Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

New Jersey, Kentucky expand mail-in voting; Indiana does not

New Jersey Gov. Phil Muphy, mail-in voting

Gov. Phil Murphy decided every New Jersey voters will be sent a mail-in ballot for November.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

New Jersey and Kentucky have joined the growing list of places where voting by mail is going to become much more widespread this fall. Indiana, not so much — at least not yet.

As the country continues to adjust to conducting a presidential election during a pandemic, more and more states are taking a range of routes to make it easier to cast a ballot. Only a few have gone the other way.

Solidly blue New Jersey has decided to proactively deliver ballots to all registered votes, a practice President Trump alleges without evidence will lead to widespread fraud. Reliably red Kentucky has made a narrower decision to allow fear of Covid-19 to count as an excuse for requesting an absentee ballot.

Here are the details:


New Jersey

Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy announced Friday that the state will conduct its general election mostly by mail after delivering a ballot to all 6.3 million registered voters.

New Jersey thereby becomes the 11th place where every voter will receive an absentee ballot in the mail. Five states (Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Hawaii) planned to do so before the pandemic. Before New Jersey's decision they had already been joined just for this year by California, Vermont, Nevada, the District of Columbia and almost every county in Montana.

Murphy cited the success of the state's mostly vote-by-mail primary in July in making the announcement that another wave of ballots will be mailed the first week of October.

Voters can return them by mail, drop them into a secure box or take them to the polling places that remain open. Schools, which are widely used as voting centers, will be closed for in-person classes on Nov. 3.

Murphy said the options are being offered because of concerns about the Postal Service. "Making it easier to vote does not favor any one political party but it does favor democracy," he said.

The state's 14 electoral votes are a near lock for Joe Biden, but contests in three congressional districts are competitive.

Kentucky

Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear and Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams agreed to renew for November the deal they struck for the primary: Anyone concerned about catching Covid-19 may vote absentee.

It's the ninth state to relax for this presidential election the usual requirements to cite a specific reason when applying for an absentee ballot. Some have suspended the excuse rules altogether. Others, like Kentucky, have added worry about viral exposure as an acceptable reason.

Other options in Kentucky will include early in-person voting starting Oct. 13, more in-person polling places than in the June primary and a voting "super center" in each county where residents from any precinct may vote. Kentuckians will be able to request an absentee ballot online.

Trump can count on the state's eight electoral votes. The hottest contest is the well-financed but longshot challenge to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's bid for a seventh term

Indiana

The state is for now one of only seven where an excuse beyond the coronavirus will be required to vote by mail. (The others are Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.)

That's because the state election commission deadlocked Friday: The two Democrats voted to expand voting by mail for essentially any reason but the two Republicans opposed. The commission had voted to allow any resident to request an absentee ballot for the state's June primary election.

"Just because something was agreed upon in March because of an emergency doesn't mean those same factors automatically make this appropriate this time," said GOP Commissioner Zachary Klutz.

Proponents of expanding vote-by-mail in Indiana will now look to the federal courts, where several lawsuits are pending.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less