Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

E-signing of ballot petitions during the pandemic blessed in federal courts

Digital signature
Abscent84/Getty Images

The number of cases is still small, but campaigns to allow electronic signatures to replace handwriting on ballot petitions are starting to fare better in federal court than state court.

The issue is central to keeping grassroots democracy alive despite the coronavirus — by allowing activists to show enough support for their ideas that they merit being put to a statewide vote, but in a safe and practical way while in-person canvassing remains both a profound health risk and prohibitively inefficient.

A potential breakthrough came Tuesday, when a federal judge said groups promoting a package of voting law changes, a minimum wage increase and marijuana decriminalization in Ohio should be allowed to circulate their petitions online.


It was the first time advocacy groups have won such a victory in federal court since the pandemic began, while such arguments have been rejected several times by state courts — including the Ohio Supreme Court in this case and by the Arizona Supreme Court last week.

"These times, however, are not ordinary," Judge Edmund Sargus Jr. of Columbus wrote, and the groups who sued were not out to get rid of the paper-and-ink rules forever. "Plaintiffs instead contend that they are unconstitutional as applied to them during this extraordinary time. That is, the Covid-19 pandemic has made it impossible to circulate petitions in person."

The judge also extended the deadline for submitting signatures by a month, to the end of July. But he declined to lower the number of voters who must e-sign onto each effort.

Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose has already vowed to appeal on the grounds that the judge had usurped the power of the General Assembly to change election rules.

But the place where that argument will be made, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected a similar claim in a ballot access case only a month ago. It struck down Michigan's rules requiring candidates to gather signatures in person to get on the ballot — saying that was unconstitutional during a public health emergency. The state has since started allowing people to submit electronic petitions to run in the August primary.

Grassroots groups promoting referendums in six other states — Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, Montana, Arizona, Colorado, and Oklahoma — have also sued in state and federal courts in hopes of changing signature rules or getting deadlines extended. Three of those campaigns are from groups hoping to combat partisan gerrymandering. But efforts in many more states have been suspended in the face of the pandemic.

The Ohio ruling is another courthouse victory for Ohioans for Safe and Secure Elections, which is pushing for the most comprehensive package of potential election law easements anywhere in the nation this year. Central provisions would make Ohio the 17th state that automatically registers eligible residents when they do business with the motor vehicle bureau, and the 22nd state that permits people to both register and cast ballots on Election Day.

Last month an effort to break the measure into four pieces, which was widely expected to reduce its chances, was stopped by the state's highest court. But proponents say that, electronic signatures notwithstanding, they will still struggle to get the necessary 453,000 supporters lined up in the next 10 weeks.

That same threshold will apply to the group pushing an initiative that would raise the state's minimum wage to $13 over the next five years. Backers of marijuana decriminalization are hoping to place their measures on more than a dozen local ballots, which have much lesser signature requirements.

GOP Gov. Mike DeWine significantly relaxed his stay-at-home order this week but left in place six feet of mandatory social distancing and a ban on gatherings by more than 10 people — both curbs that will make in-person signature gathering impractical.

All the groups told the court they would use DocuSign, which is in wide use for real estate closings and other business transactions, and would require signers to give up the last four digits of their Social Security numbers — the same verification required to register or get an absentee ballot online in the state.

Read More

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less