Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

N.Y. absentee rules are unfair to the blind, federal complaint says

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo

Earlier this month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order expanding absentee voting, but disability advocacy organizations say it discriminates against voters who are blind.

Matthew Cavanaugh/Getty Images

New York's new absentee voting rules discriminate against the blind, a coalition of disability advocacy groups says in asking the Justice Department to intervene.

Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced this month that absentee balloting will be wide open to all voters in the June 23 primaries, the biggest state to expand voting by mail in its partisan contests in order to maintain social distancing while participating in democracy during the coronavirus pandemic.

But requiring voters to use paper ballots is discriminatory because that prevents blind people from voting "privately and independently," the complaint filed Tuesday says.


While an expansion of mail-in voting is certainly needed given the public health crisis, the organizations say, alternate methods are required to permit the disabled to cast ballots safely and securely.

The needs of the disabled, who sometimes require special equipment and other accommodations, and the inability of election officials to contact the homeless are two of the main reasons cited by groups working to tamp down on calls for making voting by mail virtually universal nationwide — starting with a big increase this November.

Cuomo's executive order allows all New Yorkers to vote absentee as long as they request an application online, by mail or over the phone in time for the primary, when nominees for Congress, the Legislature and many school boards and local offices will be decided. It is for now a one-time exception to state law, which permits absentee voting only for people who claim an excuse such as age, disability or travel. New York is one of 16 states that have such an excuse requirement.

But the complainants say Cuomo's order fails to provide people with disabilities equal access to the ballot box, as required by federal law. It asks the Justice Department to instruct the New York Board of Elections to provide online or other accommodations consistent with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The complaint was filed by the American Council for the Blind, the National Center on Independent Living and the New York Association on Independent Living.

"People who are blind should not have to be exposed to the virus unnecessarily by voting in person," said ACB President Dan Spoone. "Just as all other New York residents have the right to vote via absentee ballot, the state must provide an accessible voting method that blind residents can use remotely."

The technology exists for the visually impaired to vote online in a secure manner, so states "have no excuse when arguing the difficulty of providing accessible absentee voting systems," said Karen Blachowicz, president of ACB's New York affiliate.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less