Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

USPS in hot water for trying to do something right about the election

Colorado voting

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold has sued the Postal Service, saying its new postcard meant to enlighten voters is filled with false and misleading information about her state.

AAron Ontiveroz/Getty Images

Pity the Postal Service, maybe. Even when it tries to do something right these days, things seem to go awry. Especially when it comes to the election.

The latest case in point: Colorado sued the USPS over the weekend, arguing that postcards being sent to every household in the country — encouraging voters to return their mail-in ballots early so they are sure to arrive in time to be counted — includes incorrect and misleading information about the way elections are held in Colorado.

To make matters worse — as if things could get worse for the financially strapped and politically beleaguered post office these days — several other states are exploring whether to file similar lawsuits.


A federal judge immediately issued a temporary restraining order blocking the distribution of the postcards.

But, adding another dollop of disaster, postal officials say most of the postcards have already been mailed across Colorado. To stop the 200,000 that have been processed but not delivered would require more than 1,000 employees to spend hours manually extracting them from the mail. That process "would be extraordinarily difficult and perhaps impossible," postal officials say in a court filing.

This legal nightmare appears to have started innocently enough when the Postal Service — facing a deluge of mailed-in ballots in November because of the coronavirus pandemic — decided to send 137 million postcards across the country with the headline "If you plan to vote by mail plan ahead." The card suggests people request a ballot at least 15 days before Election Day and mail the ballot back to election offices by Oct. 27, seven days in advance.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The mailing includes a general disclaimer that election rules vary by state — but that was not enough for Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat.

The state is one of five that planned to conduct the election almost entirely through the mail even before the pandemic. (The others are Oregon, Washington, Utah and Hawaii.)

Four others — California, New Jersey, Nevada and Vermont, plus the District of Columbia — have decided on sending a mail-in ballot to every voter for this election only in order to reduce the electorate's exposure to Covid-19. Another nine states plan to send an application for a mail-in ballot to every voter.

During a House Oversight and Reform subcommittee hearing Monday on Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's conduct, Democrat Gerald Connolly of Virginia labeled the handling of the postcard a "debacle." He said it could have been avoided had the Postal Service listened to state officials who asked to review postcard before it was mailed out.

Griswold's lawsuit argues that the statement in the postcard about requesting a ballot is false for Colorado voters because everyone receives one without asking for it.

The statement about returning the ballot through the mail is also false, the suit maintains, because Colorado voters can drop their mail-in ballots at polling centers or in drop boxes and can vote in person if they choose.

Judge William Martinez of Denver ruled Saturday night that it was likely the lawsuit would prevail. In his order, he wrote that the mailing could "sow confusion amongst voters" and leave them wondering whether election laws had been changed.

Postal officials on Sunday immediately challenged Martinez' ruling, saying he erred by issuing it without even hearing their arguments.

Postal officials say the postcards were sent out for a "valid public purpose" and that the majority were delivered on Friday in Colorado.

Extracting those still in the process might slow down delivery of other important mail, postal officials argue in a legal filing.

Martinez gave postal officials until Monday afternoon to file a motion supporting their request that he reconsider his decision to issue the restraining order.

Read More

Latino attendees of the Democratic National Convention

People cheer for the Harris-Walz ticket at the Democratic National Convention.

Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Harris’ nomination ‘hit a reset button’ for Latinas supporting Democrats

As the presidential race entered the summer months, President Joe Biden’s level of support among Latinx voters couldn’t match the winning coalition he had built in 2020. Among Latinas, a critical group of voters who tend to back Democrats at higher levels than Latinos, lagging support had begun to worry Stephanie Valencia, who studies voting patterns among Latinx voters across the country for Equis Research, a data analytics and research firm.

Then the big shake-up happened: Biden stepped down and Vice President Kamala Harris took his place at the top of the Democratic ticket fewer than 100 days before the election.

Valencia’s team quickly jumped to action. The goal was to figure out how the move was sitting with Latinx voters in battleground states that will play an outsized role in deciding the election. After surveying more than 2,000 Latinx voters in late July and early August, Equis found a significant jump in support for the Democratic ticket, a shift that the team is referring to as “the Latino Reset.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Taylor Swift on stage
Gareth Cattermole/TAS24/Getty Images for TAS Rights Management

Taylor Swift enters the fray

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

On Feb. 4, I wrote an article for The Fulcrum with the headline “Will Taylor Swift enter the fray?” Now, seven months later and shortly after the end of the first Harris-Trump debate, Swift made her decision clear when she announced her support for the vice president on Instagram.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting

Jessie Harris (left,) a registered independent, casts a ballot at during South Carolina's Republican primary on Feb. 24.

Joe Lamberti for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Our election system is failing independent voters

Gruber is senior vice president of Open Primaries and co-founder of Let Us Vote.

With the race to Election Day entering the homestretch, the Harris and Trump campaigns are in a full out sprint to reach independent voters, knowing full well that independents have been the deciding vote in every presidential contest since the Obama era. And like clockwork every election season, debates are arising about who independent voters are, whether they matter and even whether they actually exist at all.

Lost, perhaps intentionally, in these debates is one undebatable truth: Our electoral system treats the millions of Americans registered as independent voters as second-class citizens by law.

Keep ReadingShow less
Abortion rights protestors

Arizona residents rally for abortion rights in April, on the heels of the state Supreme Court decision enacting an 1864 law banning abortion.

Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

In swing states, R's and D's oppose criminalizing abortion before fetal viability

While policymakers argue over whether abortion should be a right or a crime, the public has a clear policy stance on the matter. A new survey in the six swing states finds that majorities of Republicans and Democrats oppose criminalizing abortion before fetal viability.

Furthermore, bipartisan majorities favor reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions through policies ensuring access to birth control.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of congressional document

The House joint resolution proposing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1866.

How the 14th Amendment prevents state legislatures from subverting popular presidential elections

Eisner is a Ph.D. student in history at Johns Hopkins University. Froomkin is an assistant professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center.

Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election not only failed, but some of them also rested on a misreading of the U.S. Constitution, as our new analysis argues. The relevant constitutional provision dates back to just after the Civil War, and contemporaries recognized it as a key protection of American democracy.

In November 2020, as it became clear that Trump had lost the popular vote and would lose the Electoral College, Trump and his supporters mounted a pressure campaign to convince legislatures in several states whose citizens voted for Joe Biden to appoint electors who would support Trump’s reelection in the Electoral College votes.

Keep ReadingShow less