Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
How Weak Federal Ethics Laws Enable Presidential Profiteering

How Weak Federal Ethics Laws Enable Presidential Profiteering

The Iran War’s Price Tag: Billions Lost While Americans Go Without

The Iran War’s Price Tag: Billions Lost While Americans Go Without

Protestors holding signs, many that say "Stop Bombing Iran."

Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

Is The War on Iran Unlawful And Unfair To U.S. Troops?

With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

Democrats win another voting victory in a swing state

Absentee ballots

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has revised the state's guidelines to local election officials on how to verify the signatures of voters on absentee ballots.

Kimberly White/Getty Ima
Bill Theobald
By Bill TheobaldApr 22, 2020
Bill Theobald

Bill Theobald is senior writer at The Fulcrum, where he focuses on everything to do with voting. This December marks his 40th anniversary in the business, and he still believes -- now more than ever -- that the glow from great journalism can truly light the world.

See More Writings by author

Chalk up another legal victory for Democrats trying to open up the voting process in time for this year's election.

The attorney behind the party's courthouse campaign in battleground states, Marc Elias, announced Tuesday that one of his lawsuits has prompted Michigan to revise its system for validating signatures on absentee ballots.

Democrats have already successfully sued for changes in the signature-checking procedures of Florida, Georgia and Iowa. Those three and Michigan are all swing states in the presidential campaign, and all of their combined 67 electoral votes were secured by Donald Trump in 2016 by fewer than 10 percentage points.

The fight over handwriting analysis on ballots mailed in or dropped off at government offices was once a secondary aspect of this year's voting rights debate. But it's gained significant attention now, since absentee balloting looks guaranteed to surge nationwide as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic.

In Michigan, which Trump won by fewer than 11,000 votes out of more than 5 million tallied, absentee ballots could be rejected whenever election officials determined the signatures on the papers did not match the examples they had on file.

The lawsuit argued that leeway violated federal law and the Constitution because there was not any uniform standards or procedures for reviewing the signatures and the people doing the work lacked appropriate training. Also, the law does not require election officials to notify voters when their absentee ballots or applications were rejected, nor is there a process to fix the situation even if it is discovered in time.

Now, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has announced revisions in state policy governing mail ballots. The changes are not exactly what was requested in the lawsuit, but they're close enough that Democrats are declaring victory.

Benson's guidance instructs local clerks to do three things: Inform voters immediately if a signature is missing or doesn't match what is on file; presume signatures are valid unless they differ in "multiple, significant and obvious respects" from what is on file; and use a new training resource on how to perform signature verification.


Latest news

Empty Bravado: Trump’s Hollow Swagger Behind Iran War
Ethics & Leadership

Empty Bravado: Trump’s Hollow Swagger Behind Iran War

People at voting booths.
Electoral Reforms

Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits

Kristi Noem facing away with her hand up to be sworn in as she testifies.
Democracy

Kristi Noem is a Criminal. They Fired Her Because She’s a Woman

Pew Research Report: Americans’ Attitudes on Abortion Are More Divisive
Health

Pew Research Report: Americans’ Attitudes on Abortion Are More Divisive

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.

AP Photo/John Locher

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
© Copyright 2026