Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Why not allow us to use whatever polling place we find most convenient?

Opinion

voting locations
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Malbrough started the Georgia Youth Poll Worker Project this summer after graduating from Georgia State and becoming a fellow with the Andrew Goodman Foundation, which promotes political engagement by young people


In the age of early voting and advanced election technology, one of the main requirements for citizens on Election Day is obsolete. It is time for us as a country to change our election procedures and how we change the processes we use to administer it.

We have the ability to build a democracy that is more efficient and streamlined, and it is time for us to act on it.

Voters walking into a polling place on Election Day are usually presented with three options based on their address. If they are a resident of that local precinct, they can head to the voting booth right there. If they are not a resident of the precinct, they will be given information on their appropriate precinct and its voting location. If they don't want to head to a different polling place, they can stay where they are and cast a provisional ballot.

Poll workers are generally instructed to almost always permit people to cast a ballot, even if it's provisional, to ensure no voters are turned away but also to give local election administrators time to sort out disputes and certify the legitimacy of ballots after the election.

Before the advent of the internet and subsequent technologies, the reason for getting people to vote close to home was obvious — to make sure they were given the right ballots. One precinct may be in a different city council or even congressional district than the precinct across the road.

Poll workers used to have no way verify the identity of voters, and provide the proper ballot, to a voter from another precinct. But modern software, the internet and high-speed printers now mean that voters can be identified, and quickly provided with just the right ballot, at any polling place in their county if not their state.

The ability to cast a ballot wherever the voyager finds most convenient expands democracy and allows for easier election administration.

Every Election Day we see news footage of long lines snaking out of schools and libraries, and people waiting sometimes for hours after the polls are supposed to have closed in order to cast their ballots. Many of these delays are caused by technology failures and precincts that are at once overpopulated with voters and understaffed by poll workers. And many of these voters are stuck in line because they are effectively required to vote in their home precinct.

Technology can allow voters to find a firehouse or city hall that's not overcrowded — and head there to vote, even if it's in the next town down the road. This would reduce wait times as well as alleviate stress on poll workers who oftentimes have to work extended hours every election.

In-person absentee voting, which is often known as early voting, is an option 40 states use to expand voter access. Some states offer this option for several weeks, others only for a few days, but the benefits are shorter waiting times for voters and easier administration of the election by the state. In most of them, polling centers are open to all residents of a county, so voting close to home is not required.

As a country we are working toward a culture of voting in advance of Election Day, in effect creating something closer to an Election Month. The non-official holidays that promote exercising of the franchise, such as National Voter Registration Day and Vote Early Day, are helping. What would help more would be a further blurring of the distinctions between early voting, provisional voting and Election Day voting.

The technology is here to make that happen. We have the tools. Integrated technologies could be a cost effective way to modernize and secure our democracy.


Read More

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The Momnibus Act was previously known as the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, but the word 'Black' has been removed from the title and appears only once across the latest package.

Emily Scherer for The 19th

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The word “Black” has been almost completely removed from a package of bills that have long been viewed as Congress’ main legislative vehicle to address the Black maternal health crisis, frustrating some advocates who feel Black women are being erased from the policy.

The key change this year is the title. The Momnibus Act — filed in mid-March — was called the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act in 2023; before that it was the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021 and the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020. None of the previous packages, which were championed by Democrats, have been enacted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Never Intended To Be Just

U.S. President Donald Trump on May 22, 2026 in Suffern, New York.

(Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Trump Never Intended To Be Just

Let us set aside, for a moment, the fact that in suing the IRS, Donald Trump initiated a lawsuit that was meritless, frivolous, and a blatant conflict of interest…in his own words, “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” Let us further acknowledge, but look past the fact, that the settlement is filled with “illegal cookies” like his effort to exempt himself and his family members or family-controlled companies, from past or future IRS audits or any future obligations to ever pay federal taxes.

Please appreciate, but set aside for a moment, that this is the most corrupt administration in modern US history. Further, I would like to ignore the fact that this appears to be an effort to finance a private militia that has violently sought to undermine the US Government and the electoral capacity of the vote of the people of the United States of America.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash

The Fragile Promise of the Ballot

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.

The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.

Keep ReadingShow less