Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voting easements made in Virginia and New York, but stopped in Indiana

Indiana voter

Indiana is one of six states that requires voters to have an excuse not related to the coronavirus in order to vote by mail this fall.

Jeremy Hogan/Getty Images

Six states still require voters to provide an excuse not related to the Covid-19 pandemic in order to get a mail-in ballot this year. A judge decided to keep Indiana on that list Friday while a pair of states took action to make voting easier in 2020.

Virginia has waived the witness signature requirement and New York has made improvements to its absentee ballot verification system. In Missouri, meanwhile, a new legal battle over ballot access is just beginning.

Here are the details:


Indiana

A federal judge said Friday he wouldn't force Indiana officials to expand absentee voting eligibility for the general election. The state currently has 11 valid excuses for voting by mail, but fear of the coronavirus is not one of them.

Indiana Vote By Mail Inc. and a group of voters filed a lawsuit claiming the state's restrictive vote-by-mail policy violated voters' constitutional rights. U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon, however, was not convinced by their argument.

All voters were allowed to cast ballots by mail in the June primary, but the bipartisan Indiana Election Commission has failed to come to a consensus on whether to authorize the similar rules for the fall.

Virginia

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced Friday that voters will not be required to have their absentee ballots signed by a witness for the November election.

After the state made the same easement for the June primary, a group of GOP voters sued, arguing the Covid-19 pandemic is not a valid excuse to loosen vote-by-mail restrictions.

But U.S. District Judge Norman Moon approved Herring's order, saying "every indication before the Court is that the June primary was conducted without the witness signature requirement and without any corresponding increase in voter confusion or election fraud."

New York

New Yorkers voting by mail in the general election will now be notified about and given the opportunity to correct any issues with their absentee ballots, such as a missing signature.

Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo said last week he would sign legislation to allow ballot "curing," but the exact provisions have not been finalized due to last-minute negotiations between Cuomo and lawmakers.

New York's absentee ballot verification system has consistently had one of the highest rejection rates in the country — 84,000 primary ballots were rejected in New York City this year. Anticipating a surge in mail voting this fall, state lawmakers wanted to prevent widespread voter disenfranchisement due to voters not being able to correct clerical errors.

The governor also recently signed legislation to add fear of coronavirus infection as a valid excuse to vote absentee this fall.

Missouri

American Women, a national women's advocacy organization, joined with three Missouri residents to sue the secretary of state over five election laws they claim restrict access to the ballot box.

The lawsuit, filed in Cole County Circuit Court last week, seeks to make the following changes to Missouri's election laws:

  • Eliminate the notary requirement for absentee ballots.
  • Provide voters a way to return their absentee ballots without mailing them.
  • Ensure absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day, but arrive later due to mail service delays, are still counted.
  • Allow third parties to assist in collecting and submitting mail ballots.
  • Establish fair signature matching protocols and give voters the opportunity to fix errors with their absentee ballot.

Missouri has slightly expanded its vote-by-mail eligibility to those who are considered most at-risk of Covid-19 infection. Earlier this year, the state added a photo ID requirement for voters; anyone who cannot show a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot.


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less