Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Suit from the right contests Virginia's liberalized absentee rules for the primary

James Bopp Jr.

Prominent conservative election lawyer James Bopp Jr. filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of six Northern Virginia voters.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Almost all the lawsuits about voting during the coronavirus outbreak have come from groups pushing to make things easier. One of the country's most prominent conservative election lawyers is pushing in the other direction.

In his latest suit, James Bopp Jr. has asked a federal judge to stop Virginia from allowing fear of getting sick to be an excuse for voting by mail in the state's congressional primaries next month. A similar federal suit against Nevada's loosening of the rules was dismissed three weeks ago.

At a time of overwhelming sentiment that voters should not have to choose between their health and their civic responsibility, especially when the mail is available as an alternative to a voting booth, Bopp is making a contradictory argument.


His Virginia suit, filed last week, says going to the polls should be no more dangerous than going to the store for basic services — which people in the state are allowed to do even though a statewide stay-at-home order remains in effect until June 10.

"The same social distancing and good hygiene practices — which are effective for preventing the spread of the virus when going out for essential services, like grocery shopping and other essential services — are also an effective way to prevent the spread of the virus for in-person voting," the suit argues.

The primary has been postponed two weeks to June 23, and Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam has issued an executive order that because of the Covid-19 outbreak anyone may obtain an absentee ballot by claiming the "illness or disability" reason on the application.

It is the last election in the state where any excuse will be required. The General Assembly relaxed the rules this winter, but not before July.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Thursday, arguing that Virginia voters have a constitutional right to cast their ballots by mail in light of Covid-19. Restricting this access could disenfranchise millions, the group says.

Bopp's suit, filed on behalf of six northern Virginia voters, disagrees on both fronts and says Northam has exceeded his emergency powers. That was the argument he used when Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske decreed that anyone could vote by mail in the June 9 primary. A federal judge tossed that suit May 1.

The new suit says a significant increase in the number of people voting absentee could also lead to requested ballots getting lost in the mail, arriving late or never arriving at all.

But attorneys for Virginia say changing the election procedures now — with the June 23 primary just a month away — would cause widespread confusion and voter disenfranchisement.

"And the stakes here are even higher than in a typical case because the challenged actions protect not only citizens' right to vote, but also the health and safety of voters, poll workers, election officials, and others who would otherwise be at risk from a highly contagious virus," the state's lawyers argue in their response to the suit.


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