Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democrats earn another court victory on voter rights

Mailed ballots

Democrats have won a legal victory in Georgia, where election officials have agreed to be more careful about how they decide whether to reject a mailed-in ballot.

Bill Oxford/Getty Images

Democrats' strategy of using the courts as another front in this year's campaign has paid off again — this time in Georgia, where the state has agreed to back off its aggressive rejections of mailed ballots over signature problems.

Settlement of a lawsuit brought by the party marks the third big victory for the Democrats' strategy of spending tens of millions suing for voting rights in 2020 presidential or congressional battlegrounds, compelling the Republicans to set aside at least as much defending state laws and regulations their opponents say are all about ballot suppression.

Other recent victories include getting rid of South Carolina's requirement that people reveal their entire Social Security number on voter registration applications and making it easier in Michigan for college students to vote at the campus where they attend school.


Pending cases challenge rules that put Republican candidates on the ballot first in several states and ones that forbid straight-ticket voting.

Democratic congressional campaign committees and the state Democratic Party filed the Georgia lawsuit last fall, arguing the state laws governing the process of matching signatures was unconstitutional.

Democratic officials said 68,000 voters nationwide had their ballots rejected in 2018 because an election official, who had received no training, concluded the voter's signature on the ballot return envelope did not match a signature on file.

In many cases, people were never notified their votes had been tossed — or if they were, it happened long after the election — thus denying them the chance to challenge the rejection.

Under the settlement, filed Friday, the state Election Board will adopt a new rule requiring officials to notify voters by mail, email or telephone if their absentee ballots have been rejected — by the next business day if the rejection occurs close to Election Day.

Regarding signature matches, the settlement calls for local election officials to try to match the signature on the ballot envelope with all of the signatures for that person on file. If none are thought to match, the election official must get two other election officials to agree with that judgment before the ballot can be rejected.

Finally, election officials in Georgia agreed to consider including in their election training materials new guidelines for comparing voters' signatures, to be drafted by the handwriting expert hired by those filing the lawsuit.

The Democratic groups also settled a related suit filed against Gwinnett County over the absentee ballot envelope's design. The text on the envelope was small and hard to read, causing people to make errors that disqualified their votes.

Under the settlement, the county adopted a new ballot envelope design which is easier to read.

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