Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Court rejects bid to open Arkansas mail voting to all

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson

Gov. Asa Hutchinson has not made clear his view of absentee ballot excuse limits during the pandemic.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

A lawsuit seeking to require Arkansas to permit everyone to vote by mail has been dismissed after less than a month.

The state is one of 16 that requires people to claim a specific excuse in order to get an absentee ballot. An unusually argued challenge to the requirements was filed four weeks ago, long after the state's primaries but as the number of coronavirus cases was starting to surge across the South.

A state court dismissed the suit Tuesday on the grounds the plaintiffs, led by two prominent former Democratic state officials, could not possibly have been harmed by the rules. But Judge Wendell Griffen did not address their central argument.


Rather than claiming the limitations were unfair because of the pandemic, the lawsuit maintained the state is violating a ruling from its highest court 35 years ago — which declared all Arkansans have a right to decide for themselves whether to vote from home, and for any reason.

GOP Secretary of State John Thurston pushed for the dismissal. But, two days after the lawsuit was filed, he said his position about the use of absentee ballots for the November presidential election abides by the spirit of that 1985 state Supreme Court decision: Any person fearful of voting in person because of Covid-19 may legitimately attest to an "unavoidable absence" on an absentee ballot application.

The plaintiffs argued this wasn't sufficient protection for voters because elections are run by county commissions. GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson has declined to tell the public that absentee voting is effectively available to everyone this fall, although he's signaled he agrees with Thurston that fear of the virus is reason enough to be unavoidably absent from a polling place Nov. 3.

Read More

A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less