Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Iowa felons (who can pay) see start of a long path to voting rights

Gavel

If a many-step process is completed, freed felons who pay restitution will get back voting rights in Iowa.

Aitor Diago/Getty Images

Iowa has taken a small but significant step toward ending its status as the only state where all felons are prohibited from voting, but returning the franchise to some 60,000 former convicts remains at least several years away.

The state Senate gave bipartisan passage Tuesday to a measure that would require felons to fully pay restitution to their victims to regain the right to vote. One-third of the chamber's Democrats voted "yes" and the bill has been endorsed by GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds, increasing chances the state House will go along.

But that measure would come into play only if the General Assembly votes in two successive legislative sessions to amend the state Constitution to allow felon voting and then voters ratify the idea in a statewide referendum.


Currently, the Iowa Constitution permanently bans felons from voting even after they complete the terms of their sentences, including probation and restitution payments. The only way these people get to vote again is by winning a special reprieve from the governor.

Conditioning voting rights on having the financial resources to make payments, which is very difficult for many people newly out of prison, is being challenged as an unconstitutional de facto poll tax in Florida. That requirement was added by the GOP Legislature last year after Florida voters approved a sweeping reenfranchisement for felons.

Last year, the Iowa House passed a constitutional amendment that would have automatically restored voting rights to felons after they get out of prison. The proposal died in the Senate in part because a critical mass of lawmakers wanted to restrict who could qualify.

Reynolds, who supports enfranchising felons once they agree to restitution payment plans, said Tuesday that she backs the Senate bill as a worthy compromise. "If that's what it takes to get things done, we have to be willing to take a look and listen to what both sides are saying," she said.

Still, 2023 is the earliest felons could gain ballot access — and that's only if a constitutional amendment, which hasn't moved yet on either side of the state capital, gets all the way through the General Assembly for a first time before lawmakers adjourn April 21. A repeat vote next year would get the measure on the ballot for voters to have the final say in November 2022.

Reynolds could slap a Band-Aid on the issue with an executive order granting voting rights to felons as Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky — another state whose constitution bans felons from voting — did as soon as he took office in December. Reynolds has so far been reluctant to do so, preferring lawmakers pass a permanent change to enfranchise felons.


Read More

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
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
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less