Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Absentee voting rights push yields a partial win — and three new suits

South Carolina voters

South Carolina voters who want to cast an absentee ballot will not be required to get a witness to sign their ballots, a judge has ruled.

Barcroft Media/Getty Images

Advocates for easing restrictions on absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic have won a split decision in federal court in South Carolina.

A judge on Monday barred the state from requiring a witness signature on mail-in ballots for the congressional and legislative primaries in two weeks, but she said the state could require those ballots to arrive by the time the polls close.

The ruling was the most important news over the holiday weekend for the cause of easier voting this year, which also brought fresh lawsuits challenging a diverse set of rules in North Carolina, Michigan and New York. These are the latest developments:


South Carolina

Judge J. Michelle Childs ruled that getting close enough to another person to obtain a countersignature on an absentee ballot would subject voters — especially those living alone — to an improper risk of Covid-19 infection in the runup to the June 9 primaries and subsequent runoffs. But she declined to strike down the witness requirement as unconstitutional.

The state Election Commission said the witness rule was a proper guard against fraud, even after the panel's executive director conceded in a letter to GOP Gov. Henry McMaster this spring the rule "offers no benefit to election officials as they have no ability to verify the witness signature."

The plaintiffs, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, sued to allow absentee votes to be counted so long as they are postmarked by Election Day, arguing that first-time mail voters were especially likely to wait until the last minute. The state said waiting for the Postal Service would make it impossible to certify results and get ready for the runoffs. And Childs ruled the poll-closing deadline "is nondiscriminatory."

North Carolina

A group of voters supported by Democratic campaign committees filed a lawsuit in federal court on Monday seeking several changes to make it easier to vote by mail in one of the most politically competitive states in the Deep South.

The suit's bill of particulars is similar to several others the Democrats have brought. It asks a judge to make the state pay the postage on returning absentee ballots; drop the requirement that two witnesses sign the ballot in order for it to be counted; extend the deadline for absentee ballots to arrive at election offices to nine days after Election Day, and give voters a chance to correct signature discrepancies with their ballots. Election officials compare the signature on the absentee ballot with a signature on file.

Michigan

The laws of the state are similar to those in the Carolinas when it comes to returning an absentee ballot: The paper will only get tabulated if it's returned to the proper place before the polls close on election night.

The League of Women Voters, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a suit asking a state appeals court to make Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson extend the deadline. It argues that the law, on the books for eight decades, abridges the "unqualified, unconditional state constitutional right for registered voters to vote in all elections by absentee ballot."

The suit quotes Benson's office as saying 1.75 percent of absentee ballots were rejected this month because they arrived after 8 p.m. on primary day. If all 7.7 million people in the state vote in November — only a theoretical possibility, to be sure — that would mean 134,000 disallowed ballots.

New York

A coalition of disability rights groups sued the Board of Elections in federal court Friday, alleging discrimination against voters who are blind or otherwise physically unable to mark a paper ballot.

The suit says that while marking a paper ballot may be impossible for disabled people, they can easily mark and send an online ballot. Still, election security officials nationwide have warned that any voting system that connects to the internet is vulnerable to being hacked.

The groups are hoping for changes ahead of the state's presidential, congressional, legislative and local primarise in just four weeks, in which voting-by-mail is being made widely available to all voters for the first time because of the pandemic. The suit was filed a month after disability rights groups pressed the Justice Department to insist on more secure remote voting options for those who can't reliably use paper.


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