Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Claim: Mail-in ballots can be sent to the wrong address. Fact check: False

vote by mail
lakshmiprasad S/Getty Images

Absentee voting refers to when a voter requests a ballot for an election and is then sent one in the mail. Vote-by-mail, which is what Sen. Tom Cotton is most likely referring to as "mass mail-in voting," is a system of sending every registered voter (an important distinction from "everyone") a ballot without a request. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, Washington and Oregon were already vote-by-mail states. But now California, Nevada and Vermont will also automatically send ballots to registered voters, while still having in-person options.

Vote-by-mail states send the ballot to the address on file in the voter registration database; the address was verified during the registration process. For example, in Colorado the ballot will be "sent to the mailing address you provided for your voter registration file." It's the voters' responsibility to update their address if they move.


These vote-by-mail states usually have the cleanest voter files because they interact with voters so regularly, according to Audrey Kline, the national policy director at the National Vote at Home Institute. Even if a ballot gets sent to the wrong address, it's most likely due to voter inaction rather than fraud.

"It's not like my ballot is going to end up in another city randomly," she wrote in an email. "Errors usually center around people not updating their voter registration before a ballot is mailed. So if you move and don't tell your clerk, you ballot could arrive at your old address. This in and of itself isn't usually a huge issue — they are non-forwardable and get sent back to the clerk." If someone does gets the wrong ballot mailed to them and then tries to impersonate that voter, that fraud is detectable by signature matching and other security policies.

"The fact is that mail ballot fraud on the scale that people are warning of is just not practical or economical," Kline said. "People say 'ripe for fraud' because nobody has figured out how to do it on a large scale, but they think it's still possible and are trying to keep the argument alive."


Read More

Pritzker uses State of the State to defend immigrants, says Chicago targeted by federal actions

Governor JB Pritzker delivers his FY2027 state budget proposal at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, Ill. on Wednesday, Feb. 18th, 2026.

Angeles Ponpa, Illinois Latino News

Pritzker uses State of the State to defend immigrants, says Chicago targeted by federal actions

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker used part of his State of the State address Wednesday to criticize federal immigration enforcement actions and contrast Illinois’ approach with federal policy.

The annual address largely centered on the governor’s proposed state budget and affordability agenda, but Pritzker devoted his last remarks to immigration, framing the issue as a broader test of national values.

Keep ReadingShow less
Warrantless home searches sparked the American Revolution – now ICE wants to bring them back

ICE agents search a home on January 28, 2026, in Circle Pines, Minnesota.

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Warrantless home searches sparked the American Revolution – now ICE wants to bring them back

In 1761, James Otis Jr., a 36-year-old lawyer, ignited an early spark of the American Revolution when he resigned his post as Massachusetts Advocate General to represent merchants challenging the British use of overly broad warrants. Though he lost the case, his speech electrified the colonies: John Adams later wrote that Otis’s argument was the moment when “the Child Independence was born.”

That struggle over arbitrary warrants is no longer a historical footnote, now that the federal government is reviving the very practice Otis condemned. An internal ICE memo dated May 12, 2025, authorizes agents to enter homes solely on the basis of an “administrative warrant,” without prior judicial approval. The memo acknowledged that this marked a departure from historic ICE practices but claimed that DHS had “recently determined that the U.S. Constitution…[did] not prohibit relying on administrative warrants”.

Keep ReadingShow less