Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Minnesota mail voting easements extended through the fall

Minnesota absentee voting

Secretary of State Steve Simon has dropped a requirement that absentee ballots be witnessed and will extend the time for ballots to arrive by mail.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Voting rights advocates in Minnesota have secured another win, extending and even expanding for the presidential election the eased treatment of mailed ballots they had secured for next week's primary.

The requirement that absentee ballots be signed by a second person will be waived in November, and envelopes postmarked by the time the polls close Nov. 3 will be counted even if they are delayed in the mail as long as a week.

Getting rid of such witness requirements and tight deadlines for accepting mailed ballots are two of the pillars of the Democrats' expansive effort to make voting by mail easier and more reliable through the courthouses of at least 18 states. The Republicans are fighting them in almost every instance.


The Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans Education Fund and four voters first challenged the regulations in a lawsuit filed in May. A state judge the next month approved an agreement that only applied to next Tuesday's primary, and that only extended by two days the window for tabulating ballots mailed by election day. State law says the envelopes must be at counting centers when the polls close.

The agreement expanding on that deal was announced Monday.

"This is a major victory for voters in Minnesota who will now face fewer unnecessary barriers to the ballot box as we deal with the current health crisis," said Eric Holder, the attorney general during the Obama administration who now runs the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, an arm of which sponsored the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs said only one in eight votes — or about half the national average — arrived by mail in the 2018 midterm, when Minnesota again led the nation in overall turnout. The coronavirus pandemic would potentially push many of these voters to cast absentee ballots, creating confusion for thousands of voters who aren't accustomed to the absentee voting system.

The agreement is part of a string of legal victories for good governance groups and Democrats in the state, which President Trump is considering contesting after losing its 10 electoral votes by just 45,000 votes four years ago.

Also this year, one federal judge blocked a state law limiting assistance to voters in completing absentee ballots, while another federal judge blocked the state's ballot order rules, which mandate that major political party candidates be listed in reverse order based on their vote share in recent elections, and declared a lottery system will be used instead.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less