Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Connecticut joins most states in relaxing excuse rules for absentee voting

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont

Following Gov. Ned Lamont's executive order, Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi and Missouri are the only states keeping strict limits on mail ballots for the primaries.

Bonnie Biess/Getty Images

Reliably blue Connecticut will allow everyone to vote remotely this summer. Its relaxation of the usual excuse requirements because of the coronavirus leaves only a quartet of red states holding fast to their strict limitations on using an absentee ballot.

Under an executive order Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont signed Wednesday, fear of exposure to the virus will be a valid reason for voting remotely.

Lawsuits are hoping to force the same result in Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi and Missouri, where Republicans run the state governments and are fighting calls to make remote voting universally available until the pandemic ends. Eleven states before Connecticut, five of them under GOP control, had come up with legislative or administrative workarounds to that effect.


All those states have concluded their governing priority is minimizing the risks to both voters and election workers if they are compelled to spend long stretches in close proximity at polling places — a situation that prompted more than 50 people to become sick after waiting in line to vote in Wisconsin's primaries last month.

Lamont's easement applies only to the Aug. 11 primaries, which will feature a Democratic presidential contest postponed from April and the regularly scheduled nominating contests for Congress and the Legislature. And his order says the old rules will apply if a "federally approved and widely available vaccine for Covid-19" is somehow available by then — which almost no one thinks is possible.

State law normally allows only people who are sick, disabled, out of town or face a religious conflict to vote absentee. And that will be the case again for the general election unless the Legislature returns in time to alter the law before Nov. 3.

Lamont had resisted calls to use his powers for months, relenting when it became clear lawmakers would not come back to Hartford before late summer.

"We must guarantee access to the ballot," he said in announcing his order. "I do not take this decision lightly, and it is with the public health and welfare of residents in mind."

Three weeks ago, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill announced she would send absentee ballot applications for the primary to every registered voter — an effort that was largely pointless until Lamont stepped in. The usual rules have meant fewer than 10 percent of votes statewide have been cast absentee.

Mail has been the only option for those ballots until now. At a time when postal service has slowed considerably, the state will use some of its share of the $400 million in federal election grants to provide secure drop boxes to each of its municipalities.

Senate Republican Leader Len Fasano said the equipment would be an invitation to fraud, asserting without evidence that they "present unique security issues related to stuffing ballot boxes."


Read More

multiethnic American voters participating in the US election, showcasing the concept of choice in a democracy

Presidents who lost the popular vote often faced economic turmoil. See the pattern from Harrison to Trump and how a 50-state strategy could change it.

Alan Mazzocco/Getty Images

Path Forward from Economic Consequences of Non-Popular Vote Presidents

While losing the popular vote does not inherently cause economic ruin, the structural political weakness of entering office without a democratic majority mandate often compounded the economic challenges their administrations faced. These terms were marked by distinct economic hardships, structural imbalances, or severe financial crises.

Destabilizing Partisan Protectionism

Keep ReadingShow less
people filling out their ballots at voting booths and submitting their vote.

Independent voters may hand Democrats control of Congress this fall — but as history shows, they'll get nothing in return. Here's how to change that.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Swinging Outcomes Is Not Enough

The midterms are six weeks away, and polls predict that independent voters, who broke for Donald Trump in 2024, are planning on voting for Democrats by wide margins. Among Latinos, the numbers are staggering, to the point that the Republican gerrymanders in Florida and Texas may actually result in Democratic victories.

If the Democrats take control of Congress, it will be because of independents. And what do independents get in return?

Keep ReadingShow less
Diverse People At Voting Booth. Vote Here Elections Sign

A political scientist examines how automatic voter registration is quietly turning non-affiliation into America's largest voting bloc.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

When Neither Party Is the Default: Rethinking Representation As America’s Electorate Changes

For most of my career as a political scientist, representation was the central theme of my teaching and research. Early on, I studied how legislators understood their responsibilities to constituents — whether they saw themselves as delegates carrying out constituent mandates, trustees exercising independent judgment, or politicos combining both. That work asked a question that still matters: What does it mean to represent the public in a changing democracy?

Today I find myself asking a related question: What happens when the electorate changes but the institutions built to represent it do not?

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less