Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump team sues to stop New Jersey from joining list of vote-by-mail states

Election ballot drop-off box, Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey

Gov. Phil Murphy says plenty of ballot drop boxes, like this one in Hoboken, will be an alternative to relying on the Postal Service.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

The Trump campaign has sued to stop New Jersey from carrying out its new system for maintaining electoral democracy during the pandemic: sending all registered voters a mail-in ballot but also allowing them to easily vote in person instead.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday night, just four days after Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy announced the plan.

It's the second time the campaign and the Republican Party have gone to federal court to fight a state's plans for switching to a mostly vote-by-mail election this year — which the president claims without evidence will guarantee widespread fraud aimed at rigging the contest against him. They sued Nevada two weeks ago.


The president has sought to draw a distinction in recent weeks between the two main forms of voting from home. He now says the most common system, the voter requesting and returning an absentee ballot, is fine by him — and in fact he did so in this week's Florida primary. But states that proactively send ballots to all voters, he alleges, will mean "millions and millions" of forms never get to a registered voter and instead will be scooped up and cast illegally. This fear has next to no basis in fact.

There has been no widespread cheating in modern American elections, and nonpartisan experts say neither party automatically benefits when states expand access to mail-in voting.

Five states were committed before the coronavirus outbreak to holding all elections mainly by mail. New Jersey and Nevada have been joined in making the switch for this year only by California, Vermont, the District of Columbia and almost all of Montana.

Trying to reverse the switch in Nevada, which Trump has a shot at carrying, has some viable political rationale because Republicans tend to do better in low-turnout contests. The same goes for Pennsylvania, where the campaign filed its first lawsuit with a different objective — trying to reverse easements to the rules for using mail-in ballots this year.

But, beyond the fact that Trump was at his New Jersey golf club as the new election plan was announced, it's not clear why his team decided to spend resources suing in one of the nation's bluest states. He got just 41 percent of the vote there last time, the seventh straight loss of the state by the GOP nominee, and in the 2018 midterm the Democrats picked up three House seats and now hold 10 of 12. Three of those congressional seats are being hard-fought this fall, but there are no state contests on the ballot.

The main legal rationale for the suit is that Murphy made a "brazen power grab" and unconstitutionally seized powers belonging only to the Legislature when he changed election procedures by executive order.

Friday's order says all 6.3 million registered voters will be sent a ballot and that plenty of secure drop boxes will be available as an alternative to mailing them back. In addition, Murphy said over the weekend, he will also order an extension so that ballots postmarked by Election Day but delayed in the mail will be tabulated.

For those who want to vote in person, at least half the normal number of polling places will be open Nov. 3, but people who show up there will generally have to cast provisional paper ballots — which won't be counted until election officials determine that a duplicate did not also arrive in the mail.

This hybrid system "will violate eligible citizens' right to vote," the GOP lawsuit alleges. "This massively increased volume of provisional ballots raises grave concerns about increased lines and wait times to vote and the state's ability to properly process each and every provisional ballot."

The suit points to the recent case of voter fraud in a municipal election this spring in the state's third largest city, Paterson. And Justin Clark, Trump's deputy campaign manager, wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal pointing to a 2016 investigation by the Asbury Park Press that found 2,460 voters on the New Jersey rolls had been dead at least five years and 60 had cast votes from the grave. The paper said, however, that clerical failures were to blame and that no fraud was suspected.

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