Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Quick wins for absentee balloting rights in Virginia and Nevada primaries

Virginia voting

Virginia, which held its presidential primary in March, just eased the rules for absentee ballots cast in the June 23 congressional primaries.

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Two voting rights lawsuits have paid off quickly for advocates of expanding access to the ballot box in blue-tinged bellwether states where turnout in next month's primaries is already threatened by the coronavirus.

Partial settlement of a federal suit Tuesday means Virginians voting by absentee ballot, at least in the June 23 congressional nomination contests, won't have to find a witness to verify the ballot was filled out by the person submitting it.

Democrats agreed the same day to drop a Nevada court complaint after election officials in Las Vegas agreed to open more polling places for what's supposed to be predominantly vote-by-mail legislative and congressional primaries June 9.


The Virginia case, filed just three weeks agoby the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the League of Women Voters, argued the state's witness requirement for mail-in ballots would unconstitutionally force some people to risk Covid-19 in order to vote. They pointed especially to the almost one-third of Virginians older than 65 who live alone, and are in the age group most vulnerable to the virus.

"This settlement is a common-sense solution that protects both public health and democracy," said the ACLU's Davin Rosborough.

But the state agreed to drop the requirement only for the primary, so the suit over the requirement in the general election will continue.

Federal suits challenging similar witness requirements have also been filed in presidential battleground Wisconsin and in South Carolina, which has a handful of competitive congressional contests this year while President Trump has a lock on its electoral votes. Eight other states have similar rules: purple-again-this-year North Carolina, solidly blue Rhode Island and reliably red Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Oklahoma.

The agreement in Nevada also applies to the primary only, although similar issues could resurface if the public health crisis persists in the state this fall.

Election officials in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas and is home to 72 percent of the state's people, announced several changes to make voting easier in the primary — issues raised in a lawsuit also filed just three weeks ago.

The county has agreed to add two additional polling places, where only one had been planned; to proactively send mail-in ballots to all registered voters, including those listed as inactive on the rolls; to revise the way signatures on the ballots are compared with those in election records; and to notify voters in a timely way if their ballot is being rejected because of a signature matching issue.

The changes were almost everything sought by the plaintiffs (several Democratic campaign organizations and the progressive advocacy group Priorities USA) and so they withdrew their suit. But they urged the other 15 counties — especially Washoe, which is home to the 15 percent of the state living in and near Reno — to adopt the same changes.

The state is trying to get as many people as possible to vote remotely, a fundamental switch in a state where just 10 percent of the ballots two years ago were mailed in. And, despite the health benefits, the Democrats are worried too many people will still head out to the polls.

"These changes will undoubtedly make it easier for thousands of Nevadans who wish to vote by mail to cast their ballot," said Marc Elias, the attorney at the center of the Democratsic lawsuit strategy.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less