Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Scorecard rates states on mail and early voting policies

Voter using a drop box

Availability of ballot drop boxes is one factor the Campaign Legal Center considered when scoring states.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Mail and early voting practices were expanded and widely used during the 2020 election, to mitigate exposure to Covid-19, and since then they've been a main focus of states' election overhauls. A recent report provides a comprehensive look at the ways these voting methods have changed.

On Wednesday, the Campaign Legal Center released a 40-page report analyzing the modifications to vote-by-mail and early voting practices states have made so far this year. The report focuses on the 39 states that had completed their legislative sessions by the end of June.

The nonpartisan nonprofit graded each state based on its existing voting laws and the changes it made this year, if any, and then grouped states into three categories: least restrictive, restrictive and most restrictive. The scorecard is meant to show what provisions states may have that promote voting access, but it is not intended to be reflective of states' election systems overall.


The Campaign Legal Center graded states based on whether they offered 10 voting practices:

  • No-excuse absentee voting.
  • A permanent mail voting list.
  • Permission for election officials to send voters unsolicited mail ballot applications.
  • A uniform mail ballot notice and cure process.
  • No requirement for a state-issued driver license or ID to vote by mail.
  • Acceptance of mail ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received up to 10 days after Election Day.
  • At least two weeks of early in-person voting.
  • Online mail ballot tracking.
  • Ballot drop boxes.
  • Allowance for voters to cast ballots by mail without notary or enhanced witness requirements.

Just two states — Illinois and Washington — checked all 10 boxes. Washington already employed all 10 practices, whereas Illinois adopted several of them this year. Conversely, Alabama received the worst grade out of the 39 states, notching just two checkmarks.

Most states (15) fell into the middle, "restrictive" category, meaning they checked six or seven boxes. Thirteen states offered eight or more of these voting practices and were deemed "least restrictive," while 11 states had five or less and were labeled "most restrictive."

This legislative session, nine states made changes to their voting rules in ways that met CLC's expectations, which earned them a higher score in the report: Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia and Utah. However, seven states made changes downgrading their scores: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Louisiana.

The Campaign Legal Center notes that it judged states by the existence of certain vote-by-mail and early voting policies, but not by the efficacy of those policies. Even if the policy looks good on paper, it could still result in substantial burdens on certain groups voters.

"Voters of color across the country fall victim to laws of general applicability that do not address the unique burdens they face, such as limited mailing access and distant — or nonexistent — early voting locations in their communities," the report says. "Many of these states still have much work to do to promote the freedom to vote for all voters despite their relatively high grades."

For instance, many of the states that received high grades for their expansive vote-by-mail policies have large Native American populations who lack adequate access to mailboxes, post offices, mailing addresses and transportation.

And in the places where mail voting rules were tightened, Black voters were disproportionately impacted. Three states with some of the largest Black populations in the country rolled back their vote-by-mail policies: Alabama (28 percent Black), Georgia (33 percent Black) and Louisiana (33 percent Black).

Lack of voter education about recent voting changes is also a significant problem, said Aklima Khondoker, chief legal officer at the New Georgia Project, which partnered with the Campaign Legal Center on this report.

"On a very real level in the state of Georgia we have widespread voter confusion, not only to our voters but our boards of elections and the way that they conduct their elections," Khondoker said. "We have our underserved and underseen communities — our youth voters, our disabled voters — who now have additional worry when it comes to casting their ballots because there is no comprehensive voter education available to them."

Many of these issues, the report notes, would be ameliorated by federal legislation, namely the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Nearly every state included in the report would have laws preempted by the sweeping election reform provisions included in the For the People Act. And 11 states would likely be subject to preclearance — meaning their election laws would need advance approval from the Justice Department — if the VRAA was enacted.

While House Democrats passed the For the People Act in March, its progress has stalled in the Senate. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said late Tuesday that a revised version of the legislation would be voted on in mid-September, when the Senate returns from recess. However, it's likely to still face opposition from the GOP, which can block the bill through a filibuster. And the VRAA has yet to be introduced in this Congress, although Democrats have signaled it is a priority.

"Federal intervention would have succeeded in preventing dozens of states from passing laws this year that severely curtail millions of Americans' freedom to vote. Voting rights legislation must be passed urgently by Congress when they return from recess before more damage is done," said Caleb Jackson, legal counsel for voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center and a co-author of the report. "Our democracy works best when all voters are able to exercise the freedom to vote in safe and accessible elections."

Beyond congressional action, there are still ways the federal government can promote voting access. In March, President Biden issued an executive order asking agencies to evaluate how they can, within their purview of the law, encourage voter registration and participation. As the deadline for agencies to submit their plans approaches, the CLC has provided guidance on best practices for promoting voter access.


Read More

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s  SCOTUS Appointees

Silhouette of a hand holding a vote putting in a ballot box in front of the national flag Stars and Stripes of USA.

Getty Images

Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s SCOTUS Appointees

The 21st-century Supreme Court Justices appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote have fundamentally reshaped the affordability crisis by dismantling federal regulatory authority, weakening consumer protections, and expanding landlords' and local governments' property rights over renters.

Specifically, five current justices fit this description: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito (appointed by George W. Bush following the 2000 election), alongside Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (appointed by Donald Trump following the 2016 election). This conservative supermajority has heavily influenced cost-of-living metrics through historic rulings in administrative, housing, and financial law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

women in a courtroom

Getty Images

The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep ReadingShow less
California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Xavier Becerra

Getty Images

California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Political strategist, IVN commentator, and The Latino Century author Mike Madrid has a blunt warning for California: The campaign to repeal the state’s nonpartisan Top Two primary would disproportionately silence the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

In a new Sacramento Bee op-ed, Madrid argues that Latino voters—particularly those who do not align with either major party—played a significant role in California’s record-setting June primary.

Keep ReadingShow less