Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The state of voting: May 16, 2022

State of voting - election law changes

This weekly update summarizing legislative activity affecting voting and elections is powered by the Voting Rights Lab. Sign up for VRL’s weekly newsletter here.

The Voting Rights Lab is tracking 2,131 bills so far this session, with 573 bills that tighten the rules governing voter access or election administration and 1,015 bills that expand the rules. (The total number of tracked bills dropped significantly from last week because VRL no longer includes legislation related to redistricting.)

Lawmakers in Missouri and New Hampshire are leading the news this week after sending bills that tighten voter ID laws to their respective governors for signature. Kansas enacted new legislation affecting election administration and restricting voter access. South Carolina created in-person early voting, and the same Missouri bill that enacts strict voter ID rules will also guarantee early in-person voting.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court in Texas) ordered a lower court to reconsider Crystal Mason’s conviction because it failed to find proof that Mason knew it was a crime for her to vote while on supervised release.

Looking ahead: Several elections bills remain pending in Arizona, but legislators there are only meeting sporadically due to a continued impasse in budget negotiations.

Here are the details:


A new South Carolina law creates in-person early voting for the first time in the state. Late on Friday, Gov. Henry McMaster signed H.B. 4919, a new law that will open polling places for in-person early voting for a period of two weeks before Election Day. Prior to the enactment of this new law, South Carolina was one of only six states that did not offer early voting. The bill also restricts absentee voting in certain ways, including a prohibition on drop boxes and a requirement for voters to provide a specific ID number when applying for an absentee ballot. South Carolina is one of 17 states that still require an excuse to vote by mail.

Missouri’s legislation creating in-person early voting, but also stricter voter ID rules, is headed to the governor. Both chambers of the Missouri General Assembly took final votes on H.B. 1878 last week, and the bill is now ready for the governor’s signature. This bill would create two weeks of in-person early voting, allowing Missouri voters to cast a ballot in-person prior to Election Day, via in-person absentee voting. Following enactment of the new South Carolina law, Missouri is now one of only five states that do not offer in-person early voting. The bill would also make the state’s ID law more strict by requiring photo ID for all in-person voting in the state. Under existing Missouri law, voters are permitted to provide a variety of ID types, including certain types of non-photo ID.

New Hampshire’s strict voter ID bill passed both chambers and is now headed to the governor. The Senate concurred with the House version of S.B. 418 last week, so the bill – which would make state voter ID law much more restrictive – is now headed to the governor’s desk. Current New Hampshire law allows voters without ID to cast a regular ballot if they complete an affidavit affirming their identity, under penalty of perjury. This bill would eliminate that alternative for some voters. Most states with voter ID laws offer an alternative method of voting to ensure the identity of voters without ID can still be verified. This new bill would put New Hampshire in the minority of states by doing away with that option.

A Texas appeals court must reconsider conviction for a woman who voted a provisional ballot while on supervised release. Crystal Mason was convicted of illegally voting in 2018 and sentenced to five years in prison despite the fact that her ballot was ultimately rejected and she contended she was encouraged by election workers to cast a provisional ballot. An appeals court upheld the ruling two years later, but last Wednesday, the highest court in Texas ordered that court to reconsider its ruling because it failed to require proof that Mason had actual knowledge that it was a crime for her to vote while on supervised release. During the 2021 legislative session, House members attempted to amend the voting statute to require prosecutors to prove the specific intent to cast a ballot while ineligible to do so, but that amendment ultimately failed.

Kansas enacted new voter list maintenance and restricting voter access. Kansas enacted a new law requiring election officials to begin the process to purge voters from voter registration lists if they do not cast a ballot for four years. Under current Kansas law, as in most states, non-voting does not trigger a removal process. The new law also requires election reviews through an unspecified process that targets certain jurisdictions.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less