Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Two prominent voting rights players upbraided by courts for 2020 behavior

​Democratic voting rights lawyer Marc Elias

Democratic voting rights lawyer Marc Elias was sanctioned by a federal court.

David Jolkovski for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Judges in recent days have slapped two of the most prominent figures in the fight for easier access to the ballot box, a fresh if mainly symbolic setback for the cause of voting rights.

The nation's most prominent Democratic elections attorney, Marc Elias, violated legal ethics rules as he pressed an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit last fall to preserve straight-ticket voting in Texas, a federal appeals court decided.

And Michigan's top elections officer, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, exceeded her authority last fall when she instructed local officials to presume the validity of all signatures on absentee ballot envelopes, the special court that handles suits against the state government ruled.

Conservatives hailed the pair of decisions last week as evidence that promoting the franchise too aggressively too often leads to the sort of corner-cutting and overzealous behavior that can incubate election fraud. But there's no evidence of anything beyond minimal and sporadic cheating anywhere in the nation surrounding the 2020 presidential contest, including in Texas and Michigan.


Some of the most vigorous fights over how to alter election rules last year in light of the coronavirus occurred in Michigan, one of the biggest battleground states. One tussle was over a state law preventing the processing of mailed ballots until the Monday before Election Day, boosting the likelihood of significant delays in reporting final results of a close election given the surge in mail voting brought on by the pandemic.

Benson was rebuffed when she asked the GOP Legislature to permit ballot processing to get started earlier. So a month before the election she told local clerks they could speed things along by starting with the assumption that signatures were authentic on 2.8 million envelopes — which ended up containing half of the state's votes.

The result was far fewer time-consuming arguments as handwriting on the ballots was compared with what was on file. And only one of every 1,000 absentee ballots were tossed out, just 1,800 — far fewer than in past recent elections, when the rate was closer to one out of every 500 or so statewide.

President Biden nonetheless secured the state's 16 electoral votes by a margin of 154,000 votes, or 3 percentage points, and Democratic Sen. Gary Peters won re-election by 55,000 votes, so the shortcut was highly unlikely to have affected either outcome.

Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray rejected the Republican Party's demand for an audit of all absentee ballots, and he did not find that Benson had violated state election law. Instead, he said she wrongly ignored the proper rulemaking procedures for making such a substantive decision.

Unless she goes through that process, the judge said, her directive will not apply in future elections.

There were also plenty of legal fights about voting rules in Texas, which looked purple in the polls all fall before Donald Trump extended the GOP winning streak to 11 presidential contests. One lawsuit sought to prevent the state from carrying out its newly enacted ban on straight-ticket voting. Opponents of the ban argued that preserving the "one punch" system would keep the lines moving on Election Day, especially in big cities, and not disenfranchise Black and Hispanic voters by making them wait excessively to cast their ballots.

Elias was one of the main attorneys pursuing that argument, part of his portfolio of three-dozen lawsuits on behalf of various Democratic campaign organizations. And, along the way, he filed papers in federal court that were essentially identical to a motion of his that had been rejected earlier by the same judge.

Asking for a do-over in that misleading manner, rather than file an upfront appeal, "unreasonably and vexatiously" dragged out the litigation by creating more work for the court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday. It sanctioned Elias for violating his "obligation of candor to the court" by ordering him to pay Texas double its expenses arguing against the misleading and duplicative motion.

Elias won a wave of rulings or settlements that eased access to the ballot in several swing states — prompting Trump to label him on Twitter as an "Election stealing lawyer." But the straight-ticket voting suit was ultimately rejected by the 5th Circuit.

His law firm, Perkins Coie, said after the sanctions ruling that it believed Elias had acted properly.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less