Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Arizona, where mail voting is already big, won’t accommodate postal delays

Voting by mail
filo/Getty Images

Ballots in battleground Arizona won't be counted if they get delayed by the mail this year.

Under the settlement of a federal lawsuit last week, Arizonans will still have to rely on their absentee ballots getting to local election centers by the time polls close.

Because of the coronavirus, which is producing a wave of interest in voting-by-mail at the same time the Postal Service is confronting severe financial hardship, civil rights groups and Democrats have pressed states to relax deadlines for the return of ballot envelopes.


They have succeeded so far in Wisconsin, Minnesota and parts of Pennsylvania, where an Election Day postmark and an arrival several days later is being allowed for primary ballots. A one-day grace period was granted in New York, where a mostly vote-by-mail primary is Tuesday.

But neither those states, nor the 30 others requiring envelopes to get back before the in-person voting is done, have yet changed their rules for the general election.

Two progressive groups, Voto Latino and Priorities USA, sued to extend Arizona's deadline so that ballots postmarked by Election Day, and received within five days, would be counted not only in the Aug. 4 primary but also in November.

While they did not get their way in a settlement announced Friday, Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs did promise to expand voter outreach efforts ahead of both elections. She also agreed to at least consider extending the postmark deadline for elections after this year.

It's very easy to obtain an absentee ballot in Arizona, and they were the method of choice for 78 percent of the state's voters in the 2018 midterm — a higher percentage than all but a handful of states. Counting them all usually takes several days, leaving close statewide contests unresolved.

The Democratic groups sued last November, months before the pandemic's arrival, asserting that many ballots have been received after the Election Day deadline in the past — in part because some voters incorrectly believed they would be counted as long as they were postmarked in time. They also argued that mail delivery is unreliable in rural parts of the state.

In the settlement, Hobbs agreed to increase voter outreach and education efforts and provide election information in English, Spanish, Navajo and Apache. Her website will also add a page explaining the vote-by-mail process and alert voters of upcoming deadlines. And federal funding will be allocated to counties to expand early in-person voting.

"We were able to come to an agreement quickly in this case because our office was already working on many of the initiatives being requested," Hobbs said.

Following the November election, state officials will review data from recent years to discern the share of ballots that got discarded for being tardy. Officials will consider the feasibility of Arizona joining the 15 states that count ballots sealed by election day so long as they arrive within a week.

Recent polling shows former Vice President Joe Biden with a shot at the state's 11 electoral votes, which President Trump won last time by 4 points. Democrats are even more bullish on their Senate challenger, former astronaut Mark Kelly, unseating Republican incumbent Martha McSally.


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