Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less