Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Fight over money vs. ballot access imperils Minnesota’s record for top turnout

Boxing elephant and donkey
nater23/Getty Images; Edited by Tristiaña Hinton

Election security and voting rights are on a collision course in the state with the nation's best voter turnout.

The Minnesota Legislature opened its session a week ago with another sharp disagreement over the millions available from Washington to modernize voting systems and election administration to strengthen defenses against election hacking and the spread of disinformation.

The Democrats who run the House want to allocate the latest $4.7 million installment as soon as possible and with no strings attached. The Republicans who run the Senate say they won't accept the money unless it's paired with a new and strict system of provisional balloting.


The situation in St. Paul is unique. The statehouse is one of only two in the country where there's now a partisan divide (the other is Alaska) and Minnesota is among just a handful of states where legislators must vote on allocating the election security money.

Republican state senators say they are out to tackle another aspect of state law that's highly unusual: It's among just three states where there is no method of provisional voting. All people who show up at the polls are given the same ballots, which are counted unless a successful challenge is mounted to a voter's qualifications.

The burden of proof would be reversed under the GOP legislation. Officials would provide provisional ballots to those who cannot verify their eligibility at their polling places, and those votes would only be counted if they later established they were who they said they were.

Democrats say this will inevitably suppress the vote in Minnesota, which has had the highest turnout of any state in the past four presidential elections. Almost 75 percent of those eligible cast ballots in 2016, for example, when the national figure was 61 percent. One reason for that history is it was among the first states to permit people with proof of age and residency to register and vote on Election Day.

Election officials say there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Minnesota, but the GOP says worries about malfeasance are behind their demand to hold the election security money hostage to a provisional ballot deal. They are also pushing separate legislation to require a photo ID to vote, an idea rejected in a statewide referendum eight years ago.

How the unusual standoff is handled before the session ends in May could influence how Minnesota's 10 electoral votes fall in the presidential election, when the state is among about a dozen that could reasonably support either candidate. While the Democrat has carried the state 11 straight times, President Trump came within 45,000 votes of winning it last time and has vowed to contest it harder this year.

Although no hacking was uncovered, the federal government says, Minnesota was among 21 states that were known to be targeted by the Russians four years ago. Since then, a cyber-defense team including the Minnesota National Guard has been created to look for and address vulnerabilities.

That effort is being aided by the state's $6.6 million share of the first round of election security grant funding provided by Congress two years ago — but not released for more than a year thereafter. That's because, in the name of budgetary restraint, the GOP Senate refused for months to vote for tapping any more than a third of what the federal government had provided. Legislation accepting the full amount was only agreed to in the closing hours of last year's session.

A different bill introduced by House Democrats would remove the requirement for legislative approval to access the federal election security money.

Read More

An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less