Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Vote-by-mail group rushes out guidance for states pondering a switch during pandemic

Amid a national consensus that casting your ballot while "social distancing" is a best practice during the coronavirus outbreak, the leading advocacy group for minimizing reliance on in-person voting is out with an extensive "how to" guide for state and local governments.

"We have the time, if we act now, to mitigate many of the legitimate concerns both elections officials and voters have, and protect the integrity of the 2020 election," the National Vote at Home Institute said Thursday in unveiling its 11-page report.

It was finalized in a hurry as Congress, an array of state legislatures and the Democratic Party all intensified their interest in expanding voting from home and using the mail as the safest way to protect the electorate during the Covid-19 pandemic, which has made gathering in groups a significant health risk.


The report was packed with logistical guidance, from an array of election officials and experts, to be "a roadmap on how to scale-up the use of mailed-out ballots, with the clear understanding that one size will not fit all, and that in-person polling places will need to be maintained."

As the Senate intensifies negotiations over a $1 trillion package to stimulate an economy hobbled by the rapidly spreading virus, Democrats and good government advocacy groups are seeking Republican support for using the bill to deliver perhaps $500 million in funding to the states for an aggressive expansion of absentee voting — even if there's no agreement to shift this year's presidential election to a predominantly vote-by-mail system nationwide.

The Vote at Home group said any state's decision to make a fundamental switch to such a system would need to happen by April 15 in order for reliable and secure systems to be in place by November.

Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah and Hawaii are the states with mail-in ballots for everyone, and such a system is now used in most counties in California, Arizona and Montana.


Read More

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The exterior of Capitol Hill

Getty Images

Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The 2026 congressional map is finally set after ten states adopted new congressional redistricting maps for the November 3 General Election. Observers note that the Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has not graded any state’s maps since it gave California’s Proposition 50 an “F” on October 30, 2025.

The PGP has officially paused grading its Redistricting Report Card because founder Dr. Sam Wang, who transitioned from the Gerrymandering Project to the Electoral Innovation Lab, has launched a campaign for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th District, requiring him to step back from his academic roles, including his leadership at PGP.

Keep ReadingShow less
Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Lady Justice

Photo provided

Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Impunity is not only the failure to punish. It is a public answer to the question of whether harm matters.

Every democracy must repeatedly answer the question of impunity. When public trust is violated, or when law itself is manipulated or attacked, penalties matter. But the deeper question is whether a society can recognize injury and prevent further harm when it has lost the ability to clearly name wrongdoing.

Keep ReadingShow less