Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s  SCOTUS Appointees

Silhouette of a hand holding a vote putting in a ballot box in front of the national flag Stars and Stripes of USA.

Getty Images

Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s SCOTUS Appointees

The 21st-century Supreme Court Justices appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote have fundamentally reshaped the affordability crisis by dismantling federal regulatory authority, weakening consumer protections, and expanding landlords' and local governments' property rights over renters.

Specifically, five current justices fit this description: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito (appointed by George W. Bush following the 2000 election), alongside Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (appointed by Donald Trump following the 2016 election). This conservative supermajority has heavily influenced cost-of-living metrics through historic rulings in administrative, housing, and financial law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

women in a courtroom

Getty Images

The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep ReadingShow less
California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Xavier Becerra

Getty Images

California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Political strategist, IVN commentator, and The Latino Century author Mike Madrid has a blunt warning for California: The campaign to repeal the state’s nonpartisan Top Two primary would disproportionately silence the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

In a new Sacramento Bee op-ed, Madrid argues that Latino voters—particularly those who do not align with either major party—played a significant role in California’s record-setting June primary.

Keep ReadingShow less