likely increase turnout, but the only place where the extra voters might prove dispositive is North Carolina, where both the presidential and Senate contests look to be tossups. The other two states seem solidly blue.
These are the details of the cases:
<h3>New York</h3><p>The American Civil Liberties Union and its affiliate state group asked a judge late Tuesday to block enforcement of the law ending voter registration 25 days before an election. Only 15 states have even earlier deadlines.</p><p><p style="text-align: center;"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>As part of the ACLU's ongoing state lawsuit against the Board of Elections, it asked the court to allow registration until Oct 24, or 10 days before the election, in line with four other states. (Nineteen states allow registering at the polls.)</p><p>In the last presidential race, the plaintiffs said, about 93,000 New Yorkers could not vote because they registered after the deadline.</p><p>"This November's election is one of the most important in our lifetimes, and it is more urgent than ever that no New Yorker is needlessly barred from participating," said Donna Leiberman, executive director of the New York ACLU.</p><h3>Virginia</h3><p>Two disability advocates and voters filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block absentee voting procedures they argue are discriminatory against the blind.</p><p>The National Federation of the Blind of Virginia and the American Council of the Blind of Virginia argue their members are not able to independently mark a paper ballot and that violates the 30-year-old Americans with Disabilities Act.</p><p>The lawsuit says this leaves disabled voters having to risk their health to vote in person. It argues that a secure email system for military and overseas citizens to vote is already available, but election officials refuse to let disabled voters use it.</p><h3>North Carolina</h3><p>Another federal lawsuit filed Monday makes similar arguments to the one in Virginia.</p><p>It states that blind and visually impaired North Carolinians will be forced to either risk getting the coronavirus, by voting in person, or to compromise their privacy and tell someone else who they want to vote for so that person can fill out the paper ballot.</p><p>The suit filed Monday says several states including Maryland, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Oregon have all developed electronic methods for disabled citizens to vote absentee.</p><p>An estimated 300,000 North Carolinians had a visual disability in 2016, according to the National Federation of the Blind.</p><p>Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Disability Rights North Carolina and the North Carolina Council of the Blind.</p>
Keep reading...
Show less